backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by Pessimism.. on Jan 5 at 4:14 PM


3D glasses are worth no more than the $3 up charge the theater wants  (Source: Panasonic)
Give us a decently priced 3D TV with passive glasses and things might take off

A disconnect in what analysts think will happen and what actually happens with consumers seems to be commonplace within the TV industry. In October, DisplaySearch released some figures that forecast the shipments of connected TVs to soar this year. So far, according to massive electronics retailer Best Buy, the mass adoption of expensive sets with new features simply hasn't happened and adoption of 3D TVs is still slow.

Reuters reports that Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn told analysts that sales of 3D TVs has fallen behind expectations. Dunn said, "There was confusion about 3D early (on). It was a little short on content." A little short is an understatement, and one of the films that could have helped drive 3D TV adoption – Avatar – is locked up as an exclusive for Panasonic until 2012.

With the news of slower than expected sales of high-end TVs, Best Buy was forced to cut the profit forecast for the year. Frank Ingarra from Hennessy Funds stated, "The stock got killed today." Ingarra co-manages a find that has 32,000 shares of Best Buy stock. The stock closed at $35.52.

TV makers still expect sales to improve next year as more 3D content becomes available. LG's Jay Vandenbree told 
Reuters, "Just like how high-definition TV started in sports and movies, as 3D evolves, it will go with sports and movies and then become more of an everyday thing."

Some also point out that 3D content that is poorly produced is also making some watchers queasy. Google's Google TV offerings are also not doing as well as expected on the market. The main reason for this is the fact that most of the major video streaming services and networks blocked Google TV devices from accessing and streaming content from sites like Hulu, Fox, and others effectively killing the benefits of paying more for Google TV.

Perhaps even more telling though is a statement from Ross Rubin, analyst at NPD. Rubin said, "People can also buy lower-priced alternatives to connected TVs, be it video game players, Blu-ray players or Apple TV."

Consumers aren’t stupid; many are familiar with 3D from the theater and most understand the benefits of 3D in the home. What many consumers simply won't get behind are sets that are overpriced and then require active glasses that cost $200/pair or more adding an extra $800 or more to the cost of going 3D for a family of four. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Content?
By TheRequiem on 12/15/2010 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps its because of exclusive deals like Avatar on Panasonic sets that put people off? Or more importantly, a lack of interest to put 3D content on the markets? Release the damn content to the public and then people will use it...




RE: Content?
By TheRequiem on 12/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Content?
By BladeVenom on 12/15/2010 1:05:01 PM , Rating: 5
3d is a fad. Like it was a fad in the 50's and a fad again in the 80's. The current methods needing glasses, won't become the norm. Maybe someday with improved holographic technology, but not today.


RE: Content?
By TheDoc9 on 12/15/2010 1:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't base the future success on past failures. The real test will be when the Nintendo 3ds comes out, then we'll know the future of 3d tv.


RE: Content?
By JediJeb on 12/15/2010 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 4
Until I can actually walk around the video and see it from all angles while not wearing any type of special glasses 3D isn't going to interest me. Holodeck or nothing for me.


RE: Content?
By B3an on 12/15/2010 8:23:47 PM , Rating: 4
Other drawbacks of this 3D fad:

1. You need prescription glasses if you have bad eyesight, as obviously you cant use these 3D glasses with normal glasses. Prescription 3D glasses can cost many times more than the already expensive 3D glasses.

2. Theres Flickering problems.

3. Quite a few different health related issues, and other sick/dizzy feelings many experience when viewing for more than 2 - 3 hours.

4. Image quality and colour is degraded.

5. And of course it's not real 3D, just a cheap trick.


RE: Content?
By delphinus100 on 12/15/2010 8:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
I might accept 1-4, but...

quote:
5. And of course it's not real 3D, just a cheap trick.


What does that mean? What kind of 3-D (even actual holography) is not a trick?


RE: Content?
By PrinceGaz on 12/16/2010 10:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
It is a cheap trick because all it is doing is adjusting the relative position of an object independently for each eye; it is NOT adjusting the distance your eye needs to focus on depending on the distance the object is supposed to be from you. All you are seeing are two different flat (2D) scenes, one in each eye, which is not a natural way to see things and is a major cause of problems with prolonged viewing of such material.


RE: Content?
By RubberJohnny on 12/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Content?
By Shadowself on 12/16/2010 6:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using fake 3D systems in my professional life since the 80s with special 3D systems from the old Evans and Sutherland group. While *some* of these new systems are better they are still horrible.

1. Wearing 3D glasses over regular glasses sucks. Period. I wear aspheric lens glasses to get the best correction. Putting cheap 3d glasses over them significantly degrades the imagery.

2. Not true. Some 3D is at 120 fps many, many are not. The imagery from most films is still based upon a base rate of 24 fps. There is not way to get 60 fps for each eye out of that without a LOT of temporal interpolation.

3. Maybe not you, but the effect is not just for a very small fraction of people. For long durations, a significant fraction of people have negative side effects.

4. Not total BS. I guess you've never heard of intra frame blurring and frame to frame effects that are dependent on each sensor recording the imagery and how they are sequentially shown. Also while -- in theory -- polarizing shutter glasses don't degrade color a much it does happen. And such shutter glasses inherently drop the light intensity by half. Never take an optics class -- and pay attention.

5 And yes, it is a trick. It is not an image you can move around and view from different angles.


RE: Content?
By TSS on 12/16/2010 10:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
The main drawback isn't the illusion, it's the price.

I bought a 55" LED TV recently, With all the bells and whistles you could wish for in a TV except 3D, for the same price i've seen 42" 3D TV's begin at. I bought a 42" LCD tv like 4 years ago for half of that price.

Oh, there's also something i noticed in the store that you americans probably wont deal with often, but we dutch do constantly: Subtitles in 3D are really really annoying.


RE: Content?
By RubberJohnny on 12/15/2010 11:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet, then stop reading 3D display tech related articles until 2030. I look forward to reading your useful comments on holodecks in 20+ years.


RE: Content?
By xpax on 12/15/2010 5:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
+++ Agreed, 100%.


RE: Content?
By FaceMaster on 12/15/2010 5:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
3d is a fad.


Look at things with both eyes open. Now look at it with just one. Which do you prefer? Exactly. 3D is one of the least faddy things I can think of. 2 eyes are better than none, so unless you're all disagreeing with that, there must be something else about the technology you don't like.

Honestly, is it just the glasses putting everybody off? They're not a great solution, I agree, but HAS will be better alternatives in the future. There HAVE to be better alternatives in the future. But for the sake of archives and future-proofing, I think that 3D glasses are a small price to pay for having a 3D archive of footage starting today.

No doubt I'll be rated down for this comment because it goes against popular opinion, though as far as I can see it you're all being short sighted (Or maybe you're blind in one eye ), because the way I look at it , 3D is the one jump we need to make with all forms of media before I'm satisfied with the quality of the footage I watch and archive. Well, 4K would be nice as well, but that will no doubt happen with time. 3D is one of those things that we MUST make now, and then deal with the problems later... otherwise we'll never get around to it. And that would be a great shame.


RE: Content?
By JediJeb on 12/15/2010 5:40:16 PM , Rating: 3
What would 3D gain me in watching the local news? Just as some people insist that you need 7.1 surround sound to enjoy a movie others insist that you need 3D to enjoy watching TV. I am completely happy watching a 2D TV with only the TV speakers most of the time. Sitcoms and News really don't require 3D or surround sound at all. I sometimes like to have surround sound when I pop in a movie like Star Wars or Serenity, but I don't watch movies that often. Talking to the people I work with it seems the average person may only watch a few hours of TV a day, and that is mostly news and weather, maybe a sitcom or two.

When most people have a room that is maybe 12 x 12 or 15x15 a 50inch 3D TV is kinda overkill. I also imagine most people are like I am in that I'm not going to pay over $500 for a new flat screen TV when the old CRT I have is working fine. Get a 42" HD TV down to about $200 then I might buy one because I have other things I need to spend my money on.

I wouldn't rate you down for your opinion, but I do think it is rather short sited to think most people out there place such a high priority on something as trivial as 3D TV considering most still don't even own HDTVs.


RE: Content?
By FaceMaster on 12/16/2010 8:22:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What would 3D gain me in watching the local news?


Why not just have the news in black and white? Heck, why not do away with vision altogether and just have sound?


RE: Content?
By wempa on 12/16/2010 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
Those comparisons aren't even close. The step up from B&W to color was huge. The step up from SD to HD was much smaller. Notice how long it's taking people to move to HDTVs and Blu-Ray players. The step up to 3D is miniscule and certainly not worth paying the kind of premium that it requires now. Given the slow adoption, it's pretty safe to say that most people agree.


RE: Content?
By FaceMaster on 12/19/2010 8:41:36 AM , Rating: 3
Sigh, and you think the first colour screens were as clear and defined as the best black and white monitors around at that time?

New technology has always lead to sacrifice somewhere, it simply takes time to iron out the bugs and to maximise the benefit of the new technology. Simply refusing to allow the progress in the first place is NOT the way forward, despite what most people on these forums think.

I'm beginning to think that none of you actually care much about technological progression. Then again, this is an American site.


RE: Content?
By glennc on 12/15/2010 8:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
3D is flawed in its current state and i am not talking about the glasses. it is the refresh rate that is the problem. when you are viewing 2D both eyes are seeing the same picture at the same time so 60Hz is enough. when 1 eye sees the image and then the other eye sees a image from a slightly different angle you see the 3D. this is fine until the action speeds up (action movies, sport etc.) where 1 eye is seeing a different object position not just angle (it has moved) the image becomes semitransparent. even avatar suffered from this badly but it is sport where it is going to be most detrimental.

why is no one talking about this? i notice it all the time and then researched it and discovered why. the problem is the source not the device. 240hz, 480hz whatever just screw things up and don't actually improve the situation.


RE: Content?
By SeeManRun on 12/15/2010 10:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at things with both eyes open. Now look at it with just one. Which do you prefer? Exactly. 3D is one of the least faddy things I can think of. 2 eyes are better than none, so unless you're all disagreeing with that, there must be something else about the technology you don't like.


I think 3D will be much better when they don't force focus on objects and allow your eye to focus on anything you want in the 3D world you view. This is what is coming with video games, so it will be the way of movies as well.

When viewing 3D content now it feels more 3D than real life because when I look at something that is out of focus it doesn't clear up, giving an artificial amount of depth to the picture, that makes it look non real. Nothing about 3D in its current form is more realistic, any more than 2D is unrealistic. Once it can track my eyes and make proper focus what I am looking at and adjust the picture accordingly, it will always looks false.


RE: Content?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/16/2010 4:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. That's why I couldn't get used to seeing Avatar (first 3D film I've sen) after half an hour of adjusting. That plainly gave me headache.

But I don't think technology in near future can remedy this problem, it'd require eye tracking.


RE: Content?
By jimbojimbo on 12/15/2010 7:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the optical digital movie industry was a fad doomed to fail when the Laserdisc failed too.

By the way you cannot compare 3D technology now to the old anaglyph technology which washed out all the colors. Completely different. If you think they're the same you're obviously blind.


RE: Content?
By GWD5318 on 12/16/2010 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
3d is a fad....


Yeah, yeah! I agree, ya see?

Ya know what else is a fad? Talkies! Bring back the good ol' silent films! Too much hubbub for me, pally!


RE: Content?
By mdogs444 on 12/15/2010 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 3
I think its pretty obvious why its slow....from the average person's perspective.

First is the price - 3D TV packages are much more expensive than the same non-3D TV set. Sure, the package comes with 2 sets of 3D glasses, but that is obviously not sufficient for typical households. They'd have to buy 2 more in most cases.

Second is the uncertainty of the internet pricing schemes and net neutrality. I use Netflix and think its great...but if they change my internet pricing to a tiered service where its going to cost me an arm and a leg to stream videos, then what good does an internet based TV do if I have no intention of paying $100/mo just for internet? If not for movies, then what? I really have no interest in sitting on the couch and logging into Facebook on a 50" TV.

Third is the idea of 3D and what else you need to get it to work. I'm fairly tech savvy and work in the IT department. I don't own a 3D system so I'm probably in the same boat as many other people in terms of knowledge. But I assume you'd need to buy a 3D capable Blu-Ray player (which I have no interest in Blu-Ray). Also, does the average persons cable package with $10-15/mo add on HD service broadcast in 3D? I don't know, but if you have to pay even more yet again for a small amount of programming available, then its still not worth it to the average person.


RE: Content?
By TheRequiem on 12/15/2010 12:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your right, the price isn't right, which is why I said that your average TV in the next couple of years will have 3D options, but they don't right now. Only the high-end set's, but still... they need the content to create a demand for the TV's.

Internet TV is different, don't know why you brought that up here. There will always be a competing broadband company with unlimited data (hopefully) and Internet connectivity will always be available in high-end TV's. On a different note, it seams we are progressing backwards with companies offering tiered pricing now. As soon as they do that here, I'm dropping my Internet (there's your message, cable companies). However, what i think will happen is Cable companies will ovffer there own streamign services and sign their own contracts in addition to having their subscription.

Also, your forgetting the simple fact that there are 10's of millions with 3D blu-ray players already... it's the PS3. Not to mention other companies preparing similar firmware updates for their blu-ray player's. All it is... is a different codec. 3D content and codecs won't change, but the display tech eventually will and there will be holographic displays showing 3D images without the need for glasses, but those are several years off. For now though, I think once 3D becomes standard in TV's over the next couple of years, the adoption will grow. Not to mention the whole country is still tight.


RE: Content?
By wempa on 12/15/2010 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

There will always be a competing broadband company with unlimited data (hopefully) and Internet connectivity will always be available in high-end TV's.


Where do you get this data from ? Most areas have only 1 cable company and only 1 or 2 options for broadband internet access. I happen to be in an area that has both cable and FIOS, so I still technically have an option for unlimited data. However, I know many people whose only option for internet is Comcast. He brought up a valid point. The cable companies know damn well that these internet services are going to eat away at their TV profits. That's probably a big reason why they want to enforce data caps. Their overpriced TV "packages" won't compare to the flexibility and cheap price of internet TV. Who the hell wants to pay $100 a month just to get the 5-10 channels you actually watch when you can get instant access to only the shows/movies you care about for dirt cheap ? My guess is that the cable companies will start lowering their data caps and/or raise the price of their internet packages to make up for the lost revenue. So, right now, the future of internet TV is unclear.


RE: Content?
By TheRequiem on 12/15/2010 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but generally speaking and from a large rural area that I live in... we have about 6 competing companies, 5 of which offer unlimited data (dumb Verizon with their LTE being the only one). So maybe in that perspective, I agree, but we better pray tiered pricing doesn't become the norm...

As far as them increasing prices, I wouldn't be surprised if they did either, but I would hope to see them increase the speed and bandwith as well. Cable will eventually have to reform themselves to IP based companies if they want to succeed anyways, that's where the whole world is headed. time for them to catch on.


RE: Content?
By mcnabney on 12/15/2010 4:56:00 PM , Rating: 3
What rural area do you live in that has 6 broadband options?

Do you know how many broadband options exist for the vast majority of rural areas? Zero

Hell, the typical model in suburban USA is one cable provider and one DSL provider. A few lucky people have the FiOS option as well. And you really can't call them competitors because they don't actually compete with each other. That is why broadband internet pricing is higher in the USA than the rest of the developed world.

And you really can't compare LTE to wired broadband. LTE provides cable speeds with low latency that is actually mobile. The only activities that will run into their cap is P2P and watching movies on a regular basis.


RE: Content?
By JediJeb on 12/15/2010 5:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
I live about 5 miles from a town of 20k residents and my only options for internet are dialup, AT&T DSL, or Satellite. The DSL I have is the 1.5Mb and I think maybe it can get up to 6Mb but not sure in my location, and that just became available to me last year, most near me still don't have access to it. Outside of large cities you don't find much availability for broadband that is good enough for streaming video. I haven't tried anything but watching some youtube on my PC but even that is jittery with my internet, I would hate to think I had to pay good money to watch videos like that on an expensive TV.


RE: Content?
By gorehound on 12/15/2010 4:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
I know this much as I work in retail videostore
1.we barely rent any blu-rays so we know that most of our clients are on DVD
2.most of the folks still have CRT's
3.and those who have bought a flat panel are not in the market to upgrade to 3D

for myself i would not bother to get one of these 3d TV.I could care less.the thought of wearing glasses over my glasses just so i can watch movies and TV scifi shows is really annoying.
No Way Jose !!! I will stick to my panasonic 42" plasma with my OPPO bluray player.good enough for me and maybe good enough for oyu.


RE: Content?
By Hiawa23 on 12/16/2010 3:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is a huge disconnect with what analysis think will happen, cause let's be honest in these times most consumers are woorried about the economy & struggling to keep the lights on, pay their bills, 3D TV adoption is probably at the bottom of their list of things we must have. I just paid off my 1080p HDTV & I certainly am not buying another tv. Another thing, the whole 3D craze doesn't interests me at all, as 3D Avatar was no better than the 2D version, infact, whenever I go to the movies I opt to see the standard version instead of paying more for the 3D version. I mean it looks cool & all, I just don't need or want it in my movies, games or tv so these analysis may be in for a huge awakening in the upcoming years, especially if the economy continues to go south, unemployment 9.8%, for the working class & the poor. I have to assume the majority of consumers are in these classes of people, & when you are faced with putting food on the table or a TV that has technology most don't seem to care about, it's a simple choice. I don't see adoption rates improving as much as they think especially given the huge cost associated with this technology.


RE: Content?
By lecanard on 12/16/2010 7:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest problem is exclusive deals. If all the 3D movies are exclusive deals, then you need to buy a new TV for each movie. There is too little content as it is; doing exclusives cuts the already limited selection down to one or two movies per TV. Consumers aren't that stupid. We want to buy avatar and how to train your dragon and watch them on the same TV. No one is going to buy two 3d tvs just to get both movies, and no one will buy either tv since they have cut the value of both by restricting content like that. Stupid!


Mode of watching
By Wererat on 12/15/2010 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
A wise person (my wife) enlightened me to a cause of slow 3d adoption yesterday.

She prefers to watch TV whilst doing other tasks.

Therefore, she doesn't want to wear additional glasses or have features on the TV which require her full attention or would detract from her ability to handle whatever else she's doing.

By contrast, a movie in the theatre is (unless you're very rude) an experience where you're devoting your full attention to the show. There, glasses or other aids aren't a hindrance.




RE: Mode of watching
By cmdrdredd on 12/15/2010 9:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
So true and very overlooked. A ton of people have the TV on and "watch" while writing a paper during commercials or reading the online sites such as this one.

Another overlooked aspect is the economy. Unemployment is at record levels and many people are in fear of the uncertain future. They are not going to plop down the needed money on one of these sets with things as upside down as they are now. Plus, right now you can get a Panasonic 42" 3D Plasma for $1100, then you need a 3D player or at least some glasses for viewing 3D content. So you figure $160 for a decent 3D Blu-Ray player and about $280 for the 3D starter kit *roll eyes* which comes with only 2 pairs of glasses and a pretty craptastic movie called Avatar. Then each additional set of glasses is $108 a piece. So lets say a family of 4. You need the TV, the player, the starter kit, and 2 additional pairs of glasses. Grand total of $1756 before shipping and any applicable sales tax. Then you get to watch 1 movie and maybe 1 channel on TV with some 3D content. That price doesn't even include a 3D compatable receiver for surround sound that can pass the 3D signal through HDMI to the TV.

By contrast a 58" 1080p Plasma without 3D is $1100 and you use all your current equipment to watch HD content. No starter kits etc. Most people I know would opt for the bigger set and skip the 3D.


RE: Mode of watching
By wempa on 12/16/2010 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Grand total of $1756 before shipping and any applicable sales tax. Then you get to watch 1 movie and maybe 1 channel on TV with some 3D content.


Not only that, but for the 99.99% of the time that you aren't watching 3D, you are getting ZERO benefit from all that extra cost. Gee, I wonder why it hasn't taken off ! </sarcasm>


By cjohnson2136 on 12/15/2010 11:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
IMO I would never buy a 3D tv because it is pointless. I can see where it migh end up being all 3D some day in the future but right now it is just too expensive. And the idea of internet TV well I don't know yet. I mean I can just sit my laptop in front of me and watch TV or just hook up my laptop to my TV via HDMI. It is a lot cheaper then buying Google TV




By XZerg on 12/15/2010 1:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
agreed that 3D tvs are just bad at the moment. However the Internet TV thing is something that is being shafted by the ISPs by capping the usage... Freaking hell 60GB limit with 10Mbps connection in this day and age is just ludicrous.


By 67STANG on 12/15/2010 6:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I (and probably quite a few others) won a FREE Google TV device recently. They sent me a code and a link to Logitech's site and boom. Free. Free shipping and no tax either. All because I'm a web developer and they want me to be able to test my interfaces on their device. Can't say I would have coughed up $300 for one, but hey, I'm excited about my free one that's on its way. =)


Brightness/contrast ratio sucks-
By GiantPandaMan on 12/15/2010 12:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone tried a TV in 3d mode at typical family room light levels? The contrast ratio/brightness with the shutter glasses on is simply crap.

3d works fine in theaters because they have optimum light control (total darkness) but for typical people who don't have light controlled rooms or who actually like to see during typical TV watching, the 3d sacrifices too much brightness.

Until this problem is solved, 3d will be a niche product. I'd bet money on that.




By FormulaRedline on 12/15/2010 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 4
I'll take your money on that one. Brightness is certainly a technical hurdle, but a relatively easy one. I'm sure they could fix it today if they were willing to trade off price, longevity, packaging, power use, etc. Case in point, get a 3D ready DLP projector, then move it in close to make a TV sized screen and you'll have plenty of brightness...you'll just have to deal with some fan noise and replacing the bulb every few years.

I'd have to agree with the article and some of the other posters that the biggest problem right now is the content. On the PC, I've been using Nvidia's 3D Vision kit. This has high requirements as far as hardware, but once you get it set up it runs virtually any modern PC game in 3D. iZ3D, DDD, and some others are offering similiar solutions. I've enjoyed this so much that I've bought three 3D displays for PC gaming this year!

Meanwhile...where is the 3D TV content? Up until a month or two ago there was only ONE 3D blu-ray you could buy, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Now there are a few extras. The other titles are all exclusive deals (like Avatar as mentioned in the article) and require you to buy thousands in hardware just to grab the disc. Where are the 3D channels? There's like a dozen football games for the whole year. Why are all the glasses proprietary? Who is going to have his buddies over to watch the 3D football game on the new channel he just paid through the nose to subscribe to if they all have to buy $150 Panasonic glasses?

HD was an open standard and even that took a few years to take of and another few to become the new norm (there are still plenty of digital SD shows). How do the TV manufacturers ever plan to usher in the era of 3D with all this proprietary tech and exclusive content?


Who needs it
By kleinma on 12/15/2010 12:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact we just went through the whole flat screen craze over the past few years, where people dropped a few K on flat TVs to hang on their walls. Those people expect to get a decent amount of life out of those things before rushing out to buy another. Electronics companies love to make your 1-2 year old purchase feel crappy compared to their newer lines, but in reality, people aren't willing to keep buying new stuff when the old stuff isn't broken. If the old stuff does break in such a short time, they should at least stay away from that brand.

The other issue is the glasses of course, and 3D tech in general is likely to go through a number of revamps with improvements over the next few years, leaving the 3D TV you buy today feeling like crap again.

You know what I do when I want to see 3D? I look at something OTHER than the flat monitor on my wall. Besides 3D is just an excuse for content creators to give up with actual things like storylines and good plots, because they figure they will make money on the gimic that is 3D.




RE: Who needs it
By MrTeal on 12/15/2010 2:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. We replaced a small TV in the upstairs den with a 37" LCD last Christmas, and just replaced the old 27 CRT in the basement TV room with a 46" LCD. Both were huge steps up over what they replaced. Barring accident or failure, I have no plans to purchase another TV for 10 years or more. Maybe if 3D was close to price parity I would chosen to go that route, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay triple the $600 I paid for my 46EX400 just to get the higher refresh rate and 3D.


Why would anyone want a 3D T.V ?
By Ahnilated on 12/15/2010 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Currently most every plasma or LCD t.v. out there will do 1080P. Find me a company that broadcasts normal t.v. shows in 1080P. DirecTV does it ONLY for their pay per view shows not anything that you don't pay extra for, it is all 1080i. Why would I want to go up to a 3D t.v. when there is no one out there broadcasting a 3D picture being the bandwidth is 3X a 1080P signal? I am upset enough that my 50" plasma gets stuck with lame signals on 95% of the channels on DirecTV. 1080i is decent by they keep advertising they do 1080P but you have to read the fine print. If you look at some other companies they compress the hell out of the signal and then your picture looks horrible and pixelated too.




By djdjohnson on 12/15/2010 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
3D only adds about 25% more data, certainly not 3X.

DirecTV isn't the only one offering 1080p for VOD... Dish Network is doing the same.

For movies and TV shows originally shot at 24fps (which is a lot of them), most of our 1080p TVs are able to extract the original progressive signal and display it at full 1080p. At least the TV models worth owning, anyway. So we do get some benefit from a 1080p set even with broadcast content being sent at 1080i.


Have any of you bought one?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 12/15/2010 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
About 5 years ago, I spent $3200 on a 50" plasma that didn't even do 1080. A couple of weeks ago I got a 63" plasma for less money. Including a 3D bluray player. Including 3 3D movies. Including two pairs of glasses. Since I'm kind of geeky, I think the 3D effect is effective and worthy, especially for those on-in-ten movies that really could benefit from the effect. I wouldn't wear them all the time, but now that I have them I wouldn't go back. And I don't even have a simple cell phone.

You will be next.




RE: Have any of you bought one?
By cmdrdredd on 12/15/2010 10:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
No we didn't buy one for the reasons listed. Price, content availability, uncomfortable viewing when attempting to multitask and not everyone can see the 3D properly either. I saw TRON at IMAX yesterday and there were a couple people who mentioned that the 3D gave them a headache or made them uncomfortable after a long time.

Plus when the movies on blu-ray that actually do 3D are garbage except for The Last Airbender, it's pretty sad. Avatar, SAW 3, Resident Evil, Open Season, Cloudy with a chance of meatballs, and Alice in wonderland...really? That's not a very good list. Further, 2 of them are only available in exclusive bundles...pathetic.


The reason is obvious
By Dr of crap on 12/15/2010 12:12:53 PM , Rating: 1
First we switched from CRT tube TVs to Flat screens,
then we moved to HD,
now they want us to buy 3D? All in the space of about 10 years!
I have all flat screen HD TV's in my house and am not going to replace any of these anytime soon with something new.

The 3D tech is not refined enough and the content isn't big enough for me to buy.

And that is what everyone sees. A lot of digital boxes where sold. Why didn't these people buy HD TVs? Because of the cost.
Now the stores are wondering why the 3D TVs aren't selling.
Do they even know they're consumer base?




RE: The reason is obvious
By JediJeb on 12/16/2010 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that is what everyone sees. A lot of digital boxes where sold. Why didn't these people buy HD TVs? Because of the cost. Now the stores are wondering why the 3D TVs aren't selling. Do they even know they're consumer base?


Exactly!

Digital converter boxes sold out every time the local Best Buy stocked them, if people are going to save money buying one of those over buying a digital ready TV, they why do retailers think they are going to run out and buy a TV costing over $1000, especially in this economy. I would wager that 75% of people fall into the category of those who can't afford to upgrade for the sake of upgrading.


What a timely article
By corduroygt on 12/15/2010 12:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is waiting for the prices to come down and more content.

I was in the same boat too, but I just bought the Toshiba 55WX800 from Amazon, and it came to $1280 including 2 pairs of glasses. I was going to wait, but this deal was really good and I wanted to play Gran Turismo 5 in 3D, so I pulled the trigger.




RE: What a timely article
By cmdrdredd on 12/15/2010 9:54:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Gran Turismo 5 in 3D


An overhyped, underdeveloped, poorly executed game that was released years behind schedule with a gimmick mode that makes things look like they stick out more than they do. Brilliant...not


good
By zinfamous on 12/15/2010 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 3
I honestly hope that the home 3D concept hits dodo status asap. It is garbage.

Death of photography. leave it for video games and related forms of entertainment, as this is simply not viable for the film medium.

Internet-enabled TV, though...well that is mostly a matter of improper infrastructure as far as I can tell. It will happen.




3d - meh
By muhahaaha on 12/15/2010 1:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I bought 3d glasses for use with my PC years ago (nvidia supported it way back then).

Playing games in 3d was kind of fun for about an hour, but didn't really add to the experience other than a brief "wow" factor.

I remember playing some FPS (I think it was Doom2). The 3d depth effect actually went into the screen, rather than "popping out", so it wasn't very good. The games were actually harder to play (not designed to be true 3d games) so I ended up ditching the glasses.

IMHO, 3d is a fad. I saw "Despicable Me" in the IMAX theater in 3d, and it was underwhelming. 3d is like one of those things that's fun to try once in a while for a change, but not a viable medium for most things.




Wrong focus
By mac2j on 12/15/2010 2:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'd buy a 1600p TV tomorrow if I could.

I could care less about upgrading to 3D.

Higher resolution panels have existed forever and Blu-ray can handle and HDMI 1.4 can carry 1600p....

I wish they focus more on 1440p or 1600p ... or in my dreams 4K instead of trying to sell me more 1080p TVs using gimmicks.




Bah
By Motoman on 12/15/2010 3:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
The interest in 3D isn't there because of:

1. Glasses
2. Price
3. Content

All three of those will have to be fixed before it's sufficiently interesting for people to buy into it. No 3D technology that requires special glasses of any kind will ever be popular. Ever. Anything that happens up to that point will be little more than a curiosity.

Price and content are also important...I know that I certainly would not consider 3D capability to be anything I would pay extra for. But the glasses are the total deal-breaker.

As for internet connected TVs...well, how many households have internet connected TVs by virtue of the fact that they have a Wii, or something else, that gives them internet access on their TV? Even low-end Blu-Ray players, like the LG unit I just picked up for $65 have built-in internet access (albeit limited in my case, to weather, Youtube, and Picasa...for some people that may be all they care about). And of course there is some market segment that already has HTPCs in place too. Frankly, if there's nothing wrong with your TV and you just want internet on it, buying a new BD player or a Wii or something else makes infinitely more sense than buying a new TV with native internet access. If and only if you are already in the market for a new TV, and have no other way already to get the internet on it, is native internet connectivity interesting when buying a new TV.




Bundling Doesn't Work
By Xaussie on 12/15/2010 5:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why would I want to lock my TV and internet access together when there are literally dozens of discrete solutions. Remember those TVs that had an integrated VCR. Want to upgrade your VCR, throw away your TV. Same thing being done here.

This is why there is no value in an internet enabled TV. As for 3D, the sample movies I've seen look like bunch of cardboard cutouts placed at different depths, not true 3D. They'd have to at least get that right before I'd consider it more than joke value.




Internet TV - yes 3D TV - no
By freeman70 on 12/15/2010 6:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Internet TV will probably take off when pricing, content and usability issues are solved. These issues are common to every newly marketed product or service. Interestingly, it really doesn't matter how the service is delivered whether by cable, ADSL or possibly Wireless (WIMAX or real 4G) services as long as bandwidth requirements are met. I think Internet TV will succeed but adoption won't be quick until some company really provides the public with what they want at a price they can afford.

3D TV faces the same issues but it doesn't look like they will be solved to the satisfaction of consumers. I don't think it will be widely adopted. It will continue to fill a niche market segment in theatres and for special displays but I don't think the average person will want to spend the money to watch the news in 3D. Also, look how long it took them to start real HD broadcasts.

As a side note, 3D monitors for gaming will become popular since gamers will enjoy a more immersive user experience playing the Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Medal of Honor series of games. Secondly, serious gamers don't mind splurging for the latest gear. Thirdly, since monitor sizes are generally smaller and the field of view in more limited, cost and display visibility problems are greatly reduced.




Uhh, no.
By mindless1 on 12/16/2010 3:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
No. I don't want to wear glasses just to watch TV. I don't need to feel TV is real, that's what getting up from the TV set and getting out into the world is for.




No Way - Go Away
By DBissett on 12/16/2010 6:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
The whole 3D concoction is about the dumbest corporate effort I've seen to suck up more money from a public stuck on prettier and prettier pictures and games. Don't get me wrong...I love my big plasma but putting on glasses to watch TV, or passing out glasses to everyone else who wants to watch TV? Geez, what nonsense. Maybe the idea would get slightly more traction in a booming economy, but who in their right mind now is going to jump at the chance to spend more money when they've just invested in really good 2D, or if they're coming from a CRT, spend the max amount of money possible to get something they can benefit from about 1% of the time?




Wrong headline
By Shadowself on 12/16/2010 6:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Give us a decently priced 3D TV with passive glasses and things might take off"

No.

If this had read instead as ...

"Give us a decently priced 3D TV not requiring any glasses and things will take off"

then you'd have something!




The price is ludicrous.
By Acanthus on 12/16/2010 7:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
The price of a 3dtv with the same specs as my LCD TV that i purchased is over triple the price.

There is absolutely no way im going to pay $1000 for a gimmicky depth of field trick.




Internet in the TV, why?
By Targon on 12/16/2010 8:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much every BluRay player has that "Internet" connectivity, with an increasing number including WiFi(so you don't need to run ethernet to connect). This means that there is ZERO reason to spend extra for a TV that has all of these Internet features if you go with a BluRay player with the feature.

That's it, problem solved. 3D is another issue, and in general, the only benefit will show up when filming uses 3D equipment, rather than having 3D added in post processing.

Now, the real advantage to 3D is that you get an increased depth to programming that is recorded in 3D. Most people frown on the old-school approach of "objects popping out" at them, but they do appreciate when movies look like there is depth in the scene, and that is what will make 3D become popular.

When stereo first came out on TV, it wasn't all that exciting for most people. I noticed that for shows like Star Trek: TNG, you could hear the background hum of the ship that was not there without stereo. With surround, for things that use it, you will hear events that happen off the screen, people walking in the door from behind, etc, and it just enhances the overall program in minor but still obvious ways. Action sequences obviously have the potential for hearing objects flying all around the viewer/listener.

So, 3D...if a proper 3D recording is made, you will feel like you are looking at a show with depth, and while it won't be a make or break thing(in the way stereo isn't really REQUIRED), it will be an overall enhancement of the viewing experience once it matures a bit more.

The real thing that is holding back sale of the 3D displays is the cost. Right now, the amount of true 3D recorded programming is TINY, so why would you spend all that extra money for a display that costs twice as much if you don't have enough programming to justify it.

Now, one thing that would help is if the supporting technology for 3D TV would not have a price premium. The lower cost displays have a 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rate, while you see the 3D sets having a 240Hz LED with all of these extra features. This means that you are paying for a higher grade of display, and it is questionable if THAT would also really enhance the experience. If the 240Hz LED is so much better, then if that became the norm for a $800 40 inch display, 3D might only cost an extra $100 to $200(plus glasses of course). That is something that many wouldn't object to, but they will object to spending $2000+ on a 3D TV when they can get the same size for $1200 without 3D, even if the technology isn't as advanced.




3-D content
By dlmartin53 on 12/17/2010 9:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
I have watched a number of 3-D features. Most are bad. The produces throw in a scene where something comes out of the screen just to demonstrate the effect, and it is very obvious that is why the scene is there. That being said, Avatar is the only movie I have seen that did not seem to do so, but I still don't see the appeal. Wearing funky glasses active or passive does not make me want to run out for this technology.

Maybe the younger croud will adopt this but unlike HD I don't see what this adds to the overall viewing experience. Just like the afformentioned Avatar, the animation is great but I still know it is animation, not live action. Someday it will be undistinguishable and so will 3-D, then maybe 3-D will be "popular".




The title is wrong
By Pessimism on 1/5/2011 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Should read:
Consumer adoption of >$500 TVs is slow.

That is the truth of the matter when you get down to the core of it. The unwashed public isn't willing to drop thousands on a television. They also don't care about image quality or understand what the difference between SD and HD is. That's why you still have thousands of 20-30 year old sets with $20 walmart DVD players hooked to them with RF modulators, or maybe the included hair-thin composite cable if their set happens to have a composite input.

AV Enthusiasts comprise a tiny, tiny minority of the market.




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki