backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by Manch.. on Oct 7 at 1:52 PM

New research indicates a growing number of consumers want 3D content, but don't want to pay for it

In-Stat Digital recently released research indicating consumers have a strong interest in 3DTV, but don't want to pay more for the content.

In-Stat found 64% of consumers have an  interest in 3DTV, with only 25% saying they would pay additional for 3DTV content.  Blu-ray hardware sales are beginning to overtake DVD hardware sales, with DVD sales projected at 53% and Blu-ray at 47% through 2009.

"This time we believe it's here to stay because we're living in a different world," Futuresource Consulting managing director Jim Bottoms told reporters when speaking of 3DTV growth.

People who've invested in Blu-ray are more likely to be interested in purchasing 3DTV content over regular consumers.

In the future, 3D standards must be developed -- likely by Panasonic and Sony, with both companies pushing the boundaries of 3D technology -- to avoid a format war.  If not, then both Panasonic and Sony will have to fend off smaller companies also developing 3D, as there could be a free for all between every company looking to cash in.

The Blu-ray Disc Association, which is greatly interested in 3D, also is developing new standards for software before 2010.  

The new standards "gives everyone the green light to go forward," said Paul Gagnon, North American TV director at DisplaySearch.



Comments     Threshold


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

I wouldn't pay more
By Shig on 9/30/2009 12:11:23 AM , Rating: 5
The only way I percieve 3D movies is that the film companies are out of good ideas and want to charge you again for the same thing, a few hundred more times....




RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Senju on 9/30/2009 12:35:57 AM , Rating: 5
A person buys a VHS tape of "2001 Space O.).
Then the person buys it in 8 mini tape format.
Then the person buys it again in Beta sony format.
Then he buys the movie again in Laser Disk format.
The person buys it yet again in DVD format.
Again, he buys it in Toshiba HD format.
Made a mistake in that and then has to buy in Blue Ray format.

He also bought the same movie again by downloading it from itunes movie download content.

Now, the user again buys the same old Movie but now in 3D format.

Wow, just think how much this guy has spend on just one movie. Now, times that for a 100 movies with all those formats and you can start to see how people in Hollywood are so rich.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By GaryJohnson on 9/30/2009 12:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile another person never bought 2001 in any format except laser disc, which is still the best version (of 2001). :P


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Jason H on 9/30/2009 2:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Chernobyl68 on 9/30/2009 12:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
have to admit, the blu-ray of 2001 is pretty sweet.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By damianrobertjones on 9/30/2009 3:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
Then buys again from amazon - the drm. (I know the situation has changed but he probably bought into iTunes straight away)


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By tigen on 9/30/2009 4:15:16 AM , Rating: 5
And he paid to see it in the theater when it came out.
Three times.
And he bought the soundtrack on vinyl.
He has a heightened sensitivity to red colored lights in everyday life.
He buys the 2001 book in hardcover.
Then the soundtrack again on cassette tape.
He buys the comic book.
He has a giant black monolith installed in his backyard.
Again, he buys the soundtrack on CD.
He buys the soundtrack on iTunes.
He buys it again on Amazon mp3 format.
He buys the paperback novel.
He orders 500 of the DVDs and hands them out to random passers-by on the city streets, dressed in a space suit.
Then he sits on the sidewalk and rocks back and forth for hours and hours.
All he keeps saying is, "my mind is going, I can feel it".


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By theapparition on 9/30/2009 7:20:07 AM , Rating: 3
Timeline is off, since anyone buying a VHS tape "first", would not consider the Betamax, since that format's death was eminent at that time. (Much like someone buying Blu-ray wouldn't get the HD-DVD version now).
Also, who would ever buy any movie in mini 8 format, since that was just a portable version of Sony's Betamax.

However, point well taken. I myself have purchased:
Star Wars trilogy VHS
Star Wars trilogy LD
Star Wars trilogy VHS THX remaster
Star Wars trilogy VHS THX special edition
Star Wars trilogy DVD (box special edition)
Star Wars trilogy DVD (individual originals)

Any yes, when available, I'll end up buying it (special edition) on Blu-Ray.
And end up buying the Blu-Ray again a few years later when the originals are released.
If ever released on HD-DVD, probably buy that too.

The movie studios do count on people purchasing the same content multiple times. One of the major reasons they are so adamant about DRM. Not only are they trying to prevent piracy (which has a snowballs chance in hell of succeding), but they want the consumer who legally purchased a product to basically pay each time they watch it. That's thier ultimate business model. You never own content, but each time you want to watch it, you pay per view.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Spivonious on 9/30/2009 9:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
You meant "iminent" not "eminent". </grammar nazi>

I'm the same with Star Wars, although I was too young to have the original VHS tapes, and we never had a laser disc player.

I have
THX remastered VHS
Special Edition VHS
DVD special edition
DVD theatrical originals

What's even sadder is that I still watch all of them, depending on what version of the movie I want to see.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Spivonious on 9/30/2009 9:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
Crap, I misspelled "imminent". I knew it didn't look right.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By mmatis on 9/30/2009 6:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
To paraphrase some genius marketer (Wikipedia says it WASN'T PT Barnum): There's a sucker born every minute!


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Chernobyl68 on 9/30/2009 12:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
the "buy a disc but pay per view" business model was pretty soundly rejected in DIVX.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By TSS on 9/30/2009 9:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Heh hollywood would wish.

i saw Disney's Ducktales the movie, The rescuers 1 and 2, Alladin, Jungle book and Robin Hood in the movie theatres when i was little.

My dad then rented the VHS tapes and copied them over onto blank ones. funny stuff too we rented 6 tapes and recorded them onto 3.

For my little sister (7 year difference) we just went to the movies and downloaded the ones she liked afterwards.

Now we can see why hollywood hates piracy so much ;)


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By DarkElfa on 9/30/2009 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 3
This came up recently on the Gateworld Forum due to the fact that they plan on releasing the first season of SGU in two halves, that way they can charge you the same as they used to fo one season for both halves of one season.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Chernobyl68 on 9/30/2009 12:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
da##it.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Chernobyl68 on 9/30/2009 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
I hated that crap when battlestar galactica did it.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Oregonian2 on 9/30/2009 7:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A person buys a VHS tape of "2001 Space O.). Then the person buys it in 8 mini tape format. Then the person buys it again in Beta sony format. Then he buys the movie again in Laser Disk format. The person buys it yet again in DVD format. Again, he buys it in Toshiba HD format. Made a mistake in that and then has to buy in Blue Ray format. He also bought the same movie again by downloading it from itunes movie download content. Now, the user again buys the same old Movie but now in 3D format.


This posting shows complete misunderstanding of stereoscopic 3D and what it takes to make it.

The other formats are "copy to the new format".

Going from a 2D version of movie to a 3D version (that's worth a hoot) is more like converting a radio audio performance into a visual film version. There is very substantial work being added. Not just a copy or running stuff through software filters.

Note: I've been prolifically doing stereoscopic (3d) still photography since about 1980 (plus a little 3D video).

P.S. - Saw the 3D version of the "meatballs" movie in the theater today and it was very enjoyable, and the 3D was well done (RealD version).


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
... except they don't usually buy the same movie over and over again unless they have more dollars than sense.


RE: I wouldn't pay more
By Manch on 10/7/2009 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot the special editions and box sets too.


Research shows...
By goku on 9/29/2009 11:52:03 PM , Rating: 4
New research indicates a growing number of consumers want (Insert Product), but don't want to pay for it.

Why am I not surprised? Isn't this why Copyright Infringement is so rampant? People like to have a lot of shit for free... nothing to see here, keep moving along.




RE: Research shows...
By someguy123 on 9/30/2009 12:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
well the question is, if it was available, would you pay for it, and not really whether or not you'd take it for free.

obviously no idiot would say no to something for free, but this surveys just showing that, although there's high interest in the technology, very few are ready to pay to adopt it.


RE: Research shows...
By Hiawa23 on 9/30/2009 9:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
I must be in the minority. I am fine with SD regular movies & the only reason why I even bought a 1080p HDTV cause of the Sams Club Sale, & to play my PS3 & Xbox 360 in HD, upscaled or not, haters. I have a HD DVD player & have watched some Blu ray movies which are cool & all with the level of detail but to me going from SD to HD just isn't as big of deal as some videophiles like to make it out to be & probably not even needed by most, so 3D I wouldn't mind it but would not pay a single dime for it, especially with the economy the way it is, & just falls on the bottom end of priorites for many.


RE: Research shows...
By jimbojimbo on 9/30/2009 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
You must have a bad TV or really poor vision because for me HD is a HUGE difference to SD.


RE: Research shows...
By mcnabney on 9/30/2009 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
BluRay is better than DVD, but at what cost?

A BMW is far superior to my Camry, but the added cost does not come close to the marginal improvement.

I have ~600 movies on DVD which would cost north of $15k to replace (a BluRay player is only as good as its content). Not going to happen. Actually, couldn't since most of my favorites are still DVD only.

I actually have stopped buying DVDs and have instead relied on NetFlix. BluRay is only a passing format. 4K is ready and waiting in the wings. They will release it when enough fanbois have emptyed their wallets.


RE: Research shows...
By mmatis on 9/30/2009 6:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Y'all just need some good pr0n...


RE: Research shows...
By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you sit close enough to the TV, and it's really important to see every hair, mole and wart. To many, these details are ignored because it's the story that matters. Individual pixels look different if you try to see the difference but most of the time you're not trying to see every grain of data, the same way you may be in a room and you look at the large items in it, not the individual specs of dust.


RE: Research shows...
By Chudilo on 9/30/2009 4:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
You must be in the minority of people with bad vision who refuse to wear corrective lenses.
If your equipment is hooked up via proper HDMI or component cables (a surprising percentage of people don't realize this) then looking at SDTV is like not wearing glasses. Anything less becomes sub-par.


RE: Research shows...
By Alexstarfire on 9/30/2009 4:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you're into the pretty effects and not the story perhaps. I really don't even notice the graphics unless they are insanely bad, insanely good, or the story just sucks and I'm stuck watching the movie for whatever reason. I notice the difference when I'm looking for it, but if I'm just watching the show/movie I don't just randomly go, "man, this would suck so bad on a regular TV" or "wow, this looks amazing." Same goes with the "HD" games I've played. Most of them actually don't even look that great compared to games even a couple years old on the PC.

I'm sure I won't buy an HDTV until I'm very well off, college student ATM so I don't have spare money, or they pretty much force you to get an HDTV when you have to get a new TV.


RE: Research shows...
By mcnabney on 9/30/2009 6:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, viewing distance has a lot to do with it. A DVD and a BD are going to look really similar on a medium to small set.

Remember, you have to sit about 7' from a 52" 1080p display to see the full resolution. Sitting 18' away would be the same sharpness as watching a 480p DVD.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistance...


RE: Research shows...
By jRaskell on 9/30/2009 12:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
You've got that wrong. They don't want to pay more for it.


RE: Research shows...
By kroker on 9/30/2009 4:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's not quite what this article is saying, let me rephrase it for you: people would like 3D, but they don't think they like it enough to be worth the extra cost.


I'd pay at least a little more
By v1001 on 9/29/2009 11:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'd pay an extra $50-$75 for a 3D blu-ray player. Maybe an extra $150 tops on the average size TV. I'm really looking forward to 3D in the home. I wont use it all the time but it's a nice option for certain occasions and movies.

Lets please not have all the whiners and bashers trash this thread yet again and every single time 3D is mentioned the same people got to start in over and over. If you don't want it YOU don't have to get it. But I'm betting anything once it's pretty standard and everyone else is enjoying 3D they give in and want one too.




RE: I'd pay at least a little more
By InternetGeek on 9/30/2009 1:39:20 AM , Rating: 4
I'd just wait it out until it came down to the $100 bracket as a solid technology unlikely to change. I would then just rent the movie and be done with it for good.


RE: I'd pay at least a little more
By Mitch101 on 9/30/2009 8:52:05 AM , Rating: 3
My kids love the 3d stuff but once or twice and they are done with it.

The problem I have with the majority of 3d movies is they put little scenes and angles in that don't flow with the movie. Ok 5 minutes past we need to add in something that reminds people its in 3D. Those little snippets although neat tend to take you briefly out of the action.

I would love to see Spielberg create a 3D movie? Give me Jurrasic Park in 3D. How about Gremlins?


RE: I'd pay at least a little more
By Oregonian2 on 9/30/2009 7:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem I have with the majority of 3d movies is they put little scenes and angles in that don't flow with the movie. Ok 5 minutes past we need to add in something that reminds people its in 3D. Those little snippets although neat tend to take you briefly out of the action.


Yes, wish they wouldn't do that (a feeling by most if not all stereoscopic 3D enthusiasts).

Saw the 3D version of the meatballs movie today, and it was done well. Coraline also was done well without having 3D'ness be the "subject" of the movie, and only an aspect of it (like having it in color is an aspect).


RE: I'd pay at least a little more
By Mitch101 on 9/30/2009 11:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Toy Story and Toy Story 2 both start this weekend for 2 weeks in 3D. I trust Pixar to do a good job. Not sure if they made any minor changes to draw in the viewer. Will probably be out on DVD/BLU-RAY before X-mas but were going for the big screen effect.

Your right Coraline did good job but the kids would take off thier 3D glasses when it wasn't 3D then when it went back to 3D they would miss a portion or two becuase they took the glasses off.

There is a Shrek 3D 15 minute movie that is pretty good.

Just want some good adult titles. The best was Terminator Battle at universal studios. Cloverfield would have been great in 3d. Thats a love it or hate it movie. I loved it. Strictly a big screen movie though.


By Oregonian2 on 10/1/2009 5:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know what you mean about Coraline. That film was 100% in 3D. No taking-off putting back on stuff (and this has been true that I've seen for all the latest generation 3D films in the last year or so).

Not sure about the Toy Story ones. Those would be "conversions" rather than things that were designed to be 3D from the start (can make a difference in the stereographic quality). But being digital animation to begin with, there is hope it will be done well.


Gimmick
By TSS on 9/30/2009 9:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
People aren't going to pay extra for something that simulates 3D.

However, personally, if they come up with a way to display real 3D (just get me a cube with a 3D picture inside) i'd be willing to pay extra for that.

Otherwise, it's just another gimmick. That doesn't work well unless the movie's specifically made for it. Which is going to make the movie worse for everybody without 3D. That goes for both the glasses technologies aswell as those 3D monitors.

But if they do get holograms up and working... man i'd pay $200 bucks just to go see a movie like that (a round theatre with a huge cube in the middle displaying everything). or $500 for a full fledged holodeck experience ^^




RE: Gimmick
By acase on 9/30/2009 10:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
You could save a lot of money and go to a play...


RE: Gimmick
By jRaskell on 9/30/2009 12:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that people are ALREADY paying extra to see IMAX 3D movies in the theaters, about 60% more than a regular theater ticket. And the IMAX 3D movies, at least in my area, are ALWAYS sold out.

That tells me pretty clearly that there are, in fact, people willing to pay extra for 3D, quite a few actually.


RE: Gimmick
By jimbojimbo on 9/30/2009 3:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
I love seeing IMAX 3D movies. I won't necessarily go to all of them or anything but if a good movie came out in 3D I'd gladly pay the extra to see it at the IMAX. If I can have 3D at home using polarized glasses, like that laser projection TV they demoed recently, I'd gladly pay more.


RE: Gimmick
By Oregonian2 on 9/30/2009 7:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the 3D movies I've seen in a theater of late have been using the RealD technology. Local theaters charge about $2-3 more for the 3D version (and includes giving the patron a pair of circularly polarized glasses that aren't required to be returned). IMAX is a bit more elaborate so the additional charge may be higher.

But in recent movies (such as the Meatballs one out now, which I saw earlier today), typically half of the movie's revenue will come from the 3D version even though there will be ten (or more) times as many 2D screens as 3D screens. 3D makes a dramatic big difference in both the quality of the movie as well as the revenue derived (and why some studios are going to 100% 3D in their releases) per screen.


Imagine if your 3D came out of this...
By amanojaku on 9/30/2009 12:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/r2d2-turned-int...

[ Okama Gamesphere pixelates, then prints an error message]
Player_1: Just you reconsider playing that stripper animation for him!
[ Okama Gamesphere beeps a question]
Player_1: No, I don't think Duke Nukem likes you at all.
[Okama Gamesphere beeps again]
Player_1: No, I don't like you either.




By mrteddyears on 9/30/2009 3:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
Are you on drugs ?


By Senju on 9/30/2009 4:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
Dude!!! I know exactly where you are coming from! :D


Form over content
By frobizzle on 9/30/2009 8:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yet another gimick to make up for poor writing, bad directing and wooden acting. Let's face it, 99.9% of what Hollywood churns out today is total crap.




RE: Form over content
By Hiawa23 on 9/30/2009 1:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another gimick to make up for poor writing, bad directing and wooden acting. Let's face it, 99.9% of what Hollywood churns out today is total crap.

maybe stretchin on that one you can make that claim for most media, music, videogames included, that we buy.


RE: Form over content
By Akrovah on 9/30/2009 2:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, wasn't there an author that once said 90% of everything is crap? I can't remember the name.


I'd expect to pay more if...
By PAPutzback on 9/30/2009 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
I had money in my pocket to waste and be the first on the blog to be on the bleeding edge.

If they could do it without glasses. How stupid is that. I'd guess that most commercials are still in 480 these days so what a PIA when you would be going from 3d to non 3d every other commercial.

Myself, I'll wait 5 or 6 years after the tech comes out to jump on the band wagon. But I know as soon as I do that holographic tvs will be coming out. The type where the you can walk around the image and see all sides.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/hologra...




RE: I'd expect to pay more if...
By Oregonian2 on 9/30/2009 7:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they could do it without glasses. How stupid is that. I'd guess that most commercials are still in 480 these days so what a PIA when you would be going from 3d to non 3d every other commercial.


It can be done w/o glasses (or equivalent), but the problem usually is that those solutions only work for a viewer sitting in a particular location relative to the display. IOW "personal viewers", not one where a room of folk can watch it in 3D at the same time.

Just the nature of the beast in delivering a different image to each eye simultaneously.


meh, big deal
By Snake357 on 9/30/2009 9:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
We use 3D passive stereo where I work (O&G exploration company). It is very handy for what we use it for, but strains the eyes after about 20-30 minutes of viewing. Active stereo is even worse.

This will be another gimmick like the camera angle switching they put on some DVD's 10 years ago. It never took off and was only used on pr0n. I think 3D will go the same route, only the pr0n industry will bother with it.




RE: meh, big deal
By Oregonian2 on 9/30/2009 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
3D not done correctly will indeed have the problem you suggest. That's why I'm hoping those who make them learn quickly how to do it correctly.

I've been a 3D stereographic photographer for nearly thirty years. Although my eyes can take abuse and not hurt from doing things wrong, my wife's eyes are very sensitive and anything remotely close to wrong (won't go into details here about all that which can be done wrong) will give her an instant headache.

We went to see the 3D "meatballs" movie today (RealD version) at a local theater. I asked her if she had a headache after coming out. Answer: none.


In other words...
By Alexstarfire on 9/30/2009 10:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
people want their cake and to eat it too. The title isn't really a big surprise at all. Seriously, who WANTS to pay more? Even if you do pay more I'm sure you'd rather not.




RE: In other words...
By mmatis on 9/30/2009 6:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite sure that cake is what people REALLY want. And most of them would probably rather be eaten by the pr0n...


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki