backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by sprockkets.. on Jul 19 at 8:36 PM

70% won't buy because of glasses

The 3D craze landed with a boom in 2010 with a plethora of 3D TVs and other gear being shown off in January during CES. TV and home theater gear makers were quick to put 3D sets and home theater systems onto the market to meet the expected demand from consumers wanting to upgrade to 3D viewing their homes.

Many manufacturers expected the massively popular 3D films in theaters like
Avatar and others to drive the adoption of 3D in the home. Game console makers like Sony also expect to offer 3D gaming via computers and the PS3. Unfortunately for the makers of 3D TVs and other 3D capable home theater gear, there is a huge disconnect between the expectations they have and the reality of what consumers are willing to buy according to a recent study.

The study was conducted by Kakaku.com in Japan reports 
Reuters and was conducted online from June 10-16 and had 8,957 respondents. The results might be surprising to TV makers. The overwhelming majority of those who responded to the survey most people have no intention of buying a 3D TV. The biggest reason for not wanting a 3D TV in the home according to 70% of the respondents is the requirement of glasses.

Kakaku.com's Tsuyoshi Kamada wrote in a report along with the survey, "Television makers' expectations for 3D are high but looking at the degree of interest among consumers, there is a big gap with the enthusiasm of manufacturers."

Not only are the glasses ugly and at times uncomfortable, they are expensive too. Sony's active-shutter 3D glasses sell for about $150 per pair making the glasses cost as much for a family of four as a decent non-3D TV. Another 57% of those who responded listed the price as the barrier of entry for them. Another 40% cite the lack of 3D content as the reason they aren’t interested.

Prices will eventually decline for 3D TVs and more content is coming online every day. If those two factors can be combined with tech allowing 3D viewing with no glasses the adoption will likely pick up.



Comments     Threshold


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

Im with them
By Gio6518 on 7/2/2010 10:37:38 AM , Rating: 5
I'm with them i have very little desire to watch tv having to wear those heavy bulky glasses....or even having to buy a pair for everyone in my family (glasses would cost almost as much as the TV)




RE: Im with them
By HotFoot on 7/2/2010 10:46:40 AM , Rating: 5
Definitely agree I don't want to have to wear glasses on a regular basis to watch TV or movies at home. Even if the glasses were very cheap, I wouldn't want them.

I'm wondering about the experience comparison between Imax/3D Movie Theatre versus watching 3D in your living room on a 40" or so screen. Seeing 3D on the big screen adds a bit to the immersion (if it's done well), but on a smaller screen, I'm not sure how much I'd like it.

The last decade or so of changes to TVs have brought things I wanted before they came out, things like:
- higher resolution
- better colours
- larger screen
- wide screen profile

Adding a depth of field to a small screen hasn't been something I've desired.


RE: Im with them
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2010 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. I have no interest in 3DTVs.


RE: Im with them
By callmeroy on 7/2/2010 11:05:57 AM , Rating: 5
I'm with you guys -- I also don't care about 3DTVs....

Not to mention...I think part of the reason I think 3d is "cool" (if done well) is because A) I don't see 3d movies all the time and B) in the theater the screen is HUGE

If you saw 3d stuff on your own tv it would be routine therefore wouldn't be anything you thought was that great after a while...just boring...

And like was said already....I don't think the experience is comparable on a much smaller screen like what most folks have in their homes.


RE: Im with them
By Mitch101 on 7/2/2010 12:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
I kind of care because I have a projector otherwise I suspect it might be like looking out the Window.

I could care less what I look like with the 3D glasses. I dont plan on wearing them out of the house and even if I did why would I care what other people think? Not like the Paparazzi are outside my home.

Technology like this has a price for everyone when the glasses reach $30-$50.00 I'll jump in.


RE: Im with them
By samspqr on 7/3/2010 6:09:38 AM , Rating: 3
ok, that's one "I kind of care" after four "I don't care"... even on a tech-savvy site like this!!

could we have a poll at anandtech?

(if it can only be created on dailytech, please create a post for it that we can see at the sidebar in anandtech)


RE: Im with them
By michael67 on 7/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Im with them
By JediJeb on 7/2/2010 2:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
I do know one reason to like the 3D TVs, it has been bringing the prices down for regular TV :), but sadly that is the only reason.


RE: Im with them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2010 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 5
I'm against 3d in general. It seems like an excuse to deliver shitty movies with bad plots, acting, and scripts in lieu of eye candy and special effects.


RE: Im with them
By ClownPuncher on 7/2/2010 5:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, for the most part. I honestly found Avatar to be pretty poorly written and acted, the 3D didn't do much for me.


RE: Im with them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2010 8:25:10 PM , Rating: 3
It's not that Avatar was written poorly. It was actually a very effective movie. The problem is, it's poor in true substance. It's just too simple of a movie, too done before, to be something I can enjoy. Trite in it's conclusions and vacuous in it's delivery.

I'm sure if I was 15 again it would blow my mind.


RE: Im with them
By mikeyD95125 on 7/6/2010 4:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
I believe you are referring to hollywood for the past 40 years.


RE: Im with them
By jimbojimbo on 7/6/2010 4:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Another cliche response from another unoriginal poster. I suppose Toy Story 3 came out in 3D so it was a crappy movie, right? Hell, Toy Story 1 and 2 came out in 3D as well so they must all suck.

Just because the only 3D movie you can think of didn't have a mindjarring story you can't judge everything off of that. I for one can't wait for the day when they release all the Pixar movies in 3D. Animated movies look awesome in 3D since they just have to re-render all of the footage in 3D which is then fully 3D, not the remastered type.


RE: Im with them
By PrinceGaz on 7/2/2010 11:02:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The last decade or so of changes to TVs have brought things I wanted before they came out, things like:
- higher resolution
- better colours
- larger screen
- wide screen profile

Better colours? It could be argued the best flat-panel displays today still cannot match the colour range of a decent CRT display a decade ago.


RE: Im with them
By Flunk on 7/2/2010 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
You're thinking of TN panels, S-IPS and OLED panels (although rare and expensive) can beat CRTS for colour gamut.


RE: Im with them
By tastyratz on 7/2/2010 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
Actually,
The color gamut reproduction range of modern quality displays rivals that of crt displays - even modern ones. Last few years brought a lot there to the table.

What you are looking for is contrast ratio .

Modern flat panels STILL cant touch the contrast ratio of a crt based tv. a cheap modern Plasma (similar to crt tech) is far better than the best led lcd (although its getting closer and I am sure I will piss someone wrong off with that statement) Projection is and always has been a joke

Since contrast ratio matters the most visually that's why it doesn't look as good. Unfortunately they stopped manufacturing good high end crt's and large size availability was limited by the technology itself and practical application. Its worth the trade offs getting a 60inch tv that's not 60 inches deep and still having a couch in the room.


RE: Im with them
By Xaussie on 7/2/2010 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 3
Actually contrast ratio is not the problem, it's black level. Modern LCD displays are much brighter than the CRTs ever were, they just can't reach the deep black levels that a good CRT with an antiglare filter could.

My high end Hitachi CRTs were lucky to reach 120 cd/m^2 whereas an LCD can easily be cranked up to 600 cd/m^2. Black level on a good LCD is about .5 cd/m^2 and a CRT in a dimly lit room can get down to about .1 cd/m^2. So the contrast ratio is about the same but a CRT works better in the dark, whereas an LCD looks better in a brightly lit room.

Color gamut used to be an issue but now even a two year old monitor like the NEC 3090 I have way exceeds what any CRT was ever capable of producing.


RE: Im with them
By tastyratz on 7/2/2010 2:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yea sorry I should have clarified that, same area.
Also I challenge you to investigate modern plasma displays in comparison. I did a little reading more so at places online such as this
http://www.plasmadisplaycoalition.org/results/brig...
It fares better than expected against crt's. Now this is obviously biased subjective and test details are only partially disclosed but still. I already made my choice with a plasma tv, and plan to do so again with the next tv eventually... but it makes me even happier that I did.


RE: Im with them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Im with them
By tastyratz on 7/4/2010 5:00:46 PM , Rating: 5
Then you sir are not educated at all on the subject.
modern plasmas have the same service rating to half brightness of 50,000 hours - that's a touch under 6 years straight on 24x7. It will outlive your need to use that tv. Think of what a 10 year old tv looks to you now.

Burn in? Really? I play my ps3 on my plasma and have repeatedly forgotten to shut off games on pause for over 12 HOURS and there is NOTHING wrong with my tv.

Glare? That would be because you are comparing a GLOSSY screen tv, you know - like the ones they also sell for lcd. Plasma and lcd both have anti glare matte finish variants.

Before anyone says it. Weight?
42in sharp aquos is 55lbs amazon shipping weight.
42in panasonic plasma is 57.4lbs shipping weight.

now,
Electricity used? Depends on the picture displayed. LCD uses more to display all black, plasma more to display all white. My 42 plasma during a movie consumes roughly 125 watts measured with a killawatt meter.
Electricity is not as expensive as people put it - its roughly a tiny bit over $1 a year per 24x7 watt used.

What does a plasma cost you in extra electricity over lcd? maybe $5-15 more per YEAR. How much more are you going to pay for that lesser quality image lcd again? You will never recoup it.

And slightly better blacks? Your going to experience multi fold better black levels, not a little if you squint. Plasma is night an day in difference, and contrast ratio (deeper blacks brighter whites) is the number one perceived picture quality statistic to the human eye. Resolution is 4th!

Anything else you don't know about that you would like proven wrong? more FUD perhaps?


RE: Im with them
By Finnkc on 7/5/2010 10:48:39 AM , Rating: 3
Yea Plasma rules period.


RE: Im with them
By jimbojimbo on 7/6/2010 4:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'd only go plasma if I lived in Alaska since it'd help keep the place warm. Otherwise it's fighting the AC so I'd rather go LCD. By the way the newest LED LCDs with pinpoint dimming has blacks comparable with plasmas.


RE: Im with them
By tastyratz on 7/6/2010 10:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
same argument.
Cost effectiveness you cant compare led backlit lcd screens and plasma. Those lcd screens are not remotely cost effective and just approach plasma black levels for much more than you will ever spend on electricity to run or respectively cool over device lifetime (also only in a cooling degree day climate, otherwise electronics become nearly free heat! not to mention heating costs being far higher per btu than cooling)

Also: led backlit lcd televisions generally are only so "pinpoint" and approach wide contrast ratios through sectional dimming. If an led controls a certain group of pixels that respective led can dim or brighten to increase overall contrast ratios. To prevent blockyness it can only go so extreme however, and What you lose also tends to be shadow detail.
Plasma achieves its contrast ratio by crt like technology applying per pixel. Led backlit lcd's will never be per pixel backlit for cost effectiveness and space constraints. For the technology to mature to that point it would surely be bypassed by oled or similar (which on that note could slay all of our arguments)

I was also nice enough to avoid mentioning clear panning and motion on plasma without image degrading 120/240hz modes that aren't on all the time because... well? the truth hurts


RE: Im with them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2010 4:59:14 PM , Rating: 1
Color isn't everything. When it comes down to it, CRT's are fuzzy. This ISN'T 10 years ago, you CRT guys need to go away.


RE: Im with them
By sprockkets on 7/19/2010 8:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
So what? My "old" 48" CRT HD tv can natively do 720x480 and 1920x1080, so that all the old stuff doesn't look like crap.

Fuzzy? Try smooth. Saying that smooth sucks compared to sharp is like saying CDs sound better than reel to reel - they both sound great for different reasons.


RE: Im with them
By Aloonatic on 7/2/2010 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 4
Some of us have to wear glasses already, which only makes the problems of 3D glasses worse too, so think yourself lucky 8o)

It's not like being short sighted is a rare condition either, and the couple of times I've been to the cinema to watch a 3D film, wearing 2 pairs of glasses is reeeeeallllyy annoying.

Now perhaps if I could get my regular glasses to be coated with the polarising stuff (or whatever it is) at my opticians, or a cheap pair just for 3D viewing, then maybe. But they had better be cheap, and there had better be a standard agreed upon, which I just can't see happening.


RE: Im with them
By bespoke on 7/2/2010 12:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm right there with you. I won't be spending $100 to $150 for a pair of 3D glasses which will then have to sit on top of my regular glasses.

Add in the fact that my young son has a visual impairment resulting in poor depth perception means we'll likely never get a 3D TV.


RE: Im with them
By mmntech on 7/2/2010 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
I find the 3D glasses don't fit properly over my regular glasses. Those are the movie theatre ones designed for that. I imagine the ones for TV (based on what I've seen) would be impossible for me to use. I'm not sitting right up to the screen just to watch 3D.


RE: Im with them
By Xaussie on 7/2/2010 1:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention a percentage of the population don't have stereoscopic vision, meaning that the left and right eye don't match images to give them depth cues so they work entirely off other cues like focal depth and size perception. These are the same people who will never be able to see the magic eye puzzles, and consequently never get any benefit from a 3D TV.


RE: Im with them
By Hiawa23 on 7/2/2010 12:59:57 PM , Rating: 1
I agree to a point. I am not into the whole 3d craze. I saw Avatar in 2D, thought it fantastic, then I paid again, plus, to see it in 3D. It did not make the movie any better for me, & I was pissed cause I paid again. I am fine with my movies & games in HD, I don't need 3D, just paid off my 1080p TV so I am certainly not buying another one. I already wear glasses & I can't see putting on 2 pairs of glasses to watch tv or play my PS3, so really could care less about 3D, 2D is good enough for my tastes, & in this bad economy, a 3DTV is low on my priority list.


RE: Im with them
By marvdmartian on 7/2/2010 2:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Someone wake me up when they develop holographic 3D imagery, with life sized images, in HD. Think of R2D2 doing the Princess Leia projection, only full size in 1080P.

Then we'll start talking about replacing what I've got now!!


RE: Im with them
By Anoxanmore on 7/2/2010 2:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
I want my holodeck.


RE: Im with them
By jimbojimbo on 7/6/2010 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i have very little desire to watch tv having to wear those heavy bulky glasses
Have you gone to the store and actually tried them on? They're actually extremely light. It seems most people complaining about these have never actually gone and tried it out themselves.
There will eventually be more content so I can't complain about that but I will definitely complain about the price. $150 per pair is the usual going price at any of the companies and like the article said, who's going to pay $600 for a family of four to watch?? I'm still awaiting the laser projection TVs that'll support polarized glasses.


3D without glasses
By Homerboy on 7/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: 3D without glasses
By TheSpaniard on 7/2/2010 10:52:53 AM , Rating: 3
... I present for your viewing pleasure

The Nintendo 3DS

enjoy


RE: 3D without glasses
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2010 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 5
Swap between blinking each eye really really fast.


RE: 3D without glasses
By Spivonious on 7/2/2010 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
AFAIK they can do it with special glass that bends the light in a way that the left eye sees the "left" image and the right eye sees the "right" image. It has a very limited viewing angle right now (as you'd expect). The new Nintendo DS makes use of this tech, IIRC.


RE: 3D without glasses
By rrsurfer1 on 7/2/2010 11:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
RE: 3D without glasses
By Mogounus on 7/2/2010 1:01:29 PM , Rating: 4
Yes you are correct in thinking that the brain creates depth by diffeentiating between what the left and right eye sees. In a movie theatre 3D is based on polarization. The image is made up of two overlapping projections, one vertically polarized and the other horizontally polarized. Then the glasses you wear filter out the polarized light, again one horizontally and the other vertically so that i.e. the left lense only allows horizontally polarized light to pass through and the right only allows vertically polarized light through. That is why if you tilt your head while watching a 3D movie in the theatre the 3D effect gets messed up... because you are changing the polarization direction of the glasses and they are no longer in sync with the projected images.

Now, the new 3D TVs work a bit differently. First off you need a min 120Hz display. The 3D image is composed by quickly switching between the left image and the right image. So each images is displayed 60 times a second. (120Hz / 2 = 60). That is why you need a 120Hz TV because if it's only 60Hz then each image only gets shown 30 times a second which is too low. The glasses you wear are shutter based.. they have Hz too. The left and right lenses alternatly switch on and off (allow light to pass and not) at the same frequency as the TV. This then gets you the independent images to each eye.

Simple no? :)


RE: 3D without glasses
By JediJeb on 7/2/2010 2:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
I guess watching a 3D TV while lying on the sofa or floor would be a really bad thing then, though not so much with the shutter glasses. But with the shutter glasses, won't those need to be plugged into the TV for them to work? If so then that would really be a reason not to buy one.


RE: 3D without glasses
By Mogounus on 7/2/2010 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, synchronization is typically wireless.


RE: 3D without glasses
By geddarkstorm on 7/2/2010 1:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
There are such displays coming. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-... for a 56" 3D display that does not require glasses at all, and has a 160 degree viewing angle with high contrast. Depth information can be imparted through optical illusions via the left/right trick.

If you really want to understand how these things can be done, start looking up optical illusion sites to blow your mind at how your eyes can be tricked into seeing what's not there -- and comfortably so!

But yes, 3D TVs cannot take off till glasses are done away with. But then they'll be sweet.


RE: 3D without glasses
By nmrahde on 7/2/2010 7:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
The technology has been out for awhile actually. For example Sharp Electronics had two laptops and and an LCD monitor that had 3D displays without requiring glasses back in 2004. Granted only the central portion of the viewing area had the 3D effect (kinda how like the viewing angle has improved as well on LCDs over the years).


3D...
By nidomus on 7/2/2010 11:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
No thanks. I'm still happy with my HDTV, and see 3D as a gimmick. Its time will come and pass, Just like in the 50's. Call me when the Holodeck is invented, then I'll jump on the bandwagon.




RE: 3D...
By JediJeb on 7/2/2010 2:58:49 PM , Rating: 3
I'm an even harder sell, I still like my CRT and have no plans to upgrade anytime soon. Maybe if they get the 50" TVs down to about $200 then I might be tempted.


RE: 3D...
By MindParadox on 7/2/2010 5:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
hell, 36 inch CRTs never dropped below 190 or so, what makes you think a 50 inch widescreen tv would get that low ever?

especially considering that 42-46 inch lcd panels are the most popular replacement for the old 36 inch tvs, as the screen sizes are actually comparable (42 inch for overall size, 46 inch for vertical) altho not exact

im willing to bet that probably 42 inch tvs will stop at around 350 bucks, 46 inchers at 400ish or so, and 50s will not(at least in the next 20 years) drop below 500 dollars


RE: 3D...
By xNIBx on 7/3/2010 7:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
OLED tvs are supposed to become even cheaper to manufacture than lcd, since you essentially "printing" them.


I guess
By amanojaku on 7/2/2010 10:50:17 AM , Rating: 5
The remaining 30% are nerds who already wear glasses and are looking forward to DOA's 3D breast physics.




RE: I guess
By nidomus on 7/2/2010 11:16:51 AM , Rating: 3
Damn, now I have to change my stance on the issue!


Bit Rate
By MGSsancho on 7/2/2010 6:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather spend all available space on a blu-ray disc on a high bit-rate film. please put the extended features and add-ons on another disc. I also don't want to waste bandwidth and space on information for the second frame to make the 3D effect. even if there are kick ass algorithms to say get 3D while using up 10% of the space, that is still 5GB wasted into an unwanted feature.




RE: Bit Rate
By Silver2k7 on 7/2/2010 7:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few 2160p TV's out there.. would rather have this than some gimmicky Stereoscopic 3D.


RE: Bit Rate
By jabber on 7/5/2010 11:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
I've checked quite a few DVD releases recently and found them all to be 4.5Gb or less.

Seems the studios are either cutting distribution to single layer DVDs (do they exist now?) or trying to reduce the quality level to make BD look all the more enticing.

I have a few DVDs from a few years ago that nearly fill the 9GB limit and they look very good indeed.

DVD done right can still impress.


I get so sick of the haters
By Lazarus Dark on 7/2/2010 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
But I understand where you're coming from.

Look, 3D is fantastic... when it's done 100% natively, such as Avatar. Avatar is, if I'm correct the ONLY native 3D movie so far (the only one worth mentioning anyway). Alice in Wonderland, Clash, Airbender, all these are cheap-ass conversions meant to trick the movie-goers out of an extra 3 bucks or whatever your theater charges. I got suckered in to seeing Alice in 3D... and afterward I swore NEVER to see another conversion again. Its beyond pointless, its only just 3d enough to distract you from the movie as the 3d has no real detail to it, it just kinda bulges out of the screen a bit. 3D conversions are going to KILL 3D if Hollywood doesn't quit. Do it real 3d or dont do it! Movies coming out this year in actual native 3d: Resident Evil 4 and Tron Legacy. Several others next year.

So then, that leaves gaming as the main likely source for content, as you cant justify buying a 3dtv for only 10 native 3d movies worth watching over the next 5 years or so.

And as far as 3d gaming, its 120hz or go home. None of this half-assed 720p 60hz crap like the PS3 is trying to do. Actually, before we go full on to 120hz (60 per eye) 3d gaming, I'd like to see higher resolutions first. Give me 2160p, which would look redonkulously detailed on a 60inch from a couple feet away.




RE: I get so sick of the haters
By Johnmcl7 on 7/3/2010 6:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
Having seen Avatar in 3D, my opinion of 3D is no different - I didn't think the 3D was well implemented at all, the effect was very inconsistent between scenes and was frequently poor with over the top DoF effects which made the film look worse. I actually ended up wishing I'd gone to see it in 2D so I could appreciate the sharp 2D picture rather than the softer 3D one and could have watched the film without getting a painful headache.

john


Fuzzy Math
By dansmiles on 7/3/2010 4:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
"The biggest reason for not wanting a 3D TV in the home according to 70% of the respondents is the requirement of glasses."

" Another 57% of those who responded listed the price as the barrier of entry for them. Another 40% cite the lack of 3D content as the reason they aren’t interested."

That means that 167% of people are not interested in purchasing a 3D TV. That certainly sounds grim for TV makers.




RE: Fuzzy Math
By bupkus on 7/3/2010 8:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Is it hard to imagine that these questions could be answered independently of each other?

I'm going to imagine that you understand the nature of polls and just saw humor in the phrasing the author used in the article. Perhaps Shane McGlaun was doing the same.


I'll be interested in 3D TV...
By Motoman on 7/2/2010 11:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
...when it requires no special equipment of any kind (aside from the TV itself) and doesn't cost much/any more than a normal TV. And when it actually works so well that it's compellingly more enjoyable than normal TV.

Otherwise...no thanks.




current displays sucks..
By zodiacfml on 7/2/2010 12:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
don't like what's going on with 3D..
I tried using my old 17" samsung crt and it beats the lcd easily when watching videos and colors are slightly better. the lcd is good with static images though.

why not those tv makers focus on cheaper LED displays or push Hollywood to do video with 60 FPS or more. point is, make displays better before 3D.




3D Is Not There Yet
By Zero110 on 7/2/2010 2:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's obvious that 3d is racist against the visually impaired as it stands now, and no one wants to wear glasses, let alone glasses on glasses. But we're talking about an immature technology that will improve in the same ways as other technology. If we manage to refine a thin enough film process for OLED, we could have contact lenses no thicker than we have now with displays for each eye. I don't see this as an if, but a when.

These could be used for an augmented reality overlay (Compass, time, navigation, ID3 tag, building identification), or they could become more opaque and be used for 3d movies and games. They could be prescription and with the right kinds of sensors they could track the distortion of the eye's lens when trying to focus on something, and recalibrate the display to change the focal distance for much less eyestrain and a more natural seeming 3d.




By DarthKaos on 7/2/2010 3:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Have they not heard the news? Consumers (especially Americans) have decided that most electronics only need to be "good enough". Electronics consumers are less inclined to get the newest, most expensive, latest trend items right now. They are settling for items that do what they need and if somethings are not the best, they are ok with that. It just needs to be good enough.

Now look at 3D TVs. They are more expensive. They bring very little to the table compared to an HDTV (the only difference is 3D). They require uncomfortable expensive glasses. Viewing angles are compromised (something that had been worked on for years). Finally 3D actually looks worse than HD (with anything I have watched and as a general consensus).

My recommendation to the electronics companies on the fence, get off the fence and pursue other products.




Surprise, surprise
By wvh on 7/2/2010 9:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this comes at a surprise. There are too many changes occurring at the same time, and not always for technical merit or the consumer's benefit. I've never even seen a Blu-ray disc yet, and now these companies and the movie industry are already pushing something new... and I'm not even interested in it at all. 3D is only going to work with an optimal setup – like a zillion speaker home theater setup, actually – and most of us don't care enough about going through such effort, don't have the money, don't have the space, or simply aren't interested at all. If you want the real experience, go to the movie theater. Even with the ridiculous high price of movie tickets these days, there are a lot of movies to be seen for the price of such a home movie theater setup with all those fancy technologies.




By Wolfpup on 7/4/2010 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've never heard a definitive percentage, but just casually it seems like 50% or more people can't use this so-called "3D" anyway.

Even if I could, and even if it didn't require glasses, it's a distracting gimmick. I'd pay NOT to have "3D" even if I could physically deal with it...




By JonnyDough on 7/6/2010 6:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
is because the Wii already looks bad on a tv. They tested 3D and it just made it look worse.




3D TVs = Big piece of crap
By afkrotch on 7/6/2010 9:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if anyone has had a chance to view one of these TVs. They suck...a lot.

The glasses aren't all that big a deal. They don't weigh much of anything. No different than a set of sunglasses.

What annoys the crap out of me is all the flickering to create the 3D illusion. I was watching the trailer for the new Resident Evil movie and I don't even remember much of the trailer. The flickering was that disturbing. I couldn't get over it.




I support 3D
By FaceMaster on 7/4/2010 4:38:17 PM , Rating: 1
I simply do not see how people can be 'against' 3D. Come on, people, 3D is blatantly superior to 2D, just as stereo is better than mono. Being against the adoption of 3D simply because it's 'bulky' will simply harm us in the long-run. I, for one, would like for there to be a backlog of programs, films and games available in 3D for when less obtrusive ways of viewing them are available. If that means supporting bulky hardware now, then so be it. Don't be short-termist.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
Lenovo Announces 3D Multimedia Laptop
June 17, 2010, 7:05 AM













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