Is the Industry Souring On 3D TV? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 75 Old 05-27-2010, 10:27 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Jmouse007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Is the Industry Souring On 3D TV?

http://www.tvpredictions.com/3ddoubts052610.htm

And so it begins:

... "In recent days, more TV executives and industry analysts are expressing doubt that 3D and 3D TV will be a big hit."

... We are not clear on what makes good 3D and are certainly not clear on what makes good 3D television."

..."Does the experience get good enough on television to work? I'm not sure it's going to be economically viable for the near future,"

...The last thing the industry needs is consumers starting to believe that 3D is simply not worth it,' Greenfield said. The movie industry cannot afford a wide-spread consumer backlash against (3D)."
Jmouse007 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cneely8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
replies from the usual suspects debunking the article as misinformation and "out of touch" in 3-2-1....


Seriously, though, this is the kind of stuff that's out there external to avsforum discussions, and let's face it - we're the geeky minority.

That's one reason I don't think that the consumer appetite is where the manufacturers and early adopters believe it is.

Surprised by the comments in the article, however. I didn't think consumers would begin walking away from 3d in the theaters this soon. It will be interesting to see what the next move will be. Hopefully not to remove 2-d options for movies in theaters.

If the slow pull away from 3D is beginning, the timing is interesting, because I keep seeing folks post that the historical big 3d pushes lasted about 18 months from start to abondonment. By the time the smoke clears, that timing may be accurate.
cneely8 is offline  
post #3 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 06:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 101
The real test for Shrek is how the 3D version sells compared to the previous Shrek movies - not how it compares to huge blockbusters like Avatar or even Alice! The fact that some in the industry are cautious shouldn't come as a surprise and if you want to write an article that 3D might fail (and it might!) then you can always find some expert to agree with you. Does the fact that a 3D animated feature, which doesn't particularly appeal to the date crowd which drives ticket sales, isn't doing as well as live action films like Avatar in 3D really surprise anyone?
Deja Vu is offline  
post #4 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cneely8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Does the fact that a 3D animated feature, which doesn't particularly appeal to the date crowd which drives ticket sales, isn't doing as well as live action films like Avatar in 3D really surprise anyone?

Does Avatar really count as live action? Seems like a good portion of every frame is animated cartoon (sorry, "CGI"), not real people and real stuff.
cneely8 is offline  
post #5 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 07:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneely8 View Post

replies from the usual suspects debunking the article as misinformation and "out of touch" in 3-2-1....


Seriously, though, this is the kind of stuff that's out there external to avsforum discussions, and let's face it - we're the geeky minority.

That's one reason I don't think that the consumer appetite is where the manufacturers and early adopters believe it is.

Surprised by the comments in the article, however. I didn't think consumers would begin walking away from 3d in the theaters this soon. It will be interesting to see what the next move will be. Hopefully not to remove 2-d options for movies in theaters.

If the slow pull away from 3D is beginning, the timing is interesting, because I keep seeing folks post that the historical big 3d pushes lasted about 18 months from start to abondonment. By the time the smoke clears, that timing may be accurate.

I've read TVPredictions for a long time. Swanni made his prediction that 3D would fail right at the beginning and he's consistently made arguments against it.

Talk about "the usual suspects." Swanni's been a 3D basher from day one. It was almost funny to read his 3D-will-fail articles, then see reference after reference in his own pieces about new 3D developments. I also remember Fox execs holding out against HDTV, claiming it had little value or that their digital SD was just as good.

I won't be drawn into yet another protracted, meaningless argument in which people take sides on whether 3D TV will make it in the marketplace. Two years from now, we'll know a lot more. Right now, I'm basking in the prospect of a 3D future.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #6 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 07:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 10,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 210 Post(s)
Liked: 609
How long will it take for Lee Stewart to weigh in on this thread ..??

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is offline  
post #7 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 11:02 AM
Member
 
LeeDee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
According to that article:
  1. The BBC isn't going to implement 3D until they learn more
  2. The CEO of CBS wasn't "knocked out" by 2D to 3D conversions of old Star Trek TV shows
  3. Shrek isn't doing as wall as Alice or Avitar

3D is doomed I tell ya...DOOMED!
LeeDee is offline  
post #8 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeDee View Post

According to that article:
  1. The BBC isn't going to implement 3D until they learn more
  2. The CEO of CBS wasn't "knocked out" by 2D to 3D conversions of old Star Trek TV shows
  3. Shrek isn't doing as wall as Alice or Avitar
3D is doomed I tell ya...DOOMED!


Has anyone seen Shrek 3?

3D or not, Shrek 3 was so boring, it's reason enough to be wary of a Shrek 4.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #9 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeDee View Post

According to that article:
  1. The BBC isn't going to implement 3D until they learn more
  2. The CEO of CBS wasn't "knocked out" by 2D to 3D conversions of old Star Trek TV shows
  3. Shrek isn't doing as wall as Alice or Avitar

3D is doomed I tell ya...DOOMED!

That pretty much sums it up!
Deja Vu is offline  
post #10 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
LOL! Has the BBC even started broadcasting HD OTA yet? If so when did they start? A few months ago? The USA has been doing it since Q4 1998.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #11 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 02:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
philnerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It amazes me that industry "experts" are incapable of separating format from content. Shrek isn't doing as well as Alice or Avatar, so its the 3D that's the problem? Really? Has nothing to do with the horrible reviews and consumer reaction that Shrek 3 had? No chance at all that the franchise might just be burned out?

I assume that studio execs honestly do believe that patching "3D" on anything automatically guarantees a $300M box office.
philnerd is offline  
post #12 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Swanni's been a 3D basher from day one.

Poor Swanni! What would you do in his place? Become a 3D cheerleader? That wouldn't be very interesting, and he's a critic, who needs to keep his distance from where the big money is going.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #13 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 85
When a network executive reads a review that says some show is "dull", or that "both the plot and characters are two dimensional", the solutions should not be 'turn up the BRIGHTNESS' and 'film in 3D'.

I've lost track of the number of TV shows and movies I've seen with great special effects, but which nonetheless I counted as a dreadful experience (Starship Troopers...?! I love watching the [CGI] BUGS . . . but the movie is a flop! If the movie was re-rendered in 3D, I have no doubt that the bugs would be fabulous . . . and that the movie would still be dreadful!)

Making financial and artistic failures in 3D will simply be a more expensive exercise than making the same mistake in 2D. So I'm inclined to agree that a slower thoughtful evolution into 3D (rather than a panicked instantaneous 100% transition) is more likely to result in better 3D and 2D products, plus more satisfied content providers and consumers...

But that's a result of my personal preferences, so I expect there will be differing opinions...?!

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #14 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

When a network executive reads a review that says some show is "dull", or that "both the plot and characters are two dimensional", the solutions should not be 'turn up the BRIGHTNESS' and 'film in 3D'.

I've lost track of the number of TV shows and movies I've seen with great special effects, but which nonetheless I counted as a dreadful experience (Starship Troopers...?! I love watching the [CGI] BUGS . . . but the movie is a flop! If the movie was re-rendered in 3D, I have no doubt that the bugs would be fabulous . . . and that the movie would still be dreadful!)

Making financial and artistic failures in 3D will simply be a more expensive exercise than making the same mistake in 2D.

I agree with this. The people on this forum who are breathlessly anticipating 3D seem more interested in the technology than content. I think they have it backwards: 3D will succeed only if there's interesting content that happens to be in 3D, instead of "if it's in 3D, it's interesting". There's NO guarantee that 3D material will be something that people want to watch, and Shrek is a good example.
RobertR is offline  
post #15 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 06:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I agree with this. The people on this forum who are breathlessly anticipating 3D seem more interested in the technology than content. I think they have it backwards: 3D will succeed only if there's interesting content that happens to be in 3D, instead of "if it's in 3D, it's interesting". There's NO guarantee that 3D material will be something that people want to watch, and Shrek is a good example.

Ridiculous. As one who those people who "breathlessly anticipates," I want good 3D content. However, since there's such a dearth of 3D right now, I'll take what I can get. I have a real passion for 3D and its future. That doesn't make me stupid. I can still tell the difference between good and bad storytelling.

The same was true for HDTV. When content was extremely limited at the rollout, I watched programming I'd think about three times before watching today, simply because there was so little available.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #16 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Ridiculous. As one who those people who "breathlessly anticipates," I want good 3D content. However, since there's such a dearth of 3D right now, I'll take what I can get. I have a real passion for 3D and its future. That doesn't make me stupid. I can still tell the difference between good and bad storytelling.

No one said you were stupid, or that you can't tell the difference between good and bad storytelling, only that you're quite willing to let such considerations take a back seat to the technology. Your post tends to confirm that. On another forum, I saw someone post that he'll be "forced" to buy the latest Shrek, even though he expects it's a godawful movie, simply because he just got a new 3D TV. That further reinforces my point--buying a lousy movie because of the technology.
RobertR is offline  
post #17 of 75 Old 05-28-2010, 08:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

No one said you were stupid, or that you can't tell the difference between good and bad storytelling, only that you're quite willing to let such considerations take a back seat to the technology. Your post tends to confirm that. On another forum, I saw someone post that he'll be "forced" to buy the latest Shrek, even though he expects it's a godawful movie, simply because he just got a new 3D TV. That further reinforces my point--buying a lousy movie because of the technology.

You're making a statement of the obvious (people should want good 3D films) and generalizing that people who are passionate about 3D like the technology more than the quality of the content. That's absurd. So what if I watch every 3D movie that's released in the next two years, regardless of content. Your comment would still be meaningless. In ten years, when dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of brilliant 3D films and television shows have been made, and I've bought and watched them all, regardless of content or quality, then I'd be more understanding of a comment like yours. I'd say, yes, I probably like 3D for the sake of 3D. I'm an indiscriminate boob, incapable of telling the difference between a meaningfully told story and one where I duck when I see knives being thrown at me.

I see enormous potential in 3D - to enhance storytelling and intensify my emotional reactions to intimate moments. So what if not a lot of that has happened yet? So what if I'm willing to watch just about anything in 3D until more serious filmmakers begin to discover 3D's potential, and use it to tell stories in ways we've never seen before?

You think you understand my motivation for watching 3D content? You think that because I'm willing to watch "lesser" 3D movies, it means I love 3D for the sake of 3D? I've watched lots of bad color films, and bad surround sound films, and bad black and white films. I learned from all of them - what doesn't work as well as what does. Does that mean that I like color for the sake of color, or that I like films because they use long tracking shots, regardless of content? As long as 3D content is limited, I'll probably watch every 3D film I can get my hands on. Along the way, I'll learn a lot about what good 3D is, and I'll be able to place its value as a filmmaking tool into perspective, alongside every other filmmaking tool I know about.

Now that the rant is over, I'll say that I suspect you and I may not be that far apart in our thinking. Your comment just sounded like too broad a condemnation of 3D aficionados. I happen to believe that 3D deserves a place as high up on the storytelling ladder as color, surround sound and high definition television. As such, I didn't like what sounded like a blanket characterization. Regardless, it's always good to engage people this way. Articulating these sorts of things clarifies them in my own mind.

So, thanks.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #18 of 75 Old 05-29-2010, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

You're making a statement of the obvious (people should want good 3D films) and generalizing that people who are passionate about 3D like the technology more than the quality of the content. That's absurd. So what if I watch every 3D movie that's released in the next two years, regardless of content. Your comment would still be meaningless. In ten years, when dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of brilliant 3D films and television shows have been made, and I've bought and watched them all, regardless of content or quality, then I'd be more understanding of a comment like yours. I'd say, yes, I probably like 3D for the sake of 3D. I'm an indiscriminate boob, incapable of telling the difference between a meaningfully told story and one where I duck when I see knives being thrown at me.

I see enormous potential in 3D - to enhance storytelling and intensify my emotional reactions to intimate moments. So what if not a lot of that has happened yet? So what if I'm willing to watch just about anything in 3D until more serious filmmakers begin to discover 3D's potential, and use it to tell stories in ways we've never seen before?

You think you understand my motivation for watching 3D content? You think that because I'm willing to watch "lesser" 3D movies, it means I love 3D for the sake of 3D? I've watched lots of bad color films, and bad surround sound films, and bad black and white films. I learned from all of them - what doesn't work as well as what does. Does that mean that I like color for the sake of color, or that I like films because they use long tracking shots, regardless of content? As long as 3D content is limited, I'll probably watch every 3D film I can get my hands on. Along the way, I'll learn a lot about what good 3D is, and I'll be able to place its value as a filmmaking tool into perspective, alongside every other filmmaking tool I know about.

Now that the rant is over, I'll say that I suspect you and I may not be that far apart in our thinking. Your comment just sounded like too broad a condemnation of 3D aficionados. I happen to believe that 3D deserves a place as high up on the storytelling ladder as color, surround sound and high definition television. As such, I didn't like what sounded like a blanket characterization. Regardless, it's always good to engage people this way. Articulating these sorts of things clarifies them in my own mind.

So, thanks.


+1 Fantastic post and I agree 100%
KLee is offline  
post #19 of 75 Old 05-29-2010, 05:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
subavision212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 25
For what it's worth, I remember reading that after Alfred Hitchcock saw Dial M for Murder after shooting it in 3D (which wasn't his choice), he only allowed a few viewings of the 3D print be shown to the public and he quickly released his preferred flat version. Makes you wonder about the whole process.

subavision212 is offline  
post #20 of 75 Old 05-29-2010, 09:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
By the time the film was released, the process was already pooped out. However, 3-D prints were available for any theater that wanted to book them. It's true that Hitchcock wasn't thrilled with the limitations of the camera system, but he didn't refuse to let the film be released that way.

When the 3-D version was finally given wide exposure in the early 80s, many mainstream critics were quite impressed.

As for 3-D TV, no one expects the industry to switch over in a big way anyway. A few specials, sporting events, and movies are fine. I don't expect or necessarily want to see "Days of our Lives" in 3-D anytime soon. It's just a part of the mix, an option. If Blu-rays (or 3-D TV showings) of the backlog of 3-D features were released, that's enough content for me right there. It's probably a good thing that every network isn't going to go crazy with it.
Steve P. is offline  
post #21 of 75 Old 05-30-2010, 05:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by subavision212 View Post

For what it's worth, I remember reading that after Alfred Hitchcock saw Dial M for Murder after shooting it in 3D (which wasn't his choice), he only allowed a few viewings of the 3D print be shown to the public and he quickly released his preferred flat version. Makes you wonder about the whole process.

?

The reason 'Dial M For Murder' wasn't released in 3D was because the ship had already sailed on 3D for film, at that time. Hitchcock had nothing to do with the decision to release in 2D; it was entirely a studio decision.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #22 of 75 Old 05-30-2010, 09:41 PM
rto
AVS Special Member
 
rto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Shenandoah Valley VA
Posts: 3,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If polls on AVS indicating that a significant majority of AV enthusiasts just aren't all that enthused about 3D are reflected similarly elsewhere, perhaps industry folks are beginning to take note.
rto is offline  
post #23 of 75 Old 05-31-2010, 06:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cneely8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

If polls on AVS indicating that a significant majority of AV enthusiasts just aren't all that enthused about 3D are reflected similarly elsewhere, perhaps industry folks are beginning to take note.

When I non-scientifically scan non-avs articles and such (especially the comments section) I see a [i]worse[i] outlook than on AVS. Lots of comments neutral to negative on 3D, seemingly more than the 60% unfavorable avs poll.

Something in consumer sentiment seems to have changed in the past few months, to the negative side.

When I ask people I know anecdotally what they think, they say it's neat once in a while at the movies, are sick of the upcharge, and had headaches, and have no desire to wear glasses in the home, buy $150 glasses, watch it in the home, or buy a new tv when they just bought one in the past couple of years. (Remember that the old CRT TV's were like an every 10+ year purchase and cost much less)
cneely8 is offline  
post #24 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 05:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
wired1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Seems to me that the opinion of the masses (ie. not people on AVS) is that of when ANY new tech hits the market.

Forget going WAY back. Just go a few years back when BD and HD DVD were announced and people were saying "WAIT! I have to buy a NEW DVD PLAYER!?!? Then pay like $40 a movie when the DVD is $10!?!?"

Same argument, different product.

I am not a 3D cheerleader. I still say selling it on TVs less than 60 inches is pointless unless you are sitting 2.5 feet from it

But, I love my new Samsung, it has a wonderful picture, and the 3D is bonus!

and btw... it works SUPER well. Monsters vs. Aliens is mindblowing, to me and all I have shown it to.

And my wife, who "hates 3D" and "always gets a headache" loves it at home... I am starting to think the Active Glasses with their (seemingly) much clearer image cause a lot less eye strain (if any for me) at home as compared to theaters and passive glasses.

Anyway, this could go on and on all day. Point is, 3D will continue to be a feature on TVs. It may go mainstream, and I think it will. But what do I know

Play nice. It's just an online forum :)
wired1 is offline  
post #25 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 09:24 AM
Member
 
Taffy Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

If polls on AVS indicating that a significant majority of AV enthusiasts just aren't all that enthused about 3D are reflected similarly elsewhere, perhaps industry folks are beginning to take note.

I'd say terrific 3D box office revenues are a much more reliable indicator of 3D's popularity than some internet polls wouldn't you say??
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #26 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 10:48 AM
Member
 
Abilor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Joe Clark is wise.
Abilor is offline  
post #27 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 10:51 AM
Member
 
Abilor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Also, remember: Tron is coming. TRON. EFFING TRON. In Native stereoscopic format. If there wasn't another film like Avatar coming, I could see 3D petering out, but with DirecTV support, the BCS championship in 3D this January, and world cup, there's tons to be excited about. Feels like early HD days again.
Abilor is offline  
post #28 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 11:09 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

I agree with this. The people on this forum who are breathlessly anticipating 3D seem more interested in the technology than content. I think they have it backwards: 3D will succeed only if there's interesting content that happens to be in 3D, instead of "if it's in 3D, it's interesting". There's NO guarantee that 3D material will be something that people want to watch, and Shrek is a good example.

Agreed ! We know why the 3D push and that is the theaters need to fill seats however they can and manufacturers to sell sets. I see the same thing on the forum where a film is purchased as demo material for LFE. I know, I did it myself for a while. I got to the point where the demos were still crap (not all of course) and I got on with watchng films that were worth watching irresepective of the tansfer or LFE.

I see this in 3D unfortunately, but I believe that it can only go so far to draw and at some point we need to get good scripts.

3D will produce the desired effect temporarily for theaters IMO.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #29 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 11:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
JMartinko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: The Rockies
Posts: 3,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wired1 View Post

......

I am not a 3D cheerleader. I still say selling it on TVs less than 60 inches is pointless unless you are sitting 2.5 feet from it

........Anyway, this could go on and on all day. Point is, 3D will continue to be a feature on TVs. It may go mainstream, and I think it will. But what do I know

BINGO!

I agree completely. I am very interested in 3D PJ capability as I am in the process of starting a home custom theater installation on a 120" or so screen. For me it makes sense to consider the new capability with my PJ. But to be honest, I have seen some demos on the Samsung (about a 46 inch screen or so) and was not impressed enough that I would buy a screen that size with 3D. It certainly wasn't impressive enough at that scale to make me run out an buy one.

It may still go mainstream simply because on the smaller screens it is not an expensive add-on, and typically 3D capability would likely mean an improved 2D picture. I know in terms of a PJ, I am interested in an LED PJ (Runco is in the lead), but I am waiting to see what they produce in a 3D LED as much as anything just to see if the 2D image is a lot brighter than existing machines. To me the added 2D brightness I would expect from a 3D PJ is worth at least as much as the 3D capability.

John M
JMartinko is offline  
post #30 of 75 Old 06-02-2010, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by wired1 View Post

I am not a 3D cheerleader. I still say selling it on TVs less than 60 inches is pointless unless you are sitting 2.5 feet from it

The Optimum Viewing Distance for a 1080 60" screen is about 94" (it's a little over 3 times the screen height, regardless of the screen size) . . . but if you wait long enough for HDTV4 (4320p) displays--either 2D or 3D--the preferred viewing distance for a 4320p 60" screen [according to NHK] is 75% of the screen height, i.e., about 2 feet (based on line resolution). Conveniently, this also provides the (approx) 100 degree 'side-to-side' immersion view which you (presumably) wished to produce by suggesting sitting excessively close to the 1080 60" screen...?!

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off