Why 3D TV Went From CES Darling to Consumer Reject - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 01:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Why 3D TV Went From CES Darling to Consumer Reject

3D television was heralded as the breakthrough technology of the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show. Hot on the heels of James Cameron's eye-opening Avatar, 3D HDTVs were everywhere on the show floor.

One year later, at CES 2011, 3D was back again this time iterating. We saw bigger 3D HDTVs, 3D displays that didn't require special glasses, and camcorders that captured 3D content.

But where is 3D now? It's certainly not showing up big on our CES 2012 radar, and now looks like over-hyped technology in hindsight especially to those of us who always thought 3D's natural home was in the movie theater, not the living room.

Indeed, a variety of obstacles high prices, a lack of 3D content, and uncomfortable viewing experiences have kept 3D TV adoption in the single digits nationwide. Manufacturers and content providers are working to address these issues, but one has to wonder if 3D was nothing but a flash in the CES pan a technology story rather than anything consumers actually wanted.

In 2010, consumers purchased a paltry 1.1 million 3D TV units, and although sales have grown in the two years since, the widespread 3D fervor that TV manufacturers were anticipating never took root.

According to a January Display Search report, just more than 23 million 3D TVs were shipped in 2011 worldwide, with only 3.6 million shipped in the U.S.

Display Search analyst Paul Gagnon says that U.S. household penetration for 3D TVs is at about 3 percent. To be fair, 3D TVs have only been available for sale in a significant way for about 18 months, so that's why the penetration is so low, Gagnon says. That said, it's still lower than what many in the industry had hoped for.

Markets like China and western Europe are seeing far more enthusiasm for 3D TV than in North America, but worldwide adoption is still likely less than 2 percent.

So what's to blame?

The content, for one.

We have disappointed our audience multiple times now, and because of that I think there is genuine distrust whereas a year and a half ago, there was genuine excitement, enthusiasm and reward for the first group of 3D films that actually delivered a quality experience, Dreamworks animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

After Avatar, a string of unsuccessful, rushed-to-market 3D flicks we're looking at you, Clash of the Titans zoomed to theaters hoping to cash in on the craze. Moviegoers were left with a bad taste in their mouths (and oftentimes headaches, too, as 3D viewing can cause eyestrain). Since then, better-quality 3D films like Tron: Legacy, and, more recently, Tin Tin and Hugo, have tried to improve 3D's image. Meanwhile, small-screen content providers have branched out to provide live and on-demand 3D offerings.

Currently, there are 55 3D channels worldwide, including ESPN 3-D. Another 35 channels offer 3D content on-demand.

If content and a disillusioned audience are the biggest problem, that's bad news for manufacturers: They have zero control over the content side of the equation.

To this end, 3D TV manufacturers are doing whatever they can to make the 3D viewing experience as pleasing and trouble-free as possible. This includes doing away with uncomfortable, unattractive 3D glasses, which have also been cited in studies as barriers to consumer adoption. LG, for one, has announced it's making 3D glasses that are lighter and more stylish.

But even handsome 3D specs can't mitigate the headaches and fatigue suffered by some viewers of 3D content, or the high prices of 3D TVs.

So, yes, 3D TVs are expensive. And they can cause headaches. And they aren't supported by a lot of quality content. All of which begs the question: Who's buying these things at all?

The existing sales, however paltry, can be attributed to consumer desire to purchase high-end TVs. Consumers don't really want 3D specifically, but if they want that priciest, top-of-the-line unit, they'll receive 3D capability whether they like it or not. Sometimes consumers are even unaware [that they're getting a 3D set] at the time of purchase, Futuresource Consulting's Fiona Hoy said.

Whatever the reason for purchase, the most recent studies indicate consumers are slowly warming up to 3D. An October report from the Digital Entertainment Group found that the majority of 3D TV owners say the experience is positive: 88 percent of those surveyed rated 3D picture quality positively, and 85 percent of those 3D TV owners prefer to watch more than half of their programming in 3D.

As prices come down, more content becomes available, and 3D glasses improve (or are replaced by glasses-free technology), 3D TV adoption will only increase. Whether we reach the near 50 percent adoption rates that have been projected for 2014 and 2015 is yet to be seen. But whether you like it or not, 3D does not appear to be in its death throes just yet.

Yes, we'll see new 3D displays and accessories at CES next week, but you can rest assured the manufacturers' over-reaching hype campaigns are over.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...-d-technology/
PaulGo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I feel the main reason for 3D not taking off in the US is the way they displays for 3D were set up and the lack of content.

In most locations the glasses were broken of the setup was not working properly which led people to believe it was trouble prone technology.

Instead of making hot content such as Avatar 3D available for purchase the content was locked up in exclusive deals which dampened the enthusiasm to purchase an expensive product where very little content was available.
PaulGo is offline  
post #3 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 04:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
almostinsane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
After purchasing my Samsung 3DTV almost 2 years ago I can safely say that I haven't viewed a 3D movie in 6 months or so and have lost all interest. It was cool and interesting at first but is more just 'meh' now for me.
almostinsane is offline  
post #4 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,858
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I like to watch just about everything converted to 3D. It is the next step closer to realism. Life is 3D, so should TV. Put a patch over one eye, that's 2D TV. Hopefully all movies will become 3D. "War Horse" would have been even better in 3D.
Bill is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
more than just lack of content. it's also lack of uniformity in equipment and standards.

understanding 3D to most consumers is like understanding LINUX or ESX... the GUI is great... what's behind it, the command lines... are not so easy.

still when everything is right... at 55 inches... it's much too small... not immersive.
if feel like i'm watching 3D in a box... ie a glorified childhood 'viewmaster' with motion.

it's not until you get 80+ inches that it gets interesting... and that makes for a very heavy and expensive TV.

i see 3D's biggest growth to be the home theater pj market.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Member
 
pixel67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Greed, Content, and compatibility... And combinations of all three combined with consumers having less free cash.

1. The greed of studios for taking bad 2d movies and converting them to horribly fake 3d nausea inducing movies, turning off consumers to invest.
2. The continued greed of studios for charging 2-3 times more for a 3d bluray, even for the crappy conversions.
3. The complete lack of abundant quality content. People need a compelling reason to spend the extra money.
4. The greed of certain companies to try and monopolize their own version of 3d at the expense of compatibility with others in the industry.

Its not like the average joe can just go out and buy only a 3d tv, nope... You also need a shiney new 3d bluray player, new 3d bluray content at artificially inflated prices, along with an HDMI 1.4 compatible amplifier, a whole mess of new cables, a compatible cable/satelite set top box, and additional glasses so the entire family can watch. Add all of this up and take into account that a high percentage of homes just finished upgrading to an HDTV, and you are left with people having to make the decision of when is the best time to ride the technology curve... And likely choosing to wait .
pixel67 is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old 01-05-2012, 07:13 PM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
The content is there, U.S. consumer acceptance is not. The ball dropped, when pay to view tv providers only are offering limited content, and if they are, it is buried in a way that you can not find it on their OnDemand listings.

Take ATT's UVerse for example. There are three ways to search for content in their online libraries for the Uverse sytem, but if you do not know how, you fuss and give up due to it is to the point that it is not worth it.

Look how long Blu-Ray has taken to be adopted. One reason is that people still have good working dvd players, and until those die, then they may move up, but until then they won't. Same with going from tube sets to flat screens.

Now for granted, manufacturers started to concentrate more in the 2011 3rd quarter to finally dissolving the 2D only capable stock and moving up to 3D capable, which this year you should hopefully see no 2D, with the exception of the very low end budget systems. Even then, give them another year and they should also be able to catch up.
gregzoll is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old 01-06-2012, 05:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think people must just need to come to my house to see it.

Most of the people that have attended my 3D screenings, have implmented 3D at their own homes.

The linked article really doesn't say anything, and has no purpose / point to it that I can find.

By most sources I have read? 3D content sales are beating projections, but it doesn't even mention that.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #9 of 49 Old 01-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Senior Member
 
NSX1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I could not even convince my cousin who recently bought a new 65" Sharp TV to buy a 3D set. Excuses included wife gets headaches(she has one bad eye),wait for technology to standardise, too expensive, they don't watch much TV, too complicated. With the new TV he complained that the people were too wide and I told him to upgrade to high definition cable which he did to solve the problem. He was an electrical engineer but is confused by new technology so the "average consumer" may have similar problems.

As for myself I have embraced my childhood love for 3D and waited patiently for my old 73" 3D ready Mitsubishi to finally get 3D material and the adaptor. Now I enjoy 3D fully on my 92" DLP. My point is even if the majority does not embrace 3D there are enough of us who do to ensure its survival and growth.
NSX1992 is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old 01-06-2012, 11:33 AM
 
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
The launch of 3DTV was never looked at like all the other launches of TV formats (B&W, Color and HDTV). They were acknowledged marathons - years to get accepted and acclimated. 3DTV on the other hand has been treated as a sprint - a 100 yd dash. Greed was placed before promoting adoption and still is.

3DTV = a one legged man in an a$$ kicking contest.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old 01-06-2012, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post

But where is 3D now? It’s certainly not showing up big on our CES 2012 radar, and now looks like over-hyped technology in hindsight — especially to those of us who always thought 3D’s natural home was in the movie theater, not the living room.

Another one of those "told-you-so" media types, that wants something to fail that they don't like.

I've read the same stuff for decades now. Just replace 3D with DVD, Blu Ray, or HDTV. Technology always moves forward, while the doomsdayers get left behind.

I do realize there will never be 100% acceptance due to some individuals vision issues, headaches, etc. What I don't understand is why so many are vocal about wanting 3D to fail? That seems to be a very negative, selfish, way to look at the world. "I don't like like it, so I don't want anyone to have it!"
adpayne is offline  
post #12 of 49 Old 01-06-2012, 12:23 PM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I think people must just need to come to my house to see it.

Most of the people that have attended my 3D screenings, have implmented 3D at their own homes.

The linked article really doesn't say anything, and has no purpose / point to it that I can find.

By most sources I have read? 3D content sales are beating projections, but it doesn't even mention that.

That is only because you have stores pushing them, due to most have exhausted what 2D stock they had. Most stores have little to non is 2D sets.
gregzoll is offline  
post #13 of 49 Old 01-07-2012, 07:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

[snip]...still when everything is right... at 55 inches... it's much too small... not immersive.
if feel like i'm watching 3D in a box... ie a glorified childhood 'viewmaster' with motion.

it's not until you get 80+ inches that it gets interesting... and that makes for a very heavy and expensive TV...

A Mitsubishi 82" 3D DLP can be found on sale for under $2000 on a regular basis, which is less than you would typically pay for a 65" LED or plasma, and it's under 135 lb. Someone in another forum paid around $1750 delivered for one just two days ago.

All things are relative, however.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #14 of 49 Old 01-08-2012, 05:36 AM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Came across this interesting article about the CES curse. http://www.pantagraph.com/business/t...9bb2963f4.html The one part that I disagree with is about the netbooks, since they are a whole lot more convenient to use on the go. 3D tv is going to have to take a whole lot more marketing here in the U.S. to get people to really adopt it, since the U.S. citizen is not really as techno fascinated as the Asian culture is.

There is maybe 1 to 2 percent of the population that adopts newer technologies, and about 45% that use it on a daily basis, both in the home and at work. The numbers are not there, and not like expectations were when computers, dvd players, blu-ray players started to hit the market, and companies did not look at how to better market the product as a tool vs a gadget or toy.
gregzoll is offline  
post #15 of 49 Old 01-08-2012, 08:52 PM
Newbie
 
Codacious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe "consumer reject" is a bad choice of words and a false statement based on an opinion... not facts.
I just received a Vizio to use as a comp monitor and picked up a copy of "A Christmas Carol" in 3D since all 4 glasses and BR player came as a package. Family (and I) was pretty happy with the quality.
This shouldn't imply that I am going to dump my theater setup for cheap and run out to buy a new one, but when the time comes to do so you can bet "3D Compatible" will be one of the many options on the checklist of the one I pick.
Codacious is offline  
post #16 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 02:26 AM
 
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
Look at all the progress we have made . . .







Lee Stewart is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 02:54 AM
 
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
NPD: Xmas 3DTV Unit Sales Skyrocket 100%

Quote:


Unit sales of 3DTVs increased more than 100% during the five-week winter retail holiday period ending Dec. 24, according to new data from The NPD Group. While 3D movies remain a mainstay at the box office, 3D consumption in the home has been sluggish due in part to premium prices on 3DTVs, limited content availability and requisite eyewear, among other issues.

That said, 3DTVs accounted for one in five dollars spent on TVs during the holidays – underscored by the fact that sales of big screen TVs, 50 inches or bigger, increased more than 32%. One in six flat panel TVs sold were above 50 inches, with screen size considered a prerequisite for 3D viewing

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3d/...cket-100-26053
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #18 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 09:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
What I don't understand is what created the expectation that it ever would take off like that in the first place. It was always going to be a slow adoption.

There's a lot of people who seem to want it to fail...on the Internet. I've literally never met a 3D hater IRL.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Member
 
CureMode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It can be a hard sell for those not as enthusiastic about it. I've wanted a 3D tv for 25 years, since I first saw of all things Captain EO at WDW. It was the first real 3D I had seen on a big screen. I had the Sega Master System with the 3D glasses and countless other 3D gimmicky technologies over the years. When the 3DTVs first came out at a reasonable price I wanted to get one but my wife actually can't stand 3D. I was a bit put off by the active technology myself, but I jumped in as soon as the passives came down to under $1500. I was glad I waited because I have two kids, and the active glasses would not have lasted a week in my house. There is still a complete lack of understanding from the average consumer, between the two technologies and the technology itself. My brother in law actually asked if it could also view 2D programs or if it was 3D only. He was also the one who asked if a Bluray player could play DVDs. Those who know what it is and see the benefits for gaming and viewing Bluray 3D titles appreciate it, but I think the average consumer hasn't got a clue. I hope that changes and the content keeps expanding, because I love it. It has enhanced my gaming experience immensely and getting to see true 3D titles on Bluray is a dream come true for me. Now if they would just release Captain EO, Jaws 3D, Space Hunter and all the other "Classic" 3D titles on Bluray 3D I would be the first online to buy them!!!

Thank You
Chris Feehan
501st\ECG - TK6744
http://www.curemode.com
CureMode is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 09:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Yeah, when I told my wife I wanted a 3DTV, she didn't know it was just a regular TV as well.

Still haven't gotten much use out of the feature. I wanted it mainly for gaming, but the current offerings on that front are mostly disappointing.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #21 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 10:14 AM
Member
 
CureMode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
On the Xbox 360 they are not very good, I have Halo Anniversary and Gears of War 3. Halo is frame packed, Gears is SBS, and Halo looks much better. On the PS3 there are more titles that appeal to me and most are frame packed. I purchased a PS3 just because I knew it had more, better quality 3D games than the 360. Wipeout HD/Fury and GT5 look amazing, and Socom 4, KillZone 3, and Resistance 3 are all PS3 exclusives. The real stand out for me was Crysis 2, it looks gorgeous on the PS3, and they recently released Crysis 1 as a $19.99 PSN download as a bonus. They are both also available for the XBOX 360, but I think they are SBS versions. I can't wait to try Uncharted 3 as well, that is also a PS3 exclusive title. You can see a pretty complete 3D list for both systems at...

http://www.3dtested.com/

That is how I found out about Crysis 1 being available in 3D, PSN stupidly never listed it as a 3D Game title in the PlayStation Store.

Thank You
Chris Feehan
501st\ECG - TK6744
http://www.curemode.com
CureMode is offline  
post #22 of 49 Old 01-09-2012, 10:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
The postprocessing 3D on games like crysis and gears just looks terrible to my eyes, about as good as the awful 2D-3D conversions they do with the movies.

The true stereoscopic stuff you see more often on PS3 looks much better, but brings heavy resolution and performance drops with it.

Most of it just makes me want the next gen of consoles which can hopefully do it right.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #23 of 49 Old 01-10-2012, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Norwood MA
Posts: 5,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

There's a lot of people who seem to want it to fail...on the Internet. I've literally never met a 3D hater IRL.


Well, we haven't met in real life, but I actually do HATE 3D. With a passion. Instead of engrossing me further into a story, I feel it puts an obstacle between me and the screen. This is true in the theater as well as in the home. I may be the only person on the planet who next Christmastime will be seeking out the 2D version of the Hobbit.

I don't actively avoid 3D displays, I just don't use the 3D features. I don't have any desire to see the format go away as I know a lot of people enjoy it, I just want to ensure that 2D will always be available, which I have no doubt it will.

I have seen many different 3D demos, and universally I don't like it. The majority of what I have seen doesn't even really look 3D, it just looks like multiple layers of flat images staged in front of each other.
davdev is offline  
post #24 of 49 Old 01-10-2012, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
d3code's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the Major problem is glasses.

i hate glasses. i use them for 3D experience. but everybody you hear talking simply want 3D without glasses.

now Toshiba is on the right way. but still it aint good enough yet and to expensive.
d3code is offline  
post #25 of 49 Old 01-10-2012, 09:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by davdev View Post

Well, we haven't met in real life, but I actually do HATE 3D. With a passion. Instead of engrossing me further into a story, I feel it puts an obstacle between me and the screen. This is true in the theater as well as in the home. I may be the only person on the planet who next Christmastime will be seeking out the 2D version of the Hobbit.

I don't actively avoid 3D displays, I just don't use the 3D features. I don't have any desire to see the format go away as I know a lot of people enjoy it, I just want to ensure that 2D will always be available, which I have no doubt it will.

I have seen many different 3D demos, and universally I don't like it. The majority of what I have seen doesn't even really look 3D, it just looks like multiple layers of flat images staged in front of each other.

I don't usually like the demos either, but 3Ds potential is that it can make it look at if your standing IN THE DAMN SCENE. I know that because i play 3D games, which are fully adjustable on the fly to your viewing distance, FoV and eye-to-eye distance. Movies aren't that way unfortunately, but i've seen that they're getting better. They've got to solve the brightness issue and crosstalk, among others, because they reduce clarity, which is a key component to good 3D. If you have a 46" or similar sized screen, i'd invite you to watch my videos in my signature in 3D and see what ideal 3D looks like (not the content, but the effect). I'd love to hear what you think if you are able to watch it properly.
tory40 is offline  
post #26 of 49 Old 01-12-2012, 08:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Norwood MA
Posts: 5,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

I don't usually like the demos either, but 3Ds potential is that it can make it look at if your standing IN THE DAMN SCENE. I know that because i play 3D games, which are fully adjustable on the fly to your viewing distance, FoV and eye-to-eye distance. Movies aren't that way unfortunately, but i've seen that they're getting better. They've got to solve the brightness issue and crosstalk, among others, because they reduce clarity, which is a key component to good 3D. If you have a 46" or similar sized screen, i'd invite you to watch my videos in my signature in 3D and see what ideal 3D looks like (not the content, but the effect). I'd love to hear what you think if you are able to watch it properly.

I don't game, so that doesn't do much for me.

As for movies, I find the effect takes me out of the movie, not put me in it.
davdev is offline  
post #27 of 49 Old 01-12-2012, 08:44 AM
Member
 
korygrandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look at how long it took people to adopt to Digital with all these converter boxes. And the govt had a hand in that project.

I think without standardization of technologies and best practices 3D will struggle to gain market attraction.

Plus. we're in a recession...people who just upgraded there analog TV's to Digital do not want to rush out and upgrade to yet another TV. (Unless the govt forces us to, then we have no choice).

just my rational .02 from a consumer standpoint.
korygrandy is offline  
post #28 of 49 Old 01-12-2012, 11:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by davdev View Post


I don't game, so that doesn't do much for me.

As for movies, I find the effect takes me out of the movie, not put me in it.

I'd wager there's a very strong correlation between being a gamer and liking 3D.

When I go out to movies with friends, we rarely want to pay the extra for 3D, especially after being burned by so many sh*t conversions. And just paying $15 in general for a ticket leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It had better be spectacular for that price.

Whenever I bring any of the same people over and show them some 3D games - instantly blown away. Even if most of us agree the system can't really handle it, there's that sense that it's the next big thing.

Despite CGI effects and surround sound, at 24fps, even today's movies feel like ancient technology. And seemingly most moviegoers are not only fine with that, but will defend 24fps to the death. Gamers are always looking for tech to improve. I don't think there's that same expectation with film buffs.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #29 of 49 Old 01-14-2012, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by korygrandy View Post

I think without standardization of technologies and best practices 3D will struggle to gain market attraction.

3D certainly has had issues with standards but the situation is improving.

The standard for 3D active shutter glasses called Full HD 3D Glasses has several major companies supporting it. That list currently includes major CE companies such as Funai, Hitachi, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sony, and the TCL Corporation (a Chinese CE company that is the sixth largest producer of TVs in the world).

The specification for HDMI 1.4 has allowed for 1080p60 per eye 3D since it was released but HDMI chips capable of it only started being made last year. Just under a week ago the very first consumer product capable of 1080p60 per eye 3D over HDMI was released (the AMD Radeon 7970).

Though it may take years for this to become common in computer games a standard for 3D output with computer games was added in DirectX 11.1 and the first consumer product that is capable of supporting it was the AMD Radeon 7970. As such there is now a standard way to include 3D output support in computer games without using the competing 3D output standards developed by AMD and NVIDIA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Despite CGI effects and surround sound, at 24fps, even today's movies feel like ancient technology. And seemingly most moviegoers are not only fine with that, but will defend 24fps to the death. Gamers are always looking for tech to improve. I don't think there's that same expectation with film buffs.

There are some posters on AVS Forum who defend the "look" of 24 fps video but I doubt that the average person would defend it. If you could show the average person a movie scene at both 24 fps and 60 fps I personally think the vast majority of people would prefer 60 fps. In my opinion the reason most people don't complain about 24 fps video is simply because they are used to it.

I was somewhat disappointed by the fact that Peter Jackson picked 48 fps for the Hobbit movies since I think 60 fps would have been a better choice (for consumers that is) but it will be interesting to see if it could cause a change in consumer expectations for movies.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #30 of 49 Old 01-14-2012, 11:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
The hobbit is 48fps? Sweet!

I think 48fps is good enough, but it kinda screws the home user. 60fps would have been a much easier fit with current standards.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 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