More Bad 3-D News, Samsung snubs Real-D - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hughh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington TX
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Moviegoers are already rejecting 3-D, buying a smaller portion of tickets in 3-D consistently as time is passing.


Almost every BluRay player supports 3-D. The fact a 3-D capable BluRay player is at Walmart proves nothing about how many people are actually watching 3-D at home.

Yep, I got a Sony 770 Bl-ray about a rear ago. It came with a 3D movie.

I am not about to change my TV for a 3D TV anytime soon.

That does not mean I'm anti-3D. If the technique ever improves to the point where 3D is solid without glasses, shows on TV are available on 3D, and the price of the TV remain reasonable, I will most likely take the plunge.

Till then...I remain neutral.
hughh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
It would appear that my last post was mistakenly interpreted as being anti-3D like so many from folks who "just hope it goes away".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I was trying to express was that 3D in it's current forms is great for people who want it and care about it and don't mind the glasses etc., but just isn't making much impression on the average tv purchaser.

If I had the funds I'd have a Panny ST30 (already have a 3D capable PS3) and would happily wear the glasses over my prescription glasses to enjoy Avatar or play PS3 games in 3D, and would be eagerly awaiting the 3D Blu Ray release of Titanic next April.

I just don't make the mistake of assuming that because I like something the rest of the world does. If the buying public as a whole agreed with me we could walk into a Chevy dealer and buy a 2012 Corvair.

The aforementioned average tv purchaser has to be differentiated from the person who regularly attends and enjoys 3d movies in the theater and wants that experience in the home. Said average shopper's first question to me after seeing the 3D demo is almost invariably "Do I have to wear the glasses to see 3D?", hence my position that the average tv buyer would prefer not to have to wear the glasses, regardless of the fact that you must wear them in theaters. The rare 3D enthusiast will merely inquire as to whether we have the glasses in stock and how much they cost.

We have four 3D demos where I work, and at least 3 models of 3D BD players at a price point similar to Wal Mart's. Just because this is the case doesn't mean the sets are selling specifically for the 3D feature. The 3D demos have a lot of curiousity value but don't really sell sets.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #93 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 12:29 PM
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 rogo View Post

Moviegoers are already rejecting 3-D, buying a smaller portion of tickets in 3-D consistently as time is passing.

All I know is that since Avatar was released in 2009, only 4 other films have reached the magical 1 billion dollar worldwide box office receipts figure and all were strong 3D films. Wow...just look at that WW figure where 3D receipts account for usually 60% of the take and 3 of those films were released this year. I find that amazing.

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/
Quote:


Almost every BluRay player supports 3-D. The fact a 3-D capable BluRay player is at Walmart proves nothing about how many people are actually watching 3-D at home.

You're missing the point. It's enough that Walmart is selling 3D products. How mainstream can you get.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #94 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 12:56 PM
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 Steve S View Post

It would appear that my last post was mistakenly interpreted as being anti-3D like so many from folks who "just hope it goes away".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I was trying to express was that 3D in it's current forms is great for people who want it and care about it and don't mind the glasses etc., but just isn't making much impression on the average tv purchaser.

If I had the funds I'd have a Panny ST30 (already have a 3D capable PS3) and would happily wear the glasses over my prescription glasses to enjoy Avatar or play PS3 games in 3D, and would be eagerly awaiting the 3D Blu Ray release of Titanic next April.

I just don't make the mistake of assuming that because I like something the rest of the world does. If the buying public as a whole agreed with me we could walk into a Chevy dealer and buy a 2012 Corvair.

The aforementioned average tv purchaser has to be differentiated from the person who regularly attends and enjoys 3d movies in the theater and wants that experience in the home. Said average shopper's first question to me after seeing the 3D demo is almost invariably "Do I have to wear the glasses to see 3D?", hence my position that the average tv buyer would prefer not to have to wear the glasses, regardless of the fact that you must wear them in theaters. The rare 3D enthusiast will merely inquire as to whether we have the glasses in stock and how much they cost.

We have four 3D demos where I work, and at least 3 models of 3D BD players at a price point similar to Wal Mart's. Just because this is the case doesn't mean the sets are selling specifically for the 3D feature. The 3D demos have a lot of curiousity value but don't really sell sets.

Again...you leave me scratching my head.

I'm looking at my local Best Buy Sunday add. On the very front page are two HDTV sets and one is 3D. I flip over the add to the back page and a 3D Blu ray player on sale. Mind you..these are prominent front and back pages. Inside the 32 page add, 3D TVs are prominently featured. What gives? Would Best Buy allocate this much add space to draw in "rare 3D enthusiasts"?

I've been around the block a few times and that just doesn't make much sense to me.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #95 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

All I know is that since Avatar was released in 2009, only 4 other films have reached the magical 1 billion dollar worldwide box office receipts figure and all were strong 3D films. Wow...just look at that WW figure where 3D receipts account for usually 60% of the take and 3 of those films were released this year. I find that amazing.

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/
You're missing the point. It's enough that Walmart is selling 3D products. How mainstream can you get.

Just because an item is for sale at a mass market store doesn't make it mainstream. Sales of the product to a majority of buyers does, and like it or not 3D tv isn't there.

Your mention of box office receipts for 3D films is totally irrelevant to the commercial success of 3D tv.
Hollywood aims it's 3D films at it's biggest market--teenagers, who aren't buying tv sets 3D or otherwise.

You can walk into the same store that sells 10k Chevy Aveos and buy an 80k Corvette, doesn't make the Corvette mainstream.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #96 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hughh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington TX
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, we certainly can't blame the hardware for holding back 3D.

Here's CNET take on 3D:

3D on Blu-ray is the only way to get full-resolution images for each eye. Cable and satellite 3D content is handicapped by their limited bandwidth, and will therefore have softer images, likely with artifacts like jaggies (depending on many factors, not least the TV).
It is true that we are still in the early days of the 3D TV evolution, but the cable/satellite hurdles are exceedingly expensive to remedy, and are unlikely to happen with such a small installed base of 3D TVs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...-vs-broadcast/
hughh is offline  
post #97 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Irkuck, countless articles in the U.S. media have people reporting headaches and eyestrain from cinema 3-D. Countless.

Steve, I certainly didn't take your comments as anti-3-D. Just accurate.

Taffy, you're like Fox News. Selective presentation of facts doesn't make your completely irrelevant and unsupported conclusions any more accurate.

This is what actually happened with Harry Potter, as opposed to your fantastical notion that it was some sort of 3-D success:

BTIG media analyst Richard Greenfield observed that only 43 percent of the film's gross came from 3D sales (including 9 percent from IMAX). Only 34 percent of the audience chose to buy 3D tickets (28 percent for non-IMAX 3D). Greenfield surmises that if more theaters had shown the film in 2D or that the existing 2D theaters had been larger, the percentage of 3D ticket-buyers would have been even lower. "3D has collapsed in the United States," Greenfield wrote. "We expect international 3D box [office] to trend down over time to reach similar levels to the United States."


Only one third of the audience chose 3-D despite relentless promotion!

"Of this summer’s four major 3-D releases — Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Kung Fu Panda 2, Green Lantern, and Cars 2 — not a single one managed to earn more than half of its opening-weekend grosses from 3-D. "

The good news? Shlock still performs decently in 3-D.
"60 percent of Transformers 3‘s domestic opening-weekend grosses came from 3-D."

That's still under half the tickets sold!

"...compare that with the whopping 85 percent of Avatar’s box-office total hauled in by 3-D and you can see why enthusiasm for the format, once heralded as cinema’s biggest revolution since the advent of talkies, has been cooling over the last several months from Wall Street to the executive suites of Hollywood."

More good(fella) news for 3-D..

"But little noticed in those numbers was the fact that Hugo earned 75% of its revenue from 3-D screens. The movie, which is Scorsese's first foray into 3-D, was released about evenly between 2-D and 3-D screens. To put that 75% in perspective, the average family movie earns 60% of its revenue from 3-D, according to investment firm B. Riley."


and alas, some bad news...

" The recent Puss in Boots earned 51% of its opening weekend gross from 3-D and Kung Fu Panda 2 earned just 45% , according to BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield."


And more bad news... While Scorsese's Hugo sold tickets in 3-D, the movie is a bust. It's going to cap at under $70 million in the U.S. And Spielberg's "Tintin"? While a hit overseas, yet another kid-oriented, made-for-3-D extravaganza is going to evaporate in the U.S. and fail to reach $50 million in all likelihood.

That's the reality. 3-D is failing in the marketplace.

1) It's losing share of the movie box office. Even though more movies are available in 3-D, the percentage of tickets sold in 3-D is falling for said movies. (And the case can be made that the only true mega-hits that were 3-D oriented by nature were Avatar -- which of course is amazing -- and Transformers, which proves that the Chicken McNuggets of movies still has a place on the place despite the lack of anything recognizable as chicken.)
2) Even though many TVs are sold with 3-D capability, most are never used to display any 3-D in the home. Ever. (It's probably true that the most aggressive 3-D user is hard pressed to exceed 5% of his video watching in 3-D under any circumstances. While that might seem like it's akin to how things stood at the start of the HD era, when we revisit this question in 24 months, the disparity in the respective trajectories will be stunning.)
3) Cable and satellite broadcasters offer nearly no content in 3-D, and the trends are moving toward less not more.

This doesn't mean it's hopeless for 3-D, but it looks bad. And unless there are some positive trends soon, it's going to start looking worse.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #98 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
Opinionated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The missing ingredient for 3D success: is...

You would imagine no connection, but 3D's nemesis is the Internet and pirating.

Specifically the on-line viewing and pirating of porn.

Does anyone doubt that if the porn DVD market was still what it was just several years ago, and those DVD's came out in 3D, that 3D TV sets would be highly successful.
Opinionated is offline  
post #99 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hughh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington TX
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinionated View Post

The missing ingredient for 3D success: is...

You would imagine no connection, but 3D's nemesis is the Internet and pirating.

Specifically the on-line viewing and pirating of porn.

Does anyone doubt that if the porn DVD market was still what it was just several years ago, and those DVD's came out in 3D, that 3D TV sets would be highly successful.

Perhaps if they started making more 3D TV with 80 and 90"...more immersive, you know!

Really, as long as there is hardly ANY sports and you have to watch with glasses, it will never become "main stream".

I can't imagine going to a sports bar with your friends to watch sports events and everyone wearing glasses.

BTW - In these parts of Texas, instead of quaint pubs, we have gigantic sports bars with mega screen all over the place. That is where the guys and gals meet to watch football, etc.
hughh is offline  
post #100 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 04:38 PM
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 Steve S View Post

Just because an item is for sale at a mass market store doesn't make it mainstream. Sales of the product to a majority of buyers does, and like it or not 3D tv isn't there.

Well...you gotta admit that it's amazing Walmart is selling 3D electronics so soon after its introduction. As you know Walmart is where J6P shoppers hang out.
Quote:



Your mention of box office receipts for 3D films is totally irrelevant to the commercial success of 3D tv.

You're kidding...right. 3D is 3D and sells itself. Can you think of better way to demo 3D to millions of consumers than at a 3D theater.
Quote:



Hollywood aims it's 3D films at it's biggest market--teenagers, who aren't buying tv sets 3D or otherwise.

That would be stupid.

My read is that Hollywood targets families with those animated 3D kid flicks and who mostly controls family finances??? That's right...the woman of the house. Perfect.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #101 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 05:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

You're kidding...right. 3D is 3D and sells itself.

You're kidding, right?

3-D is 3-D and sort of sells itself would be a much more accurate assessment.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #102 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 07:14 PM
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 rogo View Post

...Taffy, you're like Fox News. Selective presentation of facts doesn't make your completely irrelevant and unsupported conclusions any more accurate.

This is what actually happened with Harry Potter, as opposed to your fantastical notion that it was some sort of 3-D success:
[i]
BTIG media analyst Richard Greenfield observed that only 43 percent of the film's gross came from 3D sales [...bla...bla....bla]



...This doesn't mean it's hopeless for 3-D, but it looks bad. And unless there are some positive trends soon, it's going to start looking worse.

Richard Greenfield...analyst extraordinaire huh. He stlll around? I haven't heard a peep outa him for a while.

Anyway, you can listen to Mr Greenfield 'doom and gloom' or what a few Academy Award winning Directors such as James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson have to say about the future of 3D films and, as you are no doubt aware, they love working with 3D.

Yeah...but what has this to do with 3D TV sales you ask? Perhaps nothing...perhaps EVERYTHING! Eventually, Hollywood's going to get serious about marketing 3D films made by these guys to Blu ray and that's when things are going to start get interesting.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #103 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 07:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson

Yep, this is big. The whole reason I'm a 3D enthusiast is because of the artistic advantage it brings. It's just better. All these directors, they get it. The naysayers here can complain that 3D has technological or economic challenges. Yes, that's a fair point of debate. But who dares say 3D shouldn't be the future based on artistic merits? Predictions aside, I think we should all be batting for the future of 3D.
Airion is offline  
post #104 of 210 Old 12-26-2011, 10:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

R
Anyway, you can listen to Mr Greenfield 'doom and gloom' or what a few Academy Award winning Directors such as James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson have to say about the future of 3D films and, as you are no doubt aware, they love working with 3D.

You can ignore facts as long as you want to. Commercial failure after commercial failure speaks for itself. Greenfield was reporting box office results -- that's called data.

Scorsese making a kids-oriented movie that does next to zero U.S. box office speaks volumes. And please don't rely on George Lucas to make your arguments. The guy recycles the same 6 movies over and over. That's not innovation.

The market is rejecting 3-D. No matter what you actually wish was happening.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #105 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 08:25 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 Airion View Post

Yep, this is big. The whole reason I'm a 3D enthusiast is because of the artistic advantage it brings. It's just better. All these directors, they get it. The naysayers here can complain that 3D has technological or economic challenges. Yes, that's a fair point of debate. But who dares say 3D shouldn't be the future based on artistic merits? Predictions aside, I think we should all be batting for the future of 3D.

Yes...watching 3D is simply amazing. Sometimes I giggle like a little school girl because I'm so totally enchanted by the visuals I see on the screen. It's a gigantic leap forward in motion picture technology. Finally, the technology permits movie goers to maximize the use of stereo for the eyes as a companion to the stereo surround fidelity we already have for the ears.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #106 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Yes...watching 3D is simply amazing. Sometimes I giggle like a little school girl because I'm so totally enchanted by the visuals I see on the screen. It's a gigantic leap forward in motion picture technology. Finally, the technology permits movie goers to maximize the use of stereo for the eyes as a companion to the stereo surround fidelity we already have for the ears.

Well said sir. I like to forget all about the technical side of the equation and just enjoy what I see and hear. When it's good it takes it to another level.
jbug is offline  
post #107 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 08:55 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 rogo View Post

You can ignore facts as long as you want to. Commercial failure after commercial failure speaks for itself. Greenfield was reporting box office results -- that's called data.

Well...store your "data" for a moment and please describe your own personal view of 3D technology. Really...I wouldn't worry about the business side of 3D. That will take care of itself.
Quote:



Scorsese making a kids-oriented movie that does next to zero U.S. box office speaks volumes.

You haven't seen Hugo have you?
Quote:


"Hugo" is unlike any other film Martin Scorsese has ever made, and yet possibly the closest to his heart: a big-budget, family epic in 3-D, and in some ways, a mirror of his own life. We feel a great artist has been given command of the tools and resources he needs to make a movie about movies...
Not long ago, I saw a 3-D children's film about penguins. I thought it was a simpleminded use of the medium. Scorsese uses 3-D here as it should be used, not as a gimmick but as an enhancement of the total effect.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/111119982

This partial review is from Roger Ebert who, as you may know, is a 3D hater...probably worse than your financial analyst.

Scorsese made this film simply because he wanted to do it. What a luxury huh? These big name Directors are in such huge demand they are bigger screen draws than the movie stars in the picture.
Quote:



And please don't rely on George Lucas to make your arguments. The guy recycles the same 6 movies over and over. That's not innovation.

He's proud of these films. Sounds like you hold that against him.
Quote:


The market is rejecting 3-D. No matter what you actually wish was happening.

Go see Hugo in 3D just to see what you're missing.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #108 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Rogo Buddy, fold your tent and pack out of this thread before you lose your complete humanity. These statements are nothing short of barbarous and petty.WTF happened to the enthusiast of years gone. You have managed over the years to accrue posts without having any kind of research facility to back up your on the outside looking in analysis. That must stop here and now.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #109 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 10:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Well...store your "data" for a moment and please describe your own personal view of 3D technology. Really...I wouldn't worry about the business side of 3D. That will take care of itself.

The business side is not taking care of itself. Not sure why you aren't getting that. Me personally? I'm not sitting in my living room wearing glasses to watch TV -- at least not more than once in a while. In the movie theater, I'll do it now and again for something that merits it. Something like Avatar... or Hugo apparently.
Quote:


You haven't seen Hugo have you?

Not yet, we saw Mission Impossible instead.
Quote:


Scorsese made this film simply because he wanted to do it. What a luxury huh? These big name Directors are in such huge demand they are bigger screen draws than the movie stars in the picture.
He's proud of these films. Sounds like you hold that against him.
Go see Hugo in 3D just to see what you're missing.

What is this demand? It's pulling "Arthur Christmas" numbers at the box office, despite the 3-D ticket premium. I'm not going to lie, I'm not a Scorsese fan, but I'm interested in Hugo anyway. That said, the numbers don't lie: Hugo is a box-office bust. It has fantastic critical acclaim and it's still a box-office bust. That isn't my opinion, that's fact.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #110 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 10:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Rogo Buddy, fold your tent and pack out of this thread before you lose your complete humanity.

My humanity? Seriously, Peter? Because I'm questioning the business prospects of Americans reversing 70 years of habits and sitting in their living rooms suddenly donning goggles, you are questioning my humanity? Seriously?
Quote:


These statements are nothing short of barbarous and petty.WTF happened to the enthusiast of years gone.

I'm an enthusiast. I'm just a realist. The amount of non-BluRay content being produced in 3-D is virtually zero. The amount of even BluRay being watched in 3-D is nearly zero. When I told you all HD-DVD would lose, you also accused me of being a non-enthusiast. I was right. What I'm telling you right now, is absent some rapid shift toward passive and ideally some shift toward viable glasses-free, 3-D in the home is going to be a niche or a footnote. And it's not doing especially well at your local multiplex either.

Perhaps you haven't read the countless negative stories about movie theaters showing 3-D at half brightness. Or the many movies where the 3-D appears to be an afterthought. For every Hugo, there are 10 non-Hugos.
Quote:


You have managed over the years to accrue posts without having any kind of research facility to back up your on the outside looking in analysis. That must stop here and now.

This kind of pap is offensive. My "research facility" is the world. Not your shop. Or perhaps you haven't checked lately, but most of us aren't watching on your toroid screens.

I don't need to wedge my butt into a Bugatti every day to have a sense of the future of automobiles. In fact, doing so would likely distort any perspective on the future I might have.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #111 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 12:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The amount of non-BluRay content being produced in 3-D is virtually zero.

I'm hoping you simply forgot about video games when making that statement. But I think the problem in general with your analysis is the tendency to round down to "virtually zero." You take the data, which is a good thing to do, but then you consistently interpret it in the most pessimistic way possible. Other people can (and do) take the same data to paint a bright picture. The data on its own shows a mixed message. You do your darnedest to accentuate the negative and gloss over the positive. You wouldn't agree with that of course, but that's my impression and that's why people start to question the motives and biases behind your statements.
Airion is offline  
post #112 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
The problem I have with home 3D is the screen size. Immersion with 3D at the IMAX watching Avatar is nice. At home, not so much.

Even a 60inch at 8ft is not good enough. For me, it just doesn't work regardless of the tech. It's hard to maintain immersion when I'm seeing everything else in the living room that's around the TV while I'm trying to focus on the 3D effect which is fighting for the same vision "space."

Even in smaller theaters, 3D doesn't have the same effect as 3D on something like IMAX. Outside of when vision augmentation is reality, I don't see 3D at home having any appeal for me.
RobertR1 is offline  
post #113 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 04:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I'm hoping you simply forgot about video games when making that statement.

I'm not really addressing video games, I admit. That said, most videogamers are also ignoring 3-D.

Quote:


But I think the problem in general with your analysis is the tendency to round down to "virtually zero." You take the data, which is a good thing to do, but then you consistently interpret it in the most pessimistic way possible.

I think you read it that way even though that's not what I'm saying.
Quote:


Other people can (and do) take the same data to paint a bright picture. The data on its own shows a mixed message. You do your darnedest to accentuate the negative and gloss over the positive. You wouldn't agree with that of course, but that's my impression and that's why people start to question the motives and biases behind your statements.

The data presents a clear picture: 3-D is not catching on in the marketplace. Despite the presence of more 3-D movies, there are actually fewer tickets being sold in 3-D both relatively and -- quite possibly and almost certainly in 2012 -- on an absolute basis. Outside the theater, every single metric is dreadful: programming hours, BluRays watched in the home in 3-D, etc.

You can spin data any way you want when your business plan relies on selling 3-D TVs. But the reality is, industry TV forecasts banked on people going and buying no 3-D TVs this year and those forecasts proved optimistic by about 40 million units.

Nowhere do I say this is the end for 3-D. I'm not what you think I am. I'm the canary in the coal mine, not the naysayer. Those are pretty different things, but the subtlety is lost on the fanboys who want their precious new toys to be popular.

At current trends, there will be virtually no broadcast content in 3-D in 2012. If you think that suggests some kind of groundswell for the technology, I'd suggest you're mistaken. At current trends, there will likely be no increase in Hollywood releases in 3-D in 2012 as well coupled with a continued decline in the average buy rate of 3-D among movies released in 3-D (new releases as obviously 100% of Titanic 3-D tickets will be sold in 3-D, ditto Phantom Menace, Beauty and the Beast and all the other re-releases).

The trends are almost all negative save a few: More TVs with 3-D are being sold (not watched in 3-D but sold). Nearly all BluRay players support 3-D (even though they are rarely hooked up to 3-D capable TVs). Several mfrs. are supporting passive 3-D in 2012 to try to break free of the tyranny of expensive, battery-based active glasses. The other mfrs. at least understand the need for standard glasses. A decent number of Hollywood releases will again be in 3-D. Old, beloved movies are being re-released in 3-D. In other words, 3-D is not doomed in 2012. But it's not moving forward either. Technologies need to move forward or they die. That's just reality.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #114 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Glasses free displays is a pipe dream and hence glasses are the only realistic option.

This is demonstrably false, depending on your characterization of "pipe dream".

There are proof-of-concept glasses-free displays on the market RIGHT now. I'm referring, of course, to the Nintendo 3DS, and a handful of Android smartphones. I've seen them. They work, and pave the way for larger-scale applications of them in useful HDTV size ranges (19" and up).

Glasses-free 3D is certainly going to be the only way that solution will take on widespread adoption. Period. I am one of those people who will hold out to this Holy Grail of 3D. TV manufacturers will either give the public 3D the way they want it, or it will remain a fringe application.

[Irishman] is offline  
post #115 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

only 3d content are bd discs. bd market penetration is what, 30% currently?

only way 3d survives is if becomes basically a throw in on all hd tvs and uses passive 3d. most people are not going to want to buy 4-6 active glasses and keep them charged all the time.

if sports programming can be done in passive 3d, then you might see things change

I don't know why everyone is presenting the difference in retail price of Active 3D glasses as being a huge jump above retail price of Passive 3D glasses. They're not. Not all of them. Customers see on store shelves $29.99 Active Shutter glasses. Now, compare that to a "tub" of 6 passive LG glasses priced at $150. (That's $25 a piece!) What's the big technology price delta here??

[Irishman] is offline  
post #116 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Again...you leave me scratching my head.

I'm looking at my local Best Buy Sunday add. On the very front page are two HDTV sets and one is 3D. I flip over the add to the back page and a 3D Blu ray player on sale. Mind you..these are prominent front and back pages. Inside the 32 page add, 3D TVs are prominently featured. What gives? Would Best Buy allocate this much add space to draw in "rare 3D enthusiasts"?

I've been around the block a few times and that just doesn't make much sense to me.

To be fair, retailers can only advertise and sell what manufacturers manufacture. Between Smart TVs and 3D TVs, they together account for close to half of the interest generated on store showrooms. It's what's advertised (because it's new), and it is something that mom and dad and the kids may not have seen before. I can't tell you how many times in a normal day I see parents lifting up their small kids so they can view through the locked-down glasses armature at the 3DTV displays. It's novelty. Does it mean they're going to buy it? Hell no. But it brings people in.

[Irishman] is offline  
post #117 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 08:38 PM
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 rogo View Post

The business side is not taking care of itself. Not sure why you aren't getting that.

I take about as much interest in 3D box office receipts as I do 2D receipts. I'm in it just for the fun.
Quote:



Me personally? I'm not sitting in my living room wearing glasses to watch TV -- at least not more than once in a while. In the movie theater, I'll do it now and again for something that merits it. Something like Avatar... or Hugo apparently.

I'm kinda fortunate in that our local Cinemark discount theater shows RealD 3D movies for just $3.50 so it's easy for me to see all the live action features without breaking the bank.
Quote:



What is this demand? It's pulling "Arthur Christmas" numbers at the box office, despite the 3-D ticket premium. I'm not going to lie, I'm not a Scorsese fan, but I'm interested in Hugo anyway. That said, the numbers don't lie: Hugo is a box-office bust. It has fantastic critical acclaim and it's still a box-office bust. That isn't my opinion, that's fact.

How this film does at the box office doesn't make it any less a masterpiece of cinematic art does it?
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #118 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 09:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I'm not really addressing video games, I admit. That said, most videogamers are also ignoring 3-D.

Well sure, most people don't have 3D displays, so you're stating a given as a negative. The fact that most gamers aren't playing in 3D doesn't suggest a lack of interest or potential for growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Despite the presence of more 3-D movies, there are actually fewer tickets being sold in 3-D both relatively and -- quite possibly and almost certainly in 2012 -- on an absolute basis.

I think a lot of this is the result of poor conversions. We've had quantity over quality since Avatar. Conversions like the latest Harry Potter movie don't deserve to sell 3D tickets. You can take it as a bad sign for 3D in terms of sales. Artistically, you can take it as a positive, as people are aware of what good and bad 3D is. Bad for short term gain, probably good for the long term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Nowhere do I say this is the end for 3-D. I'm not what you think I am. I'm the canary in the coal mine, not the naysayer. Those are pretty different things, but the subtlety is lost on the fanboys who want their precious new toys to be popular.

You don't say it's the end, but you paint a bleak picture while bashing the technical implementation and showing little appreciation for the artistic merits of 3D. I can appreciate that you don't want to be seen as a 3D naysayer, but your words (other than your self definitions) speak otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

At current trends, there will likely be no increase in Hollywood releases in 3-D in 2012 as well coupled with a continued decline in the average buy rate of 3-D among movies released in 3-D (new releases as obviously 100% of Titanic 3-D tickets will be sold in 3-D, ditto Phantom Menace, Beauty and the Beast and all the other re-releases).

This is what I was talking about. Sales from 3D re-releases will be just as valuable as sales from new releases from a business perspective. Money earned from 3D is money earned from 3D. But, you try your best define it otherwise.

I'm with Taffy Lewis though, I don't care about how much money is made off of 3D as long as it sticks around and I can enjoy it. Destined to be popular? Awesome. Destined to be a niche? Great, I'm in!
Airion is offline  
post #119 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 10:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

Glasses-free 3D is certainly going to be the only way that solution will take on widespread adoption. Period. I am one of those people who will hold out to this Holy Grail of 3D. TV manufacturers will either give the public 3D the way they want it, or it will remain a fringe application.

100% correct. And you and I agree on pretty much nothing. So this says a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

I don't know why everyone is presenting the difference in retail price of Active 3D glasses as being a huge jump above retail price of Passive 3D glasses. They're not. Not all of them. Customers see on store shelves $29.99 Active Shutter glasses. Now, compare that to a "tub" of 6 passive LG glasses priced at $150. (That's $25 a piece!) What's the big technology price delta here??

Oh, that's easy. First of all, active glasses require things like batteries and technology. Passive glasses, by contrast, are really the same stuff you find at the theater. They cost about 50 cents to manufacture and you can collect a bunch after seeing a 3-D movie or two -- for free. Right now, LG can get $150 for their "tub" of passive glasses. But eventually, passive glasses will retail for $10 for 10 pair. Active glasses never will -- at least no decent ones.

The reason I started this thread was that it seemed probable Samsung was going to actually adopt RealD and you'd be able to quite literally use those theater glasses at home. That's on hold for the moment. But even without it, I'd expect the major mfrs. going passive in 2012 to start offering very, very cheap glasses.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #120 of 210 Old 12-27-2011, 10:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Well sure, most people don't have 3D displays, so you're stating a given as a negative. The fact that most gamers aren't playing in 3D doesn't suggest a lack of interest or potential for growth.

The lack of 3-D growth in gaming, however, would suggest growth. I admit I don't have stats, but I believe 3-D gaming is not growing. It's certainly not growing quickly.
Quote:


I think a lot of this is the result of poor conversions. We've had quantity over quality since Avatar. Conversions like the latest Harry Potter movie don't deserve to sell 3D tickets. You can take it as a bad sign for 3D in terms of sales. Artistically, you can take it as a positive, as people are aware of what good and bad 3D is. Bad for short term gain, probably good for the long term.

I think it's more than bad conversions, although I absolutely agree that bad conversions do not help. The fact that exhibitors want the extra revenues, but don't want to pay to run projectors at the appropriate brightness, however, is hard to spin. There is widespread interest in the money and widespread indifference for the technology and the "art".
Quote:


You don't say it's the end, but you paint a bleak picture while bashing the technical implementation and showing little appreciation for the artistic merits of 3D.

The picture is bleak. And for every Hugo or Avatar, there are 10 films where there is no artistic merit to 3-D. But I'll go farther, most films do not benefit from being made or shown in 3-D. Do you think that's going to change? If so, I'd call that an overly optimistic view of the future. 3-D exhibition dates back six decades. There are reasons beyond technology that video and still reproduction are almost exclusively two dimensional.
Quote:


I can appreciate that you don't want to be seen as a 3D naysayer, but your words (other than your self definitions) speak otherwise.

They don't. You choose to read them that way even though they never say "3-D is doomed" or any such thing. They paint a realistic, matter-of-fact picture of a technology that is struggling in the marketplace and is arguably on a precipice. If things don't change soon in terms of adoption, you can assume there will be a pullback even from Hollywood -- which is currently the only bulwark of support that exists at all. Should that bulwark fall, then we talk about 3-D being doomed.
Quote:


This is what I was talking about. Sales from 3D re-releases will be just as valuable as sales from new releases from a business perspective. Money earned from 3D is money earned from 3D. But, you try your best define it otherwise.

No, it's not just as valuable. Rehashes of old movies are not going to drive the industry even though Disney gets to use The Lion King 3-D to paper over the failure of Cars 2 (Note: Cars 2 made money; it just made a lot less money than they wanted it to because it was the first Pixar movie that didn't generate a preponderance of critical acclaim and that hurt its audience. And will hurt its DVD/BluRay business too.)

The movie business has a problem: People are not going as much as they once did. Part of the reason is high ticket prices. 3-D is actually making that problem worse. If 3-D doesn't deliver audiences to theaters, it's not going to get people to pay money to have 3-D at home.

Your notion that 3-D re-releases are important to 3-D adoption is like saying Imax is important for Imax adoption. If 3-D becomes nothing more than a niche to sell some high-priced tickets it will (a) be limited to movies where selling a 3-D version is capable of even doing that (e.g. Transformers) and (b) further recede as a home technology.

There is not going to be some massive re-release of old DVDs in 3-D where people go spend money on them -- again. And currently, the video owning/rental business is shifting rapidly away from older models (buying discs, Blockbuster/video store rentals) to new ones (streaming, digital PPV, Redbox). The latter are barely supporting HD. It's simply fantastical to believe they are going to be big supporters of 3-D.
Quote:


I'm with Taffy Lewis though, I don't care about how much money is made off of 3D as long as it sticks around and I can enjoy it. Destined to be popular? Awesome. Destined to be a niche? Great, I'm in!

It might survive as a niche, it's hard to know. The reality is: If it isn't popular, it might not survive as a niche either. Or, alternatively, it might be limited to very few films going forward. It might also be limited to 30-40 studio releases and virtually no broadcast / cable content. All is hard to see right now; but the trajectory is not exceptional -- which is my entire point.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

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