More Bad 3-D News, Samsung snubs Real-D - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 210 Old 01-09-2012, 04:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Sorry, you're wrong. Consumers hardly even knew about HD when this all went down.

Broadcasters were all going crazy talking about 4 and 5 SD subchannels, data services, and other NON-HD use, THEN congress called them in to remind them THEY (broadcasters) had wanted the spectrum for HD, not for multiple SD channels and using it for data services that wouldn't include HD.

This was at a time where congress was re-thinking the entire idea since broadcasters kept wanting to do things other then HD.

Consumers had zero to do with it at that time. Consumers knew nothing about it at the time.

congress warns broadcasters

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So I wasn't alive for the advent of color TV, but I can tell you absolutely no one said SD was as good as HD. The difference was night and day and the HD transition was shockingly fast given that it had been 40 years since anything changed in TV. It also required the government to get involved. But here's the thing; there were naysayers: "Broadcasters will use the spectrum to show multiple sub channels, yada yada". Yet everyone ended up with full-bitrate HD of all important programming in the end. Why? Consumers demanded it and there was a lack of any content to fill the subchannels anyway.

(Disclaimer: Yes, there are subchannels in some places. No, there are not subchannels stopping any major market from showing all of primetime, sports, etc. in full bitrate HD.)



.


buytme
David_B is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 210 Old 01-09-2012, 04:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

When you consider the vast amounts of money invested by the many powers that be, from broadcast companies to movie studios to electronics manufacturers, do you really think 3D can possibly fail?

Yes, it's absolutely possible. Many products have had huge amounts of investment and have had little to show for it. I would, however, define failure here as I have before: Lack of mass-market acceptance. I think 3-D has a niche presence locked down for a while.
Quote:


It's quite probable that in 3 years every new TV at 40+" will be 3D capable.

Yes. At the very least, I expect the majority of them will.
Quote:


One major company could decide to broadcast all of their sports in 3D, like NFL, NBA, NHL, College football, College basketball, Golf, Olympics.

They could, but everyone is setting TV-rights records now without doing that. The NFL just locked in TV money through most of this decade. The NBA will likely lock in its national deals without any 3-D requirement/component in a few years (we'll see of course). Baseball makes its money off of RSNs and won't do 3-D deals there for years to come. College sports -- the Pac-12 in particular -- is setting rights records without any 3-D component.

I don't want to tell you that no one is going to "decide to broadcast all of their sports in 3D" anytime soon, but I'm not sure why they would spend more money in exchange for no incremental revenues.
Quote:


A company like ABC/Disney/ESPN. Today at CES LG announced the release of 25 new 3D displays for 2012, and Sharp announced the 80" 3D model.

Yes, yes, more TVs. And believe me, the TV people have an incentive to convince you that 3-D is something you need. TV replacement cycles are long. TV profits are low. This is a bad combo if you make/sell TVs. How this radically changes the bigger problems, however, is another matter.

I suspect home 3-D is headed for a market presence like home surround sound for the near future. As I've said, if passive catches on, things get better (good passive, not bad passive). If glasses free becomes real and affordable later in the decade, the chances for mass adoption improve radically.

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 online now  
post #183 of 210 Old 01-09-2012, 05:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

When you consider the vast amounts of money invested by the many powers that be, from broadcast companies to movie studios to electronics manufacturers, do you really think 3D can possibly fail? It's quite probable that in 3 years every new TV at 40+" will be 3D capable. One major company could decide to broadcast all of their sports in 3D, like NFL, NBA, NHL, College football, College basketball, Golf, Olympics. A company like ABC/Disney/ESPN. Today at CES LG announced the release of 25 new 3D displays for 2012, and Sharp announced the 80" 3D model.

Like I said, I won't be surprised if most TV sold 5 years from now are 3D and Internet enabled as marginal cost is low. That has nothing to do with how often they are used. For eg Internet TV need a better user interface else we'll stick to HTPC.

FWIW focus in 2011 CES was 3D and I still think it's a flop. Anyone recall anything back then? I would recall 2012 CES as the year of OLED TV introduction.
specuvestor is offline  
post #184 of 210 Old 01-09-2012, 05:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
The Movie Theater biz seems to do OK with only 5% of the USA going to an average of 2 movies a YEAR.

I don't see why 3D in the home can't be as successful if the 3D tv is almost a free upgrade to HDTV (almost there) and the glasses are free or near free (almost there also).

Laser Disc made money with hardly any players or discs.

3D can make plenty of money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

And yet more from the field echoing what I've been saying as opposed to what some people wish was happening:

[i]But despite the fact that 3-D TV sales in 2011 showed some encouraging gains with an estimated 21.5 million 3-D units reported to have shipped last year and sales showing significant gains from quarter to quarter the forced exuberance over three-dimensional screens has been tempered a bit.

That's likely because it doesn't matter how well 3-D TV units are selling for the consumer, anyway. It's not really the penetration that matters, it's the use, says Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. You'd be hard pressed to find a 3-D TV owner that actually uses it in 3-D mode even once a week. That's not a formula for building consumer momentum.

Solve that problem and you have a hit. Fail to and you have a fad.


buytme
David_B is offline  
post #185 of 210 Old 01-09-2012, 11:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

The Movie Theater biz seems to do OK with only 5% of the USA going to an average of 2 movies a YEAR.

If by "do OK" you mean not make money and periodically approach/enter bankruptcy then yes, the movie theater business is doing AWESOME. Regal Cinema? 5 year return of -50%. Cinemark? 5 year return of -5%. Carmike? 5 year return of -75%!

Ladies and gentleman, step right up... and do not invest your 401(k) in the movie business.
Quote:


I don't see why 3D in the home can't be as successful if the 3D tv is almost a free upgrade to HDTV (almost there) and the glasses are free or near free (almost there also).

I definitely agree the home 3D business can be as successful as the movie-theater business is. I see no reason why it can't match returns like negative 50% or negative 75%. In fact, it might do better!
Quote:


Laser Disc made money with hardly any players or discs.

While I lack info here, I'm sure you can back that up with some sources. From what I can see, Laser Disc in a great year (1989) sold 120K players. And, yes, loyal fans justified putting out content on disc for years. I'm sure that'll be true of 3-D. I suspect it will be more successful than LaserDisc in fact, which appears to have more successful than the movie theater business!

3D can make plenty of money.[/quote]

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 online now  
post #186 of 210 Old 01-10-2012, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 181
When I suggested that one company could decide to make all of it's broadcasts available in 3D I was not suggesting that they intended to make a profit in the short term. Take The Disney Company which not only owns it's own massive film distribution empire they also own ABC, Pixar Studios, Marvel Entertainment and most importantly, to go hand in hand with ABC, They own ESPN. The amount of sports contained within these two delivery devices could easily shape the way we watch TV sports by 2015. Please don't discount the incredible buying power of the passionate sports fan in the US. If ABC and ESPN offered 3D for 100% of their events what do you think the average male 25-60 would be salivating for? 3D Tv's. How far behind would CBS and NBC be? Keep in mind that last year Disney generated a net income of over 7.5 billion dollars and they can afford to lose a bit to gain a lot. These people either are now or can easily jump into bed with connected companies (Sony, Samsung, LG etc) and make 3D the status quo. I believe they had a plan which started 3 or 4 years ago and for them, financially, there is no turning back.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #187 of 210 Old 01-10-2012, 04:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Nice cherrypicking a few theater chains run poorly to "prove" they make no money.

BTW, I guess this proves you don't have to make a profit to be a continuing industry for 50 years huh? how does that work? (Let's just forget about the entire movie making industry that makes billions on theather releases.)

AND once again you show how "USA" centric you are even though the CE industry AND this website are international.

Laserdisc's where made for many many years, and made plenty of money for everyone. I don't care if you believe it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

If by "do OK" you mean not make money and periodically approach/enter bankruptcy then yes, the movie theater business is doing AWESOME. Regal Cinema? 5 year return of -50%. Cinemark? 5 year return of -5%. Carmike? 5 year return of -75%!

Ladies and gentleman, step right up... and do not invest your 401(k) in the movie business.


I definitely agree the home 3D business can be as successful as the movie-theater business is. I see no reason why it can't match returns like negative 50% or negative 75%. In fact, it might do better!


While I lack info here, I'm sure you can back that up with some sources. From what I can see, Laser Disc in a great year (1989) sold 120K players. And, yes, loyal fans justified putting out content on disc for years. I'm sure that'll be true of 3-D. I suspect it will be more successful than LaserDisc in fact, which appears to have more successful than the movie theater business!

3D can make plenty of money.

[/quote]

buytme
David_B is offline  
post #188 of 210 Old 01-10-2012, 10:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Nice cherrypicking a few theater chains run poorly to "prove" they make no money.

I cherrypicked? Try again, troll. I listed the #1, #3 and #4 largest chains in America. AMC, #2 is private. So I couldn't exactly list it's stock price. Get a real claim in this argument, ok?
Quote:


BTW, I guess this proves you don't have to make a profit to be a continuing industry for 50 years huh? how does that work? (Let's just forget about the entire movie making industry that makes billions on theather releases.)

The movie industry does not own movie theaters. That's been illegal for decades.
Quote:


AND once again you show how "USA" centric you are even though the CE industry AND this website are international.

Content is massively driven by the USA.
Quote:


Laserdisc's where made for many many years, and made plenty of money for everyone. I don't care if you believe it or not.

The word you are looking for is "were". I challenge (not defy, challenge) you to prove plenty of money was made. It appears the high-water mark for players sold in a single year was barely above 100,000 units. That many BluRay players are probably sold every single week, regardless of seasonality.

I doubt Laserdisc ownership was ever more than about 1% of U.S. households and while I, again, don't doubt that it was profitable to release individual movies on Laserdisc, I doubt very much "plenty of money for everyone" was made. Please, feel free to find any evidence to the contrary. All I do is bring you facts; all you do is attempt (and fail) to challenge my facts.

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 online now  
post #189 of 210 Old 01-10-2012, 10:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Content is massively driven by the USA.

If you mean the US produces a ton of content, then yes. If you mean the US is massively more important than other markets in what kind of content gets produced, then no. Hollywood makes a ton of content, the world consumes it. Pirates 4 earned $241 million in North America and $802 million in the rest of the world. The studios don't ignore or minimize this. On Monday's The Daily Show, George Lucas talked about how he couldn't find funding in Hollywood for his movie Red Tails, one reason sited was that it wouldn't play overseas.

In any case, the finances of some particular theater chains doesn't seem to have much impact on content. Hollywood produces plenty of content and earns plenty of money regardless. I think you're digging deep to tie more negativity to 3D on this one.

EDIT: Here's an interesting list of recent movies that made a ton overseas: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-10-biggest-blockbusters-explain-all-you-need-to-know-about-hollywood/241763/#slide3 Quite a few of them are 3D, for what it's worth.
Airion is offline  
post #190 of 210 Old 01-10-2012, 11:46 PM
Newbie
 
Raymond8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8
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:

Raymond8888 is offline  
post #191 of 210 Old 01-11-2012, 09:10 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

If you mean the US produces a ton of content, then yes. If you mean the US is massively more important than other markets in what kind of content gets produced, then no. Hollywood makes a ton of content, the world consumes it. Pirates 4 earned $241 million in North America and $802 million in the rest of the world. The studios don't ignore or minimize this. On Monday's The Daily Show, George Lucas talked about how he couldn't find funding in Hollywood for his movie Red Tails, one reason sited was that it wouldn't play overseas.

In any case, the finances of some particular theater chains doesn't seem to have much impact on content. Hollywood produces plenty of content and earns plenty of money regardless. I think you're digging deep to tie more negativity to 3D on this one.

EDIT: Here's an interesting list of recent movies that made a ton overseas: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-10-biggest-blockbusters-explain-all-you-need-to-know-about-hollywood/241763/#slide3 Quite a few of them are 3D, for what it's worth.

Excellent post Airion.

How quickly we forget that early HDTV content that aired in the good ole USA such as travelogs and documentaries were Japanese productions. Indeed... many early HDTV sports programs were sponsored in a large part by Panasonic, Sony and other foreign CE manufacturers.

So, it's no wonder that I get a sense of deja-vu with the way 3DTV is rolling out.
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #192 of 210 Old 01-11-2012, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
LOL, try looking at profits maybe? All of them have made more every year. Stock prices mean nothing.

Also when Laserdisc was working you could BUY movies under $40 that VHS tapes cost $100 because they where rental priced.

And who cares if the amount of units was low and it wasn't a widely bought technology, the fact is it had a better picture, it was available for over a decade with the latest movies in a higher quality format for LESS then VHS.

If OLED could be like that, not popular but available and CHEAPER with higher quality, I don't care if they only sell 100,000 OLED's a year, as long as they are the best and not priced beyond reach. I don't buy something because it's "popular".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I cherrypicked? Try again, troll. I listed the #1, #3 and #4 largest chains in America. AMC, #2 is private. So I couldn't exactly list it's stock price. Get a real claim in this argument, ok?


The movie industry does not own movie theaters. That's been illegal for decades.


Content is massively driven by the USA.

The word you are looking for is "were". I challenge (not defy, challenge) you to prove plenty of money was made. It appears the high-water mark for players sold in a single year was barely above 100,000 units. That many BluRay players are probably sold every single week, regardless of seasonality.

I doubt Laserdisc ownership was ever more than about 1% of U.S. households and while I, again, don't doubt that it was profitable to release individual movies on Laserdisc, I doubt very much "plenty of money for everyone" was made. Please, feel free to find any evidence to the contrary. All I do is bring you facts; all you do is attempt (and fail) to challenge my facts.


buytme
David_B is offline  
post #193 of 210 Old 01-14-2012, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nielo TM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen View Post

Yes, but correctly implemented (see LG), passive still produces good results and has other advantages too... cheap/free glasses, no flicker, less crosstalk, no batteries, brighter image.

Not too mention the Samsung/Real-D tech (RDZ) was supposed to improve passive resolution by "actively" polarizing the screen itself. Bummer news.

LG still has a long way to go. The gap been pixels are too high to begin with. They either have to go 4K or reduce the gap or split the pixels to create artifact free 3D much like the active.
Nielo TM is offline  
post #194 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 12:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

If you mean the US produces a ton of content, then yes.

That is precisely what I meant.
Quote:


In any case, the finances of some particular theater chains doesn't seem to have much impact on content. Hollywood produces plenty of content and earns plenty of money regardless. I think you're digging deep to tie more negativity to 3D on this one.

No, I'm pointing out that movie theaters are not good businesses. But the fact that the average movie sells a smaller percentage of its tickets in 3D than it did a year ago is negative for 3D. There is no way to spin that otherwise.

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 online now  
post #195 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 09:45 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

...No, I'm pointing out that movie theaters are not good businesses.

Hmmm...I suspect that if business was as bad as you say, theaters would lower prices...no? That's usually the first indicator of financial problems. I haven't seen that happen.
Quote:


But the fact that the average movie sells a smaller percentage of its tickets in 3D than it did a year ago is negative for 3D. There is no way to spin that otherwise.

I too read that ticket sales were down last year. Is that a negative for 2D as well??? Btw, what do you mean by "average movie"? Where are your stats and/or links you used as a basis for what you wrote?
Taffy Lewis is offline  
post #196 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
why does every thread that starts off about a concrete and relevant 3D topic (in this case, potentially a passive 3D technology that provides full 1080p resolution from 1080 panels falling through because of company politics) evolve into a debate about the merits of 2D versus 3D versus 2K versus 4K versus whatever?

Anyone else interested in the real topic????

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #197 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierkdr View Post

Recall reading an article (somewhere...) which stated that Samsung, Panasonic, and Maybe Some Other Company(ies), were going to introduce cross-vendor compatible Active 3D Glasses.

Given that Active 3D still holds a performance advantage over Passive, it is not too hard to understand why any given company might decide to veer away from passive at this time.

yes, but real's technology would have basically fixed the one downside of current passive panel systems: decreased resolution.

With real you get sequential 3D (full resolution) but with passive eyewear. That's a win-win. Even cross-compatible active eyewear still has more crosstalk, more flicker, battery life issues, and higher cost per eyewear set.

BTW, I have a 3D samsung display and love active-eyewear 3D despite these problems. But I'd prefer even more being able to get a better 3D picture with passive eyewear with full resolution.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #198 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


2010: Almost exactly one year ago, EA boss John Riccitiello said that “3D may very well be one of the next and most important drivers of growth.”

2011: Riccitiello says that EA “havh not seen a big uptake [in 3D gaming]” and that they “have not seen a big uptake in 3D TVs in the home.”

Saying that EA is “not here trying to drive a market,” choosing instead to “react to what customers want...[EA] sees very poor returns focusing on 3D, so (is) allocating [their] resources to new innovations.”

Is it possible that growth in 3-D gaming will get interesting? Yes. Same for growth in watching 3-D TV at home. Currently, neither is growing in an interesting way -- period.


I think one of the reasons why we haven't seen 3D gaming become a driving factor in 3D adoption is because of the delta between the demographic playing games and the demographic buying new HDTVs. At my office just about every friend in their 20's and up who loves gaming also loves 3D gaming and has recently purchased a 3D HDTV display (about 3 folks). But these 20-something gamers with cash to burn and new HDTV technology are not the average gamer... when I read on forums posts by the average gamer and see folks downplay the benefits of 3D gaming, they are typically by folks without a 3D display and who, by the sound of their posts, are teens or underfunded college students who really can't afford an HDTV purchase... they're saving their pennies for used games at gamestop.

I know that's not a scientific study, and I would be curious to see the percentage of gamers who are represented by the under-20 crowd who can't really afford to purchase HD displays... 3D or otherwise... and thus forced to content themselves with the parent-purchased display in their room and then make arguments against needing anything better to maintain their sense of contentedness.

We saw the same sort of arguments on gaming boards when HD was new on the scene... how games wouldn't benefit from HD and how that SD was good enough etc. I don't know if we could have ever said that HD games "drove" HD display adoption for the same reason as why 3D gaming may have a hard time "driving" 3D display purchases, but clearly once HD displays were in living rooms, HD game platforms took off and made good use of them.

I suspect we'll see something similar with 3D... as more 3D sets get into living rooms, 3D gaming will follow close behind as the gamers in the household discover the wonder of 3D gaming. Certainly now that I've played God of War in 3D (the latest PS3 release with the two PSP games upconverted to HD and 3D stereo), I can't imaging playing it any other way than what the immersive 3D experience provides.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #199 of 210 Old 01-15-2012, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
My friend who games fairly seriously, has money to burn, and has dabbled in 3D has a couple of key objections David, none of which are about money:

1) There apparently were (are?) some standards issues at play. Not everything worked the same way. I guess things are coalescing but it sure took its time.

2) There are strange bits of non-3D-ness that are getting in the way of really enjoying the experience. The UI is almost always sitting on a plane well in front of the game as if there is a window jammed against your face with the UI.

I'm sure all of this will get resolved in time. It's also worth noting that glasses-free 3D is much easier on (a) a small monitor, the 23-30" range that is common these days and (b) for one person.

Anyway, I would say your survey probably contains some truths without being scientific. Whether 3D is really going to catch fire, though, still remains to be seen.

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 online now  
post #200 of 210 Old 01-16-2012, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

5.1 surround sound is a market failure. Be thankful we get anything at all in 5.1. It's been more than a decade and most people do not have -- nor even will have -- a surround sound setup in the home.

It seems to me that you are using an inappropriate definition of "market failure".

A market (like multi-channel surround-sound) which makes a profit for those selling into it is not a failure, even if they only sell hundreds of thousands of units per year and not hundreds of millions.

People certainly like to know that there are better items available, usually hoping that some day they would be in a situation where they could get them. I don't think that Lamborghinis can be considered a market failure, for example.

Selden
Selden Ball is offline  
post #201 of 210 Old 01-16-2012, 03:30 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
Let's not forget that Lamborghini was purchased by VW when they were not making money.

Same for Ferrari and Maserati, both saved from oblivion by Fiat.

Il Commendatore already had a deal to sell to Henry Ford because he was bankrupt.
hughh is offline  
post #202 of 210 Old 01-16-2012, 05:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quick: companies not named Bose making good money selling audio equipment into the living room these days?

1) I question whether the home-audio surround-sound market is -- in aggregate -- making any profit at all.

2) I don't dispute that niche markets can be considered successes.

3) Surround sound was not built to be a niche market, had scores of companies pursuing it, never has found much of a following in people's home, and thus I consider it -- and I'm not alone -- a market failure.

And, absolutely, all those fancy cars were pretty much dead were it not for bailouts. While I can't be sure, most of them are probably still turning nothing resembling a profit for their owners. That's why, for example, Lamborghini and Bentley are going to be introducing SUVs in the near future.

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 online now  
post #203 of 210 Old 01-19-2012, 01:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Just finished playing crysis 2 on the 360 in 3d. Wow I actually enjoyed it! Had to play at night cause watching 3d during daytime with lights gives me the headaches lol. Only thing I didn't like was the drop in resolution :/ wish it was 1080p. The second thing I didn't like was how the crosshairs in the game looked when sbs was on. It looked like it had a shadow on several occasions :/. Tried lowering the 3d strength didn't help.

Played it on a sammy d6500.

I also saw tintin earlier and was impressed with the 3d...can't wait now to see hugo. Convert? Naw still don't feel like wearing 3d glasses in home ;D (have yet to watch GOOD 3d in home yet too...)

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #204 of 210 Old 01-19-2012, 03:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Just finished playing crysis 2 on the 360 in 3d. Wow I actually enjoyed it!

Crysis 2 actually uses reprojection 3D, which builds a second view using the 2D image and the depth information contained in the engine. In other words, it's a conversion. The plus is that it doesn't require much processing so you don't get a drop in resolution or frame rate (resolution is still limited by the delivery method and the limitations of current HDMI, 1080p side by side or 720p60hz frame packed). Reprojection 3D is also easier to implement than true stereoscopic 3D, so a number of games have 3D support that they probably wouldn't otherwise have. The problem of course is that it's a conversion, which both limits depth and introduces various artifacts. In my own opinion reprojection 3D is a downgrade from 2D as the artifacts in 3D are confusing and distracting, and I've played these games in 2D despite (or because of) my love of 3D. Other people find the 3D acceptable and appreciate playing without a drop in resolution. Opinions vary.
Airion is offline  
post #205 of 210 Old 01-19-2012, 04:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Crysis 2 actually uses reprojection 3D, which builds a second view using the 2D image and the depth information contained in the engine. In other words, it's a conversion. The plus is that it doesn't require much processing so you don't get a drop in resolution or frame rate (the only reason you got a resolution drop was due to how it was delivered, in side by side format; the Xbox now supports frame packing so it shouldn't apply to newer games on the system). Reprojection 3D is also easier to implement than true stereoscopic 3D, so a number of games have 3D support that they probably wouldn't otherwise have. The problem of course is that it's a conversion, which both limits depth and introduces various artifacts. In my own opinion reprojection 3D is a downgrade from 2D as the artifacts in 3D are confusing and distracting, and I've played these games in 2D despite (or because of) my love of 3D. Other people find the 3D acceptable and appreciate playing without a drop in resolution. Opinions vary.

Where do you like the UI to be?

I'm finding that when the UI is sitting on a plane that is super close to me and the 3-D is all substantially far behind that, it's pretty weird and distracting. I'm not sure what the solution is... maybe even moving back that plane a few virtual feet would help.

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 online now  
post #206 of 210 Old 01-19-2012, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Personally I don't have a problem with the user interface being in the closest plane and I think that's probably the most appropriate place for it. Otherwise, you risk having the UI appear to cut into objects in the scene. I've seen this occasionally when watching Blu-rays or viewing my own 3D photos, where a menu is in a deeper plane than the image. More than placement though, I think the key is less is more.
Airion is offline  
post #207 of 210 Old 01-19-2012, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 101
After setting the gamein 3d alot of the textures are whacky lol

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #208 of 210 Old 02-22-2012, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So, what are people's thoughts?

Will real-d move on to another company or are we stuck with active glasses and fpr passive as our only options?
Fang Zei is offline  
post #209 of 210 Old 02-23-2012, 04:42 PM
Senior Member
 
DRaven72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Wolverine Lake, Mi
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

Hmmm...I suspect that if business was as bad as you say, theaters would lower prices...no? That's usually the first indicator of financial problems. I haven't seen that happen.

You need to understand how a Theater operates before making assumptions.
Hollywood dictates what that theater usually has to charge you.

Those "movies" you go and see are rentals themselves. I, between 15-19 (1993-1997) years ago, ran a theater owned by General Cinema(GCC) back in the day. Lets take a movie like Under Siege 2. That movie costed us $4000 a week to rent/run. If it bombed, like it did at our location, it was sent back after that week. If it only made $2500 that week, plus concession stand revenue, we might have only lost around $1300 for the week. Back then, we only made .10 a ticket sold night or matinee. So to cover the cost of managers/concessionist/ticket salesman/and back then a Union Projectionist (which is long gone today) everything had, HAD TO be made at concessions. (Still holds true today, so think about that kid behind the stand trying to make a buck before you stiff them sneaking stuff in.)

Now where am I going with this? Here: HOLLYWOOD is paying these pompous, no acting, and crappy movie actors/actresses from 5 Million to 20 million per movie, depending on the star. That money is passed on to the above mentioned rental fees for their movie. (probably over $10K per movie, per week, average 10 movies at a theater now.) People that own the damn theater chain have to make something off it or there would be NO REASON TO HAVE THEATERS.<----------This is the reason for your high prices and why they can't afford to drop prices Everyone would like lower prices but are you gonna stop supporting these people by not going to the movies or buying the newest 3D Blu-ray/Blu-ray from 19.99-39.99???

Hollywood has you literally by the balls. You stop going to movies, theaters go out of business, production slows, blu-rays quit coming out every week, etc and its goes down the line.

And before someone points out Imagine Theaters $5 matinee, they make up a ton of sales on the BAR inside the theater. Thats why they can still charge that today. But their night prices are right inline with everyone elses.

Thank you and I hope this has been an informative post for those that are ignorant to hows and whys of theater management. And please quit bitching about concession prices are so high, just told you why.

Cool Beans.
DRaven72 is offline  
post #210 of 210 Old 02-23-2012, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^ so true but it is similar in industries where there are "stars" from F1 to soccer.

That's why it's a big upheaval in the music industry with lower cost per song as it hurts the "stars" RELATIVELY more
specuvestor 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