3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D TV - Is it a Fad?
Fad - Current Theater Hype! 0 0%
Here to Stay - Bring on the content! 0 0%
Can only happen if we have standards! 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 2615 Old 05-18-2010, 10:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WestCoastD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 7,352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I voted "Fad", although I think the choices should be a little more broad.

I have'nt yet researched the new 3D home theater technology (recivers, displays, etc.,...). I'm not yet versed on what is necessary to provide proper 3D capability? Is it just new DSP modes combined with new display functionality?

Are there also new video processing technologies that the "3D" receiver/player must provide as well?

Otherwise, as far as it seems, the 3D movie theater market is legitimately established. And that's cool for all the fans out there that love it. It's only gonna get better.

I don't really care for 3D myself, although I have'nt had the chance to experience any of the new releases at the theater (including "Avatar"). I just purchased the "Avatar" BluRay, but have'nt watched it yet.
WestCoastD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 2615 Old 05-18-2010, 11:28 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SillyConVal View Post

This thing needs more than standards. It needs standards that involve no sacrifice of 1920 x 1080 resolution for broadcast 3D TV. No such standards are being proposed. Why would anyone want to give up resolution for the 3D experience? This is a reversion toward the blurriness of VHS tapes. It is low definition TV.

This is incorrect. The home page www.avsforum.com has an article linked that actually explains this: http://www.cepro.com/article/underst...am_3d_formats/

Here is a quote from the article:
Quote:


Frame Packed 3D

This is the standard for 3D Blu-ray players now entering the market. This format retains 1920 x 1080 pixels for both the left and right eyes, but vertically packs two normal 1080p frames within the same time period as each of the 24 frames normally presented by a Blu-ray player. The result is a frame packed with 1920 x 2160 pixels that is split by a few black lines defining the left and right images.


[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #363 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 04:04 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

This is looking like...

"Chicken Little... The Sky is falling"...

knee jerk reaction...

Pretty-much just another regular day on the Internet.
bicker1 is offline  
post #364 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 04:51 AM
Member
 
leeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: s.florida
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm waiting for 4D Video and Smellyvision!

Now that's worth waiting for....

(I'm leaving this planet now for a little while...)
leeb is offline  
post #365 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 05:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Twelve pages of mostly negative comments on a new technology that's only just beginning to arrive in the showroom.

This is looking like...

"Chicken Little... The Sky is falling"...

knee jerk reaction to something which threatens no one.

It's just an OPINION poll and people are entitled to their OPINIONS regardless of what others may think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Having seen three different BB Sammy displays and only ONE Panny, the Sammy's 3D presentation varied from "unacceptable", to "reasonably good". The Panny 3D presentation IMO was clearly "SUPERIOR" to the Sammy's, but that may be more due to the software than the display device.

You've seen a few presentations and performance is all over the place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Until Sports and Direct TV's 3D broadcasts are available next month, we have no way to measure the likely success of 3D for home viewing.

I expect sports in 3D to be stunning!!!
If so, this will be demanded by Joe Six-pack, assuring 3D's success with the targeted consumer.

I keep hearing about sports in 3D. What about sports in 3D that will be stunning? When did sports become three dimensional? Are live sporting events three dimensional? What is there to be gained by sports in 3D? I'm Joe Six-pack, but I don't see the benefit of sports in 3D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

No one is being forced to buy into 3D, we all have the option to pass.
It's just seems premature to condemn 3D's new technology before it's available for review.

You're right that no one is being forced to buy into 3D, nor should peoples comments for and against 3D bother you. It seems that people or more threatened on this thread by the negative comments. Most agree that 3D is here to stay, but most also seem to not have any use for it at present. If you think 3D is going to be the next big thing then go for it.


Respectfully,
Willie

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #366 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 05:29 AM
Member
 
Veeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Until Sports and Direct TV's 3D broadcasts are available next month, we have no way to measure the likely success of 3D for home viewing.

I expect sports in 3D to be stunning!!!
If so, this will be demanded by Joe Six-pack, assuring 3D's success with the targeted consumer.


Please explain to me how...? If you have expectations for sports to be stunning in 3D, what are they? What, in a sports broadcast, could be in 3D that would totally sell this product? I beg you, please tell me.

Additionally, everyone complaining about the "haters" and "knee-jerk-reaction" from members here needs to stop and think a bit about how some people enjoy entertainment. I don't want to sit down and watch a show like CSI / Castle / Firefly etc and think, "Oh god I wish I was more immersed in this show.." I want to see a good story told on screen, with good actors who sell their performance. I don't want to see a continuing advertisement for products, surroundings, 3D technology. Do I need to feel like some perp just shot at me? Because I'm so immersed in the "world of Heroes!"?? No.

I'm not a hater. I just don't see the need to feel like I'm in a nudie-bar with a dirty pole-dancer on my lap, just because the guys on TV walked into one.

IMO
Veeper is offline  
post #367 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 05:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire407 View Post

It threatens their feelings. They want to feel that they have the state of the art setup, and 3D will give the new people that buy in something that they don't have. When the positive discussions about 3D start to happen, these people are going to get really angry. After they see great looking 3D themselves, they will begin to realize it's a nice option to have. Of course some people evidently don't even want us to have the option, even though they would never have to watch 3D.

fire407,

I recognize and accept that 3D is here to stay, but I'm one of those who see 3D as a fad. If you and others find value in 3D and want it then go for it. It's call choices! I'm feeling pretty good about my present setup and my opinion and decision about 3D. I've seen several posts from the pro 3D crowd stating that some are threatened by this new technology, because they won't have the latest and greatest. Really? As far as I'm concerned I have the latest and greatest for my viewing needs and I am not be envious of those who want to adopt 3D and you shouldn't feel threatened by those who don't.

I actually find that SOME of the pro 3D crowd feeling threatened by those who of us who could care less about 3D.

I recently updated some of my equipment and 3D was not even a consideration in my buying decision; though I knew that it was just around the corner. If I find something compelling about 3D down the road then I'll purchase accordingly.

It's just an OPINION poll.


Respectfully,
Willie

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #368 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 05:47 AM
Member
 
trumperZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kennesaw, Ga
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
[quote=bakerwi;18655586]

I keep hearing about sports in 3D. What about sports in 3D that will be stunning? When did sports become three dimensional? Are live sporting events three dimensional? What is there to be gained by sports in 3D? I’m Joe Six-pack, but I don’t see the benefit of sports in 3D.



Sports are THREE DIMENSIONAL... Height, width, and depth. We currently view sports in two dimensions, omitting depth in 2D. 3D "should" add a real sense of "being there", seeing the flight of the ball and the depth and spacing between the offensive & defensive players. Auto racing in 3D "should be" much improved, with a real sense of "being there".

Imagine two Formula One race car drivers dicing going into a corner, trying to out-brake each other, with a wall waiting to catch up any mistake.

But...

It all depends on the broadcasters camera placement and equipment used.

Sports broadcasting is making a major push going to 3D... that kind of capital investment indicates their strong belief that 3D will be successful.

If this proves to be true, Joe-Six-pack will jump on 3D in a New York second,
assuring it's success and offering us a variety of broadcasts.
trumperZ06 is offline  
post #369 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 05:50 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post

It's just an OPINION poll and people are entitled to their OPINIONS regardless of what others may think.

While all that is true... (1) There is a lot more than opinions being expressed; and (2) Rebuttals to opinions are, at the very least, opinions themselves, and thereby equally valid.
bicker1 is offline  
post #370 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

While all that is true... (1) There is a lot more than opinions being expressed; and (2) Rebuttals to opinions are, at the very least, opinions themselves, and thereby equally valid.

bicker1,

All I'm reading are peoples opinions. If your are reading more than that then you are reading too much between the lines.

"Rebuttals to opinions are, at the very least, opinions themselves, and thereby equally valid." I agree, but what is your point?


Respectfully,
Willie

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #371 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 06:17 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
How I see this 3D thing rolling out-

Over the next year or two, basically every LCD panel and DLP/LCD/DILA front projector will be 3D compatible, whether you want it or not- cost will bump up initially, then it will be a wash whether a display is 3D compatible or not.

Glasses standards:

LCD electronic shutter glasses will become the standard method vs polarized on both projectors and panels, -or-

LCD electronic shutter glasses become the standard for front projectors, due to the cost of dual optics, while polarized glasses become the norm for panels.

However, I am banking on new low cost LCD shutter glasses becoming the de facto standard across the board.

(BTW- LCD shutter glasses are nothing new in home video- the Sega Master System used them in the mid 80's! I still have pair. Techinically no different than current designs- just wired vs wireless/battery operated

http://www.gametrailers.com/user-mov...-glasses/20486

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...3d_glasses.jpg

LCD shutter glasses were released in the mid 90's for PC games, too ).

In the next few years of the 3D rollout, the studios will try to remaster and upconvert the 2D back catalog to 3D, with generally lame results, probably hurting the 3D rollout more than helping. The upconversion fad of back catalog 2D material will go away in a few years.

The few exceptions will be the big name action/scifi flicks and old TV shows where a lot of time and effort, and access to the source elements, may render a good 3D effect- i.e. the Remastered TOS Trek series (yes, to be released YET AGAIN in a new 3D boxset- just guessing), the Star Wars and Trek films, the Matrix, Abyss, T2, Lord of the Rings films, Harry Potter films, CGI films like Toy Stories, Bug's Life, etc.

Moving forward, the studios will try to make too many films 3D- after they come to their senses, the proportion will settle to about 30-40% of feature films, with about 20%-25% worthwhile to see and purchase for home in 3D.

That's my take on it...

...bottom line- of course it's ridiculous to think 3D will *replace* 2D for all/most films. But as a cool, geeky adjunct/"bonus" for well produced films designed for 3D- heck yeah!
Rgb is offline  
post #372 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Sports are THREE DIMENSIONAL... Height, width, and depth. We currently view sports in two dimensions, omitting depth in 2D. 3D "should" add a real sense of "being there", seeing the flight of the ball and the depth and spacing between the offensive & defensive players.

I frequent a lot of sporting events and there is nothing in my home theater room that's going to give me that feeling of being there other than being there. As far as seeing the flight of the ball and the depth and spacing between the offensive & defensive players. I don't think the family in the last row of the upper deck shares your sentiment. (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumperZ06 View Post

Sports broadcasting is making a major push going to 3D... that kind of capital investment indicates their strong belief that 3D will be successful.

They just see potential dollar signs. I look forward to going to my local sports bar and seeing those 200 screens and 400 people wearing their 3D glasses.

I respect your opinion, but I still don't see the value of sports in 3D and I'm a season ticket holder for the Falcons and frequent many Hawk and Braves games. It doesn't get any better than a live sporting event and I can't see how this can be replicated in my home theater room.


Respectfully,
Willie

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #373 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 06:45 AM
Member
 
trumperZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kennesaw, Ga
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post

I frequent a lot of sporting events and there is nothing in my home theater room that's going to give me that feeling of being there other than being there. As far as seeing the flight of the ball and the depth and spacing between the offensive & defensive players. I don't think the family in the last row of the upper deck shares your sentiment. (lol)

Respectfully,
Willie

This may be the best advertising for watching sports in 3D !!!

Football on TV already provides Joe six-pack a closer seat to the action than being in the stadium. Those packed in the "UEKER SEATS" (sp?), or in the end zone miss a lot of the football game, especially when the ball is at the other end of the field. Watching the Hawks in the nosebleed seats really doesn't give the spectator a good view of the "Action" either.

Let's wait to see what ESPN and other channels broadcast before writing 3D off as "just a fad".

We will know more in a month or so, from one neigbhor to another, Happy Viewing.

I'm in Kennesaw.

B/R

Trumper
trumperZ06 is offline  
post #374 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 07:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Definately a fad - at least I hope so! The history of 3D in the cinema is not encouraging. It seems to cycle in and out of favour every 20 years or so. People quickly tire of it, and the studios seem to think that the 3D gimmick is enough to offset an otherwise forgettable film. Right now, we are getting an onslaught of 3D fantasy films, mainly aimed at the teenage market. No one has yet produced a mature drama in 3D, and there is a good reason for that- 3D adds nothing to a drama film, in fact it is a distraction. So the use of 3D is going to be restricted mainly to CGI laden adolescent action and fantasy films. I don't know about you, but I have had my fill of those kinds of films.
3D TV in the home has no future at all, except for gamers. No one is going to want to be bothered wearing those glasses after the initial novelty wears off (in about a week!).
taffman is offline  
post #375 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 07:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chad Varnadore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Salisbury, NC
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Wow. I said fad, but one that, because of studio and CE persistance, would be here to stay. But, seeing that even a board of die-hard HT enthusiasts are overwhelmingly un-enthused, I may have to reconsider.

Then again, I don't believe D-Box has completely stopped operations yet and 3D will definately see more promotion and adoption than it. From what I've seen of a couple unannounced titles in the works, odds are that many who don't even like 3D will have a 3D BD in their collection by the end of the year, just because we'll have to buy it that way to get the 2D version with all the trimmings we want.

Chad Varnadore <><
ex-armchair quarterback
***************
Our HT
Chad Varnadore is offline  
post #376 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 07:45 AM
Member
 
jay0heavenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuppy View Post

People purchased Color TV before Color Programing

People purchased Stereo TV before there was much stero programming

People purchased Widescreen TV before there was any Widescreen content

People purchased HDTV before there was much HDTV programming

People purchased BIG screen to bring the Movie Theater experience HOME.

3D Movies at one point this year held the #1 box office for over 14 weeks in a row.

3D is here to stay, people will purchase 3DTV before there is a lot of content

Ding Ding Ding!!!
jay0heavenly is offline  
post #377 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 08:00 AM
Member
 
cableup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At this writing 65% of American households now sport HDTV. That's up from 52% in '09 and you can thank the digital standard and falling prices for that big annual jump. The annual tv sales number is a moving target but it's safe to project more than 35m units will be sold during 2010 domestically. So... 12m of those won't need HD capacity. I would venture that those buyers will not be in the market for any bells and whistles including 3D.
Of the remaining 23m let's be generous and assume that around 75% will be flat screen. So that's 6m CRTs et al.
That leaves 17 million flat screen sets to sell to the consumer in 2010.
The 3D rush is expected to start in June, half way through the year, but the last quarter sees the most sales so let's say 75% of flat screen sales will happen in 2010 after the 3D reveal.
I'm suggesting an available market for over 12 million units.
Those 12 million units are all of the sales of flat screens. Most flat screen sales are of 30 inch and smaller screens and it's hard to argue that 3D will be a selling point in smaller screen sizes so (again generously) we cut the number in half to 6 million units.
It gets murkier at this point. You have a new flagship product. It may get the attention of the masses but it is inaugural and you know full well that it will attract tech minded early adopters more than mom and pop regardless the marketing blitz. Those buyers will not be purchasing it as a second set for the game room or third set for the kids room. It will be the alpha setup. Out of 6 million consumers how many fit that profile? Half? OK, 3 million.
Of that core another half will opt out for a variety of reasons, maybe the glasses, the comparative value, the wife, whatever. So the big manufacturers would be hanging their hats on first year sales, based on say a 2000$ median price per unit, of 3 billion gross.
You can spin the numbers any which way, I did, but I come up with less than 5% of unit market share and my gut is that's being pretty generous.

SKEWED OPINION PART
I bet there would be champagne flowing in Tokyo, Seoul and Irvine if they knocked off anywhere near 5% on a new flagship although they would be a lot happier if it were new share and not squeezing extra ducats out of existing wallets.
Granted, it's high end share and sustainable as a volume niche but the next big thing? It really depends on how much unique content gets in the pipeline and the satisfaction of early adopters. I don't think you get either.
On the one hand, content will lag much like early HD, and much like HD today how much really needs the benefit of the technology? I can watch Judge Judy in HD DTS but why?
So adopters will find themselves singing the praises of a small set of options for a few years at least. That will work for some but it won't work for others. Some will excuse the limited available media in that the machines will deliver quality HD without 3D. Others will not be so forgiving of paying a premium for an option that languishes.

After a years use who will not have tales of woe about the glasses? I wear prescription glasses and I'm here to testify that there is baggage in your life that comes with glasses. I defy mortals to come back after a year of glasses use to take advantage of the selling point of 3D tv with glowing reports about the glasses experience. If a report is peppered with terms like "in spite of" or " despite having to" or "wife insists that I get lighter ones because her sensitive nose is chafing" you are reading feedback from an apologist for a clunky, half baked technology that demands a physical modification to the user and a seed change for many in how they approach something as taken for granted as sight. Commentors that dismiss this part of the equation are being disingenuous if they have a history with eyeglasses or if they do not have that history are underestimating the impact that having to maintain and wear a device has on comfort and relative ease, two things I kind of prize when I sit back with a clicker and a tub of popcorn. I don't even like having to rely on the remote but at least I don't have to balance it on my face.

An earlier poster already has waxed eloquent about new and wondrous glasses under development that will be both stylish and unobtrusive. Funny. Not funny ha ha, funny Oh Brother!
cableup is offline  
post #378 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 42
The only way I plan to upgrade is if it is still around when I start upgrading components in my signal path.

I am already 3 years in with my Onkyo 805, but I plan on using that for at least another 4 to 5 years.

I am about 2.5 years in with my Epson Pro 1080UB. I have about 1500h on the original bulb, but I have a spare bulb that came with it. So I don't anticipate replacing that for least 5 years.

BD players are cheap. I don't have a problem replacing those every couple of years.

So with my receiver and projector I don't anticipate being 3D capable for at least another 5 years. Now will 3D still be around at that point as a mass market product offering?

As others have said until there is real content the demand for 3D will be low. Will CE companies move the tech into lower cost offerings to increase demand for content? Remains to be seen. Somehow I see 3D being the laserdisc of the new decade. You will have a niche market filled with diehards.

Sure I checked out MvA demo at Best Buy. Was it good? Sure it was a phenominal improvement over the old anagylph tech that the home devices relied on. Was it so good that that I would currently give up my large format 1080p setup for 3D on a small screen? No.

Toknowshita is offline  
post #379 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 08:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Ghpr13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fairdale,KY
Posts: 815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

...

The main problem or weakness is in the production end, not the display end. How good (or bad) the 3D effect is rests with the director or cinematographer. They are the ones that determine how weak or strong the 3D effect is through lens convergence/divergence....or more importantly, how much eye strain will be experienced by a lot of people. NONE OF THIS IS DISPLAY EQUIPMENT DEPENDENT...

This is what I was trying to say about the film being made from the begging specially for 3D. You stated it much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuppy View Post

3D Movies at one point this year held the #1 box office for over 14 weeks in a row.

Which 3D movies? The only one that was a major hit was Avatar AFAIK. A couple of others might have made top dollar for 1 or 2 weekends, but only Avatar sustained repeated #1 ranking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

Fox's decision to hold up Avatar on 3D will be a real killer to progress on 3D.

I agree with this...I don't understand why Fox released a 2D version of this movie now...to me this shows that Fox just wanted to get the money off of DVD sales while the hype of Avatar was still strong. I would have thought that Fox would have at least waited until Christmas to release a 3D version, still holding back on the 2D or making it a 2D/3D version in one pack. Again, to me, this doesn't show a firm commitment by Fox for 3D in the home...If I wanted to get a 3D set today, Aliens vs Monsters would not be the first movie I would want to view (nothing against the movie itself).

Ghpr13

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 is offline  
post #380 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 08:37 AM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by cableup View Post

If a report is peppered with terms like "in spite of" or " despite having to" or "wife insists that I get lighter ones because her sensitive nose is chafing" you are reading feedback from an apologist for a clunky, half baked technology that demands a physical modification to the user and a seed change for many in how they approach something as taken for granted as sight.

Everything you said is true, yet I would draw a completely different conclusion. If someone gives a glowing review of 3D "in spite of" the glasses, to me that speaks even more positively about the 3D content itself. But of course everyone would prefer 3D without glasses. But there is not even a decent projected date on when that will be. So adding the current 3D tech to TVs makes sense, and if you are not interested, the simple solution is, don't buy any glasses or 3D blu-rays. I can say with pretty high confidence that there will not be any exclusively in 3D content for a very long time. It would be crazy for any media company to make 3D the only option for a VERY long time.

Quote:
Commentors that dismiss this part of the equation are being disingenuous if they have a history with eyeglasses or if they do not have that history are underestimating the impact that having to maintain and wear a device has on comfort and relative ease, two things I kind of prize when I sit back with a clicker and a tub of popcorn.

I totally agree here. As much as I want 3D, I don't want it all the time, and I wouldn't want anyone buy into it without knowing the down-sides of wearing the glasses. But for me anyway, it's well worth it. I love 3D content. Of course I love it more when done right, and I am not all that interested in the 2D to 3D converted stuff. Unfortunately, I already have my nice TV, and will not be in the market for 3D for a while, but that could be a good thing if the standards go through some iterations.

On a side note, this reminds me of discussions over virtual reality. I know people excited about that, but I am leaning towards the naahh group here. When I play a video game, it's because I want to relax and be lazy. I like to prop up my feet and only wiggle my thumbs. I don't want to get sweat drenched running around in some virtual world fighting for my life. LOL

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #381 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 09:01 AM
Newbie
 
billydkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I voted FAD! My wish/dream that the manufactures focus efforts on improving and expanding HD and get off this BS 3D hype... just my 2cents
billydkid is offline  
post #382 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 09:23 AM
Member
 
wondras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I voted "Fad," but I concede that this is mostly wishful thinking. I've thought about why I feel this way, and it turns out I do have some concrete reasons for it.

Many have said that it "doesn't hurt anyone" to have 3D as an option. I don't entirely agree with this. The push to add 3D diverts attention and resources away from features I *do* care about, such as better black levels and wider viewing angles. Hopefully it will just slow improvements on those fronts, rather than derail it.

My larger concern is that it will affect the content. Films and programs will be produced with 3D in mind, whether they truly benefit from it or not. This necessarily detracts from other aspects of their presentation. It's similar to how the excessive use of limiting and clipping in modern music production significantly reduces my enjoyment of the music. It's a fantastic time for wide availability of all sorts of music, but mixing that competes in the "loudness war" and is clearer at low volumes as background noise for the iPod generation has resulted in my fancy home audio gear sitting idle for some time now. I have ear fatigue after just a couple of tracks. It pains me to say it, but this generation's music sounds like noise to me.

I don't think 3D is all bad, though. It has huge potential for gaming. Console gaming is often a solitary activity, and already requires special equipment, which overcomes two major obstacles -- cost of multiple glasses and the "dork factor." Game environments are already un-natural for the most part, so 3D is not likely to detract from the realism and immersion, only to add to it.

For some film and television content it is entirely appropriate and desirable, but I think it's a small enough percentage that it makes more sense for it to be done "right" in a specially-equipped theater than as a half-baked add-on to home systems. In the same way that the few arcade video games that still exist are mostly mechanical simulators or use large controls that are impractical at home, 3D would be best served in its own venue. IMAX 3D is an amazing experience, but not one I want or need a pale facsimile of every day at home.

I realize that change is inevitable. I just hope it's "change we can agree on."

Thanks for listening.
wondras is offline  
post #383 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 10:32 AM
Newbie
 
Untamed12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It has been said thousands of times already...but I just don't perceive the same level of sharpness when watching 3D content through the glasses. It all just seems less clear and distracting.

A lot of TVs will get sold with this capability...few will get watched that way.
Untamed12 is offline  
post #384 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 11:10 AM
Member
 
slytrans69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am always last to adopt new technology. That way I do not have to suffer through the growing pains of emerging devices. By the time the need for glasses is past, the bugs will be worked out of the other devices in the chain of source to display. There is a problem of a genetic eye defect that will render a headache to approximately 2% of people who watch 3D. This may in time be remedied, but for now they will always have to stick to 2D. So go to a 3D movie before you buy. The reason people see naturally in 3D is because the eyes are not on a parallel plane. One eye is further out than the other, which creates a biplane focal point when observing objects. Thus photos or any veiwing device appear in 2D and live objects appear in 3D. 3D is here to stay because it is natural viewing.
slytrans69 is offline  
post #385 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post

fire407,

I recognize and accept that 3D is here to stay, but I'm one of those who see 3D as a fad. If you and others find value in 3D and want it then go for it. It's call choices! I'm feeling pretty good about my present setup and my opinion and decision about 3D. I've seen several posts from the pro 3D crowd stating that some are threatened by this new technology, because they won't have the latest and greatest. Really? As far as I'm concerned I have the latest and greatest for my viewing needs and I am not be envious of those who want to adopt 3D and you shouldn't feel threatened by those who don't.

I actually find that SOME of the pro 3D crowd feeling threatened by those who of us who could care less about 3D.

I recently updated some of my equipment and 3D was not even a consideration in my buying decision; though I knew that it was just around the corner. If I find something compelling about 3D down the road then I'll purchase accordingly.

It's just an OPINION poll.


Respectfully,
Willie

I will admit I am threatened by the 3D haters. They don't want this technology to even exist, and a meaningless poll like this seems to validate their feelings. I say meaningless because the new 3D has barely begun to exist--certainly little or no content. A tiny handful of people actually have the technology in the home, and most of the people here haven't even seen the new 3D, or they've seen poorly setup demos. Again, if a similar poll had been taken for HDTV 12 years ago, overwhelmingly the results would have been the same.
fire407 is offline  
post #386 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 11:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
bweissman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: California, USA
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire407 View Post

Again, if a similar poll had been taken for HDTV 12 years ago, overwhelmingly the results would have been the same.

This is true. I remember back in 2002, I was interviewing for a job at News Corp., parent of the Fox network. The VP who was interviewing me told me that Fox had no intention of going HD because 480p was good enough and no one could tell the difference.
bweissman is offline  
post #387 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
blacklion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bweissman View Post

This is true. I remember back in 2002, I was interviewing for a job at News Corp., parent of the Fox network. The VP who was interviewing me told me that Fox had no intention of going HD because 480p was good enough and no one could tell the difference.

There are still millions of people out there who say they can't see any or a radical difference between SD and HD Tens of millions of SD TVs are still in use. Which suggests that but for the confusion and hullabaloo about the digital switchover, many regular, ordinary folks may never have even bought HDTVs given the choice

Denon X4000: Yamaha AS500;TS500;CDS300: Pioneer BDP62FD;BDP23FD;DV58AV;DV610: Panasonic DMP-BDT500; Sony BDP-S790; Samsung PS60E6500
blacklion is offline  
post #388 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
pjpjpjpj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Re: 3D and sports:

I recently read an article about how 3D technology was going to revolutionize sports viewing, and my thought was how?. While the networks might talk a good game about how you'll be able to see the trajectory of the ball - whether it be a fly ball in baseball, a shot in basketball, a pass in football, whatever - I don't see that being much better than it already is. Truth is, as was stated somewhere above, people sitting in the stands at sporting events can't even tell the trajectory most of the time, and they're actually witnessing it live (go to a baseball game and listen to how many people scream in excitement when a high infield popup leaves the bat because they think it's a home run).

It's a matter of two issues - proper viewing angle of the play, and distance (camera view width) from the ball. Americans are used to seeing their favorite sports from a few standard angles centerfield behind the pitcher for most plays in baseball, with cuts to the fielder making the play once the ball is hit; sideline wide-angle where you can see almost sideline-to-sideline in (American) football; and high-halfcourt, wide enough to see sideline-to-sideline and nearly baseline-to-halfcourt in basketball. When TV networks start trying different things - like Fox trying to use the flyaround camera view from behind the QB for football - people revolt (XFL, anyone?). The reason those traditional camera angles above have been used for years is because they are the best angles to really see what is going on. You don't just want to see the QB or the batter, you want to see all the players involved in the play and how they are acting with relation to each other. But, by nature of what they are, none of these views really lend themselves to being improved by 3D, because they are either too wide-angle/too far away (football and basketball), or not an angle where trajectory would help (behind the pitcher in baseball). Think about how relatively small the ball is in basketball and football coverage. Would you really be able to pick up the fine nuances of a football pass arc, in the second or so that the ball is in the air, to tell where exactly it will land? Nope - and the truth is, most people's eyes, whether they realize it or not, shift to the receivers and defenders in the area and don't even watch the ball. And in the rare case where a long-bomb pass is thrown, and this 3D trajectory might be beneficial, where is the ball? Off the screen. We're watching the receiver and defender battle for position, and then the ball drops back onto the screen just before reaching the players. Unless you change to a diagonal isometric view of the field, you aren't going to really benefit from 3D at all.

So, IMO, the biggest battle that 3D sports coverage faces in America is not just getting people to cough up the extra money for the hardware, networks, and glasses, but getting Americans to accept completely new viewing angles for all the sports they are accustomed to watching. And Americans won't like that. There's a reason why the networks all save the isolation cameras and funky-angled views for replays only.

Supposedly the sport that benefits the most is soccer (football to the rest of the world). The extreme wide-angle shots, or even real-time camera zooms, that keep long passes on the screen, and the frequency of those long passes, could potentially give some added benefit to 3D viewing. In fact, I think soccer was the main sport that the article I read was discussing. But in America, how much soccer is shown? Nothing against soccer, but it doesn't have the viewership to support the money required for much of America to make the jump to 3D. I would suspect that, if soccer were really one of the only benefiting sports, it wouldn't be a very good business model for manufacturers of hardware, or cable/satellite companies, to invest in the techonology.

I can also agree that it might be cool having 3D for in-car views in racing. But how often are those views shown? And are you really going to buy a new TV, subscribe to a more-expensive TV package, and wear glasses, just for the occasional in-car view during the weekly NASCAR or Indy race? And they can't really use that view too much, because you can't see where many of the cars are, with relation to each other, from in-car cameras. And, as with soccer, this one sport alone would not be self-sustaining in relation to the investment required.

Long story, uh, longer I don't think 3D will be worth the effort for sports.
pjpjpjpj is offline  
post #389 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,817
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by cableup View Post

After a years use who will not have tales of woe about the glasses? I wear prescription glasses and I'm here to testify that there is baggage in your life that comes with glasses. I defy mortals to come back after a year of glasses use to take advantage of the selling point of 3D tv with glowing reports about the glasses experience. If a report is peppered with terms like "in spite of" or " despite having to" or "wife insists that I get lighter ones because her sensitive nose is chafing" you are reading feedback from an apologist for a clunky, half baked technology that demands a physical modification to the user and a seed change for many in how they approach something as taken for granted as sight. Commentors that dismiss this part of the equation are being disingenuous if they have a history with eyeglasses or if they do not have that history are underestimating the impact that having to maintain and wear a device has on comfort and relative ease, two things I kind of prize when I sit back with a clicker and a tub of popcorn. I don't even like having to rely on the remote but at least I don't have to balance it on my face.

An earlier poster already has waxed eloquent about new and wondrous glasses under development that will be both stylish and unobtrusive. Funny. Not funny ha ha, funny Oh Brother!



Movie Directors who wear prescription glasses.

8mile13 is offline  
post #390 of 2615 Old 05-19-2010, 01:16 PM
Senior Member
 
bayareakirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
FAD, and people will buy it.
For everyone in the house to have to put on glasses to watch, it doesn't seem possible to catch on as a norm - but it could make Pizza-movie night a bit more fun sometimes.

I don't know if this has already been brought up, but Samsung has issued a very strong health warning against watching 3D TV. Here is one link: http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/samsun...ng-about-3d-tv
bayareakirk is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
Polls

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