3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 22 - 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 #631 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 07:17 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 bicker1 View Post

The problem, here, though, is your prejudicial perspectives about them, and your implicit abrogating of our own responsibility, collectively, as consumers in the consumer marketplace. Business ethics dictates that they must learn what their customers value, and then provide that at the highest price consumers are willing to pay for it. To do anything else is direct and actionable disrespect against investors. So the responsibility for keeping high-quality DVD players on the market rests solely in the hands of us, consumers, which we either fulfill or abandon through our purchasing behaviors. If you continue, as we have, insisting on only paying less and less and less for DVD players, and we don't offer substantial profit motivation for CE manufacturers to make high-quality DVD players, then they would be idiots to make them for us. They're not idiots. They're responsible, and so yes, high-quality DVD players will go the same route as high-quality VHS players -- but because we consumers will drive things that way.

I humbly disagree about CE manufacturers ethics. Read the following review on a Lexicon BDP:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/t...icon-outside-1
Also, read through the AVS threads on Onkyo SR-606 and the placement of an HDMI daughter board directly above the heat sink...Low cost or high cost CE equipment doesn't always go hand in hand with high or low quality. I bought a Goldstar Hi-Fi VCR back about 10 years ago for about $200.00. It was made in Korea, and I'm still using it. It's one of the best pieces of equipment I ever bought, IMO.

Ghpr13

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 07:32 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 Ghpr13 View Post

I humbly disagree about CE manufacturers ethics. Read the following review on a Lexicon BDP:

That's an example of buyer beware. I can't tell you how many things are sold ten different ways at ten different prices. That's called marketing. If you think that's a matter of ethics, then you have a problem with consumer products, in general, not with consumer electronics, specifically. This is the way things are for everything from draperies to automobiles; cat food to telephones.
bicker1 is offline  
post #633 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 4,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 228
It's great if one can come up with a cheaper way to do something and still retain the length of life and quality, and never need fixing. But if the product is made cheaper and a year from now you'll throw it out: and during it's short life span it has, the quality sucks: then cheaper is definitely not cheaper! But unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to tell?! I swear some products are built to outlast the warranty period by about 6 months!
p5browne is online now  
post #634 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

The problem, here, though, is your prejudicial perspectives about them, and your implicit abrogating of our own responsibility, collectively, as consumers in the consumer marketplace. Business ethics dictates that they must learn what their customers value, and then provide that at the highest price consumers are willing to pay for it. To do anything else is direct and actionable disrespect against investors. So the responsibility for keeping high-quality DVD players on the market rests solely in the hands of us, consumers, which we either fulfill or abandon through our purchasing behaviors. If you continue, as we have, insisting on only paying less and less and less for DVD players, and we don't offer substantial profit motivation for CE manufacturers to make high-quality DVD players, then they would be idiots to make them for us. They're not idiots. They're responsible, and so yes, high-quality DVD players will go the same route as high-quality VHS players -- but because we consumers will drive things that way.

Hi Bicker,

My distrust of big business is because their main concern has always been maximum profit and it affects every business decision they make. For example, we're now learning that decisions made by BP during the first few hours of the crisis placed more emphasis around the economic issues, downplaying the potential seriousness of the situation instead of taking more costly measures that would have limited the problem.

Now on a less serious note, consider the point about producing lesser quality DVDs in order to push the more expensive bluray further onto the market. So many of us are into DVD because of it's high quality - but what if that high quality begins to go down, making the viewing of a film less enjoyable? As consumers, do we stop collecting movies for personal collections? Or do we move up to bluray in order to retain the high standards of picture quality we have become accustomed to?

I agree with you that, as consumers, we can control to a point of what is and isn't made available to us - Divx DVDs (Circuit City's big fiasco) and Beta Max is proof of that. But too often, too many products either never hit the market or were squelched by a concerted effort on the part of the appropriate industry due to the impact they would have on other, more expensive items that could still be purchased en masse by consumers (i.e, those cars designed by Tucker in the late forties).

But this really has little to do with 3D other than the marketing stragegy.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #635 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 01:18 PM
 
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 Joseph Dubin View Post

My distrust of big business is because their main concern has always been maximum profit and it affects every business decision they make.

However, you are looking at it wrong: You shouldn't distrust corporations because they are heavily concerned about profit. That's what they're supposed to do. Rather you should trust that they shall always be concerned about profit. You can rely on that; trust that that shall be the case.

That's why folks invest in corporations... to benefit from the profit earned. For all the other discretionary considerations, investors make their own decisions about how they use the money they make from the profit that they make from their investments

Pardon the tangent, but you, Joseph, led us down this path . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

For example, we're now learning that decisions made by BP during the first few hours of the crisis placed more emphasis around the economic issues, downplaying the potential seriousness of the situation instead of taking more costly measures that would have limited the problem.

So instead of second-guessing them, why not look to how you contributed to this failure? What investments are there in your investment portfolio in companies that would react same way? (Probably most, if not all of them.) What successful political campaigns have you supported that have made it easier for companies to operate that way? What failed political campaigns have you supported, for which you and your cohorts didn't put forth enough effort or a convincing enough argument to sway other voters to support a societal change that would motivate companies to operate some other way?

Some of this is rhetorical, but the overall message is not: This is the way our society is. Like it or not. There is no rational logic in singling out BP, while you continue to benefit from other companies who would operate the same way, and/or fail to do more to change society so that companies aren't motivated to operate that way.

It all comes back to taking personal responsibility for one's own actions. Each and every one of us is equally guilty for what happened in the gulf. And beyond that, no matter how much whining and crying I read, I have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever that the American people are even slightly interested in bringing about the kinds of changes that would prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future. As far as I can tell, people want other folks to incur the cost of making society better. No one wants to incur that cost themselves. Well guess what? If no one wants to incur the cost themselves, then nothing will change.

So folks will just have to get over it.
bicker1 is offline  
post #636 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

However, you are looking at it wrong: You shouldn't distrust corporations because they are heavily concerned about profit. That's what they're supposed to do. Rather you should trust that they shall always be concerned about profit. You can rely on that; trust that that shall be the case.

That's why folks invest in corporations... to benefit from the profit earned. For all the other discretionary considerations, investors make their own decisions about how they use the money they make from the profit that they make from their investments

Pardon the tangent, but you, Joseph, led us down this path . . .So instead of second-guessing them, why not look to how you contributed to this failure? What investments are there in your investment portfolio in companies that would react same way? (Probably most, if not all of them.) What successful political campaigns have you supported that have made it easier for companies to operate that way? What failed political campaigns have you supported, for which you and your cohorts didn't put forth enough effort or a convincing enough argument to sway other voters to support a societal change that would motivate companies to operate some other way?

Some of this is rhetorical, but the overall message is not: This is the way our society is. Like it or not. There is no rational logic in singling out BP, while you continue to benefit from other companies who would operate the same way, and/or fail to do more to change society so that companies aren't motivated to operate that way.

It all comes back to taking personal responsibility for one's own actions. Each and every one of us is equally guilty for what happened in the gulf. And beyond that, no matter how much whining and crying I read, I have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever that the American people are even slightly interested in bringing about the kinds of changes that would prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future. As far as I can tell, people want other folks to incur the cost of making society better. No one wants to incur that cost themselves. Well guess what? If no one wants to incur the cost themselves, then nothing will change.

So folks will just have to get over it.

So, "Greed is good"?.

Is that why so many corporations like BP, etc. are opposed to more stringent environmental control by the government? That it will have adverse affects on employment and productivity? That they will take care of it themselves and the reason for continued pollution has nothing to do with the cutting into their short-term profits?

There was a PBS documentary where a corporate head said he and others like him were more important to those in need than Mother Theresa because enterprise creates jobs, the means to better grow and distribute food all over the world, fosters scientific research that produces medical breakthroughs, etc.

But there was no acknowledgement about there being a difference between creativity that advances society in all aspects of life and mass financial profit which is restricted to the few. No mention about their taking responsiblity for the down side that affects most all of us, no reference to both ends resulting from social Darwinisim. So does that mean that those of us who are fortunate to have good paying jobs and comfortable lifestyles should be grateful to those CEOs while those who are out of work and have taken lower paying jobs that hardly make ends meet have only themselves to blame, along with those who live in poverty, don't have the money for medical insurance, etc.?

However, I completely agree with you that the only way things can change within a democratic system is for all of us to take some sort of social responsibility. We can make a difference.

And so, on a lighter note, IT IS THEREFORE IN OUR OWN HANDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT 3D BECOMES A FAD!
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #637 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 04:33 PM
 
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 Joseph Dubin View Post

So, "Greed is good"?.

No: Rather, corporations are tools used by individuals solely to make profit, and so determinations of greed versus not-greed are only appropriate looking at what investors do with the profits they derive from their investments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Is that why so many corporations like BP, etc. are opposed to more stringent environmental control by the government?

It is useless to speculate on motivations of entities that aren't human.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

That they will take care of it themselves and the reason for continued pollution has nothing to do with the cutting into their short-term profits?

If society doesn't set standards, then it is up to each investor to make their own decision.

My neighbor is a slob. That's his prerogative. I can't control the negative impact he has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

There was a PBS documentary where a corporate head said he and others like him were more important to those in need than Mother Theresa because enterprise creates jobs, the means to better grow and distribute food all over the world, fosters scientific research that produces medical breakthroughs, etc.

Why do you let his opinion upset you so much that you repeat it? Maybe because of your fear of how true it is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

However, I completely agree with you that the only way things can change within a democratic system is for all of us to take some sort of social responsibility. We can make a difference.

But "we" are not. Very few people actually honestly cares about what what you seem to imply people care about, as much as you seem to imply that they care about it. American consumers are great at giving lip-service.
bicker1 is offline  
post #638 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi Bicker,

I think it's best that to our amiable discussion on business and economic power comes to close at least as this forum is concerned, although I take full responsibility for starting the debate in the first place.

Good trading opinions with you.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #639 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 05:33 PM
 
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
Fair enough.
bicker1 is offline  
post #640 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghpr13 View Post

I humbly disagree about CE manufacturers ethics. Read the following review on a Lexicon BDP:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/t...icon-outside-1
Also, read through the AVS threads on Onkyo SR-606 and the placement of an HDMI daughter board directly above the heat sink...Low cost or high cost CE equipment doesn't always go hand in hand with high or low quality. I bought a Goldstar Hi-Fi VCR back about 10 years ago for about $200.00. It was made in Korea, and I'm still using it. It's one of the best pieces of equipment I ever bought, IMO.

Ghpr13

That Lexicon situation reminds me of Guisippe Franco who charged $450 a visit to his Beverly Hills saloon for a hair restoring treatment which he was also selling on TV for about $15 or $20.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #641 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 09:16 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I think it is a bit silly to complain about re-purchasing the same movie on multiple formats (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, 3D, etc.). To me there is nothing evil about it; it's simply the price of technology improvement. It is not like there was a crystal ball with the blu-ray specs available when DVD was being invented.

Even complaining about multiple releases on the same format is not really warranted. It's simply a supply/demand issue.

I'll use Avatar to make my point: If the first home release of Avatar had been November 2010, there would be a lot of people complaining about not being able to get it sooner (I would be one of them LOL). But now that they met the demand, and released a barebones version early, now people are complaining about buying it again in November to get the more complete version.

Myself being a big fan of the movie, I decided to buy both versions. It's not a big deal... I've already gotten my $25 worth out of this release, and by November, I'll be eager to see the extra footage and documentaries. I'll probably be able to sell the version I have and recoup at least half what I paid. It's all good.

I would also add that many times the bigger/better more special editions are not planned until a demand exists. Most of the time a wimpy first version comes out the studios have not yet committed to a better edition until sales figures of the barebones version exceeds their expectations.

I can even think of one that had the opposite problem: The Matrix. The first blu-ray release was the big ultimate box set, and people complained that they JUST wanted the first movie, and just a simple movie-only disk. They listened, and it was released that way later.

Speaking of supply and demand... where are my Star Wars and extended Lord of The Rings blu-rays?

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #642 of 2615 Old 06-12-2010, 10:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by [KYA]Mega View Post

I think it is a bit silly to complain about re-purchasing the same movie on multiple formats (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, 3D, etc.). To me there is nothing evil about it; it's simply the price of technology improvement. It is not like there was a crystal ball with the blu-ray specs available when DVD was being invented.

Even complaining about multiple releases on the same format is not really warranted. It's simply a supply/demand issue.

I'll use Avatar to make my point: If the first home release of Avatar had been November 2010, there would be a lot of people complaining about not being able to get it sooner (I would be one of them LOL). But now that they met the demand, and released a barebones version early, now people are complaining about buying it again in November to get the more complete version.

Myself being a big fan of the movie, I decided to buy both versions. It's not a big deal... I've already gotten my $25 worth out of this release, and by November, I'll be eager to see the extra footage and documentaries. I'll probably be able to sell the version I have and recoup at least half what I paid. It's all good.

I would also add that many times the bigger/better more special editions are not planned until a demand exists. Most of the time a wimpy first version comes out the studios have not yet committed to a better edition until sales figures of the barebones version exceeds their expectations.

I can even think of one that had the opposite problem: The Matrix. The first blu-ray release was the big ultimate box set, and people complained that they JUST wanted the first movie, and just a simple movie-only disk. They listened, and it was released that way later.

Speaking of supply and demand... where are my Star Wars and extended Lord of The Rings blu-rays?

Though I did get into a lengthy and off-subject discussion on business and ethics, it actually started out with me agreeing with one's comment about how happy he was with his DVDs at 480p. The point I was making was that I felt his post reflected the attitude of many who are satisfied with what they have and weren't going to invest again on equipment and discs just to get a bit more improvement with bluray or the addition of a 3D effect.

As long as DVDs are produced to the high standards we have become accustomed to, you will find no complaints from this collector of movies if they are also re-released with more extra features or on bluray or in 3D. And I did purchase the extended version of Peter Jackson's "King Kong" even though I already had the original theatrical version.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #643 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 04:55 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
What you're hitting on, though, is that this time industry has done the exact opposite of what so many curmudgeons accuse them of "always" doing. In the design of Blu-ray discs, they've essentially extended the life of DVDs, since they can play on the same players without it being a more-expensive combo unit (unlike with VHS tapes).
bicker1 is offline  
post #644 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 08:43 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 bicker1 View Post

What you're hitting on, though, is that this time industry has done the exact opposite of what so many curmudgeons accuse them of "always" doing. In the design of Blu-ray discs, they've essentially extended the life of DVDs, since they can play on the same players without it being a more-expensive combo unit (unlike with VHS tapes).

Yes, the industry did do right by making Blu-ray players backward compatible. If they hadn't I think Blu-ray would have ended up like Betamax.

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 is offline  
post #645 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Agree with both your points about bluray but in the terms of consumerism, sales figures show that the majority has not stopped buying DVD players for a bluray nor purchase bluray discs in lieu of the less expensive DVD. DVD sales are still ten times that of bluray and an industry journal (forgot which one) didn't forsee bluray units overtaking the sale of DVD players at least through 2013.

This might be due to the same reasons why many in this forum believe 3D won't be a marketing success either - consumers not wanting to replace their DVD players or their collection of films at this time and that in the future those in the market for a new player won't feel the need to spend more because it is perceived that the slight improvement in picture quality is not worth the additional cost, especially with good upconverting players selling for less than half the price of an entry level bluray.

Just my thoughts and not meant to be construed as prediction.

Ciao
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #646 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 11:37 AM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I think the industry making blu-ray players backwards compatible is good for business and supports the supply/demand model.

The profit on DVDs is probably about the same as blu-rays. So it's a win/win for the industry. If you keep buying DVDs, they still get to sell you the latest movies, and if you adopt blu-ray, they have the opportunity to re-sell you your favorite movies again.

I think DVDs will hang around waaay longer than video tapes did. I think the only thing we'll see go away is 4:3 aspect ratio versions of a movie.

I am liking the cobmo packs that include a blu-ray and DVD. My family only has one blu-ray player, but we have DVD players in several rooms, and even in our minivan. So that means I can keep the BD in the main home theatre, and the kids can run off with the DVD and I don't stress about them damaging or losing it.

Sorry for getting off-topic... but to tie it in, I think everything above applies to 3D if you just substitute "3D" over "blu-ray" and "blu-ray" over "DVD". It will be a similar transition, and one that does not fully replace 2D.

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #647 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 01:08 PM
 
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 Ghpr13 View Post

Yes, the industry did do right by making Blu-ray players backward compatible. If they hadn't I think Blu-ray would have ended up like Betamax.

... or DVD would have ended up like VHS. One or the other.
bicker1 is offline  
post #648 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by [KYA]Mega View Post

Sorry for getting off-topic... but to tie it in, I think everything above applies to 3D if you just substitute "3D" over "blu-ray" and "blu-ray" over "DVD". It will be a similar transition, and one that does not fully replace 2D.

Except for the cost factor. Adding bluray to one's existing HT system only requires purchase of a new player and HDMI cable -- the addition of 3D requires not just another bluray player but a new HD monitor and additional pairs of glasses. Consumers might not hesitate replacing a good working DVD player for a bluray but will give more thought regarding the expensive proposition of replacing an otherwise perfectly working HD monitor (especially if purchased within the last five years) along with the more costly 3D compatable bluray player and additional glasses.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #649 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 08:43 PM
 
paolafisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i think thats the equal game
paolafisher is offline  
post #650 of 2615 Old 06-13-2010, 09:20 PM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Except for the cost factor. Adding bluray to one's existing HT system only requires purchase of a new player and HDMI cable

You forgot that you also need something for the HDMI cable to plug into like an HDTV. Otherwise there is not much point of HD video.

Quote:


... the addition of 3D requires not just another bluray player but a new HD monitor and additional pairs of glasses. Consumers might not hesitate replacing a good working DVD player for a bluray but will give more thought regarding the expensive proposition of replacing an otherwise perfectly working HD monitor (especially if purchased within the last five years) along with the more costly 3D compatable bluray player and additional glasses.

On the short-term yes. But assuming 3D catches on, it will creep into every pricepoint of TV and blu-ray player. The glasses will get cheap too.

I want 3D yesterday, but I'm in the group you describe because I have a really nice DLP that I won't replace for several years. But I have my fingers crossed that by the time I'm in the market for a new TV that 3D is mainstream, and content is abundant.

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #651 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 03:45 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 Joseph Dubin View Post

Except for the cost factor. Adding bluray to one's existing HT system only requires purchase of a new player and HDMI cable -- the addition of 3D requires not just another bluray player but a new HD monitor and additional pairs of glasses.

You're assuming that the person already has an HDTV. It's not an outrageous assumption these days, and as time goes on (an this is the point) more and more of the sets out there will be 3D-compatible, and so eventually it could get to the point where your analysis would change, to factor in that folks would not need a new HD monitor, because the one that they have happens to be 3D-compatible.

That's part of the nature of transition.
bicker1 is offline  
post #652 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 04:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 4,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by [KYA]Mega View Post

You forgot that you also need something for the HDMI cable to plug into like an HDTV. Otherwise there is not much point of HD video.

On the short-term yes. But assuming 3D catches on, it will creep into every pricepoint of TV and blu-ray player. The glasses will get cheap too.

I want 3D yesterday, but I'm in the group you describe because I have a really nice DLP that I won't replace for several years. But I have my fingers crossed that by the time I'm in the market for a new TV that 3D is mainstream, and content is abundant.

One can start off with a Blu-ray Player, because in the initial Setup, it checks or it asks you what Resolution you'll be using, then Down Converts. Sometime in the Future they then may pick up a good deal on the AVR and HDTV as their financial resources allow. But the BD is a cheaper starting point. Case in point - Sony was selling their BDP-S1000ES for $699 - now you can pickup this great BD player for $199, thus saving $500 that can be applied against the future purchase of the other components.
p5browne is online now  
post #653 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 07:30 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
IMO, DVD & BD sales will expand on the "partnership" that they are beginning to have more & more. I think DVDs will be release in just "no frills" disc, while BDs will become the "special edition" discs. This way the manufacturers can make "cheap" DVDs that will cost less to the consumer, and BDs that will entice those who want all the extras, and are willing to pay more, to upgrade to Blu-ray.

Ghpr13

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 is offline  
post #654 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 09:14 AM
Senior Member
 
[KYA]Mega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

One can start off with a Blu-ray Player, because in the initial Setup, it checks or it asks you what Resolution you'll be using, then Down Converts. Sometime in the Future they then may pick up a good deal on the AVR and HDTV as their financial resources allow. But the BD is a cheaper starting point...

This is very true, and applies to me. But it does not really counter my point, because it is also true for 3D.

I have everything BUT an AVR with HDMI, and thus I am not getting lossless audio yet, but I am still enjoying the other benefits of blu-ray. From what I have read, lossless audio is great, but most ears don't hear the difference (even the lossy tracks on a blu-ray are higher bit rate than on DVD). But a new AVR is next on my want list anyway. But I am going to wait for HDMI 1.4 to be officially supported (just in case, I know most of the new spec just formalizes things most 1.3 compliant stuff can do).

[KYA]Mega is offline  
post #655 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
FloridaDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Almost 70 percent voted "Current Theater Hype"
LOL!!! I totally agree...
FloridaDude is offline  
post #656 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

You're assuming that the person already has an HDTV. It's not an outrageous assumption these days, and as time goes on (an this is the point) more and more of the sets out there will be 3D-compatible, and so eventually it could get to the point where your analysis would change, to factor in that folks would not need a new HD monitor, because the one that they have happens to be 3D-compatible.
That's part of the nature of transition.


Hi Bicker,

Not an assumption.

When AVS raised the question of 3D being a fad, I surfed the web to get an idea of how many already owned a HD monitor. A while back I posted the results of a marketing survey conducted by an industry organization. It concluded that a little less than 2/3 of all Americans now owned HD monitors with that figure expected to increase to 70% within the next two years. Less than five percent of those expecting to make the switch to HD said they were interested in 3D.

Considering the economic climate it is not unreasonable to project that most who have made such investment within the last five or six years (when the sale of HD monitors really began skyrocketing) would do so again in order to just have 3D. It's not like the jump of going from standard to high definition when so many (like me) did get rid of their old tube sets for HD ones five or six years later.

While we do not know how many current owners are in the market for either a bigger or a secondary set, we also don't know how many of those will spend an extra $800 to $1,000 (the additional cost of getting a set with HD, a bluray compatible player and extra pair of glasses) for 3D instead of taking advantage of the plumpting prices of regular HD sets.

So with 70% of all American homes projected to have HD, will the market for HD monitors in general level off even more? And will that represent enough interest in 3D to sustain it until it becomes a cost-effective, standard feature on all but entry-level sets? That is the unknown which also affects the nature of transition.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #657 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
 
madturbosnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would personally like to wait and see im in the same boat as many other people, who just upgraded to HD, have a 2 year old samsung plasma hd, and newer g20 panasonic plasma, I did just upgrade to a hdmi 1.4 receiver in the pioneer 1020, and would like to see myself if 3d sticks around over next 2 years, at least now all i would need to do is get the tv since ps3 will be 3d complaint adventually.
madturbosnake is offline  
post #658 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 01:24 PM
 
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 Joseph Dubin View Post

While we do not know how many current owners are in the market for either a bigger or a secondary set, we also don't know how many of those will spend an extra $800 to $1,000 (the additional cost of getting a set with HD, a bluray compatible player and extra pair of glasses) for 3D instead of taking advantage of the plumpting prices of regular HD sets.

No you're biasing the results to try to prove your point. The difference in price between a great 2D screen and a 3D-compatible screen is a few hundred dollars at most. I know, because I just bought one. beyond that, the additional items are normalized. The issue is only whether 3D-compatible televisions and Blu-ray players are in the field; not whether people have the glasses necessary to use them. Given how HD penetration has going from, as you pointed out, from 0 to 2/3 so far, it is possible for 3D-compatible televisions and Blu-ray players to go from 0 to 2/3 in a comparable time-frame, and then we're in the same spot then with 3D that we're in with HD today.
bicker1 is offline  
post #659 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

No you're biasing the results to try to prove your point. The difference in price between a great 2D screen and a 3D-compatible screen is a few hundred dollars at most. I know, because I just bought one. beyond that, the additional items are normalized. The issue is only whether 3D-compatible televisions and Blu-ray players are in the field; not whether people have the glasses necessary to use them. Given how HD penetration has going from, as you pointed out, from 0 to 2/3 so far, it is possible for 3D-compatible televisions and Blu-ray players to go from 0 to 2/3 in a comparable time-frame, and then we're in the same spot then with 3D that we're in with HD today.

Bicker,

Do you really think I'm the one biasing things? This appeared in the Practical Home Theater website in April:

"How much does it cost to have 3D TV in the home?
If you are not one of those early adopters or avid players with a deep enough pocket to spend an extra $1000 over and above what you would normally spend on a 2D set-up, then I am afraid that 3D TV will no longer appear much fun anymore.

"The price for a 3D TV is expected to be some $600 to $700 more than an equivalent 2D HDTV. As for the glasses, prices are expected to range from close to $150 to $300 each. Samsung has just released its 3D glasses for its 3D LED HDTVs. These are available online at $150 dollars each and at this expensive price tag, what you get is a basic 3D glasses that cannot be scaled down for use by kids nor is it a rechargeable model. And remember, you need a pair of 3D glasses for each member of the family that will be viewing 3D content.

"Research firm iSuppli expects that prices of 3D TV sets will start to fall considerably by 2012 - by which time, 3D will also start to be more readily available. In the meantime, TV makers will be able to test the market and get a better feel of customers' acceptance of this new technology. The big hurdle here remains the 3D glasses. But more on this issue can be found in our article Challenges of 3D TV in the Home."
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #660 of 2615 Old 06-14-2010, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiomixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Everytime I go into a store to experience "3-D Television", I am always underwhelmed and walk away giggling under my breath...

Santa Claus has the right idea...visit people only once a year...Victor Borge
audiomixer is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
Polls

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