3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
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: 
Thread Tools
Old 05-14-2010, 08:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
Brian Conrad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 6,404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Liked: 747
A fad in the 1950s, a fad now. CE manufacturers are looking around and figuring a lot of people have bought TVs that will do them for a while so they have to come up with something to get folks to ditch that 2-3 year old set and sell them yet another one.
Brian Conrad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 05-14-2010, 09:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
Chad Varnadore's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Salisbury, NC
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I voted fad, but I think it might be a fad that'll hang around for awhile, considering how aggressively 3D is being marketed by Hollywood and the CE industry. In a few years time, most displays will feature the option. And considering the price premium should be even more competitive by then, people will buy it just to have the option - feel like they're getting their monies worth, or just trying to ensure the longevity of their purchase, even if they aren't personally excited about the prospects of wearing glasses at that moment in time. I know my next projector will likely be 3D capable, but I don't foresee upgrading too soon, since I nolonger review and thus don't absolutely have to be on the cutting edge.

I don't see 3D ever becoming more than a novelty in terms of consumer interest at home. Most of us would probably enjoy taking in Avatar and select others in 3D now and then. But even with films like Avatar, I'd propably prefer to watch it in 2D at least 50% of the time. If studios begin aggressively packaging many of their 2D BD product with a 3D version for select films, the same way they're forcing ALL HD enthusiasts to buy low def DVDs and digital copies already, which from what I've seen a 3D/2D BD with a DVD and a Digital Copy is planned later this year for at least one title (I imagine there'll be a 2D BD only edition too, but it looks like 3D is being added to the studios combo packs instead of being sold separately - haven't heard anything about whether or not there'll be an increased price premium too), it'll only help to push home adoption, whether the economy or demand is there or not.

As is, I don't think 3D has evolved dramatically enough. It's a novel tweak to the previous 3D standard; but 3D is still a little too much like a pop-up picture book - layered 2D, only with more accurate colors. And upgrading films that were shot in 2D is akin to what colorizing black and white was thirty years ago. I like 3D on occasion, but while it enhances some aspects of the experience, it seems to degrade others. Though cheesy horrors and thrill rides might more unanimously benefit from 3D, large scale productions like Avatar deserve being seen both ways.

As excited as I was about 3Ds prospects a couple years ago, I'm still not sold on it yet for the home venue. The technology still seems unrefined and a surprisingly seems to be being rushed to market faster than it should despite the economy. I feel they need to let it evolve in the cinema for 5 to 10 more years before trying to convince us to upgrade our hardware and software.

Chad Varnadore <><
ex-armchair quarterback
Our HT
Chad Varnadore is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
Cinema Squid's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Originally Posted by infurno View Post

That's a horrible article

Ebert is made up entirely of pure awesome, but you do have to understand that he sometimes trolls for effect in order to provoke analysis and self-reflection of positions from his readers.

I am not entirely convinced by the current 3D TV iteration, but I do think it is a natural iteration of video presentation and desirably inevitable at some point, so I will not say fad. It's something I'd certainly like to see succeed sooner rather than later. It goes without saying that standards are a necessity, so I would vote for the "maybe" / "not sure" option in the poll if it were explicitly listed.

Further technical efforts and artistic experiments in providing higher frame-rate film and video seems to me like a more productive short-term goal, however, as this is something that consumers have shown greater interest in with the popularity of interpolating sets (and it does not require glasses).
Cinema Squid is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:20 PM
Senior Member
c-not-k's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ellicott City, Maryland
Posts: 455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Originally Posted by KUJayhawk20659 View Post

Is it me or most of the people that say "fad" and I'll pass are the "senior" members?
I am 36 and love change, however I tend to see the older crowd as being "afraid" to change.
And in that being afraid excuses are made as to why i.e., extra glasses and etc.
I will/am jumping on it and will enjoy the heck out of it as long as it sticks around.

What defines "senior"?.

I'm 47. I saw (part of) Monsters vs. Aliens at a store. Looked cool, but I just bought a new 52" TV 6 months ago and I'm not upgrading just for 3D.

I voted "Needs Standards", but I think it's a fad also. Heck, there's only one other person in my office of 140 that has a Blu-ray player. I see 3D catching on even less.

Of course, 3D will become the new 1080p; meaning all sets will have it, sooner rather than later. I just don't think most folks (who have Blu-ray) will upgrade the rest of their gear for 3D, and I don't think people shopping for just a TV will get all the necessary gear for home 3D at the same time.
c-not-k is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
rjeffb's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
>Maybe in 2 or 3 years when there is no need for 3D glasses, i'll jump on it.

Not very likely. The basic mathematical rule of parallax means you will never have a front-facing image that can produce 3D over a range of locations. Handheld game makers are working on single-player video games that will use parallax and that might be a huge winner. But basic geometry says there will never be, can never be, a conventional television that displays 3D to multiple people or even one person across different locations. It's glasses, or it's Tom who happens to be sitting dead center 7.4 feet away.

There of course WILL be true 3D but it will be a different technology. Holograms, or transsecting lasers, or destructively interfering neutrinos, or (most likely) something we haven't yet imagined. This will not be the appearance of three dimensions within a box in front of us but occupying actual three dimensions in space. That might be in three years, or in thirty.

Or there could be a completely unexpected breakthrough regarding a way to regulate information being passed from the retina to the brain - forcing the optical pathways or processing centers to flash on and off exactly like shutter glasses. That may sound like science fiction, but there is amazing research going on about how the eye actually works that makes this frankly the most likely possibility from a technological standpoint. But the practical reality of this approach, even if it were to become possible tomorrow, is it wanders across the definition of a Medical Device and would probably be disallowed in most countries (well, any country where enough consumer buying power makes it worthwhile) by regulatory agencies. Note they never bring that angle up in SciFi movies...

People are not going to wear glasses as part of their normal, ongoing, entertainment routine. Think about it: if you are willing to wear glasses, you don't need to buy a new television. There are already glasses that contain two separate little TV screens that provide the same 3D effect. They're actually much better, because you can watch the 3D movie regardless of your position - you can be lying down and still watch, you can toss and turn and still be watching. So there is already an existing technology that accomplishes the same thing that could be refined, improved, and reduced in weight and cost that does everything 3D TV sets do and more, and nobody is buying them or particularly investing in their future. I suspect this is because the marketeers know that 3D TV will be a flop, but possibly get more programming content out there as a lure, and then have the Next Big 3D Thing waiting that you'll have to buy.
rjeffb is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
vancouver's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 4,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Forget 3D. Think about all the HDMI standards you will likely have to adopt to. Want 3D with no glasses? Welcome to HDMI 2.4. No, you cant upgrade via firmware (even though you probably could) you need to buy new everything. Dont care about it? to bad, because if you dont buy HDMI 2.4 you cant get lossless audio from 3D movies regardless if you want to watch that movie in 3D or not.

HT is becoming like the fashion industry. PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE!

*steps of soap box*
vancouver is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:33 PM
Advanced Member
darkedgex's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 26
It's here to stay, so long as they standardize on things (such as glasses, storage format, etc). As far as I can tell, most 3D capable HDTVs (3DTVs) cost about the same as last years standard HDTV displays, so I view that as a plus for 3D in the home.

As for glasses, I agree with some of the commenters so far that think glasses are annoying. As someone who wears glasses I'm not a huge fan of having to have something OVER the glasses I'm already wearing. They need to come up with something more elegant and simple to use.

Fight mediocrity: Insist on BD50 discs for all movies longer than 100 minutes, optimized video encodes that fully utilize the available space, lossless audio track, and new masters for catalog titles!
darkedgex is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
stevec325's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Newtown, PA
Posts: 3,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
It will languish around in its current form, allowing the CE manufacturers to make lots of dollars, selling new hardware and encouraging the studios to produce & release content. The sheep (consumers) will spend lots of money on all this, hoping and praying that it will be the next "sliced bread".

Then, one day, in about 2 years +/-, it will drop off the face of the earth.... again.

No matter what anyone says, standards or not, the general population WILL NOT permanently adopt the medium. Why?

One word - glasses.

Sorry, but it is what it is.

My HT Setup - updated 12/25/2012
"...and all the science, I don't understand. It's just my job, five days a week."
stevec325 is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:51 PM
Senior Member
Encrypted Neuron's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I graduated college back in 2002, and through our school, quite a few of us attended Siggraph down in San Antonio, TX. For those that don't know what Siggraph is, it's a huge convention on everything CGI, graphics, software, rendering farms, and many companies and studios open to apply to. Anywhoo, at the show there were several companies showing off 3D displays. A couple were for computer stations, which were awesome even back then, it really looked like you could reach into the screen and grab the objects. There were also large displays, 40" to 55", that also were displaying 3D imagery. One was even showing Shrek converted into 3D. All of these did NOT require any glasses to see the effect. I don't remember any of their names, but the tech was there almost ten years ago.

Personally, I would rather see the push be for 4K2K displays. However, we need to get ALL programs running at 1080p first. There is way too much material that is not even HD yet, let alone all the material that is being upconverted to 720p or 1080i. There is a serious lack of bandwidth that the industry doesn't seem too much in a hurry to fix. Also, the theater industry needs to drop the 100 year tech of 24fps. It would make everything work so much better if it ran at 60fps. No more of the archaic tricks to make film look smooth.
Encrypted Neuron is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
indygreg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: indianapolis
Posts: 1,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 87
my worst nightmare is that this gimic takes off and i have to wear special glasses (over top of my glasses) just to watch a movie. the consumer electronics industry is struggling to figure out something new to offer since even cheap displays can look so good now.


Big Red Cinema Build
indygreg is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
thxman's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North TX
Posts: 2,113
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 547
One thing I keep hearing about 3D is how sports and Porn are going to make 3D take off.

As for sports, it played a big part in HD. HD made us feel closer to the action with higher resolutions. With more clarity, we can see the ball in action and read the players name of off their jerseys from further away. What will 3D add? Unless they add cameras to the players, I don’t see much benefit. I know what 3D may take away. It will require more bandwidth and who is going to give this to you? Are companies willing to lose bandwidth so that can give a few 3D? No, they make up for it with lower resolutions. What does this mean for the rest of us without 3D? We don’t get what we had for those few with 3D? A few other things we may lose are, brightness (3D glasses lower perceived brightness), convenience (now I have to find the remote and all the glasses, oops, forgot to charge them), and a useful new reason to throw a Super Bowl party. BYOG is useless without a standard.

As for porn, I think this may have a better chance via computers. It also is another good reason to BYOG, cause I ain’t touching yours.
thxman is online now  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
lilmike's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 161
I picked fad, but that's not it. I have the sinking feeling that it is some combination of the following:

Something to help manufacturers sell more new TVs, because 1080P/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray didn't.

Something to get people like me back into a theater and help Hollywood sell more movie tickets.

Ultimately 3D anything will not have a place in my theater until and unless I can watch it from all angles without any additional glasses or headaches. We are simply not there yet, and likely will not be any time soon with conventional emissive or transmissive displays.

I am typically an early adopter of technology, but this is simply silly, as was the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray format war.
lilmike is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:48 PM
Splicer010's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39

Ask any AVSer how many times they have bought a new HDTV for their primary viewing space in the last 10 years. I bet it's on the order of 3-4.

You'd lose that bet.

I have bought ONE new high definition set for my primary viewing space. And that was in 2004 when I bought my Toshiba 51H83 CRT HD RPTV 1080i set. I bought a Dell LCD monitor/HDTV for my sons 18th b-day 3 years ago to replace a CRT 19" set that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, and then in March of this year I bought a used, non-working 56" DLP set for $50 that I replaced the lamp on and is now in my living room and my 51" CRT HD RPTV was moved to my bedroom. Then I bought my son a 30" CRT HD direct view set to replace the Dell LCD that had nothing but problems with. Got the 30" set used for $65.

If a TV works then there is zero incentive to buy new every 3-4 years. Even the idea of 3D isn't enough to justify such an outlay of cash for the majority of the television viewing public.
Splicer010 is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:53 PM
Veeper's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 19
3D is a stupid fad. "Hey welcome to my amazing home theater, grab a beer and set of dorky glasses."

"Oh sorry Bill, we're out of dorky glasses. You'll be experiencing no third dimension."

Veeper is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:55 PM
truth serum's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No way on Earth I'm bringing a pretty girl over for a movie and saying to her....."here, put on these glasses" not gonna happen.
truth serum is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
ilovejedd's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Originally Posted by pappy97 View Post

I think it's a fad to sell more TV's.

There used to be a time when the average US household bought a television once every 10 years, maybe longer. And the manufacturers found a way to survive on that.

Then HD rolled around and the companies loved seeing the profits from new TV's that they decided they wanted to see those profits every few years. I believe they embarked on a campaign to make it seem like even for HDTV's, that you needed to get a new replacement every three or so years. To do that you need some kind of advancement.

First you had 1080i TV's and 720p TV's, and even 480p "EDTV's" targeted for a different market that didn't want to spend the big bucks for HD.

+1. Right now, it's just a fad to sell TV's. It'll get there eventually, but not in its current form. I'm actually looking forward to more SciFi-ish 3D in actual three dimensional space (e.g. hologram, etc).

By the way, I think the biggest driving force in HDTV sales (at least in the US) is the analog shut-off. Instead of getting a converter box, people bought HDTV's instead. Even some people who subscribe to pay services bought HDTV's even though they didn't need to. I know a lot of people who replaced their CRT's with HDTV's because they didn't know that they weren't affected by the analog shut-off. Unfortunately for TV manufacturers, I think it'll take at least another 20 years before such a mass adoption occurs again. Well, I guess they could force sales with device longevity. Our old CRT (10+ years?) is still going strong. Let's see if the HDTV will last as long.
ilovejedd is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:57 PM
Senior Member
Mr Magic's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
As history has shown us over and over, it's a fad that will die a quick death, only to resurrected again in 25 years.
Mr Magic is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 11:06 PM
Senior Member
chestnu1's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I voted fad because it is in its current form stupid. I hate that I have to put 3d glasses on top of my normal ones. It is stupid that you have to spend more than 100 dollars on the glasses which in my opinion the drawback of the technology. And then you get to over pay for one of a handful of 3d tvs that arn't even that great according to reviewers.
We just now are only getting close to being done converting to HD now we are suppost to buy new tvs and equipment to go 3d. I have seen online some 3d tvs that don't need glasses if or when those come out at an affordable level then we will talk but for now it is a fad but specking as a fan of pokemon some fads just arn't going any where.

You can never judge a show by its pilot episode or the half season following it.
chestnu1 is offline  
Old 05-14-2010, 11:51 PM
bearfun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
well i think in just the short time this post has been up its overwhelming a NO for glasses 3D and the majority will hold out for a GLASSES FREE viewing .If manufacturers dont get the hint from consumers its doomed to fail.They have all showed glassless 3D tech already at electronics shows,so it cant be that hard to implement,Maybe because 4k TVs is what is really needed for Real 3D glasses free tv,baby steps equals public paying for each and ever step of research they went through,,,,even if it will be redundant soon.
bearfun is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:07 AM
Senior Member
blackstar79's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Fad in its current state, at least until the glasses aren't required it won't be able to go mainstream. Also for TV manufacturers it's just a final cash grab with the current TV tech. we're about due for some drastic changes in the overall tech beyond "widgets" and 3d with $200 pairs of glasses.

To all those "look at all the AVS'ers that have changed their tv's multiple times in 10 years"
A serious "AVS'er" must have the best tech. i for one am not ready to spend 5K on a new TV + 1K on a new HDMI 1.4 receiver + $400 on a 3D Bluray player. AND i just re bought most movies in Bluray I'm not re buying AGAIN for the 3D version of Casablanca......

And anyways. 4D is totally the wave of the future! Smellovision!!

It's all about the sound!
blackstar79 is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:15 AM
disb's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Definitely a FAD as of date. I give it 2-3 years
disb is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 01:53 AM
Advanced Member
dondino's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There's way too much money to be made with this. The potential for 3D channels (Discovery 3D, HBO 3D, etc) is so great I think a lot of money will be dumped into it and eventually you won't be able to buy a set w/o the technology. Greatly subsidized by the entertainment industry.

But I say go back to the drawing board folks and give me the tech w/o the silly glasses!

ala Yoda...

"Tweeters". Heh! "Treble". Heh! A basshead craves not these things! ...
dondino is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 02:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
PrimeTime's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 2,785
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 556 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Originally Posted by tcfish19 View Post

What we need more than 3D is better actors and origional scripts. Most of Hollywood is very boring right now.

Which is exactly why we need 3D. Monsters vs. Aliens in 2D? Nah.
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I think it's a story line distraction... mainly to distract you from the fact that the movie has no story.

Just one more way to dumb down the dreck that passes for most Hollywood blockbusters these days. Toy Story 3, hopefully, excluded.

It's dumbing UP!, not down.

I'd rather they regularly mix in 7.1 surround for the theater and home theater for not just 3D titles as PIXAR is doing for TS3.

I like it too, but really....Isn't 7.1 audio a faded fad already?

Another thing: bump up the resolution and film at a higher frame rate.

Aren't most people quite happy with 720p already?
Originally Posted by oldvideophile View Post

Do I think it's a fad? I certainly hope so. If one reads the Samsung warning that comes with the purchase of a 3D set it specifies that it can cause epilectic seizures in persons with an epilectic background; it can trigger strokes, not safe to watch after having consumed alcohol. Children's exposure to be limited. Not safe for the chronically ill. Can cause confusion, disorientation, motionsickness. There are prescription drugs on the market that are less harmfull than this.

Sounds like 3D is not intended for consumption by lawyers.

Over and above that I have seen a demo and it does not remotely resemble film.

And that's a bad thing, because....????
Originally Posted by kittycarole View Post

I voted fad. But I fear it's here to stay.

It won't be here to stay until we get through a Sports Bar season of NFL/SEC broadcasts in 3D. Not to mention the "comin' at ya" behind-the-basket NBA cameras.
PrimeTime is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 03:06 AM
maxie101's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's called progress. Some will like it. Some won't. But having common standards across all manufacturers would help consumers' confidence in adopting 3D technology.
maxie101 is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 03:55 AM
gphvid's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As long as glasses are required, then fad all the way. It is only making a big noise because of Avatar. All the other releases haven't the same notoriety or really the business. For TV, forget it. Initial interest, but once viewers realize they need the idiot glasses all the time, it will drop way off.

Now develop the technology to go without glasses, then you will have something. But until then, no way.
gphvid is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 04:34 AM
awhb's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Until it works properly at all reasonable viewing angles without having to wear spec's, it a fad. Oh yeah and until you can buy the (good) media for any player, its dead in the water. Exclusivity deals are going to nail the lid shut on this technology.
awhb is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 05:22 AM
jbrillo's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think it's a fad. Who really wants to have to watch TV with 3D glasses? What happens if you're having a Superbowl party? Are you gonna buy glasses for everyone coming over????? If they can ever do 3D without glasses, then maybe it'll be worth it. Till then, no 3D TV for me.
jbrillo is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 05:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
NicksHitachi's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 189
A TV bought today would be obsolete(in my home) before content/hardware/and support takes off for 3D.
NicksHitachi is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 05:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
Xylon's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
As soon as they figure out how to do this without glasses . . . . . .

until then 2D is king
Xylon is offline  
Old 05-15-2010, 05:54 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
Mike_WI's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 2,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Fad/over-hyped, and...
here to stay (likely with modifications/changes), and...
needs standards to thrive.

Without some standards it will have worse growing pains than SACD/DVD-A or BR and never get any significant % of market.


HT: Oppo UDP-203 -> Lumagen RadiancePro 4446 {18 GHz input x2 & output x1 cards} - parallel outs to --> [Audio: Denon 5308CI] --> [Video: JVC RS520]
HT Details: link
Mike_WI is offline  
Sponsored Links

Thread Tools

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