3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 58 - 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 #1711 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 08:40 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jbloggs View Post

I'm pretty sure the conversion of many existing non-3D titles to 3D is right around the corner. These studios will milk this for all its got and so the tech is here to stay like it or not.

Personally, I just got my 82" Mitsubishi DLP tv set up for 3D via PS3 and I'm blown away by the 3D.

Now with an a/v receiver, that's what I call a real home theater system. Enjoy your new set, but at 82 inches, I hope your not blown "into" instead of "away" by the 3D.

Have you tried up-converting from 2D to 3D the material you already have?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1712 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 09:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
BishopLord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florin, Ca
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
It's no more a fad than Rock n Roll or Rap (Hip Hop). People said the same thing about these examples, but today they're a billion dollar industry influencing everything you see on television. Try watching a commercial and not hearing a familiar jingle from the "oh it's just a fad" time period. 3D TV (movies, whathaveyou) is also in the same line of entertainment and the technology finally caught up to be available for the masses (albeit it's not "that affordable" to all, but neither were flat screen tv's - remember the first plasmas were well over $13,000 and that was just 6 or 7 years ago. Flat screen LCD 15/16" monitors were over $1500 back in 98. You'd be hard pressed to give one of those away today or find one in the store for sale. Laptops have bigger screens now.)

Anyhow, whether people want it or not, the only TV's you'll be able to buy with in the next 5 years (or less) will be 3D capable. Try finding an analog CRT TV bigger than 27" in any store that sells TV's (You probably can't, now just imagine within the next 5 years).

The technology is here. Now the industry needs to make a standard and make more compatible products instead of proprietary products, or adapters. If they have to use adapters, then perhaps the cable or SAT companies can release updated receiver boxes as well. Have it built-in instead of another STB.
BishopLord is offline  
post #1713 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 09:58 AM
Member
 
Double_j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopLord View Post
It's no more a fad than Rock n Roll or Rap (Hip Hop). People said the same thing about these examples, but today they're a billion dollar industry influencing everything you see on television. Try watching a commercial and not hearing a familiar jingle from the "oh it's just a fad" time period. 3D TV (movies, whathaveyou) is also in the same line of entertainment and the technology finally caught up to be available for the masses (albeit it's not "that affordable" to all, but neither were flat screen tv's - remember the first plasmas were well over $13,000 and that was just 6 or 7 years ago. Flat screen LCD 15/16" monitors were over $1500 back in 98. You'd be hard pressed to give one of those away today or find one in the store for sale. Laptops have bigger screens now.)

Anyhow, whether people want it or not, the only TV's you'll be able to buy with in the next 5 years (or less) will be 3D capable. Try finding an analog CRT TV bigger than 27" in any store that sells TV's (You probably can't, now just imagine within the next 5 years).

The technology is here. Now the industry needs to make a standard and make more compatible products instead of proprietary products, or adapters. If they have to use adapters, then perhaps the cable or SAT companies can release updated receiver boxes as well. Have it built-in instead of another STB.
The major difference being that listening to rock and roll or rap did not require users to wear special glasses. This isn't a matter of changing consumer tastes, 3D acceptance actually requires consumers to change their behavior for home viewing.

I agree that 3D has come too far to go away completely but it will remain a niche product/novelty for the foreseeable future. As long as 3D requires more effort for a consumer to watch and 2D remains a viable alternative, 3D will never be mainstream in the home.

I do think that 3D will become the norm in theaters since that is more of an overall 'experience' and it is not too much of a stretch to ask consumers to wear glasses in that situation.
Double_j is offline  
post #1714 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 10:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
BishopLord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florin, Ca
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double_j View Post
The major difference being that listening to rock and roll or rap did not require users to wear special glasses. This isn't a matter of changing consumer tastes, 3D acceptance actually requires consumers to change their behavior for home viewing.
It's not that big of a change to adapt to. Look at what's happening in the theaters. Practically every movie that comes out is in 3D (or available in 3D). Now people have the choice to pay a few bucks to watch it in 3D, or they have the choice not to, but the fact remains that people adapted to this and in agreeing with you on this, they changed their behavior. For me, I changed also -- I quit going to the theaters.

Sure, it was an apples to oranges comparison, however, I guess I wasn't clear enough with the rest of what I was pointing out. Even though it's quite expensive NOW, it will be more affordable. Most consumer electronic products always starts off high and after a few years is extremely cheap. Also, it's adapting to the evolving technology. We're not going to be forced to wear these glasses and eventually we're not even going to need TV's/Monitors/etc. to view 3D. They'll be holo-projected via laser. But I'm getting ahead of myself.


If you consider how people today listen to music, one would think you need an i (insert device name) to listen. It didn't take long for MP3's to catch on and millions of users (not me) jumped on the Apple bandwagon and dished out hundreds of dollars for those silly devices, instead of waiting for alternatives. Maybe they didn't want alternatives and are just die-hard Apple fans, who knows, but the point being is that you don't need to buy an expensive item like an i-whatever to listen to portable music. Same will be said about 3D in the coming years. However, if people don't want to put on a device to watch 3D, then they have that choice. I was just pointing out that every TV will have 3D capability, just like when every TV that came out since the mid-80's was "cable ready".

Sorry, I had too much coffee and not enough sleep. Rambling...
BishopLord is offline  
post #1715 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 12:23 PM
Member
 
Double_j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopLord View Post

Sure, it was an apples to oranges comparison, however, I guess I wasn't clear enough with the rest of what I was pointing out. Even though it's quite expensive NOW, it will be more affordable. Most consumer electronic products always starts off high and after a few years is extremely cheap. Also, it's adapting to the evolving technology. We're not going to be forced to wear these glasses and eventually we're not even going to need TV's/Monitors/etc. to view 3D. They'll be holo-projected via laser. But I'm getting ahead of myself.


If you consider how people today listen to music, one would think you need an i (insert device name) to listen. It didn't take long for MP3's to catch on and millions of users (not me) jumped on the Apple bandwagon and dished out hundreds of dollars for those silly devices, instead of waiting for alternatives. Maybe they didn't want alternatives and are just die-hard Apple fans, who knows, but the point being is that you don't need to buy an expensive item like an i-whatever to listen to portable music. Same will be said about 3D in the coming years. However, if people don't want to put on a device to watch 3D, then they have that choice. I was just pointing out that every TV will have 3D capability, just like when every TV that came out since the mid-80's was "cable ready".

You're right that the money part will work itself out over time. Heck - you could argue that the monetary cost to get 3D capability in the home isn't all that great now (especially for someone already on the market for a new set). The bigger barrier to acceptance is the need to wear glasses in the home. Again, theaters are different because going to see a movie is more about having a different experience (similar to the reason that I always buy popcorn in a theater but rarely make it when watching movies at home).

That said, I don't agree with your comparison to the portable MP3 market or cable TV. In both cases, there was a significant differentiation in the new product vs. existing alternatives, and the resulting consumer demand was enough to make those products the de facto standard. The beauty of both cases is that once consumers saw the benefits provided, they felt like they couldn't live without it.

The 3D case is different because the benefit provided to consumers just isn't that revolutionary when compared to the cost involved (including the effort required to put on glasses). Most people I know (myself included) still feel that 2D provides just as much (if not more, due to content availability) of an overall benefit and the desire to move to 3D just isn't there for home use.

I believe that manufacturers will basically have to give away 3D capability to get it into a substantial number of homes. Like you said, it's probable that this will happen in 5 to 10 years as manufacturing costs and componentry gets cheap enough but even then I don't think that 3D will become truly mainstream for home use until years after it becomes 'the norm' in theaters (i.e., we get to the point where it goes without saying that all movies will be released in 3D). In this case, 3D isn't that different from color television or widescreen aspect ratios, etc. - home entertainment will lag what happens in theaters by a significant time period.
Double_j is offline  
post #1716 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 07:16 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
If 3D becomes standard fare on all but the most inexpensive sets, it will probably gradually be in more and more households over time, but it will be a slow progression, not the sudden boom that HD sets, DVDs, IPODs, etc. experienced. It's my contention that most are very happy with the sets they purchased en mass the past five or six years and aren't going to discard them just to get 3D. Not to mention there is an average almost three television sets in each home, which is actually a bit higher than the average size of U.S households itself.

And 3D becoming a standard feature depends upon the industry itself - if there is no real profit to be gained, they aren't about to just give it away for nothing, so for the immediate future i see it limited to the high priced models.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1717 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 08:15 PM
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, 3DTV success is still going to rest more on the media then anything else, and once again I bring up the fact that there is no discussion about being able to broadcast 3D OTA, and there's still a lot of people who get their TV OTA. It's been over a year now since Avatar started this crazed again, and yet we can count on one hand the outlets available for 3D programing.

Right now I'm with Dish. If I got a 3DTV, I would have to change to Directv, which would cost me more per month. Our local cable co., Insight, is still behind in HDTV, so there's noway Insight will have 3DTV in the near future.

Also, the real comparison that can be made when talking about 2D HDTV vs 3DTV, is the comparison of DVD vs Blu-Ray. When consumers seen the difference between VHS and DVD, they felt it was definitely worth upgrading to a DVD player. All they needed to do was buy a DVD player and then buy the DVDs they wanted...nothing else. Same when HDTV came out. A consumer could buy a HDTV and with an old pair of rabbit ears, could start watching HDTV...and, again, they felt it was worth an upgrade for the PQ. Now when Blu-Ray came out, yes all you had to do was buy a Blu-ray player and some BD, but now those BDs were at a premium price, along with the fact that many people who looked at Blu-Ray, didn't feel there was a lot of difference between an unconverted DVD and a BD, when it came to PQ, and therefore not worth the extra money.
That's the same feelings a lot of consumers are feeling now with 3DTV. Not that it isn't interesting, but when all is said and done, it's just not worth the extra money that it will cost to "enjoy" 3DTV.

Ghpr13

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 is offline  
post #1718 of 2615 Old 01-03-2011, 11:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopLord View Post

It's no more a fad than Rock n Roll or Rap (Hip Hop).

Yawnnn....

I'm sure somebody was saying similar things back in 1903 after seeing the first ever stereoscopic movie in a theater which was called “L’arrivée du train”. And the later again after seeing the first ever 3D movie called "Power of Love" in September of 1922. And then yet again on November 26 1952 when they brought out the 3D "Bwana Devil" movie in theaters. And then after a lull period, later on out comes more B&W 3D films like "House of Wax" "13 Ghosts", then in the 60's and up they moved to color with movies like "The Stewardesses" in 1969, and in 1981 with "Comin At Ya!" then add in a few various 3D Imax films. etc etc.. Every few years they bring out a new 3D movie after a period of time of no 3D films, and then sure enough, someone always starts talking about 3D is not going to being a fad, and that it was for sure from then on going to be mainstream way of making all movies. And guess what, so far it has NOT happened.
Johnla is offline  
post #1719 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 05:49 AM
Member
 
mr_jbloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Now with an a/v receiver, that's what I call a real home theater system. Enjoy your new set, but at 82 inches, I hope your not blown "into" instead of "away" by the 3D.

Have you tried up-converting from 2D to 3D the material you already have?

My next purchase is going to be a A/V receiver, my current one doesn't have hdmi inputs.

How would I go about up-converting existing material from 2D to 3D?
mr_jbloggs is offline  
post #1720 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 06:43 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jbloggs View Post

My next purchase is going to be a A/V receiver, my current one doesn't have hdmi inputs.

How would I go about up-converting existing material from 2D to 3D?

No need to purchase a new a/v receiver just for HDMI connections. My 6.1 receiver doesn't have HDMI inputs either so I simply use the tosolink and coaxil outputs of my DVR and DVD players, connecting the appropriate wires to the inputs on my Yamaha. The HDMI goes directly to the monitor.

Many sets have a function which converts 2D into 3D material. Check your owner's manual.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1721 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 06:51 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Yawnnn....

I'm sure somebody was saying similar things back in 1903 after seeing the first ever stereoscopic movie in a theater which was called “L’arrivée du train”. And the later again after seeing the first ever 3D movie called "Power of Love" in September of 1922. And then yet again on November 26 1952 when they brought out the 3D "Bwana Devil" movie in theaters. And then after a lull period, later on out comes more B&W 3D films like "House of Wax" "13 Ghosts", then in the 60's and up they moved to color with movies like "The Stewardesses" in 1969, and in 1981 with "Comin At Ya!" then add in a few various 3D Imax films. etc etc.. Every few years they bring out a new 3D movie after a period of time of no 3D films, and then sure enough, someone always starts talking about 3D is not going to being a fad, and that it was for sure from then on going to be mainstream way of making all movies. And guess what, so far it has NOT happened.

Hi Johnia,

Yes, just like we all couldn't wait for the Ted Turner colorization of "Casablanca", so too can we not wait to see Dooley Wilson singing "As Time Goes By" to Ingrid Bergman in 3D.

"Here's looking at you, kid" in 2D.

BTW - "13 Ghosts" wasn't really 3D, but more a process in which one had to wear special glasses in order to see the ghosts appear on the screen. Have the DVD version of the original and without the glasses, that part of the screen then appears as if it needs to be washed.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1722 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 08:29 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 113
I think 3D is a gimmick add on for something else, like games console, D BOX, Butt Kickers in the seats, etc.

I do not feel it is a fad but has been a special environment feature for the big screen for many years. Just as movies on big screen TV's became the way to bring the cinema experience into the home, all today's new 3D TV is doing is bringing that special effects 3D cinema into the home. It is not like color TV or DD stereo and surround sound because 3D isn't suited for all visual treatments.

I have expanded the special features of my Home theater movie environment with a Butt Kicker in the seat and both XBOX and PS3 game consoles. I do plan on installing a new 3D projector this year. Sure, I'd like more content first but I believe the technology has settled into a standard that will be around for at least as long as the average life of my last 4 front projectors which has been 2-3 years. So, if the technology does change on 3D to something like no glasses improvement with equal PQ, then in 3 years I will be ready for that upgrade anyway.

IMO, 3D is no different than a feature addition to the home entertainment. It's been a special effects trend in theater movie presentations for many years and now technology has brought it to our homes. Nobody is forcing you to buy 3D. Nobody is forcing you to buy D BOX. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a game console. However, when it comes to Home theater with a B&W big screen, good luck in finding one of those. Color with stereo is now the standard. Someday, maybe 3D will be a standard display but not for several years.
Don Landis is offline  
post #1723 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 09:09 AM
Senior Member
 
poppabk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

Yawnnn....

I'm sure somebody was saying similar things back in 1903 after seeing the first ever stereoscopic movie in a theater which was called “L’arrivée du train”. And the later again after seeing the first ever 3D movie called "Power of Love" in September of 1922. And then yet again on November 26 1952 when they brought out the 3D "Bwana Devil" movie in theaters. And then after a lull period, later on out comes more B&W 3D films like "House of Wax" "13 Ghosts", then in the 60's and up they moved to color with movies like "The Stewardesses" in 1969, and in 1981 with "Comin At Ya!" then add in a few various 3D Imax films. etc etc.. Every few years they bring out a new 3D movie after a period of time of no 3D films, and then sure enough, someone always starts talking about 3D is not going to being a fad, and that it was for sure from then on going to be mainstream way of making all movies. And guess what, so far it has NOT happened.

Yeah I wonder when we will see the end of this cycle of the home HD fad that started in the 40's in France.
The difference with the current 3D 'fad' is:
a) it is much cheaper and easier to make with modern equipment
b) it is available in the large majority of movie theaters due to the advent of digital projectors
c) it is available in the home as a 'mainstream' technology
d) CGI is predominant in modern movies and is readily adaptable to 3D
e) The video game industry (just as big as the movie industry) can take advantage of 3D at no significant extra cost.
f) The highest grossing movie of all time was the major 3D release. The 5th highest grossing movie of all time featured a 3D release. The 6th highest grossing movie of all time featured a 3D release. Even adjusting for inflation 'house of wax' comes in at 92 versus 14 for avatar.
poppabk is offline  
post #1724 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 11:56 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I think 3D is a gimmick add on for something else, like games console, D BOX, Butt Kickers in the seats, etc.

I do not feel it is a fad but has been a special environment feature for the big screen for many years. Just as movies on big screen TV's became the way to bring the cinema experience into the home, all today's new 3D TV is doing is bringing that special effects 3D cinema into the home. It is not like color TV or DD stereo and surround sound because 3D isn't suited for all visual treatments.

I have expanded the special features of my Home theater movie environment with a Butt Kicker in the seat and both XBOX and PS3 game consoles. I do plan on installing a new 3D projector this year. Sure, I'd like more content first but I believe the technology has settled into a standard that will be around for at least as long as the average life of my last 4 front projectors which has been 2-3 years. So, if the technology does change on 3D to something like no glasses improvement with equal PQ, then in 3 years I will be ready for that upgrade anyway.

IMO, 3D is no different than a feature addition to the home entertainment. It's been a special effects trend in theater movie presentations for many years and now technology has brought it to our homes. Nobody is forcing you to buy 3D. Nobody is forcing you to buy D BOX. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a game console. However, when it comes to Home theater with a B&W big screen, good luck in finding one of those. Color with stereo is now the standard. Someday, maybe 3D will be a standard display but not for several years.

That's what 3D really is, an extra feature to be enjoyed by those willing to spend the extra dollars in order to get it. It's just that the industry was touting it as the next coming in home entertainment, suggesting it would be in 47 million homes within three or four years and that consumers were willing to discard the expensive sets they had already purchased over the past five years (the HD monitor boom) and invest once again in a new television set.

Even if it does become standard fare in most sets, will 47 million households need to replace their up to ten year old sets which (according to industry salespeople) were to last at least 20 years and be the last TV monitor one would need to purchase for two decades?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1725 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 12:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Another factor going against 3d is the fact that it is too much of a moving target. There was a ridiculous mad rush last year to push 3D with the idiotic active shutter glasses at a time when the economy was in awful shape. Now we are hearing about the new LG and Vizio sets that will require only passive glasses. The public has also gotten wind of the development of glasses free 3D. Once that is out there, many will just wait until that becomes a reality. I really don't see 3D being a feature on every set out there, especially the small ones, which are what is really selling. Until you can get 3D without the glasses, the tech will be a very slow starter. The industry simply jumped the gun with an iffy at best tech with hurdles to acceptance and probably pushed back mass adoption of 3D back many years. Why they didn't wait 2 years or so is beyond me.
JWhip is offline  
post #1726 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 12:44 PM
Senior Member
 
poppabk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post

Another factor going against 3d is the fact that it is too much of a moving target. There was a ridiculous mad rush last year to push 3D with the idiotic active shutter glasses at a time when the economy was in awful shape. Now we are hearing about the new LG and Vizio sets that will require only passive glasses. The public has also gotten wind of the development of glasses free 3D. Once that is out there, many will just wait until that becomes a reality. I really don't see 3D being a feature on every set out there, especially the small ones, which are what is really selling. Until you can get 3D without the glasses, the tech will be a very slow starter. The industry simply jumped the gun with an iffy at best tech with hurdles to acceptance and probably pushed back mass adoption of 3D back many years. Why they didn't wait 2 years or so is beyond me.

Passive glasses tech is limited to half resolution at the moment and has other limitations, it is an alternative to active shutter not an outright displacement. Glasses free is a lot more than 2 years out for the home theater type market and will have its own set of limitations.
poppabk is offline  
post #1727 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 12:53 PM
Senior Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 139
The problem with 3D is without question the glasses. Right now if I want to watch a movie at my house i could invite 30 people if I wanted to and cram them in my living room and the movie will look the same to all of them (as long as they can see it). Now if I watch that same movie in 3D the 3 people with the glasses get the effect as the rest of the people watching will only see a washed out blurry looking image. Until they can figure out how to do away with the glasses, 3D will not catch on in a big way like regular HD has over the last few years.
The real issue of price comes when you factor in that you need HDMI 1.4 for 3D. That means if some one spent over 600 on a receiver 2 years ago that runs DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD and now they bought a 3D TV they have to upgrade their receiver, again, to HDMI 1.4 to still get their lossless audio, not to mention upgrade their HDMI cables, which aren't cheap, as well as buy a 3D Blu-Ray player. Looking at it from this perspective, 3D isn't worth the investment and the hassle.

Panasonic P60U54
Pioneer VSX-1122 K
Polk Audio RTi8's, CSi5, RTi6's, OWM3's
SVSound PC12 Plus, PC Ultra (12")
PS3, PS2
BNestico is offline  
post #1728 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

Passive glasses tech is limited to half resolution at the moment and has other limitations, it is an alternative to active shutter not an outright displacement. Glasses free is a lot more than 2 years out for the home theater type market and will have its own set of limitations.

It is my understanding that LG will be introducing a passive approach some time in 2011 that will not be half resolution. In any event, it seems clear that all the existing technologies for 3D have limitations and that does not even consider all of the limitations in the equipment used to capture live 3D programming. The whole idea is simply too early.
JWhip is offline  
post #1729 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 04:36 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 BNestico View Post

The real issue of price comes when you factor in that you need HDMI 1.4 for 3D. That means if some one spent over 600 on a receiver 2 years ago that runs DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD and now they bought a 3D TV they have to upgrade their receiver, again, to HDMI 1.4 to still get their lossless audio, not to mention upgrade their HDMI cables, which aren't cheap, as well as buy a 3D Blu-Ray player. Looking at it from this perspective, 3D isn't worth the investment and the hassle.

I too have always argued that most consumers aren't going to open up their pocket books to invest in another HD monitor and bluray player and discard what they now have just for the addition of 3D but I don't know if the audio factor is even a consideration. I'm assuming the average home theater owner has been quite satisfied with his or her older 6.1 DTS and Dolby Digital unit.

But for those with late model receivers, wouldn't the audio be backward compatible so they can can continue getting the DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD they are used to? What would cause these receivers to not perform as they did before getting 3D?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1730 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Lossless audio is only possible with HDMI cables, not coax or optical. If your receiver was released after these audio codecs but before 3D chances are they're equipped with HDMI 1.3, which would run the lossless audio but wouldn't allow the 3D video signal to pass through your receiver and into your 3D TV. You could get the regular, lossy, DD or DTS like you would on a DVD by running an optical from your TV into your receiver, but for those who have speaker systems capable of running the lossless audio on BD's effectively, they would have to have a 3D ready, receiver, meaning HDMI 1.4. The new Pioneer VSX 520, 820, 920 and 1020 K receivers, for example, have this new feature.

Panasonic P60U54
Pioneer VSX-1122 K
Polk Audio RTi8's, CSi5, RTi6's, OWM3's
SVSound PC12 Plus, PC Ultra (12")
PS3, PS2
BNestico is offline  
post #1731 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 07:58 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 BNestico View Post

Lossless audio is only possible with HDMI cables, not coax or optical. If your receiver was released after these audio codecs but before 3D chances are they're equipped with HDMI 1.3, which would run the lossless audio but wouldn't allow the 3D video signal to pass through your receiver and into your 3D TV. You could get the regular, lossy, DD or DTS like you would on a DVD by running an optical from your TV into your receiver, but for those who have speaker systems capable of running the lossless audio on BD's effectively, they would have to have a 3D ready, receiver, meaning HDMI 1.4. The new Pioneer VSX 520, 820, 920 and 1020 K receivers, for example, have this new feature.

I see, its not a matter of the audio as it is being unable to pass the video signal onto the monitor, hence, nullifying the use of the HDMI cable altogether. Thus, in order to get the lossless audio, one then cannot get the video.

Would a HDMI splitter box help or would this cause loss in both audio and picture quality?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1732 of 2615 Old 01-04-2011, 10:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post


BTW - "13 Ghosts" wasn't really 3D, but more a process in which one had to wear special glasses in order to see the ghosts appear on the screen. Have the DVD version of the original and without the glasses, that part of the screen then appears as if it needs to be washed.

OK, no problem, just replace "13 Ghosts" with the 1954 3D "Creature From the Black Lagoon" or the 1955 "Revenge of the Creature".



Or any other of the various 3D films from around that era in time in the mid to late 50's and early 60's .
Johnla is offline  
post #1733 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 12:35 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 BNestico View Post

The real issue of price comes when you factor in that you need HDMI 1.4 for 3D. That means if some one spent over 600 on a receiver 2 years ago that runs DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD and now they bought a 3D TV they have to upgrade their receiver, again, to HDMI 1.4 to still get their lossless audio, not to mention upgrade their HDMI cables, which aren't cheap, as well as buy a 3D Blu-Ray player. Looking at it from this perspective, 3D isn't worth the investment and the hassle.

Some newer 3D BD players such as the Oppo 93 and the Panasonic 350 have dual HDMI outputs so you can enjoy 3D video via a HDMI 1.3 cable running direct to the display and enjoy HD audio via HDMI 1.3 cable running direct to a 1.3 capable AVR. The BD player effectively acts as a splitter.

Denon X4000: Yamaha AS500;TS500;CDS300: Pioneer BDP62FD;BDP23FD;DV58AV;DV610: Panasonic DMP-BDT500; Sony BDP-S790; Samsung PS60E6500
blacklion is offline  
post #1734 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 02:40 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Some arguments here just don't cut it!

First one I really disagree with is the idea that the CE industry shoved 3D down our throats, at a time of economic trouble. This is silly. First of all, being in my 60's I can't recall a time in my life when some part of society wasn't complaining the times are too tough to have to buy some new thing. What makes it worse now? 10% unemployment vs. 5%? So the other 90% now can't afford to continue as they did before? People who over spent on CC and now have to take a break while they pay their debt obligations will still come back when they are ready and buy waht they want. Fact is no one is forcing you to buy 3D anymore than they forced you to buy a color TV, a DVD player when you had VHS, a DD5.1 AVR to replace your DD2.0 AVR and so forth. The CE industry introduced 3D last year because it was ready to! It is still around with continued development and movie studios embracing it because they can a year later. Take Regal Entertainment as an example. They increased profits 833% in the 4th qtr as a result of selling 3D and imax 3D movies at a premium price with much higher margins. People are willing to pay for 3D! Learning from BluRay success, the industry knew that if the technology were there, the public would buy, regardless of whether one's neighbor was unemployed or not.

I also don't buy the idea that people will categorically reject 3D because of the present day requirement to have to wear glasses. Fact- it never stopped 3D success as a motivator to go see the movie before. I don't understand the necessity for some to reject a whole technology because they can't afford to buy 30 glasses to entertain a large crowd of people. WTF!?! This is "Home theater" not mini neighborhood theater. But if you do feel the need to design your HT installation to entertain 30 guests, then hey, great! But the 30 glasses must be part of your entertainment budget just as the 30 seats have to be if you want to show off 3D. For me, I'll just buy 4 pair and this is within the budget for the technology in MY home. Actually, only two will be necessary since we only entertain ourselves. When my family and friends visit, we don't watch TV, but to each their own. Plus my HT can only seat 5 maximum.

There is no issue when it comes to the integration of 3D technology into our home theater setups. The issues of 1.4 HDMI and 1.3 AVR etc etc is just an integration bump in the road that we had with all new formats in attempt to integrate the new with the old. In the past, adapters and splitters and hybrids became the solution. It will for 3D too for the first couple of years.


If 3D dies what will be the death blow? This is the real question. To understand we should look at what killed prior new and established technologies in Home theater. What killed VHS? Newer and better quality DVD. What killed Laser Disk? More conveniently handled and stored and produced 5" DVD form factor. Will Blue Ray kill DVD? Only when the technology costs the same. But eventually it will. More likely we should be asking what will kill hard media altogether? My guess will be streaming media, but we are a ways out from that yet. Maybe another 15-20 years and all media will be dead if internet speeds can stream Blu Ray quality everywhere.

No, 3D is here to stay, the big difference today vs 10-20 years ago is that we now have a way to make it happen in the home. The choice is yours whether you want it in your home as it is not now nor ever will be a required necessity to watch. I predict that in the future, 3D will be a choice in every large screen TV sold and you will just have to decide if you want to see your favorite movie of the evening in 3D or 2D. The big difference between 3D in the home today and the future is that in the future, a 3D standard will win out and all large screen TV's will incorporate the circuitry, The future will offer much lower cost glasses or even no glasses but the fact is today the glasses are required.

We're not going to see a world where the only way to see movies is you have to buy and watch it in 3D. It will always be gimmick special effect addition to home and movie theater experience. Buy it if you want. Buy what you can afford, and when you can afford it.
Don Landis is offline  
post #1735 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 04:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 23
3D in theaters has been around in one form or another for almost 60 years now, if you count like many do, the 1952 "Bwana Devil" as being the first break out movie for 3D, and longer than that, 89 years if you count the 1922 3D movie "Power of Love". So all these people now claiming that 3D is here to stay is a total joke, considering that it has never really left to begin with! It's been around for a long time, it only has gone dormant from time to time! Usually after it no longer brings in extra money just for being 3D, so to save money they drop making any new movies in 3D for awhile due to it being more costly to make a movie that way, and then someone brings it back out again as a way to make extra money again, it's pretty much been a never ending cycle that has gone on for 60+ years now. As for home use, years ago you could buy shutter glasses and also certain 3D films on DVD to view with the shutter glasses, with many of them being 3D Imax films! Plus there has been quite a few special episodes of sitcoms that were broadcast in 3D, with "Tool Time" and "The Drew Cary Show" being just two of them, using the anaglyph blue red glasses process. So all this, but 3D is finally here for home use now, is BS, 3D for home use is hardly anything new!
Johnla is offline  
post #1736 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jpmst3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Davidsville, PA
Posts: 8,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
It's here, it's not going away. Either embrace it or ignore it. The fact is people want it and the technology to make it happen with realism is here and affordable. The conversion to digital was a major milestone allowing for boradcast, theater and home viewing. Sure, it may be projected down the road in some form that does not need glasses, but that is a ways off. Right now, it's active or passive. My bet is that passive will reign supreme by the end of this year or next.

jpmst3 is offline  
post #1737 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 05:50 AM
Senior Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I also don't buy the idea that people will categorically reject 3D because of the present day requirement to have to wear glasses. Fact- it never stopped 3D success as a motivator to go see the movie before. I don't understand the necessity for some to reject a whole technology because they can't afford to buy 30 glasses to entertain a large crowd of people. WTF!?! This is "Home theater" not mini neighborhood theater. But if you do feel the need to design your HT installation to entertain 30 guests, then hey, great! But the 30 glasses must be part of your entertainment budget just as the 30 seats have to be if you want to show off 3D. For me, I'll just buy 4 pair and this is within the budget for the technology in MY home. Actually, only two will be necessary since we only entertain ourselves. When my family and friends visit, we don't watch TV, but to each their own. Plus my HT can only seat 5 maximum.

You mistook my point entirely. My point was not that I regularly invite all he neighbors from six houses in every direction over for movies on a regular basis. My point was that if I wanted to I wouldn't need to invest in a pair of $150 dollar glasses for every person in the room. The number 30 was an exageration. But it's entirely possible for people with larger viewing areas to have up to ten people. That well over a grand just for glasses. Naturally, the point could be made that if you wanted to watch a movie with that many people, just don't watch it in 3D. But that defeats the purpose. 3D has a ways to go before it will be a viable option for everyone. Of course over time the prices of the glasses will go down, along with the TV's themselves, but a lot of people simply don't want to have to wear a pair of glasses to watch their TV. There's a reason the vast majority of people on this poll thinks it's a fad.
However I think your right on the money with the idea that eventually everything will just be streamed wirelessly to our TV's. That's the next logical step.

Panasonic P60U54
Pioneer VSX-1122 K
Polk Audio RTi8's, CSi5, RTi6's, OWM3's
SVSound PC12 Plus, PC Ultra (12")
PS3, PS2
BNestico is offline  
post #1738 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 06:33 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
"OK, no problem, just replace "13 Ghosts" with the 1954 3D "Creature From the Black Lagoon" or the 1955 "Revenge of the Creature".

Johnia,

You know darn well those classics are irreplacable!

Joe
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #1739 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 06:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Sorry Don but I disagree with you completely. While the unemployment rate is at around 10%, the effective true rate considering people who have stopped looking for work together with those who are underemployed, the rate is more like 20% Add to that fact the overall anxiety at the possibility of others feeling that they might lose their jobs, well, the time was not right. As for not jamming it down our throats? Well you could have fooled me, with the CE manufactures pushing 3D all over the place with the help of their partners in the press. Anyone like me who says, well lets' slow down guys gets called all kinds of names. It is simply an effort by all to increase their profits without any true demand. To me, it is SACD and DVD-A all over again. Quad didn't work in the 80's and as best as I could recall, there was no real groundswell of demand for 3D in the home either before the media blitz at last year's CES. 3D is a great idea for the occasional film in the theater that can benefit from it. Most are a waste of time. Yogi Bear in 3D! Really? I have no issue with wearing passive glasses in the theater occasionally. However, wearing active shutter glasses at home, while talking to friends, emitters on displays were you lose sync when someone stands up, crosstalk, eye strain etc. is a complete non starter for me. If I were a theater operator who was losing business to DVD and home theater and saw a possible cash cow with 3D and then saw the CE companies trying to take it away with 3D in the home, I would be pissed. Pure and simple, the CE companies jumped the gun with 3D at home. The tech was immature and nonsensical. They should have waited for passive tech before they did this. Now the consumer will see that they should wait for a set for passive, lighter and most of all, cheaper glasses. if they wait even longer, they will not even need glasses. So, why jump in now, when they have recently purchased a flat screen. This was just a dumb idea that was a couple of years before its time. Will 3D eventually go main stream? Sure, but not in its current form. Not even close.
JWhip is offline  
post #1740 of 2615 Old 01-05-2011, 06:58 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
The technology is here for 3DTV and it will in time evolve from what we have today to a better technology in the future. I believe as others that all future TV sets will have 3D built into them as an option for the owner.

My concern is that Hollywood still hasn't embraced 3D as a serious film making technique. That Hollywood is looking at it as a money making gimmick.

Again, I point to Avatar, and the masterful way 3D was integrated into that movie. Yet, 1 year later, no other 3D movie has match the that level of 3D. Yes, there's been a number of other 3D movies since Avatar, but how many of those reached the point of so many people wanting to see them? Now I not saying they didn't do good at the box office, many did, but other then Avatar, I can remember anyone telling "How great the 3D in (blank movie) was! You need to see it!" And as Hollywood pushed more of these 3D movies out, with people I talked to, many chose to see the 2D version instead because they just wasn't enticed enough by the 3D versions to pay the extra money. Of those people I knew that did see the 3D versions, again, other then Avatar, I never heard of anyone seeing a 3D movie twice or more.

I mention this a while back in this thread but I like to bring it up again. I was really looking forward to the new Green Hornet movie coming out later this month. I had be keeping tabs on the production of this movie, reading whatever I could find on the internet about it. As the movie progressed, it became evident by what was written about it, that the movie was in trouble. It somehow had gotten of track and was ending up to be a loser. So in mid-production, it was decided to turn it into 3D! Yeah, that's the answer! Let's take a movie we're pretty sure is crap, and "convert" it to 3D so we can try to pull in some bucks the first weekend it runs...cause that will probably be the only time this movie will make any money.
This is where I feel the real problem with 3D is and always been. Hollywood has always seen it as just a gimmick. Oh, you'll read that Hollywood is "committed" to 3D, and that they have the technology to "do it right" now, but they still think of it only as a way to try to pull in a few more bucks, rather then a true tool to be used in movie making.

Sometimes I feel that Hollywood thinks this way because they know that 3D will (probably) always be limited in what movies can be produced in 3D. I think they know that certain movies could never be made in 3D, and these are the movies that have a chance to become classics due to the story line, like The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Forest Gump, did. 3D would have taken away from these rather than add to them. But Hollywood needs to start taking 3D a lot more seriously if it's to really thrive or it will always remain as it has, just a niche to start up every few years.

Ghpr13

Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!
Ghpr13 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