Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 20 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D TV - Is it a Fad?
Fad - Still Current Movie Theater Hype! 0 0%
Here to Stay - Bring on the content! 0 0%
Can only really happen if we have standards! 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 03:05 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike W View Post

My exposure to 3D is limited to Avatar (theater run, Real 3d), Panasonic Plasma and Sim (twin projector, roughly 60K display) movie content shown at a top notch home theater show (as I recall, one used passive glasses and the other active, but I could be misremembering), and NHL hockey on a current model Sony Bravia (active shutter glasses) at a friend's house.

The 3D effect for all of these displays was impressive (especially so for one of the two features shown on the Sims, a car race. It was amazing); hence, my guess that it is a technology that is here to stay. However, my lack of interest in jumping into 3D right now is based on the need to wear the glasses. Foremost is the very noticeable reduction in image brightness, particularly given that my HT is projector-based. For example, at the theater, during Avatar, when I periodically watched without the glasses, I was dismayed by how much brightness was lost. Same for my other 3D experiences. So for me, it simply comes down to a preference of greater brightness over a 3D image, especially given that I'm very happy with my 2D image.

Second, I can't envision myself wearing 3D glasses happily for hours at a time. I enjoyed Avatar (particularly given the low plot expectations with which I entered) and many of the 3D effects were highly engrossing, but I was sure ready to get those glasses off after 3 hours!

Given that, plus the fact that the overwhelming majority of films we watch (including many classics and foreign films) are not made in 3D, I'm perfectly content to see how the technology evolves over the next two to three years before jumping in. I anticipate that the first piece of equipment that I'll be upgrading anyway is my pre-amp, which is non-HDMI (I run multi-channel analog audio to it from my blu-ray, and am very happy with the sound). If I felt the need to replace it now, I would hedge my bet and get one that is 3D compatible, as I think 3D has a good shot of catching on more widely this time around.

Whether affordable (say <10K ) projector brightness will evolve to easily compensate for the brightness reduction imposed by the glasses, the technology used in the glasses will change, or some techno magicians can conjure up a glassless 3D technology that works around the human visual system and displays a large image, who knows. But given how far the whole HT enterprise has come in the last 10-15 years, I wouldn't rule much out.

Auto 3D (no glasses) will restore brightness in the images but it has a ways to go before it becomes a foolproof tech ready for consumers. So that leaves the glasses.

Yes, the glasses do severely cut down the brightness of the images. Can be from 60% to 80% depending on the method and quality of the glasses. That's why IMAX chooses to use dual projectors for both their Digital and 15/70 3D theaters.

Some people have been turning to dual projectors for their HT for increased brightness and the opportunity to use passive instead of active glasses. The 3D Display Forum is a good place to look for threads on these setups. Look for Infitec and Optoma 3D-XL in the thread titles. Also there is a sticky on 3D screens that might interest you.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 05:02 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike W View Post

Foremost is the very noticeable reduction in image brightness, particularly given that my HT is projector-based. For example, at the theater, during Avatar, when I periodically watched without the glasses, I was dismayed by how much brightness was lost. Same for my other 3D experiences. So for me, it simply comes down to a preference of greater brightness over a 3D image, especially given that I'm very happy with my 2D image.

Check out the dual projector setup I've built over in the Ultimate 3D Projection thread. I've found that both circular and linear polarized systems can be built that lose very little light. Loses less than 20% of the light.

Even regular viewers who are not 3D experts have raved about how much brighter Avatar was than when they saw it in the theater.
rdjam is offline  
post #573 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 05:35 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Wow. Things really getting carried away in here.

I don't doubt that some of us posting here really are sincerely of the belief that 3D might be bad for you. I also have no doubt that I personally disagree with that sentiment.

But comparing it to things like smoking, food additives and cancer is just ridiculous.

A comparison can be made. You are consuming TV. Just because it is not a perceived as a "tangible" object that is placed in your body, does not necessarily rule it out.

With that mentality, you must be the type of parent that would let their children watch more than 2-3 hours of television a day. If not, there is no way you could rule out this line of thinking...

If you read the quote in my response, you would see the reasoning behind the comparison.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #574 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 06:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
dare2be's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike W View Post

I enjoyed Avatar (particularly given the low plot expectations with which I entered)

Be prepared to expect that a lot more frequently, as the 3D effect become the primary draw to a movie while the plot becomes secondary...
dare2be is offline  
post #575 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 06:58 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
Rdjam is 100% right - things are getting carried away in here.

This should be an open forum for debate and a friendly exchange of ideas on the subject of 3D which I think we can all agree is of little importance in the scheme of things but nonetheless of particular interest to us all. Brought into question are issues that go far beyond whether or not one simply does or doesn't like 3D. These include business priorities, business ethics, individual economic considerations, health issues, family habits and needs,etc. This discussion has not only been been fun and informative -- it also serves as a brief but relaxing respite from the day to day stress we all have to deal with.

On the whole, our disagreements have been treated with respect to each other but it is very unfortunate that time is being wasted by one whose only purpose is to foster his own ego and arrogance while rejecting his own inate inferiority by maligning us with word games to simply get under our skin.

I suggest we simply ignore these comments, no matter how strong the temptation to respond. There are those who have disrupted other forums by playing the same type of game so let's not let it occur with the great group we have here.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #576 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:22 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
I'm surprised there is so little movement in the poll numbers from the old poll.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #577 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:23 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 rdjam View Post
Wow. Things really getting carried away in here.

I don't doubt that some of us posting here really are sincerely of the belief that 3D might be bad for you. I also have no doubt that I personally disagree with that sentiment.

But comparing it to things like smoking, food additives and cancer is just ridiculous.
Hi, not comparing 3D to smoking, etc., the point was to compare similar circumstances where conflicts of interest led to warning signs being ignored for multiple reasons. Since there are concerns expressed by many within the field of optomology, these should at least be addressed to either let us know what the risks might be or to eliminate all doubt whatsoever.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #578 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:25 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post
I'm surprised there is so little movement in the poll numbers from the old poll.
LOL - probably the same people voted on both polls.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #579 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,289
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 1343
The brightness problem is easily solved. The image simply needs to be double the brightness before it hits the glasses. Theaters may not yet have invested in the equipment to do so, but it shouldn't require any major advance in tech.

Sure, you can take the glasses off and say it's still brighter, but brighter isn't always better. Thats like saying louder volume is always better. Typically louder does sound better at first, but you wouldnt want to stay in a room with sustained high levels of volume any more than your want to stay in a room with a blinding screen.

I would say my own plasma isn't quite there yet in terms of 3d brightness in a dark room, but it's close. It's certainly not going to be a long term problem of 3d itself.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #580 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:32 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Hi, not comparing 3D to smoking, etc., the point was to compare similar circumstances where conflicts of interest led to warning signs being ignored for multiple reasons. Since there are concerns expressed by many within the field of optomology, these should at least be addressed to either let us know what the risks might be or to eliminate all doubt whatsoever.
January 24, 2011

Quote:
In his research, Hanssens uses 3D to test binocular vision. He also studies the impact of 3D vision on posture and subjective discomfort by using 3D glasses and a Full Immersive Virtual Environment, a big room where the walls and ground are the screens. Hanssens said that 3D movies are not harmful to our eyes, but some short-term effects can include headaches, visual fatigue, nausea, dizziness and blurred vision. The effects can last a few hours, but so far researchers haven’t found any long-term effects.
Quote:
However, the American Optometric Association suggests that 3D viewing may help uncover subtle eye disorders that if left uncorrected, can lead to learning difficulties. 3D viewing requires coordinated eye muscles that maintain alignment of both eyes, and the brain must be able to focus where the eyes are aimed. Slight problems with these skills can lead to an inability to view 3D, but can also affect reading comprehension
Quote:
“In real life, eyes are adjusting their focus to different objects depending on the distance, this is called accommodation,” Hanssens said. “In 3D screens, objects appear on the same plane (the screen) which can disturb the relation between accomodation and fusion of right and left images. People who have a lazy eye due to different conditions may not have stereovision.”

So while there is no medical evidence that 3D can damage eyes, it could work to uncover eye issues that haven’t presented themselves yet. Hanssens said that people with these issues are unable to view 3D properly, but see it as a 2D movie with fewer contrasts. Hanssens recommends these people, especially kids, should consult an optometrist and get an eye exam. But Hanssens cautions that 3D shouldn’t be used as a screening tool.

“The problem is that a child who never experiences 3D vision in his life will not be aware that he is not able to see 3D effects,” Hanssens said. “He will only report that ‘a 3D movie is not a big deal.’”
http://www.mobilemag.com/2011/01/24/...sts-prototype/
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #581 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonPerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Because of the glasses it is a fad for me.

I just hope they do not degrade the highest quality 2D while playing around with 3D. It is ashamed you have to purchase the top end 3D sets just to get the better 2D benefits (TV Sets).

Get rid of the glasses, equal 2D PQ quality and I might consider it.

Manufacturers' could spend a hundred times less resources by bringing to market fully capable OTA DVRs with benefits and features consumers want and increase sales of TV's tenfold in the process.
HoustonPerson is offline  
post #582 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:51 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
LOL - probably the same people voted on both polls.
No question it's the same pool of people (AVS Forum members)- if it were a different set of people the results wouldn't be nearly as informative.

For 3DTV to succeed, the minds of the skeptics need to be changed.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #583 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post
No question it's the same pool of people (AVS Forum members)- if it were a different set of people the results wouldn't be nearly as informative.
The number of people who voted on the previous poll was 4766. On this poll, less then 1500 so far.

Quote:
For 3DTV to succeed, the minds of the skeptics need to be changed.
LOL - have you read some of the post in the last 2 pages? There are two members here who are dead set against that.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #584 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 09:00 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 CPanther95 View Post
For 3DTV to succeed, the minds of the skeptics need to be changed.
Perhaps, it's more their pocket books? Too bad 3D wasn't introduced a few years ago during the height of the HD television purchasing boom when replacing a HD set and the economic downturn wasn't much of a factor - we might have thus had our answer by this time. I know it might have been a consideration for me but whether or not it would resulted in a purchase I do not know.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #585 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 09:09 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
The number of people who voted on the previous poll was 4766. On this poll, less then 1500 so far.
Is something unique about the first 1/3rd that voted that would make you think that the percentages will shift significantly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
LOL - have you read some of the post in the last 2 pages? There are two members here who are dead set against that.
It really doesn't matter if some are dead set against 3DTV. What matters is getting enough people interested in it. There were lots of people dead set against VHS - it didn't matter.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #586 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post
Is something unique about the first 1/3rd that voted that would make you think that the percentages will shift significantly?
I wouldn't think so. The poll dates are not that far apart and not that much has changed in the market since the previous poll (except the launch of additional 3D content channels).

Quote:
It really doesn't matter if some are dead set against 3DTV. What matters is getting enough people interested in it. There were lots of people dead set against VHS - it didn't matter.
LOL - you mean like the studios? (Universal versus Sony court decision)

3DTV is an industry wide effort. And like all new TV formats, it takes time. Lots of time, to determine if it is a mainstream product or a niche product.

Right or wrong, I look at the BO results to gauge 3D's acceptance by people and so far it is doing very well. It has grown 10 fold in the last 3 years.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #587 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 09:41 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 and will be from now on.


There seems to be some angst from people that recently purchased sets and are now miffed because they either didn't want to spend the money or missed the boat.

jpmst3 is offline  
post #588 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:12 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Perhaps, it's more their pocket books? Too bad 3D wasn't introduced a few years ago during the height of the HD television purchasing boom when replacing a HD set and the economic downturn wasn't much of a factor - we might have thus had our answer by this time. I know it might have been a consideration for me but whether or not it would resulted in a purchase I do not know.
I believe this IS the biggest factor. Poor timing. Also, it could be looked at as 3D not being taken seriously by the manufacturers. If there were going to be a huge push, would it not be better timed during a fiscally sound period rather than one of doubt?

Since it is introduced at this time, it looks more to me like something to keep sales up a little, rather than a lot. Maybe this is a good time to do a test run? Less production, means less loss if unsuccessful? Or a good time to work out the kinks?

Who knows?
twisted_oak is offline  
post #589 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:14 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post
I believe this IS the biggest factor. Poor timing. Also, it could be looked at as 3D not being taken seriously by the manufacturers. If there were going to be a huge push, would it not be better timed during a fiscally sound period rather than one of doubt?

Since it is introduced at this time, it looks more to me like something to keep sales up a little, rather than a lot. Maybe this is a good time to do a test run? Less production, means less loss if unsuccessful? Or a good time to work out the kinks?

Who knows?
What year do you believe it should have been introduced?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #590 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:14 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post
I'm surprised there is so little movement in the poll numbers from the old poll.
I see what you did right there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
LOL - probably the same people voted on both polls.
It might be the same people, looking through those tinted glasses. However, the awesome merits of 3D posted in both threads should have swayed more. Don't you think?
twisted_oak is offline  
post #591 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
What year do you believe it should have been introduced?
I am just throwing out variables. I realize I am not necessarily in the know.

I would venture two periods:

Immediately following or in the middle of the height of the HDTV transition/peak sales. (This is not necessarily to save the consumers money.) It would have help in adoption rates, by being coupled with the seriousness/merits of HDTV. Packaged by itself it has the hint of gimmickry.

Or...

On its own during the next peak. Because economic peaks overrule even the most stalwart practical minded consumer.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #592 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:30 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post
I believe this IS the biggest factor. Poor timing. Also, it could be looked at as 3D not being taken seriously by the manufacturers. If there were going to be a huge push, would it not be better timed during a fiscally sound period rather than one of doubt?

Since it is introduced at this time, it looks more to me like something to keep sales up a little, rather than a lot. Maybe this is a good time to do a test run? Less production, means less loss if unsuccessful? Or a good time to work out the kinks?

Who knows?
Well put.

Perhaps the question should have posed to two separate groups, 1) those who are either videophiles or enjoy being the first to try out new technology, and 2) the mainstream consumer who does not consider himself or herself one of the above in light of the industry hype about 3D being in more than half the households by 2014.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #593 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:39 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 twisted_oak View Post

I am just throwing out variables. I realize I am not necessarily in the know.

I would venture two periods:

Immediately following or in the middle of the height of the HDTV transition/peak sales. (This is not necessarily to save the consumers money.) It would have help in adoption rates, by being coupled with the seriousness/merits of HDTV. Packaged by itself it has the hint of gimmickry.

Or...

On its own during the next peak. Because economic peaks overrule even the most stalwart practical minded consumer.

I think the production of 3DTV's was driven by the movie industry starting to push 3D movies so they didn't want to miss the excitement and consumer awareness that a release like Avatar produced.
Of course they missed all that by having exclusivity contracts - the CE companies were apparently approached by the movie companies, and instead of saying they weren't interested, they started bidding wars for content.
poppabk is offline  
post #594 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

I am just throwing out variables. I realize I am not necessarily in the know.

I would venture two periods:

Immediately following or in the middle of the height of the HDTV transition/peak sales. (This is not necessarily to save the consumers money.) It would have help in adoption rates, by being coupled with the seriousness/merits of HDTV. Packaged by itself it has the hint of gimmickry.

Or...

On its own during the next peak. Because economic peaks overrule even the most stalwart practical minded consumer.

AFAIK, the introduction of 3DTV was timed with the success of 3D in theaters which began in 2009. Previous years did not generate much interest due to few 3D movies being made (2005 to 2008).

The saying "strike while the iron is hot" has a lot to do (IMO) with the success of Avatar. 80% of it's revenue came from 3D ticket sales.

And the falling margins selling HDTVs by the CEMs.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #595 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Well put.

Perhaps the question should have posed to two separate groups, 1) those who are either videophiles or enjoy being the first to try out new technology, and 2) the mainstream consumer who does not consider himself or herself one of the above in light of the industry hype about 3D being in more than half the households by 2014.

50+% makes sense if it is included as a feature in new sets sold + with an improved economy. Statements creates two illusions: 1) You must be on board or you suck (left behind). 2) It projects numbers that facilitate adoption / creates a future reality in the mind of the consumer.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #596 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Well put.

Perhaps the question should have posed to two separate groups, 1) those who are either videophiles or enjoy being the first to try out new technology, and 2) the mainstream consumer who does not consider himself or herself one of the above .

Innovators and Early Adopters drive new product launches. Mainstream consumers buy in years after product launch



Quote:
in light of the industry hype about 3D being in more than half the households by 2014

Do you have a link that states that?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #597 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppabk View Post

I think the production of 3DTV's was driven by the movie industry starting to push 3D movies so they didn't want to miss the excitement and consumer awareness that a release like Avatar produced.
Of course they missed all that by having exclusivity contracts - the CE companies were apparently approached by the movie companies, and instead of saying they weren't interested, they started bidding wars for content.

Interesting you mention this. It changes things in my mind. Maybe we should not aim at CE, but the movie industry. The movie industry is hurting as well. Who knows if they are the ones pushing this more than the manufacturers?

The dialog would go something like this:

Movie industry: "Listen up, I am gonna create a bunch of movies in 3D. Because people really flocked to Avatar 3D. Either you produce some hardware or you are gonna look like a noob. CEs who jump on board are gonna REAP the benefits."

CEs: "Man, we really need to get this out there or our competition is gonna get the leg up. Plus I don't want to look like a noob, and get effectively PwnEd."

Seems from this perspective, the CEs are the captive audience with the movie industry driving. If this is the case, there would be a greater possibility of 3D success coming to fruition.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #598 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Innovators and Early Adopters drive new product launches. Mainstream consumers buy in years after product launch


I am sure that curve would be identical to the supply line as well.
twisted_oak is offline  
post #599 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,289
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 1343
The timing doesn't matter. It's more of a feature, less a format. There's no competing 3d format around the corner or anything. It's going to stick around either way, and people will buy the TVs when theyre ready.

The state of the economy is irrelevant. 3D or not, in either case they're just selling a TV. Any inability to sell 3D TVs due to the economy has to do more with the inability to sell a TV in general rather than one of it's specific features.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #600 of 1824 Old 02-22-2011, 10:56 AM
Senior Member
 
twisted_oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The timing doesn't matter. It's more of a feature, less a format. There's no competing 3d format around the corner or anything. It's going to stick around either way, and people will buy the TVs when theyre ready.

I would say it would stick around by merit of it being included as a feature like you say. It would meet a quick demise/forced back into its niche if a new technology was introduced too closely before it reached popularity.

This is why I say the timing for this is crucial. If the economy does not recover as much as we expect. They will have to come up with a new "feature" to place on the box to attract people to the stores. This is a life support situation...
twisted_oak is offline  
Reply Community News & 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