Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010? - Page 2

i think having to gut your system and replace all your gear every year or two leads to some skepticism...not to mention that we need to add another 2 speakers every year to accomodate yet another surround format. give it 5 years. 3dtv under 1k, players under 200, no glasses...then it may have a chance.

EastSide, lets try to be careful about what we label as a "gimmick". HD was a gimmick 8 years ago, now it is very much mainstream.

Like I stated in an earlier post, after seeing Avatar over the weekend, I didn't hate the 3D, just didn't think it was a big deal. If all TVs in 2010 come 3D ready that are at least 120Hz, with no or minimal cost hike, then fine. If these guys expect me to pay an extra grand for it, they can sit there for the next 5 years.

If Cerv wants a 3D set, he came to the best place for info and advice. Lets not make him feel as if he's out of bounds for wanting a cutting edge set. After all, that's usually who are on AVS Forum, early adopters and serious tech heads.

Well, to be fair 3D really has been around for a LONG, LONG time. Advances in technology have been slow at best. Shuttered goggles have been around for a long time now, I remember some games supporting them with special hardware and the latest graphics cards in the '90s Granted that as we move away from the old, ugly, awful Green/Red or Blue/Red headache machine methods toward more transparent 3D the user experience gets better, but even polarized 3D has some picture quality issues that are going to be difficult to address and not everyone is going to be ecstatic about the idea of having to invest in a whole new setup (after all, for as many 120hz TVs as there are out there, very few TVs accept 120hz input, let alone 240hz input TVs). Yeah, some technologies are "3D ready" and the spec has just been finalized, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this won't necessarily be a technology that people are going to rush to bring home.

The field of vision issue is the biggest one - the depth and "there"ness of the 3D effect is highly limited by your field of vision, and even a big TV isn't going to compare with a giant movie theater screen or an IMAX FoV so the immersion that 3D dangles in front of you can turn out to be pretty disappointing when you try to take it from the theater to your house.

I just don't care about 3D very much. It's not a new thing, and it's not REALLY 3D. If we get something that offers true three dimensional projection in space then I'll bust my life savings getting the latest and greatest so I can have my very own holovid or whatever they're going to call it. I don't feel nearly as compelled to rush out and get a new TV and some special glasses for my family and friends just to have a sort of limp imitation of a theater's 3D. I like modern 3D technology at the movies, but it's just not something that can be brought home unless you want to sit like three to five feet away from a 65" screen so that you can really be in the illusory depth rather than just see some stuff kind of come off the screen a little.

I mean, it's neat that my PS3 will support it, and maybe I'm wrong and it'll turn out to kick arse and this time next year I'll be shopping for a TV that accepts a 240hz input I'll wait and see. But I think there are conceptual hurdles rather than technological ones which will limit how nice of an experience this will be at home.

Add me to the list of 3D converts... I'm holding off on upgrading till 2010 when I can evaluate the 3D tech. I was amazed that my wife who does not care about these things was enthusiastic about us getting a 3D set. The kids also want to get 3D as that is what they have been seeing in theaters since they were 3. So it may be that this time 3D is for real, and the more cynical amongst us are dragged there by our kids and better halves

Skepticism! Add hatred and even torch carrying villager anger (he,he).

One drawback will definitely be the content available for the format. Cable & satellite barely provide enough HD content as it is. But as a gamer and an avid buyer of blu ray content, I'm hopeful there will be enough content to satisfy me.[/quote]



Plenty here http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html to get the game going.

Thanks for a sensible, level headed post. I had someone tell me that I'd be wasting my money if I bought into 3D HDTV. I happen to believe that this is the right time for it and as I like 3D very much, I'll be one of the first ones to waste my money on a new set.

I never considered HD a gimmick, it's not really. You're moving out of one format of television and eventually ditching all of it for everything in HD. The other things I listed as gimmicks were more so. 1080P, OK, yeah it's nice to have that resolution, but even at 720P, most people are hard pressed to tell a difference even on a large screen. 120Hz, most people agree there is very little difference. A little smoother, yeah, necessary? Not really. Full HD, there is no such thing as FULL HD or partial HD. Something is either high-def resolution or it's not. Since resolutions can go way higher than 1080P, who the hell ever thought of calling 1080P full HD?

And if buying a set that can play the 1 or 2 movies that come out a year in 3D isn't a gimmick I don't know what is. Like I said, I am not knocking anyone who likes it or wants to buy it, but it is a gimmick, whether you like it labeled as one or not. Buying a whole new set for a couple movies a year in 3D? Really? Come on... 3D will never take over completely. Normal movies are going to be the bulk of what is made, not 3D. Which is why I say gimmick.

I think SONY is making a huge mistake dumping billions of dollars into this one.

You know, my most recent post or two was/were sensible and level-headed as well. They don't happen to agree with you, so I understand why I don't get the kudos but all the same there are legitimate non-"raargh" reasons to be unenthusiastic about 3D.

Well, I found your post level-headed as well!

At this stage, though, most of the posts are just one thing: Opinion.

There are only a few facts and while some of the news and announcements are optimistic (PS3 capable for 3D, for example) we just don't know many details yet. Are there certain limitations? What are the costs? etc.

What I'm convinced off, though - and this is also an opinion - is:

The human visual system works in 3D and most people use it as such. Viewing movies and other stuff in 2D is a technical limitation, a kludge if you so will, and if 3D movies would have worked excellently since the 50ies we all wouldn't have this discussion right now.

I think that 3D is as inevitable as were color and sound when they took over.
Digital audio pretty much killed analog audio storage.
DVDs destroyed VHS.
etc.

Of course the "new" is not always better than the "old" but that's beside the point. The point is: When will the "new" take over?
And: Will the "new 3D" be good enough or will it be just another kludge? I can't answer that and most of the people here probably neither.

One thing is clear, though: Our sons and daughters will laugh about the in parts "silly" postings if they would ever take their time to read that stuff.

Yes I saw the demo when Panasonic was in my city. They showed clips of The Polar Express, and Scrooge in 3D. I was not impressed, because the 3D effect just didn't look "real" and life-like. There was some depth to the screen, and also things popping out. But I still was unimpressed. It's good for kids and cartoon movies I suppose. But I don't want to see all movies like this.

Hi,

Very interesting indeed Dathon - they showed completely different material here in London - I have to say, I was impressed - most of the demo had great 3D Depth and was sharp & in focus - there was a heck of a lot more depth to the pic than stuff coming out of the screen. The demo were a F1 racing scene live, some live city scenes, a extreme skiing sports scene & a few others - most of all were very impressive. the best was the live coverage of the Beijing Olympics - I have to say, that was very "3D". Finally, they showed film material - Avatar - it was good but not as good as the lives scenes shot on 3D imo!

Bazzy!

3D is not a replacement (like HDTV) but upgrade technology which is downward compatible. For its proliferation it is enough that within the next 12-24 months all new TVs will carry 3Dready badge. Then some people will buy other necessary components and 3D Blue Rays, 3D games and some 3D broadcast will be available. In its current embodiment 3D will not replace 2D and there is no way 3D could be used exclusively.

Exactly! As long as the audience has to use glasses it won't replace anything. It will be an "enhancement" and it will find it's customers.

I'm convinced, though, that we'll see 3D-TV happening without additional "band aids" in the long run. Emphasis on "long"...

Thanks for the kudos jbug, but to MrEastSide, I wasn't trying to get onto him.

Basically, none of us know what to think of 3D in the home right now. I like Agreed's logic on the field of vision argument. My TV is 46' and I only sit about 8 ft or so from it, yet it isn't big enough. My next TV that I will buy in 2010 will need to be at least 52', as I watch a lot of football and play my XBOX 360.

I'd love to see ALABAMA play Texas in 3D at home, but won't be hurt because I can't. Like I said, if the TVs aren't an arm and a leg for the 3D capability, then I'd love to have it. I'd also hope that my Blu Ray player can just download a software upgrade to get
3D, because I have absolutely no plans to replace it anytime soon. However, the PS3 angle is a good one for Sony, although I really don't like Sony as a company anymore.

I guess innovations are disregarded... for equivocal.

Don't get me wrong here, if I need a new set and do get one that comes with all of the options I would not turn it down, but unlike you I would not hold off a purchase just so I can get something 3D capable.

If the 3D standard is just that--a true standard--right from the start I don't see anything wrong with going for it as an early adopter.

The fact is that with few exceptions most "standards" over the last 15 years or so have not been truly standardized from the start. Many early HDTVs (Mitsubishi was one) had a proprietary connection jack for an external tuner and would not accept an HD signal any other way. Does anyone remember the Unity Motion, and later Voom HD satellite systems? The BD standard was supposedly finalized from the start but fully capable players didn't appear for about a year or so--lots of folks plunked down $1k for BD players with no PinP or BD-net capability.

Samsung was marketing "3D ready" DLP rear projection sets over a year ago--these required connection to a PC, shutter glasses, and a whole bunch of other hoops to jump thru.

It should also be remembered that many technologies that are now commonplace and accepted didn't work too well in their earliest releases--OTA digital broadcast was plagued with picture breakup and audio synch issues for years, early 120 hz frame interpolation features caused us to see 3 footballs at once, color tv itself was iffy for the first 10-15 years.

I really don't want to be mistaken for a luddite naysayer here. My efforts are more towards pointing out that in the past a lot of cutting-edge early adopters of new technologies have gotten burned. These people should be praised because without them we'd still be watching 21" BW crt sets, but we can't all afford to emulate them.

Thanks Steve, you make some great points here. Problem for me is that I can't go another football season watching my 46' DLP. My teams playing for the National Championship for God's sake! Next year when the TIDE go for a repeat, I need to watch it all in style, so I'll have to take my chances on a 2010 HDTV.

I see that you are one big TIDE fan!!

Repeat loss?

\\m/

You summed up everything there my friend

I just saw Avatar in 3D. If 3D TVs with shutter glasses are anything like that, then it's totally a gimmick. The 3D effect was cool and all, but it was sacrificing the PQ, and things don't look 3D in a real sense. They just look 3D in a "hey that's cool and different" way.

I can see myself enjoying 3D movies from time to time, but I'd never buy a 3D TV to see 3D content on a daily or even weekly basis. The glasses definitely degrade the PQ...

So, my insider in the movie business says that this is the year for 3D; it's already been decided, and CES will be the jumping point. I guess there is a Korean company(one that i had never heard of) that is shopping this panel around that doesn't need glasses. However, the real kicker is that when you are watching it, the panel casts shadows over the room. It's really cool and trippy supposedly. He has been talking about this panel for almost a year.

How can a panel "cast a shadow " over the room? Does it have some magic light absorbing properties? Does gauzy fabric shoot out of it filtering the light?

Sounds pretty mysterious...

You just have to swallow the magic sugar cube first.

HDGuru is now reporting that DirectTV will launch a dedicated 3D HD channel by March 2010. Sports, Movies, and other programs. Current HDTV Boxes will receive a firmware upgrade to allow existing subscribers to access the new 3D HD channel.

http://hdguru.com/directv-to-launch-...xclusive/1201/

There is a very major problem with up to date implementation of 3D. It is about the way our brain reacts to perceived depth and the way it expects a 3D environment to behave. Because of those factors, 3D as it is today is, in my book, nothing but a barely believable gimmick. Aside from movies, carefully crafted, with every frame, every camera move specifically designed to play along with our '3D psychology', and downplay the limitations of the tech, and presented on a big screen that fills a much larger field of view than a TV, I just don't see 3D getting much traction. In fact, I've read that the kind of 3D we see in Avatar has been specifically developed to lure viewers to theaters, away from their 60" screens, Blu-Ray players and 7.1 setups. Cause that's where big $$$ is, not in Netflix rentals.

So, what is this '3D psychology' I am talking about? Well, to begin with, we got peripheral vision. Even if we don't move our eyes to track an object moving to out vision edge (say, our primary interest is still in the middle), we are still aware of what's on the periphery. If a 3D effect has something 'popping' out the screen towards us, unless it comes directly towards viewer, it will simply vanish in mid-air as soon as it exits the pyramid which base is the screen and viewer is the apex. And the viewer WILL notice it. Effect will be especially jarring on a TV, where view angle is much smaller. Same goes for reverse. Remember the opening scene of original Star Wars? With a Star Destroyer coming overhead from behind? Good luck doing THAT properly in 3D. With a 2D picture, screen frame presents a logical border - it confines the picture, and we expect anything moving beyind the edge to disappear. When things we perceive to be CLOSER to us than the screen get cut off at the screen's edge, the effect is downright Escher-esque.

So, you say, make it like a window with all action happening on the other side. Imagine yourself seated in front of a window. Something interesting happening outside is partially obscrured by window edge. Or, object of your interest is obscured by a nearby tree. What do instinctively do? Right - move your viewing position a bit, to get a better line of sight. You do it because you see depth, and brain 'triangulates' on the fly. You lean towards window, and a bit to the right - and now you can see a whole lot more of what's beyond the left window edge. Try doing that with a 3D TV - the picture will appear to distort and skew to the side, so despite your move, same exact things remain visible in the window. Quite a bummer. Only way to avoid ruining the effect is to use VERY carefully prepared material. Live TV? Sports? Fuhgeddaboutit! Unless of course you want to see some player's disembodied head and shoulders floating between you and your TV on every closeup.

I am not even starting on the whole need to wear those goggles.

We are still quite a ways from a 'as if you are there' 3D experience.

Strictly speaking by March 2010 new bigh-capacity direct broadcast satellite DIRECTV 12 will be operational. The satellite is already in orbit. Exact date of launching the 3DTV service is not confirmed yet so the earliest date possible is March but it could be later.

What date was the satellite put into orbit? Your link does not provide any date. If you use the link I provided, you will read that HDGuru reported that the Satellite was scheduled to be launched into orbit on the night of Dec. 28, 2009 which would be later in the same day that HDguru posted the article.

Regardless; I was using HDguru's own words, when he referred to launching the 3D channel in March 2010, not the launching of the Satellite.