3D Non-sense - Page 2

Originally Posted by 5354

The teach is out there but is the compay going after the tech or ur wallet?
once 60% or more bought the 3d tv with glasses. than they will push out the set that dont needs glasses. just to screw ur wallet all over again. once they'r done with the none glasses they will push out 2160p and call it true hd... is 2000 all over again.

Originally Posted by dirk1843

...ATSC and HD programing in general are just starting to mature, why throw something else in to ruin it all?

The providers say they don't have enough bandwidth now, I would think 3D will take even more, and if not, will it require 2 feeds, one for 3D and one for everyone who dosen't want the stupid glasses?

Originally Posted by dallows

Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.

Originally Posted by dirk1843

I hope this dies a quick, quiet but painful death.

ATSC and HD programing in general are just starting to mature, why throw something else in to ruin it all?

The providers say they don't have enough bandwidth now, I would think 3D will take even more, and if not, will it require 2 feeds, one for 3D and one for everyone who dosen't want the stupid glasses?

Originally Posted by tlh1005

I haven't read anything about the technology to know for sure, but why would these channels require significant resource over the others? I'm wondering if it's similar overhead to just adding a new HD channel.

Either way I think the providers have the ability to increase the pipe whenever they want, 3D or no 3D, they just don't see the benefit based on the average consumer is my guess. I'm always amazed at the crap I see people in awe of just because it is HD. If more consumers were up in arms over PQ, I'd think we'd see less compression and faster steps towards PQ improvements. Instead, they are gambling that 3D is going to be the gimmick most consumers are after.

Originally Posted by tlh1005

I haven't read anything about the technology to know for sure, but why would these channels require significant resource over the others? I'm wondering if it's similar overhead to just adding a new HD channel.

Either way I think the providers have the ability to increase the pipe whenever they want, 3D or no 3D, they just don't see the benefit based on the average consumer is my guess. I'm always amazed at the crap I see people in awe of just because it is HD. If more consumers were up in arms over PQ, I'd think we'd see less compression and faster steps towards PQ improvements. Instead, they are gambling that 3D is going to be the gimmick most consumers are after.

Can you buy a 1024x768 plasma anymore?

Originally Posted by GobbityGotz

The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.

Originally Posted by choptalk

Instead of glasses, they ought to have a cover that you put over the screen the length of the tv made from the same material as the glasses. This way anyone who looks at the screen will see the 3d without glasses. Its kind of like the TV is wearing the glasses and your not.
When you are not watching 3d content just take the cover off the screen.

I thought of this because I remember when I was a little kid my neighbor had a huge magnified glass on his small screen tv to give it a big screen look

Originally Posted by dallows

Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.

Originally Posted by waepek

I work for the cable company and a significant no. of custumers are still using 4:3 tvs watching analog signal. Its taking forever to get people to get a digital box and convert let alone buying new hdtv sets.
Now 3D?!?

Originally Posted by I Superman I

Just as adoption of HD has been able to spread from the perspective of, "oh we're going to go watch the Super bowl at John house, he has it in HD." I can see it evolving to, "oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D."

Originally Posted by GobbityGotz

The tech is still so primitive. When I can sit in my living room and watch "3d" without glasses I might bite. The tech now is way too infantile.

Originally Posted by waepek

I work for the cable company and a significant no. of custumers are still using 4:3 tvs watching analog signal. Its taking forever to get people to get a digital box and convert let alone buying new hdtv sets.
Now 3D?!?

Originally Posted by optivity

No one in this forum dislikes new tech, but many who have been participating w/HT know how to recognize a feature that is more of a sales gimmick than an improvement over what really works.

Originally Posted by dallows

Reading this is kinda funny. I like seeing so many people bitter over new technology.

Originally Posted by I Superman I

I don't think people are coming remotely close to comprehending how difficult and especially expensive it is to deliver perfect 1080p 3D to multiple seating positions at multiple angles simultaneously. The majority of glasses free displays I have seen are computer monitors that rely on a camera tracking your head position and eye angle to determine it's processing. Even look at JVC's recent 3D 47inch LCD, glasses free, $9k, and a horrible 3D experience ( according to those who have seen it, I have not sadly ). Considering people want this and at an affordable price just seems to me that people arn't comprehending how difficult this is to achieve, I don't expect glasses free 3D, at all, at a high quality level, in the next 10 years.

Of course people are talking about this as a current trend and gimmick to increase sales, and I do expect others to follow, such as 2K and 4K LCD's and the OLED market to eventually materialize, but as long as these 3D displays are improving on 2D picture quality, which seems completely apparent if you've been paying attention to new models announced at CES, then what harm does it do to have this feature available when the content is becoming available in the market? Just because you own a 3D HDTV doesn't mean your going to have to put on glasses every time you sit down to watch the evening news or your wife has to put on glasses to watch American Idol, but I personally see 3D as a premium feature that will be availible for premium content to used as an amazing bonus to haveing a great display.

Just as adoption of HD has been able to spread from the perspective of, "oh we're going to go watch the Super bowl at John house, he has it in HD." I can see it evolving to, "oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D." When you have a major event, sports games, or have a certain movie ( Up or Toy Story or Avatar ) or want to play a certain a game ( Sony has already confirmed the PS3 to be patched to allow 3D games ) then it's an awesome feature for new consumers currently in the market for a new display to have, especially with such a large financial purchase as an HDTV.

Considering the number of CE companys and movie studios supporting 3D, the content will only grow and the braodcast will only become more common, those who expect to sit it out, are going to be sitting a very long time.

Originally Posted by 5354

oh we're going to go watch the Super Bowl at John house, he's got it in 3D? But Dear.... How we goin to watch it in 3d? HOW!!?? oh better yet WHO goin to watch it? ( he only got one pair of glasses ) Lets just go down to the bar with the gang. the bar atleast got big azz plasma. that John used to had

Originally Posted by optivity

"Call me a skeptic, but I consider the industry's enthusiasm to be premature. I think bringing 3D to the home will be an uphill battle, for three main reasons:

1. Lack of 3D content. There's no doubt that Hollywood is stepping up production of 3D features. But even if all new movies started being produced in 3D, they would represent only a small percentage of the overall catalog of available films. Yes, studios are starting to "retrofit" older movies for 3D (such as the recently 3D-ified versions of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2"), but it's an expensive and time-consuming process. New 3D-only TV channels--such as those rumored to be coming from DirecTV--may solve part of the problem, but until broadcasters and sports leagues start investing in producing 3D TV shows and covering major games in 3D, expect these channels to be looping "Avatar," "Up," and the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics all day.

Originally Posted by optivity

2. Upgrade fatigue. In 2008, I purchased a $400 PlayStation 3, which also doubles as a Blu-ray player. In 2009, I bought a 50-inch plasma TV for $1,600. I'm extremely satisfied with both products (even though both, of course, can now be purchased at even lower prices), and I feel like I'm getting my money's worth every time I watch TV or play a game on that gorgeous big-screen. But two grand is a lot of money. I have no desire to get a new TV or Blu-ray player anytime soon, even if they've got a new whiz-bang feature like 3D. And I think that's true of the majority of folks who paid big bucks to upgrade to HDTV in the past decade. Meanwhile, those who are still waiting to go HD--and there are millions--will be more likely to go for ever more affordable entry-level big-screen models, not premium-priced 3D models. The same goes for home video. Even if Hollywood does convert a boatload of movies to 3D, are you really going to be happy about paying for yet another version of "Star Wars"?

Originally Posted by optivity

3. The glasses. Ah, the 3D elephant in the room. Newer 3D processes may far exceed what was offered in the 1950s or 1980s, but they still require the viewer to don a pair of glasses. That's an acceptable trade-off for a two- or three-hour "event" movie like "Avatar." But do you really want to do it every time you watch "The Big Bang Theory," "Lost," or "American Idol"? How about football or baseball? No, I didn't think so.[/b]"

Originally Posted by localnet

And now 3DTV? I think they are going to be shocked when they don't meet their sales expectations with this cool new tech. Tech that really has a very small audience from what I can see when compared to HDTV which still has not really caught on, and has been around for how long?

Originally Posted by TomsHT

There is a legitimate reason for some of this bitterness, at least in my own opinion. This is not like blu-ray or other technologies where if you passed on it, it didn't effect you. Up to 50% more data needs to be transmitted with 3D, regardless if your watching the 3D or 2D version. And this may not be factual but how are they going to transfer this much more data without lowering bitrates and further compressing data with the end result being lesser quality then we have now?