3D Television Opinion Thread

It sounds like HD DVD and Blu-ray all over again. If 3D is going to take off there has to be a universal standard. Right now anyone who buys into a 3D tech should be prepared to have the losing technology.

We are inbetween a lot right now,way before 2020 we will have clarity.
Right now i would buy a cheaper/older tv-model and wait five years before
i make the next move.

I'm skeptical about 3D.

Sometimes people just don't want "more." Once upon a time, video phones were going to be the next big thing. But you know what? Most people prefer not being seen when they make a call. In fact, most people often prefer not to even talk to the person any more ... they'd rather text them, for an even less "interactive" experience.

So I'm skeptical about 3D. Television for most people is a passive activity. I don't think most people want to see 3D images on a regular basis - it's too involving.

That said, once in a while, for "special occasions" (see, Avatar, movie), people can and do enjoy a 3D experience. And I'll add that I've never seen any sports in 3D, but if I was to see, say, an NFL game in 3D, and found it more vivid and engaging than 2D, well, my skepticism would go away in a hurry.

Finally! Ralph Cramden can buy a TV set!

I don't like 3D all that much in the theaters. After about 10 minutes, even Avatar (everyone pretty much admits this is the best their is for 3d) lost the effect and was annoying for me. I would have enjoyed the movie everybit as much in 2D.

As little interest as I have in the theater, I have absolutely no interest in 3d at home. I hope it's a fad that dies out instead of being crammed down our throats.

I'm not some tech phobe - I've been on the HDTV bandwagon forever, appreciate how these sets get better and better each year. I just don't get the appeal and have zero interest in paying for the features.

Now if they come out with real 3D holographic images w/o glasses that can be viewed at from any number of angles without image degrading - then I'd be interested - but I think that would be something we can't call a TV.

Folks, read up at least a little before posting baselessly false info.

We *do* have a single 3D standard, and HDMI 1.4 is geared from the ground up to handle it. HDMI 1.3 will also work with 3D though not neccessarily in full 1080p stereo.

What's open for manufacturers to decide is how to *render* the 3D image for your eyes. Just like you can buy speakers that are horn, or direct-driver, or electrostatic. But just because consumers have a choice of speaker *technology* does not mean that your CDs can only play on one type or another. The CD format plays on all of them. The same is true for 3D displays... with LCD glasses or polarized... it's all the same 3D spec... just a different way to render it.

The misinformation being spread about 3D is really confusing. This is not even a format-war like we had with HD DVD and BD. In fact, it's not a new "format", it's an enhanced specification of our existing 2D format. You see, the same 3D Blu-ray will play in your 2D player in 2D mode that also gives full 3D to the guy who buys a new 3D TV and BD player. Win-win. There's nothing to worry about as you don't *have* to buy anything. And then later if you want to enjoy 3D, you would have that choice... and could upgrade your gear to take advantage.

When you had a 4x3 TV did you think that 16x9 DVDs were a bad thing and a new format that would die? Of course not. That was just software conent that played on your 4x3 TV just fine... and when you upgraded to a 16x9 TV, you enjoyed the added resolution of anamorphic discs that were already in your library.

3D is the same thing... it's an enhancement to our 2D HD spec that allows 3D content to be delivered and watched in 2D mode or 3D mode. win-win.

3D TV allows the viewer the choice to watch ANY 3D content in 2D. So you, the viewer, can decide at any time what you want to do based on your preference.

If both the news and the NFL are sent over in 3D, and you just want to watch football in 3D to get engrossed but would rather not feel so intimate with your news broadcaster, then that's great... you can do it your way. The guy down the street who has the hots for the news spokeswoman can watch her in 3D to his heart's content, and then not worry about football in 3D if he's only catching highlights while eating dinner.

Everyone is a winner with 3D because this is NOT a new format...it's an enhancement to our existing HDTV spec. Enjoy.

some 3D TVs that use the alternating left/right eye method with LCD shutter glasses will cost hardly any more (or the same price) as their 120Hz 2D counterparts. Basically, with HDMI 1.4 and a jack to plug in the transmitter for the glasses, any 120Hz HDTV could be a 3D set.

The 3D TVs that cost more by design are the polarized versions that use the cheaper glasses.

The point here is that if you were going to get a 120Hz TV anyway, for not that much more (or mabye not any more) you could go 3D enabled or at least 3D ready so down the road you've kept your options open.

A point of perspective: VIZIO is offering a 72 inch (yes) LCD TV with LED backlighting and local dimming and wireless HDMI that will be 3D enabled (transmitter and glasses included). $3500. And that's MSRP so you know it will street for even less.

how many 2D 72 inch sets do you see on the shelf right now that are LED lit with local dimming that are only $3500?

Vizio's smaller sets are obviously cheaper.

You won't need to break the bank to go 3D instead of 2D with your next HDTV purchase.

Aren't these new 3D TVs still running HDMI 1.3? I would think to really be future proofed for HD 3D you'd want to wait for HDMI 1.4 to be standard.

DaVID,i'm waiting for OLED till then i'll keep my 40inch XBR5.


i read somewhere on the internet: If you want to watch 3D on a 3Dtv with the first
3Dtv-models you need 3Dglasses,with later generations 3Dtv's you can watch 3D
WITHOUT 3Dglasses.
What about watching 3D with/without glasses DaVID?

I recently read the HDMI 'page' in the english Wikipedia (HDMI 1.3 wikipedia):
HDMI 1.4 ,3D over HDMI
HDMI 1.3-1.3a-1.3b-1.3b1-1.3c ,no 3D over HDMI,your comment DaVID.

and thanks for the 3D information DaVID.

The "standard" is the protocol for transmitting 3D stereo 1080 HD over HDMI 1.4.

Just like we have a standard for transmitting 2D 1080 HD over HDMI 1.3.

It's not the source of the signal that's that's "industry" standard, it's the HDMI protocol for transmitting it from one consumer device to another over HDMI 1.4.

That's how a TV manufacturer can make a 3D HDTV that can hook up to your 3D BD player and your 3D cable box with HDMI 1.4 and work with both signals... regardless of how that 3D picture got to your cable box or BD disc... it's transmitted with an agreed upon protocol over HDMI 1.4.

That's why there's confusion about how/if it would work over HDMI 1.3 since there is no industry spec for how to transmit 3D over that carrier type.

with colour TV you didn't have to wear an accessory, with VHS you didn't have to wear an accessory, widescreen TV you didn't need to wear an accessory, with blu-ray you didn't have to wear an accessory. do you see where i'm going? 3D TV at home is going to fail simply because its too much of a hassle. think its bad enough forgetting where your remote is? at least then you go to the TV and press the power button and you're done.
Not to mention that in many cases you'll have to not only upgrade your TV but likely buy a new Receiver since many probably won't be able to handle the 3D processing because of the HDMI switching (or something along those lines) and/or buy a new TV, new Bluray player. Not to mention buying the glasses! 3D is the next laser disc...its going to be hyped. few people will get into it and 15 years later a few people will still be holding onto the technology.
in 5-6 years 3D without the glasses once people have gotten several years of usage out of the TV's, Receivers, bluray players they already own...then we'll talk.

meh, i used to have some 3D shutter glasses for my PC back in the late 90's i played a few games with em for a week or so and it never took off

i bet this will be a pretty big flop unless they figure out a way to make any movie/anything played on the TV 3D and even then i bet it will have some major issues

otherwise how many people are honestly going to spend the extra cash to not only get a 3D TV but a 3D blu ray player 3D HDMI cable and then on top of all that cost find out they got a whole 20 movies to watch in 3D most of which are kids movies

then you also have the problem of having enough 3D glasses for everyone watching in the room or they will just have to watch some super bad looking blurry TV that looks like this

No. If you don't have enough glasses you switch to 2D mode.

The manufacturers didn't dream this up on their own. They did a lot of market research confirming that consumers are willing to tolerate the glasses to get 3D before investing millions in new products. And, as everyone should hopefully know by now, every 3D display can operate in 2D, even with 3D content if so desired. So if you only want to bother getting out the glasses for the football game, but then watch the news in 2D, you can.


Having 24-hour 3D HD ESPN and Discovery will help offset the dearth of 3D Blu-ray Titles initially. By the end of 2010 the BDA plans to have about 80 3D Discs on the shelves.

To simplify the various types of glasses bit. There is rear projection (rp) technology which would allow 3D viewing without glasses. Simplifying, what the glasses dois built into the rp screen. the problem is the viewers eyes must be precisely located with respect tp the screen. There is a systembeing tested that uses a tv camera tolocate the viewers head and then adjust the screen somehow tat head location.however,the systemis limited to one head and the screenis small and expensive. Many years off if you want to believe a camera locating head is a viable solution.

Personally I have less than zero interest in 3D, especially on something the size of a typical TV. This is one upgrade I more than happy to sit out of

It is well known effect that 3D is annoying and, even more, outright unhealthy for some causing headaches and other effects. It is lake e.g. plusating disco lights are annoying to some but may cause serious epileptic seizures for those suffering. So for those which are sensitive avoidance of these technologies is a must. 3D equipment will carry relevant warning notes.

For majority though, 3D is harmful and even enjoyable.


From the fact it does not suit you, it does not follow it is a fad and will go away. Quite opposite, to your regret, all TV's will sooner than later carry badge "Full 3D ready", and 3D will proliferate but not in the way to become universal. It will be more like 3D cinema, watched sometimes by some part of population.


That is fine, this technology is just not for you, forget it.


That is a dream which everybody would like to live-in instead of the current meagre 3D subsitute . But it is not even clear if this can be made real at all so clearly such technology, if possible, is 10+ ys away. Paradoxically though, if the current 3D tech will generate profits for manufacturers, it may fuel significant research leading to the real 3D you of your dream .

Picture phones were shown at the World's Fair in the 60s.

How many of you out there make video calls nowadays?

Some do--most don't--but the number is growing.

If it takes 50 years for picture phones to get here how could anyone say that 3D TV will NEVER get here?

3D is coming--it may be slow--it may take 50 years--but it will get here.

You think nobody enjoyed quadraphonic music in the years between the 70s and 5.1 surround in the 2000s?

If 3D does fail in the market place in the next 3-5 years even that wouldn't mean that it will NEVER happen.

I say that 2013 will be the year when either 3D will make it or not make it.

Why? It's really just starting in a major way in 2010 with more 3D TVs being produced and many people will view Avatar at someone's home with the 3D glasses.

You would think that the technology might improve and become more widespread in 2011 and more people might try the 3D channel on DirecTV.

The big showcase will be the 2012 Summer Olympics.

If you see more 3D offered at the January 2013 CES show THEN you'll know that it's not a passing fad.

Having said all of that I wouldn't say that the whole world will be embracing 3D in 2013.

It might even not be there in 2013 where Blu-Ray is today.

But my guesss is that it will be produced in sufficient enough quantities to SLOWLY be accepted.

If 3D fails then I guess Hollywood will focus all its efforts on DOWNLOADING movies and charging out the wazoo.

My guess is what 3D really is for Hollywood is the BRIDGE to the bigger charging out the wazoo that will come with 3D downloads!

And as we all know very well - CE manufacturers have NEVER been wrong before and ALWAY produce products that the public WANTS and DESIRES.

yeah, see, that's the problem. Those profits, I don't really want to participate in generating them. It's frustrating to a lot of us how know that supremely superior sets could be produced at a discount if the CE manufacturers wouldn't assume that "well, really, who doesn't want 3D"

Well, I don't. I don't like gimmicks. I like really beautiful images, smooth action, deep blacks, rich colors and big screens. If they deliver this and for a cheaper price then I'm happy man. Add on gimmicks don't interest me, don't impress me and charge more -that's just downright irritating. I don't want to subsidize the geeks, nerds and teenagers who do get wowed by cheap tricks.

Personally, I am not interested. I remember the 3D movies in the theaters as a kid, never impressed. And I have no desire to see Avatar, I'll wait. And I already own a tv that already does 3D, the soap opera effect of the new 120hz set. I cannot watch it for extended periods of time as it make me sea sick. And yes, I have been on open water... I just bought another plasma for this reason, although I would have liked to have bought another LCD.

Hell, I am still waiting for BD to be cleaned up along with more HD channels. But that is just me, the 45 year old fart.

If I had my wish, I would like to see some content that I could wrap my head around, give me a good story without all of the PC crap. Can I say CRAP?

the photo attached looked like the new 72 inch vizio was it? If so what did you think as to 3d? Especially as to brightness. Some of the reports on these forums (especially panasonic) indicate that the 3d images are definately darker then 2d. Don't know if it is the glasses or what but would be very interested in your opinion both as to image quality and anything else you saw.

Also, same if you got to see any 2d images from this set. I believe you are the first one to have seen and shown this set. Since it seems to be so significantly less expensive (and appears to be technonlgically superior) to competitors i'm sure many would be interested... Thanks...

Of course the images are darker, the shutter cuts off the light to each eye 50% of the time... This is not an issue since the LCD's this days are anyway too bright.
I think 3D is the future. Rants against it are like the ones against color TV in 50's, against wide-screen format in... always, against digital TV in 90'...

No, I think we "deniers" are in overload right now. Over the past two years many of us have plunked down thousands upon thousands of dollars in new gear to watch and LISTEN to HDTV, BD, take your pick...

Myself, I started around 10 years ago in regards to HDTV... I still have a 10' dish in my backyard, a 4DTV (bet you never heard of that) and the HDD (HDTV Decoder) sitting in my garage now collecting dust. I could go on, but it is not worth it.

Even HDTV has yet to really catch on, and I bet if we could get some industry numbers they would show the same.

This is a gimmick... Ever heard of "bread and circus"?

HDTV gave us something we could wrap our heads around, 3DTV is just eye candy for the ignorant in my book. Another way for the boys to suck money out of many unsuspecting dupes pockets.

Hey, if you want to take the plunge, more power to ya... Ain't no skin off of my back, but don't insult me in the process.

Like I said earlier in another post, "I would like to see some content that I could wrap my head around, give me a good story without all of the PC crap. Can I say CRAP?"

Did I say go and buy now?
I said that that will be the future, you want or not. The whole ideea of entertainement in history is to provide stimulus to your senses that you don't get usually. Trick the brain that you are in a different reality.
Therefore, based on techology at that time we had drawings on caves walls, carvings, then scrolls/books, theatre and latter photograpic pictures, cinema, radio, B&W TV, color TV, HDTV... 3D images are a natural progresion, not a gimmick. Or for you books are a fancy gimmick too?