3D HDTV is the most pointless mainstream technology ever. - Page 2

Excellent point and open minded post! By 2011 or 2012 most TV sets if not all of them will have 3D capabilities... NO ONE will force you to watch 3D, it's only a feature. You never have to use it at all, End of story!

agreed! 3D is a feature. If you are in the out to buy a TV in the future. It will have 3D capabilities, so would people refuse buying new TVs because it have 3D capabilities?

+1

No. It's NOT a "new" tech. It's a re-tread technology that has been a "fad" in the past with movies. The necessary technology to make it "new" would be to make the television "3D" without needing glasses. Now THAT would be "new". This 3D is not new, it's never become mainstream in the past, has flopped before and will likely flame out again.

I made myself clear in the same posting. Stay around for couple years and lets see if your opinion holds. The attack on 3D is nothing but extremely silly, too bad people doesn't go back and witness how technology really work. I remember the exact same type of hatred when High def first came. it's repeating itself, people can't be patient enough.

I'm looking forward to and will be buying into 3D late this or early next year, probably the 72" Visio and an appropriate 3D BD player.

High def is about extra resolution that doesn't require anything from the viewer. It's just a sharper 2-D image. A 'better' TV. 3D is different. It requires a user to sit in one place with a pair of silly glasses on their face. This won't work in a home environment because people want to be able to hit 'pause' and just 'live'. It's not like the movies where the environment allows for people to sit in the dark quietly and watch a movie. At a movie theater, 3D works fine. It's a rolling fad again and it will likely fade out again. I don't think I've seen an instance where people shun a better looking film, which is like going from the old NTSC to HDTV.

I love how Sony's 3d is the "worst". Their 3d TVs are not even available to the public. Any TVs that the public have seen are most likely prototypes. Sony is the leader in 3d development for cinema, broadcast, gaming, and home theater. I'm positive their production TVs will not be the "worst" out there.

I don't think C7000 and VT20 are "prototypes".

I'm not "faking" anything. I did give the link to an article in a Japanese websit that indicates Sony's 3D LCD TVs have the worst PQ.

So we can make fun of cavemen, but we can't make fun of 3d gamers? Are they really that different?

I'd say there are lots of technologies that are at least as bad. I know because I've owned some of them.

Quadraphonic sound.
The old RCA capacitive disks.
8 Track Tapes.
Apple Hockey Puck Mouse.
Microsoft Bob.
The Brockabrella.
DVD-RAM drives.

3d? Who knows how it will turn out but I'd say it's got a chance to join the above group.

I was referring to Sony.

Really, I'm not sure how you could consider the new version of in-home 3D tech "most pointless mainstream technology ever" in any sense of the word. As, like it or not, it still is ADVANCED from any other form of 3D that the public has ever been subjected to. Heck, even when contrasted with existing HD tech, it still really only serves as a potential compliment...not a degradation of existing technology.

Again, I'm still not terribly impressed by it, but it CERTAINLY is beyond what we've had in the home over the last 30-40 years.

James

I was having the same issue while shopping for a new LED, I ended up going with the top Samsung from last year the UNb8500 and it has been everything i expected and then some!

Great idea but who ever does it? Microsoft?

Perhaps I had a poor demo or two...check here:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/flat-p...ray_3d_player/

James

The public at large weren't shouting from the rooftops demanding television in 1939 prior to it's US debut at the New York World's Fair, nor was there a huge clamor for color tv in 1953, VCRs in 1979, DVD in 1997, or HDTV in 1998.

It's the capitalist system that's worked so well for us in this country for the last few hundred years--create a demand where none exists and reap the profits. Once the last big thing has become a mainstream commodity it's time for something new.

As with any new tech there's a lot of resistance at first and not every new whizbang idea takes off--there are always tradeoffs that some find unacceptable.

One of the benefits of modern electronics is that something like 3D capability can be added to a tv without negatively affecting it's performance as a 2D set and at minimal real cost. As in all prior cases there's an early adopter penalty but in a year or two 3D capability will be as common (and relatively cheap) as 120hz is now. It'll be just another feature that may or may not be used by the customer, just as pip was on past sets.

Was I upset that the KV35XBR48 tv I bought back in '98 was capable of displaying 9 channels at once--a feature I paid for but never used? A little but that was what I had to do in order to get the performance I wanted.

The intro price of Samsung's UN55C7000 is two hundred less than the B7000 was at this time last year--some "penalty". There's nothing stopping a buyer from purchasing the set now and waiting for the prices of the necessary ancillary equipment to dip, probably about the same time something resembling a decent selection of content becomes available.

I had my first HD capable tv for 2 years before any significant amount of HD content was available to watch on it, in the meantime I basked in the glory of native 480p anamorphic dvd.

3D is really a pain to implement in it's current form. I couldn't see myself going out of my way to spend hours with a pair of glasses on my head for an "effect" that wears off within 20 minutes. The brain adjusts to what you're watching, whether 2-D or 3-D. People usually find 3-D a huge pain in the butt that simply isn't necessary.

Very true statement, in a few short years manufactors will drop the "3D Ready" label from it's sets, the same way they dropped the "HD Ready" label, as 90% of the sets made will be able to show some type of 3D content. Then it just becomes another TV on the shelf.

So whats next? 2160P, 600hz tri-color OLED LCD, 3D w/o glasses, on 72 inch panels at a cost of $2500

I agree with the OP, 3D TV pretty much sucks.

I went to Best Buy and tested the 3D TV a few days ago for myself.
Panasonic setup with the glasses, in a darkened room facing a wall.

The 3D effect was actually pretty cute; it's not as good as the old Disney 3D theaters, but it does give a novel feeling of depth and space; they had a coral reef scene playing and the little fish really seemed to "float" off the screen. Reminds me of the little View-Master 3D gizmos we used to have as kids. The images look flat, but they are layered for depth. (yawn).

The screen is still too dark; 20 years of 3D imaging and that is still a killer for me; it's like looking at a TV through a thin black veil. For some—after all these years of bitching at manufacturers about wanting the brightest, clearest, picture quality—going back to this retro 3D stuff will be a joke without a punch line. I would have moved off to the side and tested the viewing angle, but the glasses were tethered to a podium for security.

After checking out the Panasonic, I drifted over to the Samsung area; I would have been able to actually view the Samsung display, but unfortunately after only 10 days the glasses were already broken, and they were waiting for new ones to be delivered to the store. Yes, that's right they were broken. That said a lot about the glasses (which by the way are both retarded AND gay).

The "3D effect" has always sucked in the theaters, and it still sucks for anything more than a few minutes of "ooohs and ahhhs." I think kids and early adopters will love this, but those who demand better picture quality WILL get tired of it quick. Bottom line; it's cute, but I couldn't see any reason to take my 8500 back. This is only my opinion on a forum, so please do not be offended. If they figure out a way to deliver this effect sans the darkening glasses, it could have a serious future. Otherwise, it's doomed to remain a seldom-used gimmick that creates darkened images and headaches.

I've seen 3D from Mitsubishi and Samsung. Neither of them impressed me. My nose and ears hurt after wearing the glasses for about two minutes. It also didn't look very good. I don't care how much the technology advances, I just have no desire to watch anything in 3D. It looks fake and unnatural. It's kind of like cranking up all the motion enhancements on LCD TVs. Looks dumb and gets annoying after about a minute. I may be interested in 3D again when they have technology that doesn't use glasses. But, since I see that being at least 20 years away, I'll stick with normal TVs. Not to mention 3D does nothing but strain my eyes and make me feel tired and want to close them.

If one thing is clear, two people can sit side by side and walk away with two different opinions..."EVERY 3D DISCUSSION" in this forum proves that so at what point does it become pointless to debate whether or not it improves or detracts from the viewing experience. Should manufactures focus more on existing issues...absolutely, but a 3D display even in it's earliest stages isn't costing that much more as an added feature and given a very short time it will be even less. If you don't like it don't use it.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Interesting article, has pros and cons...

"The trouble with 3D in movies is that Hollywood is confusing novelty with sustainable appeal. Audiences will quickly tire of 3D pandering -- and of wearing goofy cardboard glasses.

And that's one of the problems with 3D as it's currently set to be offered in consumer electronics. Executives smell money. But they just don't get 3D.

"We went from standard definition to high definition, and [3D] is the natural next step." HDlogix president Jim Spinella said recently, perfectly encapsulating the conventional wisdom among 3D advocates.

That statement sounds reasonable. But it all hinges on what "3D" means. If "3D" means goofy glasses, then, no, going from not wearing goofy glasses to wearing them is not a "natural next step." And HDlogix's own technology helped demonstrate that.

A Dallas Cowboys football game featured the "first live 3D broadcast ever to be shown on giant video screens at a major sporting event." The idea was to showcase HDlogix 3D technology. At halftime, the giant screen switched to 3D mode, and the fans were invited to put on the 3D glasses that were handed out at the entrance.

The intent was to show the second half of the game in 3D. But many fans refused to wear the glasses, and saw a blurry picture. Some of those who did wear them felt nauseous. The crowd booed. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the video was switched back to normal, 2D mode. The crowed cheered.

This is the horrible reality of current-generation 3D. People cheer when you turn it off. That's too bad, because several industries are throwing a lot of money at it..."
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/...will_fail_2010

Some of the anti-3D people are silly.

Especially the guys who don't own a 3DTV and have zero experience with 3D in their own home. These are the last people that should be giving advice or opinions on this topic, and yet some are now going from thread to thread in the forum, posting the same rubbish over and over.

I personally don't know, or care, if 3D will be a success in the home. But it's ridiculous for people to be declaring doom-and-gloom failure at this early stage. Especially people with no experience using the technology at home.

A guy spends 5 minutes watching a demo in-store, and suddenly proclaims 3D a failure? It's utterly ridiculous. So please excuse the majority of us if we don't follow that line of thinking.

3D is a hype,being against all kind of hypes is healthy.