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

Well, some of us think 3DTV is silly. There is a difference between making comments about products vs. people. By the way, why are you throwing labels at forum members who voice their opinions? It seems to me you are the one who chastized others just for using words like "retarded" or "gay" for the PRODUCTS, and now here you are; making judgments on people and calling them silly? Oh brother... LaoChe is right, you need to lighten up.


Excuse me, I'm sorry if you are offended by other opinions, but some of us prefer not to HAVE that in our home, and we can give our opinions on anything we want; please get over it, and get happy, happy!

Florida Dude,

You are one of the most vocal anti-3D people around here. In fact, it's getting annoying and on the borderline of being SPAM. Posting the same crap in multiple threads. Dude, you need to get-over this 3D thing. We all get it. You don't like it. That's fine. But why do you feel the need to constantly go around trashing it? Did the inventor of 3D kill your puppy or something?

Actually, I think I already know the answer to that question.

Let me take a wild guess... you purchaed a new TV within the past 30-60 days, and it does not have 3D.

Simple answer. Yes or No?

As long as 3D does not compromise the current and future basic performance of LCD and Plasma, there is nothing we can do if we want the best that Panasonic (and to a similar degree, Samsung), have to offer.

The VT20, and the forthcoming VT25s seem like they are going to be excellent TVs. I am sick of hearing about fluctuating black levels on the new Panasonics.

In their TV blog, Consumer Reports has been made aware of the rising black level of 2009 models, and they know to watch the VT 20, and VT 25s for rising black level.

It's going to be roughly a couple months before they post their final test results, but preliminarily, they are raving about the best black levels since the Kuro, (their words), great picture detail, and great performance with motion blur.

3D doesn't appeal to me since I already wear glasses, but it is going to have to play out for the next few years.

So, if I wanted a new TV, I'd be all over the VT20, VT25's, till I learn of any wide-spread problem.

Never mind FloridaDude, it took me less than 5 minutes to find the answer myself = Yes.

You just recently purchased a Samsung B8500 (so did I by the way).

I think I understand why you are so anti-3D now. You are not just trying to convince us 3D sucks. You are trying to convince yourself, in order to justify your non-3D purchase. So transparent and obvious. But I think it's cute.

Anyway, I have high hopes for 3D in gaming.

Kill my puppy? LOL, we both picked the same TV and here you are attacking people and calling them silly because they don't like blurry images and dark picture quality? I will be more than happy to answer your question; yes, actually I purchased a great TV and yes, I could take it back if I wanted to tomorrow, but I refuse to because I would never give up my 8500 for blurry images and dark picture quality. It's not personal so don't make it personal; by the way, did people who don't care for blurry images and dark picture quality kill your goldfish or something? Yes or No?

Apart of whether the current implementation of 3D is a success or not can't be judged for some time. It's a fact that all the manufacturers of TVs are bringing sets, blu-ray players and gaming machines to market on the assumption that it will capture the buying public's interest. Since all the sets due to be released aren't exclusively made for only 3D means the consumers choose whether or not to use that feature, which is a good thing and a win win situation for those that purchase new sets.

But we haven't gone to high definition yet! Not even close! How about companies make that first step before trying the next?!

I've had my HD service and HD-PVR for about 4 years. Of the 200+ channels my cable provider has available, about 20-25 are HD. The growth of HD over the last few years (at least in terms of new channels) has been glacial. At this pace we'll be another 5-10 years before the ratio of SD to HD finally shifts.

3D, even in it's current form, seems at least that far away as well. By then the fad will have died out (as it always has).

It does varies by cable provider. I see where DirectTV currently offers over 130 HD channels and DishNetwork will be expanding to over 200.

http://www.hd-report.com/category/hd-channels/

Tell me about it; I agree with you 100%.
Search the forum and you will find that many of the units consumers are buying have "rising blacks," "clouding" and "flashlight" problems, etc. It would be nice if they could deal with the basics before moving ahead with the next best thing.

...feel the luv. 3D or no 3D, it's the new plasma vs LCD debate. Might as well throw in Coke vs Pepsi for the hat trick of, going to accomplish absolutely nothing debates.

I didn't read through all the replies but if you want to talk marketing gimmicks 3D is nothing compared to every else these companies put out.

3D is at least a new technology that offers a vastly different picture than anything else. Sure you may not care to put on glasses in the morning to watch the news while you get ready in the morning but I bet you will wish you have a 3D set when avatar comes out on bluray.

Talking about gimmicks everyone is head over heels for 240 hz. etc. and most of the time these high refresh rates make the picture look bad because you are watching a video image now that is 90% CG compared to the original recording.

I agree with a previous poster, make what works better and fix the problems. In my case I also think OLED would have been better for Samsung, etc. to put their resources into. But 3D sells as a gimick and..... you need to buy a 3D player, glasses, movies, etc. All meant to make the companies benefit. I say get OLED going, that will solve problems like refresh rates, then figure out how to do 3D without glasses, oh... but that would mean they can't sell you 3D glasses!

Yes. In short, live sports and video games alone are worth it. Besides, the 2010 sets are being released for cheaper than the ones in 2009, so just think of it as an added bonus. You don't like it - don't use it.

I was at a local retailer and they had the Samsung 3D setup with Aliens vs Monsters. I thought it was terrible. The image doesn't pop out. The 3D is contained in the bezel of the tv. Felt like I was looking into a diarama. Also, the 24p makes it almost unwatchable.

I am OK with 2D for now.

I will second all of those comments.


For years we have been wanting Vibrant rich deep colors, The shaded glasses "Dim" everything.

Maybe at home it will be less objectionable in a dark room.


3D really needs a BIG TV.

99% of out 3D experience has been AVATAR is an IMAX Theater (or what I call IMAX Mini) unless you went to a FULL 5 story tall IMAX.


But the narrative thats being sold is that "if you liked AVATAR in 3D you will need a 3D TV"

And thats all thats being said. By TV News Media and Print. All bought off. Wake up people.

Now I am not in the 3D is a "Fad" camp. No its here to stay.


But you need a Really BIG TV if not the effect is ruined or badly limited.

To me it reminds me of a Kids Puppet show, or a 3D View MAster from when I was a kid.

And wait for all the "specially optimized" Speakers for 3D.

Yep. That's the perfect way to look at it if you are in the market for a new TV. However, if you have a great TV now, I see no reason to ditch it for a 3D TV.

Exactly.

It is even worse than that: MOST of those channels/stations are 720p, and there are NO 1080p broadcast stations. We have had 1080p sets for nearly 5 years, and the only true 1080p content that is readily available is BluRay, and BluRay players only dropped to $100 about three months ago.

The idea that a vast store of true 3D content is right around the corner is a pipe dream. I would not pay one extra cent for 3d technology now, and I would not regret any non-3D TV purchase.

In 2005, I had to think long and hard about getting a 1080p set vs. 720p/1080i. People were saying the same things then about 1080p that we are saying about 3d now. Don't believe me? AVS is a vast archive of those discussions. In retrospect, a person who bought a 720p set in 2005 MISSED NOTHING. A person who bought 1080p in 2005 paid a premium FOR NOTHING.

Life is 3D in case you haven't realized that yet.

Anyone who thinks 3DTV in one form or another, one improvement or another, isn't here
to stay is very short-sighted. Black and white TV worked just fine and got the point
across, but turns out life is in color too.

3DTV is a natural progression, just give it time.

(mostly) good debate from differing view points.

I've seen the 3D demos and was shocked by how good they look. Of course it only looked amazing when both the 3D BD player and 3D T.V. were both in 3D mode and the disc was the aliens vs. monsters 3D demo copy. I also saw it when only the T.V. was in 3D mode - not the same effect. When properly set up there were several instances where images reached way out of the screen. My only complaints - I thought the black level on the Samsung could have been better and I noticed some crosstalk in some scenes. I also tried the 2D to 3D conversion with several BD discs and liked it quite a lot - adds subtle, but very real depth to the image. I would prefer a 3D projector solution; however, if that doesn't pan out in the near future I'll be buying a very large 3D set that has 2D to 3D conversion. For those who don't like 3D, well, why would you care since you don't need to view content this way. For me, I can't wait for more content and different solutions - having HD resolution and now very good 3D all within the last five years or so is very, very nice!

Some of the concern on these forums is that resources spent on 3d could have been spent on improving/perfecting existing offering.

Supposedly the new 3D T.V.s (some of them) actually have improved the 2D image quality over last year's models so what is there to complain about? Maybe the manufactures should have got black levels right before they put so many resources into higher resolution panels. I don't hear anyone complaining about that! I suspect some just are not comfortable with change. I actually know some individuals who don't own or use a computer and wish the whole "thing" would just go away - dream on. Many here can't understand why not everyone is embracing Blu-Ray over DVD, at least consumers who own HD sets, yet have problems with some people here who embrace 3D! DVD was seen as a threat to LD owners. HD DVD owners fought it out with BD supporters and now those who support the status quo (being 2D) feel the need to fight it out with the "progressives"!

Well, I for one would like to see all channels in HD. And why not 1080p?

I'm with ya on black levels too.

Surely some people aren't comfortable with change, probably most.

There are also folks who like getting things right before jumping on to something else.

I don't want to fight out here and let many posts go unreplied to due to this concern.

Could 3d be lining up sides like the lcd vs. plasma groups?

Love it or hate it, the makers are going to push 3-D at us. We'll vote with our pocketbooks, just like everything else. That's the beauty of the market. If our money makes it a hit, it will get better and better, just like everything else.

I'm not going to sweat it and honestly could care less. I won't be in line for a new set.

That said, there is a dramatic difference between home viewing and a fully equiped actual theater. Avatar set the bar, sure... however, Avatar on a 42" screen is a vastly different experience. This is really the issue.

Myself, as someone else mentioned... I'd like to see OLED further developed... I want my own Holo Deck.

I'll add one more tidbit now that I've finished my coffee and my brain is kicking in... for many years, various makers have come out with "goggles" that have a small LED/LCD mounted in front of your eyes that are designed to mimic a large display screen. Why have these never taken off and gone mainstream..?? It seems like a good idea. Have a theater the size of some goggles. Or 3-D glasses.

It's a hassle, that's why. Sure, if no glasses required 3-D come along, who knows..?? And, if they are working on no glasses required 3-D, why buy into the current tech..??

I'll add this as well... with streaming off the cloud being what I'm sure many of us will agree is the future direction of content delivery, how does that play on the 3-D standard and specs..??

This is something the "pro 3D" crowd should really read and think about. People can like 3D but it won't be appropriate in all situations. Wearing 3D glasses is a bother. The screen has to encompass the field of view or it's going to look 'odd'. 3D really belongs in a theater where the screens are huge and the ambient surroundings are black/low light. At home and at bars, 3D, just gets in the way of normal living and interacting. It requires someone to totally zone everyone else out. That's why the public 3D sporting event broadcast failed. A crowd must interact and be social.

Again, the ONLY way this technology becomes viable is if/when the glasses are no longer needed. And that's the MINIMUM standard. I would also add that most home screens would have to cover the whole wall to be enveloping enough for most people. Which is why 3D has only really worked in a movie theater with a large screen.

Good points... I'll add that going to a properly equiped cinema for a night out to take a look at the latest theater tech, a la 3-D is a novelty experience, and that's helping drive the hype. Home viewing, different animal.

Due to an eye condition (amblyopia) I am unable to view movies in 3D. Therefore, I agree with the original poster that 3D TV is pointless and the manufacturers should not bother making them.

I have a question. The consumer 3d tv's use a technology that requires mechanical 3d glasses that cost about $150. The professional 3d tv's only require the same glasses that you would use to see a Real 3D movie, and they cost about $3 (going by the extra cost for 3D).

Why can't the consumers have that? Why do us buyers have to shell out all that extra money for an extra pair for a friend (or a replacement)? Would you pay that extra money just so someone else can enjoy 3d with you?