3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay?

Stop it!
It hurts my eyes!!

I voted Fad.
They need to keep 3-D in theaters and out of the home until the technology gets better and to where one doesn't need glasses to view.

I'm pretty confident it's the way of the future, however I'm not too sure it'll take off this time around.

Needs standards.

It's gonna take at least 1 or 2 TV's worth of time before there will be quality 3D with no glasses I think. I went for what seems to be the best 2010 TV (3D or not) in my budget and it happened to have 3D so... Bring on the content!

Standards for glasses is something I'd really welcome though!

+1

I was going to say the same thing.

I'm hoping it's a fad in it's current form. I HATE WEARING GLASSES to watch a movie. Totaly distracts me from the movie and doesn't let me get lost in the story.

I am not a fan of wearing glasses to watch a movie. Besides that the going rate of $150 for each additional pair of glasses is ridiculous. If I did have a 3D system it would be BYOG. (bring your own glasses)

History will repeat.

1. Develop a set of standards. No glasses.
2. At least 2 major company groups will form, each touting a different standard. HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray. Again.
3. They duke it out for about 6 months to a year.
4. The one with the better technical format loses to the one with the best chances of revenue for Hollywood.
5. A couple of good 3-D movies comes out, but it's not enough to justify a huge expense for such little content.
6. They try to remaster a bunch of 2-D movie classics in 3-D as a last-ditch effort to keep the revenue stream going. No one cares because remastering degraded the quality and there was no real added value.
7. Everyone waits until true 3-D sports broadcasting comes out. It fails miserably because there's no advantage to 3-D unless you are at the player's level. At that point, you can't see the big picture and miss the action.

I think it's a fad to sell more TV's.

There used to be a time when the average US household bought a television once every 10 years, maybe longer. And the manufacturers found a way to survive on that.

Then HD rolled around and the companies loved seeing the profits from new TV's that they decided they wanted to see those profits every few years. I believe they embarked on a campaign to make it seem like even for HDTV's, that you needed to get a new replacement every three or so years. To do that you need some kind of advancement.

First you had 1080i TV's and 720p TV's, and even 480p "EDTV's" targeted for a different market that didn't want to spend the big bucks for HD.

So then came 1080p TV's, which everyone had to have. Then came LED backlit LCD's ("oooh, sooo slim!!"). Now 3-D is coming along, I believe all to make sure you buy a TV every 3 years instead of every 10-15 years.

Ask any AVSer how many times they have bought a new HDTV for their primary viewing space in the last 10 years. I bet it's on the order of 3-4. For me it's three from 2005-2010 (for my living room, the primary viewing space for me). The manufacturers just want to get us again...and again...

What we need more than 3D is better actors and origional scripts. Most of Hollywood is very boring right now. I can't sit through yet another comic book origin story. Enough already.

As long as it requires glasses in the living room, then nobody will care. As long as you have to sit in a single spot in the living room to experience it, nobody will care. Given that we are still quite a bit off from having affordable facial recognition and camera based tracking of viewer positions built in to our displays, in order to shift the 3D effect based on viewer position, this is just another cycle of the "3D for a year out of every decade" fad.

Maybe in 10 years when the 3D fad cycles around again, but definitely not this time around.

It's here to stay.

Like any new technology, the early versions are not great, but the potential is being realized. In 5 -7 years DVD will be a thing of the past giving way completely to blu-ray, and 3D won't be a gimmick, it'll just be part of the viewing experience. 3D capable tvs will be like 1080p. every new set will have it. I do think the glasses will have gone the way of the dinosaur in favor of autostereoscopic screens. As for leaving 3D in the theatres, thats a dumb idea. why don't you just leave the large screens and projectors in the theatre. and finally, negative health effects, well all of you should stop sitting so close to the TV or you'll all be blind. Just my 2 cents.

Fad Fad Fad. Once the average consumer with a family of 4 sees that they will be required to spend $50-$150 apiece for 2-3 extra pairs of glasses, they will balk. Especially consumers who ALREADY WEAR GLASSES.

That, along with a dearth of content, will kill it for home use.

It may stick around in theaters, we'll see. They need more Avatars and fewer Clashes of the Titans, though.

+2

I think it's a story line distraction... mainly to distract you from the fact that the movie has no story.

Just one more way to dumb down the dreck that passes for most Hollywood blockbusters these days. Toy Story 3, hopefully, excluded.

Also, there is evidence to support that it may cause more than just a headache and eye strain after long exposure to "fake 3D."

I'd rather they regularly mix in 7.1 surround for the theater and home theater for not just 3D titles as PIXAR is doing for TS3.

Another thing: bump up the resolution and film at a higher frame rate.

Those three things will do far more good than 3D... and it won't cause eye problems.

Without standards, can you say Betamax vs VHS?

I believe 3D is here to stay ... but not in its current form because ANOTHER way of doing 3D WILL come out in order to, once again, sell more TVs.

Tube TVs were made to last 15-20 years. The 32" Sony I bought in 1995 and gave to my parents is STILL going strong. At the SAME time, I've gone through THREE projection-type sets just to upgrade to higher resolutions. Now I rarely hear of these flat TVs lasting more than 5 years before some new standard or whatnot is announced ... or the controller hardware dies.

3D standards will get finalized in a couple of years and those caught with the " losing " standard will have to upgrade or do without. 4K will be out a couple years after THAT and then a 3D standard for THAT and so on.

Do I think it's a fad? I certainly hope so. If one reads the Samsung warning that comes with the purchase of a 3D set it specifies that it can cause epilectic seizures in persons with an epilectic background; it can trigger strokes, not safe to watch after having consumed alcohol. Children's exposure to be limited. Not safe for the chronically ill. Can cause confusion, disorientation, motionsickness. There are prescription drugs on the market that are less harmfull than this. Personally I wouldn't take one if it was given to me. Over and above that I have seen a demo and it does not remotely resemble film.

I enjoyed avatar just as much watching it in 2D at home as I did in 3D at the theater. wouldn't pay added money for 3D. It's not like movies are missing the element of perspective and viewers have trouble telling background and foreground apart. 3D adds nothing, so I voted fad... sort of like those snappy wristbands during the 90's.

I voted fad. But I fear it's here to stay.

The inside of EVERY videogame has the same warnings. I think that is doing fine.
In saying that I do that in this form it is a fad, no glasses and now we are talkin.

If its developed without glasses its not a fad. I'd love to play video games in no glasses 3d. Some movies might benefit but touting the 3Dness of something won't affect revenue in the near future. The market is already pretty saturated with the term.

I compared both the Samsung and Panasonic and perfer the Panasonic after a 15 minute viewing.
I do think there should be standards though.
Let,s face it...here to stay! I do not think there will be any option if you want a high end TV. You do not have to use it, but you will be paying for it!

I watched a demo in HHGreg for about 30 seconds. It was an animated children's movie and it looked pretty good. As I was leaving the store I started to feel nauseous. 3D is not for me. I figured this might happen as I can't even watch my son play video games without getting a sick feeling.

3D is nice new fad and still is evolving, i'll wait when they've already perfected it without the glasses.

A couple of problems making it "here to stay."

• No content--takes 3-4 years to make a blockbuster movie like Avatar, etc. Go ahead tell me what you've seen and are waiting to see--big yawn.
• Takes oodles of money to make a movie.
• Will not be suitable for 25-50% of audiences due to need for glasses, intitial investment, personal issues (nausea, vertigo, etc.). Theaters and cable would have to maintain both technologies forever--too expensive except for major city venues.
• Will need to have both 3D and 2D content of the same thing forever. Any technology that has had two expense channels always ends up going for the simple channel (e.g. 2D).
• No standards--though that can be overcome.
• Not just for movies, would have to be big in still cameras as well. The fad in the 50s took off because of 3D slide cameras, but the need for special processing, mounting and gizmos to see it, killed it.
• Seeing Avatar in 2D will convince a lot of people (I aready am hearing that from my friends) that 3D isn't necessary. Releasing in 2D is biggest single mistake in the history of movies--especially since the next one will be over 3 years out.

Needs a standard, but even so can't wait to try the ESPN 3D Channel

I find that watching a film in 3D is a completely different experience. It's not a just a replacement HDTV or content delivery system. It's not your typical cinema. Personally, I my impression with Avatar in 2D was like watching Star Wars without sound. I own an Avatar blu-ray and it's still in my car trunk and in plastic wrap.

There are about 60 3D films in pre-production or production at this exact moment. There are many films already on the shelf that are perfect candidates for a 3D release. This can't be a fad, 3D is here to stay forever.

With that said, I'm not about to run out and shell out $2,500 for a 3D ready TV with active shutter. My desktop PC monitor will do 3D @ 120hz and Nvidia shutter glasses but I'm waiting for something better.

I'm a bit disappointed in progress in this area. I was just down at Best Buy the other day and paused to look at an active shutter 3D HDTV demo. Could not help but think to my self: I had active shutters on my desktop PC 10 years ago and it's just now catching on? It's been a decade and virtually no progress beyond James Cameron's production workflow.

My two cents...

What about people like me who need prescription glasses like me you can't even wear those overpriced glasses. I voted fad. I don't care about 3d as long as it is in hd is all that matters.

If i had the extra money to buy newer 3DTV set, a new receiver (support for HDMI 1.4) and new blu-ray player although PS3 will get the update..sure i would have jumped on to 3D now.

I have to change all of my components (except PS3) just to get 3D. I saved for and built my current system piece by piece just cross the line to HD world (1080p, blu-ray, HD audio etc.) and not in a hurry to replace those with this new feature,fad or gimmick.

The way i look at it is that there are still a lot of different ways to get 3D and a lot of different versions so i'll enjoy and be content with what i have right now and see how the 3D pans out.

Maybe in 2 or 3 years when there is no need for 3D glasses, i'll jump on it.