3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 35

Hi Warren,

Woah, please note I have been careful to refer either to 1080i CRTs that were "well built" or specifically my Sony KD34XBR960 so not to appear I was making a blanket statement. I know there's a company called "welbuilt" and hope that's not what you thought I meant. Would be foolish to lump all sets (no matter what the technology) as being equal since there is that select group that utilizes the entire spectrum of manufacturing capability available.

Saw a Toshiba 1080i CRT at a friend's house and that's why I leaned toward the more expensive Sony.

Hi Warren,

That's what I've been saying, too. 3D might not become mainstream but can still be succesfull if it captures a small percentage of followers just like bluray which now only accounts for slightly more than ten percent of all discs being currently sold (although I do believe bluray will eventually replace standard DVD with the additional costs being minimal).

As far as those 50 plus inch sets from a few years ago that were only 720p, indeed there is definate improvement moving up to 1080p (lesser so from 1080i). I've only been saying these same advances are of lesser consequence to smaller ones.

I haven't purchased a bluray player not so much because of cost but because I already had a new DVD recorder with upconversion in our living room and an upconverting player in our den and with less and less new titles coming out that I really want to buy (most of which are older titles i.e, silent films, early 30s, etc). Thefore, a bluray player would mostly be used to upconvert standard DVDs, which I already have

The same principles of picture quality in sets and the lack of good titles (in terms of quality, not future quantity) might very well apply to the average owner of a HD monitor; hence the reason why I feel 3D will be regulated to a small but loyal following at least for the forseable future.

Warren, do you agree with my theory that very large sets would benefit from additional resolution beyond 1080p since the lines of resolution aren't as compact as they are smaller screens? Who knows, could it be like the difference you saw going from 720p to 1080p?

Ciao,
joe

Do not want to register onto the website but could you paraphrase what was said?

Thanx,
Joe

I think it was Cowboys and Aliens but I could be wrong, the producer of the movie said that they were not going to shoot it in 3D because it detracts from the quality of the movie or something like that. Sorry for the vagueness on the interview, ive been meaning to come back here and post it but its been too long since I heard the interview, oops.

This to me is the first sign the fad is on its way out. Soon the 3D movie will go out like parachute pants.

The producer is right - viewers emmersed in the visual 3D effect could be concentrating less on the artistry of the plot, acting, scenic design, musical accompanient, etc. This is especially true even with genres that would otherwise benefit from the 3D effect: travelogs, action, horror, animation, science fiction, sports etc.

Though not the case with the likes of Avatar, Polar Express, etc., the element of 3D has been used not to additionally enhance the story but rather to get people immersed in films with poor plots and acting that would otherwise be box office duds.

Will admit, when I first read up on "Cowboys and Aliens" my thought was this was probably another one of those type films; I mean, what is there to artistcly detract from a plot where an alien spaceship lands in the old west? Then I remembered how great "Bubba Ho Tep" was where a still living but senior citizen Elvis Presley and JFK (played by Osie Davis no less) defended their nursing home against alien invaders. And with James Bond and Indiana Jones in starring roles, it seems like this will be good fun and can't miss!

Sorry about that! Weird...I read the whole article without registering but now there's traffic to the link....honeypot??? Will try to find a cached version.

Fad!

Could you be a little bit more specific?

agreed...I actually liked Avatar better when I watched it at home on Blu-ray compared to when I saw it in 3D at the theater...at the theater you're subconsciously focused on the gimmicky 3D effects versus the plot of the movie...waiting for the yo-yo to come out of the screen or the arrow to shoot out at you

I read an article a few weeks back which stated that the percentage of 3D movie ticket sales for every single movie after Avatar has fallen...each subsequent 3D movie makes less $$ then the last which goes to show that consumers are losing interest as well (Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans etc)...Avatar was the first real 3D movie so people went to see it in 3D out of curiousity...for each new 3D movie out the vast majority are choosing to see it in 2D

expecting everyone who currently has a non 3D HDTV to purchase another 3D capable set is not reasonable...not to mention the glasses, lack of content, etc...3D will live on for another few years max only because manufacturers have commited to it for the short term plus certain movie studios are pushing it as well

by 2014 3D will be phased out again

It may take awhile for consumer adoption but I believe that 3D is here to stay for the sake of video games alone. (This is coming from a person who barely games)

I also have a suspicion that a lot (but not all) of people who say it's a gimmick are the ones that want to believe this because they happen to buy a TV recently before 3D.

That's why many of us avoid the words "fad" or "gimmick" and instead discuss socio-economic factors, possible fallacies in marketing projections, consumer necessity, family viewing habits,etc. J

Just shows the original question as posed cannot be answered so simply.

August 24, 2010 6:46 AM PDT
Toshiba to release glasses-free 3D TV this year?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...?tag=cnetRiver

Which is going to anger those who already purchased 3D monitors requiring glasses.

Has Toshiba developed the capability to convert what is currently available on bluray and broadcast to be compatible with their glasses-free system? If so, then expect Toshiba to corner the market for the next few years. If not, then expect the acceptance of 3D to be pushed back until more content in this format becomes available (if there is a format war, it will obviously be no contest).

If that is accurate they will gain some ground in the marketplace
HOWEVER..Toshiba..in my mind has lesser picture quality than Samsung, Sony or LG

So ...unless their picture quality steps up


Again..as I mentioned before the best 2D TV TV's today all have 3 D capability

So whether you use it or not...to get the best picture quality you have no choice other than to buy it
I have no idea where the nation is in buying a flat screen. I have friends on 2nd and 3rd generation flat screens

There are still likely a few out there that don't buy very often...but when they do it tends to be top of the line
That person..if they buy in 2010 ..would have to buy a 3D TV just to get the 2D quality that is on the top of the spectrum

I will say this...ESPN looks great in 3D on Direct TV


Warren

If this is true that Toshiba will have a set that can be viewed without 3-D glasses that means that you won't see the image with a darker shade which current 3-D glasses create.

Hi Warren,

The problem is if one buys a high end monitor to get both 3D and the best 2D picture quality available, he or she might have to buy another one in two or three years if the technology introduced by Toshiba replaces the glasses-type. And don't forget that $500 couch where one does not need to get high-end to have excellent HD quality.

What have you seen on ESPN so far? Did you have to duck from all the shots Tiger Woods has been slicing of late?

Joe

And that well could be that person who always wants to be on the cutting edge of technology
Or...since I don't believe Toshiba has the the picture quality of some of the other makes currently
it might be a point where you have to choose....do you want better picture quality and wear the glasses..then you but the Sony or Samsung
Do you hate the glasses but like 3D..you buy the Toshiba
If ultimate picture quality is most important to you..regardless of how you are watching it..then again you buy the Sony or Samsung

And I say this from the point of view...comparatively
As its been pointed out many times to me...unless you have the high end TV right next to the middle of the line one in your house you likely will not know there is better out there...unless you regularly go to a friends house that who has a top of the line unit

Kind of like that $500 may not seem that bad unless you have spent time on one that is $5000

Joe...I watched a soccer game at BB in 3D on ESPN...and it was stunning
As you likely know ESPN broadcasts many of its major events in 3D on Direct TV. Best buy was simply showing the game one day in Magnolia

Like I think someone said here earlier...one sure way to get this ball rolling quickly is to make Porn and Sporting events in 3D
My thought is that 3D snowball will roll a lot faster then

Warren

Hi Warren,

As I once said, anyone watching porno in 3D will have to worry about his or her glasses fogging up.

But just like my feelings that too many HD sets having been purchased over the past few years will hinder the selling of 3D units for the mainstream so too could the knowledge that if non-glasses technology might become available in two or three years that he jump-start could be delayed even more (this might not apply to those who want the "best" 2D quality now and can afford to then buy another set in two or three years). It's like the bluray-HD-DVD format war - many waited until there was a clear winner.

But agree with you about Toshiba quality due to my own unfortunate experiences and for all we know, their non-glasses sets could prove a dud compared to the format that's available now.

I hope 3D come to stay. I really enjoy it!

Anyone see the new Hubble movie in IMAX/3D?

I on the other hand was not distracted by the 3D in Avatar. I felt more apart of Pandora in 3D than I did in 2D at home (and my PQ an SQ are better at home). So I guess everyone is wired a bit differently. But I can't wait to start watching high quality 3D content at home... but it will be a wait... because my 2D HDTV still has many years left in it.


I don't think this is even an issue. As I understand it, the storage media (blu-ray) and/or broadcast is simply sending two images for every frame. So any of the viewing methods (except blue/green of course) work fine without altering the source. The TV does all the work in deciding how to show you the left and right eye's view (shutter glasses, polarized glasses, Toshiba's new magic, etc.). So in theory, even yet-to-be-invented methods of displaying 3D should work fine for the movies and broadcasts currently available.

I, too didn't feel distracted by the 3D in Avatar. To me it seemed to just wrap around you and was very natural. Not any of the "in your face" 3D gimmicks that one tend to associate with 3D movies. The more movies that are made in the Avatar tradition, IMO, will help to make 3D stick around.

Ghpr13

"I on the other hand was not distracted by the 3D in Avatar. I felt more apart of Pandora in 3D than I did in 2D at home (and my PQ an SQ are better at home). So I guess everyone is wired a bit differently. But I can't wait to start watching high quality 3D content at home... but it will be a wait... because my 2D HDTV still has many years left in it."

Hi Mega,

That's what I believe is the attitude of the average consumer - along with being satisified with the actual picture quality of that current 2D monitor. This could prevent 3D from becoming a mainstream feature for a long time.

"As I understand it, the storage media (blu-ray) and/or broadcast is simply sending two images for every frame. So any of the viewing methods (except blue/green of course) work fine without altering the source. The TV does all the work in deciding how to show you the left and right eye's view (shutter glasses, polarized glasses, Toshiba's new magic, etc.). So in theory, even yet-to-be-invented methods of displaying 3D should work fine for the movies and broadcasts currently available.

Good to know there will at least be no 3D format war. One scenario down the road could be that both type sets will become available for consumers to chose, one requiring glasses where the cost of the set and the glasses themselves becomes a standard feature and adding just a minimal amount to the price-tag (when it becomes cost-efficient on the part of the industry) with those not requiring glasses selling at much higher prices. The profit will be there for the consumer electronics industry to still make.

It would then be up to the consumer to decide if he or she wants to go ahead with the additional expense of adding 3D stations to their cable/satellite/phone package and paying more for 3D bluray discs (assuming that the cost of a 3D bluray player also drops). If the additional services are cost-efficent for the average consumer and then there will be no reason not to have 3D in the home, even if used only occassionally.

The other scenerio, however, is a problem. If it still costs a lot to add even the glasses-type system and accessories consumers might not buy into it. The overall cost to the consumer could be even higher if the additional production costs to add 3D remains expensive. This will be passed down to the consumer in the form of much more expensive channels and bluray discs.

So it all depends upon 3D becoming inexpensive to produce for both the electronics and entertainment industry for it to become mainstream. Otherwise, it could remain regulated to a smaller group of enthusiasts that would have to remain loyal in order for it to eventually grow in popularity.

One of the issues I see with the glasses that no one has mentioned yet is your kids breaking them...at $100 a pop for replacements that could get costly if they say broke 3-4 pairs a years

and really after someone kid sees one of this Pixar movies in 3Dwho is going to be able to pul them away from the set

As for the TV pricing...and I think I mentioned this before
Look at the clost of a TV now and an CRT from about a decade ago
I paid $1000 for a Sony in 1992......32 inch
For that same money...not even adjusted for inflation you can a buy a much better television that I bought in 1992
Another thing that has changed is that if that TV from 1992 had broken it could have been fixed
In today's world there are so many parts of the TV that if they fail you have a boat anchor on your hands
They seemed to hang wrung the costs to manufacture these things way down...but some of the fallout is limited or no inventory of replacement parts..or they cost as much as the TV did new
I had a Samsung about 3 years ago...I had it for two months and the HDMI port stopped working...they told me "Parts not available" and gave me a new TV

Warren

Hi Warren,

Never even thought about children being children and accidentally breaking those glasses.

The first color TV my wife and I purchased after we got married in 1976 was a 25 inch Sears which cost $399 (more than twice my weekly salary at the time). Earlier this year we got that 32 inch Samsung 720p set for our den at the same exact amount! In 1982, our first VCR cost $579 (also more than twice my weekly salary at that time). This past winter our Panasonic DVD recorder with upconversion cost us $159 with another $69 thrown in for a second upconverting player we use for that Samsung.

Needless to say, the combined cost of all three purchases this past winter ($617) didn't dent our pocket book like those two much older items did.

You're right. If a set breaks down after the warranty expires it's cheaper to buy a new one then to get it fixed. Sorry that the HDMI port on your Samsung broke after two months but as you pointed out, it was cheaper for them to replace it than to fix it. In fact, many consumer advocacy groups urge consumers not to purchase those extended warranties on the basis that if something is going to break, it will usually do so within the warranty period (I'm of course talking about a company with a good reputation, not one of those cheap no-name brands that usually come with only a 90 day warranty for obvious reasons). That's what happened with the Toshiba DVD recorder I mentioned about previously - the copy protection problem occured within a week after receiving it.

Those same groups also point out that retailers make as much profit on those extended warranties as they do the set itself for most of the time it's never needed and that's 100% of the selling cost going directly into their pockets. Same thing with HDMI cables and other accessories. I learned the hard way that a $3.00 HDMI cable from Monoprice works just as well as those costing 20 times that amount from Monster Cable and others (so in this case, there is no difference between that $500 and and $5,000 couch).

So I suspect those $150 3D glasses might not be as expensive to produce as they appear. Isn't there a $50 difference in the cost of re-chargeable ones compared to those that need to have batteries replaced instead? That seems like a lot for what is essentially a battery charger.

Joe

I see I got beat to the punch posting about Toshiba's announcment, BUT I just Googled it, and it turns out that almost IMMEDIATELY after Toshiba made ITS announcement Sony made a similar one, only without any timetable for rollout. My thinking is that Samsung likely isn't far behind.

I'm also guessing that even though most sets that come out in the next year or two won't require glasses, the system they use will allow them to play the same content used on sets that DO require glasses, so folks who've bought the prior sets won't be "out in the cold." This COULD very well explain just WHY the prices on the current, first-generation sets are dropping as fast as they are, however (I've seen some sets in the 40" class for around $1,000 -- albeit they were Mitsubishi DLP sets -- they have a 73" DLP set for about $2200 at HHGregg, which looked pretty good to me, although it didn't have glasses handy to check the 3D quality.

HHGregg has A LOT of 3D models. I know I recently also did an online search for 3D models at BestBuy.com, and it returned 39 results! The only set HHGregg had glasses avaialble for when I was in here earlier today was a 50" Panasonic Plasma, and it looked pretty decent. They had A LOT of other options, both LED AND Plasma -- as well as the DLP sets, however.

My guess is that assuming the new "glassless" technology DOES come to market at a reasonable price AND works well, 3D is DEFINITELY here to stay. They just need to get A LOT more content available to get more folks to justify buying it (and I agree that most of those sets DO also give incredible 2D results.
Jeff

If glassless technology that does not require seating head motionless in a fixed sweet spot is available, then 3D has a fighting chance.

<<<<For others its all about every detail and being on the cutting edge

That is my reasoning for the fact that I think 3D is staying...there will be enough....perhaps limited, number...who want the best of the best>>>>>


Hi Warren,

Does the attached mean you will soon replace that recently purchased $5,000 couch for a $6,000 one?

- Joe


http://www.3dtelevision.ws/3d-television-model.html

Hi Jeff,

Bringing up Misubishi made me think of ShopNBC.

They have a guy hawking a Mitsubishi 65 inch 3D ready DLP with stand (and, I think, bluray player) for less than $1,500. He said it was top of the line (to be expected from any salesman), emphasizing the vitally important feature of an ultra-thin bezel frame surrounding the screen so not to appear aestheticly unpleasant and detract from what one's watching while also stressing that other companies talk about how thin the back of their sets and "who cares about the back" since sitting in front of the set is what's important.

Yes, those are vital considerations when going for high end equipment.

ShopNBC has a dubious reputation of being deceiptful when it comes to electronic equipment. Years ago they had a guy pushing cheap Protrons claiming there was no difference between that and those selling for three times as much He backed that up by saying that all LCD televisions were the same "technology" (of course, "technology" applies only to the type of set it is so he and ShopNBC could not be sued for false advertising) with the only difference being the name of the brand on the front because his parent company manufactured most of the sets sold by most other companies ("most" is a very subjective word). He compared it to a pickle factory with the same product going into different labeled bottles, one for the name brand and the other for the cheaper, store brand.

So according to ShopNBC and these two con artists, there is no difference between the $500 couch compared to a $5,000 one.

Actually, Joe, based on what I've seen at BB's website AND at HHGregg, $1,500 for a 65" Mitsubishi DLP probably isn't far off regular selling price and probably is within the expected sales price for one of the sets that size.

That's actually part of what has me a bit leery of the Mitsu DLP sets... That and the fact that my 3.5-year-old Sammy DLP is getting close to time for MAJOR replacements and I just don't see doing it, and so I see the up-front costs of a DLP as only PART of the equation...

I have similar issues with many of the Plasma sets available, which have greatly dropped in price recently (even their 3D sets are less expensive). Plasma is definitely known for a higher refresh rate and better black levels -- and they look pretty darned good under the lower lighting in a display area like HHGregg has (haven't really shopped in BB's TV area, which also has reduced lighting in its TV area). In Sam's and Costco, the lighting is the same throughout the store, and the lower brightness levels of the plasma sets really stands out. Since I'm usually watching in a fairly dark room, that shouldn't be an issue for me, BUT it's my understanding that essentially from DAY ONE that plasma begins to weaken and dissipate -- and eventually needs to be recharged -- with a life generally a lot shorter than LCDs and definitely shorter than LEDs (the CCFL backlights on the original LCD's being the primary thing to be concerned about burning out).

The biggest thing I've noticed with some of the better 240Hz LED-based 3D sets is that they DO tend to provide truly EXCELLENT 2D pictures, as well. That said, for the extra $$$, there's still quite a dearth of CONTENT available at this time, and with the Toshiba, and almost simultaneous Sony announcements, while I HAD BEEN considering S T R E T C H I N G my budget and getting a 3D (I've sampled a couple with the glasses, and they fit over my own, LARGE-FRAME glasses even better than the RealD glasses do), there's NO WAY IN HELL I'm going to "jump" at this point until we see which way the wind is going to blow.

IF glassless technology takes off -- especially assuming one company (like Toshiba or Sony) doesn't have a proprietary patent on the technology that keeps all the others from implementing it), a year or two from now sets with glasses will be little more than a curiosity.

So I think I'm gonna jump on a good sale price Costco has on a SWEET-LOOKING Sammy LED set, and if 3D does well, maybe next time around... In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the better 3D movies in the theater.
Jeff