3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 59

Don,

It's not the industry trying to force 3D down the throats of anybody, we all recognize that it's merely a product they are trying to sell. What most of us were attempting to show was how wrong they were with the hype that 3D was going to be the next big thing in home theater, with 47 million in the U.S. expected to have 3D in their home within the next few years.

Like so many times in the past, they used questionable marketing projections to back up their assertions. Instead, we used factors that were already in place, like the economy and that with up to 70 percent of U.S. families now having H.D. in the home few were going to rush out and replace what most had purchased within the past five or six years (especially after the heavy spin that these would be the last sets they would need to purchase for 20 years since they would never become obsolete being 1080p).

There was, of course, also the cost factor for which it was reasoned that those who were in the market would purchase a good quality 2D set costing so much less.

So it was not so much a matter of whether or not consumers would like to have 3D but of the social and economic factors that were against it. Retailers were counting on 3D to help resurrect the recent HD television boom that has now leveled off while at least on my part, it was asserted there was no way to avoid a bear session after a bull session (no pun intended) and that 3D or internet connectivity would not be the stimulus to ressurect it.

I'm your age and I think it's a fad because of the glasses. Like many other people I wear glasses and the idea of wearing something over my glasses just turns me off. I have seen nothing about prescription 3D glasses either. What do they expect, me not to wear my glasses while watching a 3D movie? Yeah blurry 3D sounds real good.

Glasses are absolutely the reason that 3D in it's current form will never be more than a niche product. Not because of the cost but because of the fact that you have to wear them.

Asking a consumer to wear 3D glasses in a theater is fine. When people go out to see a movie, they are going out with the intent to devote themselves to watching the film and to immerse themselves in the experience. They have no more problems wearing the glasses for the duration of the film than they do getting to the theater 30+ minutes early to get the best seats. It's all part of the experience.

Asking a consumer to wear 3D glasses while watching at home is a bit of a stretch. Think about it, how often do you think the average person devotes 100% of their attention to one program on the TV? I'd wager that most TV watching is done while doing something else or at the very least, attention is split between a number of different programs at the same time. Wearing the glasses just doesn't make sense if you're also going to be doing something else or flipping between 3D and non 3D material.

This basically limits 3D watching to movies and special events only - probably 10% or less of total viewing for the average consumer and a niche market by any definition.

Originally Posted by KUJayhawk20659 \\:

"Is it me or most of the people that say "fad" and I'll pass are the "senior" members? I am 36 and love change, however I tend to see the older crowd as being "afraid" to change.

And in that being afraid excuses are made as to why i.e., extra glasses and etc. I will/am jumping on it and will enjoy the heck out of it as long as it sticks around."


Well, I'm currently 59, love new toys and wouldn't mind having 3D except that the reasons I stated three posts above apply to me as well. The "age" factor might also come not out of being against change as it is the wisdom of not being so economically frivioulous, which is what got many "younger" people with good incomes into the economic difficulties they now face by being in debt up to their ears by maxing out on credit cards and purchasing homes and new cars they couldn't really afford.

I think that is how most people intend to use 3D TV's, along with 3D video games. I'm not sure that anyone ever expected people to be sat around 100% of the time watching 3D, even when glasses-less 3D hits, I don't think you will see this. Less than 10% of my viewing is Blu-ray, but I don't consider Blu-ray a niche market.

That's a good point, but if you lump Blu-Ray under the category of "HD", it's clearly part of a mainstream format. Blu-Ray is an extension of a much larger technological change and I don't think it would have gained quite as much traction had people not been forced to upgrade to digital sets (which manufacturers were smart to equate to "HD").

I don't think 3D will go away and do believe that it will continue to exist as a niche and/or entertainment novelty until a more natural and less burdensome way of watching it develops. I just don't think that the technology in its current form will attract a market big enough to merit a widescale shift from 2D to 3D in the same way that we saw VHS shift to DVD or DVD to Blu Ray.

So no, 3D the technology is not a fad and is here to stay. That said, the current craze of converting original 2D movies into 3D will eventually die down. Content will really be limited to new theatrical releases (and the subsequent home version) and live events. Unfortunately this means that 3D films will continue to be limited to animation and gimmick (horror, etc.) films until the technology becomes cheap (and good) enough to shoot even story-driven movies with 3D capable technology.

As was the transition from SD to HD, the shift from VHS to DVD was dramatic in both popularity and picture quality as well, however, bluray hasn't come close to matching either of those marks so it should be considered more a niche than a wide-scale shift at least at this time - not with bluray retaining just ten percent of overall market sales.

I agree 100%.

Ghpr13

I think Blu-Ray is just starting to pick up among "mainstream" consumers. Prices on Blu-Ray players have come down to low enough that it's now a reasonable purchase in a modest home entertainment set up. Prices of BD have also been coming down enough that picking up a favorite movie in Blu-Ray is affordable. Now, new releases are still quite expensive, but older, no frills BDs can be found even at places like Best Buy for around $10 or $12.

No matter what happens with 3D, I look for Blu-Ray to pretty well established with in the next 2 years.

Ghpr13

One must take into account the continued falling price of the DVD player which is still a very lucrative market for retailers due it becoming a very inexpensive investment for consumers. At this time, the average basic bluray goes for maybe $129 (only a few usually non-brand name units sell for $99) compared to the average up-converting DVD player going for around half that price. I agree if the prices level off to where there is little difference between the two then eventually bluray will become the established norm, but I don't know if it is cost-effective for the industry to cut the price of the average bluray player in half when it is less expensive to produce DVD players that can sell for the same price.

That is, of course, unless the cost of manufacturing both types of players are relatively the same and that the industry is simply just jacking up the prices of the basic bluray unit. Now, they wouldn't be so dishonest to do such a thing to us, would they?

[quote=JWhip;19767015]Sorry Don but I disagree with you completely.

Hey, no problem!

Some choose to live life on half empty while other choose to see things half full. You'll get no debate from me at avsforum on the politics. Just know that it will be those who aren't sitting around collecting unemployment and are doing fine that will keep new technology going. One day you may join us.
Trust me, been there in the unemployment lines too but when conditions changed, I changed and discovered I was a much happier person if I evolved as I recognized change.

Btw- Quad didn't die, it just evolved to become DD5.1, and then DD 7.1
I had the Sony SQD 2020 as I recall the model and it was exciting to be on the cutting edge of surround sound back then. 2D is evolving to be augmented with a 3D option in our home theaters. Just as not all sound is DD5.1, neither will all video be 3D. What stayed is surround sound, not the analog discrete and matrix surround of the mid 70's. What will stay is 3D, not necessarily, the glasses, or the special screens.

Cheer up, times are not as negative as you think for most people. But it can seem that way if you only look at the negative side of things.

Personal example- the day after I ordered an upgrade projector to 1080p and an hd DVD player, I suffered a cardiac arrest and ended up in the hospital for 6 weeks plus a year of recovery. My wife wanted to know if she should cancel the order. I said no, I'll be fine and will welcome the upgrade during my recovery. She knew I was right!

[quote=Don Landis;19774051]
Don,

So sorry to learn you suffered through a cardiac arrest and long road to recovery and glad you are now doing fine - explains the cheerful optomisim that helps make dealing with life's so many other difficulties more tolerable. I also guess you don't look at the negative side of life as much because you're probably not a New York Mets fan!

BTW - I don't believe Quad was part of an evolutionary process in home entertainment but rather an unsuccessful bump in the road. Home stereo had been around since 1957 to expand the musical experience from monophonic only listening. When Quad was introduced in the early seventies it never took off and before the end of the decade narly a vinyl disc or 8-track tape in four channel could be found and stereo remained the norm, with television networks slowly beginning to broadcast in stereo as well.

In the late eighties, pre-recorded VHS tapes and recorders became more affordable and a/v receivers with dolby surround sound were introduced, ushering in the age of home theater. Surround sound's primary use was for watching movies and television programs with the rear speakers used more for ambience when it came to music listening. Later this did evolve into dolby digital and DTS of which evolved discrete five channel audio on compact discs. Of course, multi-track audio for movie theaters goes as far back as 1940 when it premiered with Disney's "Fantasia".

Joe

Yes, we senior members are a cranky and cantakerous bunch, although I'm one senior member that's absolutely loving the 3D experience at home. (50" Panasonic VT25 viewed from 6-7 feet away). I find the glasses comfortably fit over my regular glasses, and I've watched for hours without fatigue. Donning glasses for the adventure of entering a virtual 3D world [insert Rod Serling Twilight Zone intro here] is no more of a chore then wearing sunglasses on a bright day...and no, you won't want to wear these things at the beach to pick up girls. They do look dorky, but so what?

Still, I wouldn't begin to suggest that anyone replace their current HDTV for the sake of 3D. It's an added feature. What's more, I have no more interest in 2D to 3D conversion then I have in "colorized" black and white, so the content choices are very limited. Still, if you're looking for a replacement display (In my case, a 20 year old bedroom Trinitron) the premium for the 3D capability isn't that outlandish, and I haven't shown the 3D off to anybody that hasn't smiled (I assume they're impressed, but maybe they just think I'm nuts).

I don't agree with the argument that the manufacturers are over-selling or "forcing" the product on unsuspecting consumers, any more then car manufacturers touting their latest and greatest advances. The obsolescence concept is a basic tenet of marketing.

In fact, 3D is a tougher sell then most products because it has to be seen, and demonstrated properly, to sell. I think that's the greatest obstacle to mass adaption if my experience in big box stores is any indication. (The bundle of 3D blu-ray player and glasses were priced quite reasonably). On the other hand, finding a store with a good, working display was another matter. One store clearly had the Samsung unit set up with 2D to 3D conversion while running regular programming. Any potential buyer would be left, at the very least, underwhelmed. I'm afraid that kind of lazy display will become the rule, rather then the exception.

Given the outrageously optimistic numbers touted by the industry, I'm not slightly surprised by the disappointing sales numbers. For all intents and purposes, 3D TV is brand new. If the technology is given a chance to mature, I'm confident that many of the naysayers here will become converts.

"Still, I wouldn't begin to suggest that anyone replace their current HDTV for the sake of 3D. It's an added feature."

Hi Gary,

As one approaching the "senior" club in a few years, I think the above combined with the much lower cost of a good quality 2D set without this added feature are the most logical factors as to why 3D isn't taking off at this time. Have professed that development of a plug and play unit which could work with existing HD monitors would have been the better approach. Don't know if such a device is possible to make (even with the current format war) or that it was simply rejected by the industry in hopes to entice consumers to buy newer, more expensive sets instead.

Is their that much disparity between prices for comparable sets? 3D is currently only being added to the 'premium' models which probably exaggerates the price difference. Plus the 'free' bundle packs are adding an extra premium on top of that.

I'm actually most amazed at the amount of controversy the very subject has generated here, and in the electronic press generally. Read the lively debate over the new Vizio passive glasses display raging in the 3D Display section of this forum. I've seen less animosity and rancor on political forums.

If I was from another planet, I would think that Vizio, Samsung, Mitsubishi, LG, Panasonic et al. were different sports teams. (Rah Rah!! My TV rules!! The others drool!). The passive vs. active debate is actually a pretty interesting one, not only because of the technology, but observing members insult each other over nothing. I feel like I'm back at Yankee Stadium.

Well all i can say is that I purchased a Panasonic 3D Plasma TV over the holiday and a great price it was bundled with 3 pairs of glasses avatar and a bluray palyer, and I am blown away first by how good the 2d is on this TV, I watched hours of 3D never got a headache once, just watched the laker game last night and it was amazing in 3D, Panasonic is the best 3D in my opinion, I have a LG47LX9500 as well I bought and the 3D on it cant even come close, as far the people on here that are saying they are far from the technology I say have you watched any 3D on a panasonic, I dont know how much better they can get, I mean i never stopped once through avatar to say omg look at the ghosting or crosstalk, never, it was just great and the fact that they can just upgrade the firmware now OTA, is just cool, I am having a blast with the 3D.......if your a 3D person which i wasn't until I saw the Panasonic then I think its worth every penny, its the best 2D tv on the market hands down read the reviews fellas.....LED, LCD, those 2 technologies cant touch Plasma I have a great LED TV and it cant touch the Plasma,... its a fact there saying that those tv's (LED ,LCD) just cant handle the processing like a Plasma, so go ahead and treat yourself..... I paid 1300 for a 32 inch HD Samsung 4 years ago. Now I got a 50 inch plasma 3D for 1699.00 cmon no brainer, if you cant afford it then you shouldn't even be looking at 3D.....you shoudnt be talking about any of the TVs that are front runners, go save your money and come back 1700 for a 50 inch plasma TV, Bluray 3D player and 3 pairs of glasses is a good deal Period.....captainbarred "When 3D tech gets to a point that the glasses are not needed I think home 3D will become the norm, but till then... just an expensive headache... buying now is insane as everything is overpriced and low quality..."
Go watch a Panasonic or read a review, low quality what kind of TV do you have?? and for sure you didn't look at the Panasonic and if so lets here your review about it, sounds like you just get headaches so perhaps you should just never buy a 3D TV, I dont think you qualify as your health stands in the way of making a biast opinion.

Gary,

You wouldn't be from another planet, you'd probably be at the Tokyo Dome watching the Japanese League! And being a Met fan I'm glad the insults reminded you of Yankee Stadium and not Shea (Citi Field is an atrocity, Shea was a shrine).

I'm really all for the idea of adding 3D to the home theater experience, even if only used on occassion for a lark. It's just not a practical investment for the mainstream consumer at this point in time. What pushed my buttons was the consumer electronics industry's marketing blitz based on un-realistic statistics telling us how the public couldn't wait to rush out and buy 3D monitors - that I found insulting to my intelligence. Forum members who agreed with these lofty predictions and downplayed valid business principles and socio-economic factors advocated by others led to a good, fun and often heated debate.

Unfortunately, as you correctly point out, there were some on both sides who added insulting, personal remarks (at least one was aimed directly at me) or insensitive comments about the television one is enjoying and no further comment about those individuals needs to be made.

Yes its like were back at yankee stadium here, and by the way theres a pile of Yankee games in 3D this year that I will be foaming at the mouth for while waiting to watch on my new Panasonic!!!! BTW wait till you see all the quality 3D broadcasting thats going to be added for us this year!!!!! woohoooo i cant wait to get home and watch some national geographic in 3D, the sharks attacking the this whale in 3D is just amazing, BTW the whale ends up winning the battle and the shark moves on.....

LG also is coming out w/ a passive glasses 3D TV.

Get rid of the glasses, and I'm in. Hopefully we'll see something soon.

Right now the majority of manufacturers supply 2 pairs of glasses which doesn't help if you have 3 people who want to watch. The extra glasses are money makers and will cost you.

KM

when did the poll close ?

would have thought "Can only happen if we have standards!" would have won or would now. maybe a fresh poll ?

really bad timing coming out in these times for sure. no consumers left these days with their credit cards burning holes in the pockets.
yet if you are in the market for a new set(not from walmart lol) you have to think of going for it, if there was a standard it would be a plus.

but how many consumers know there is not a standard?

Joe- You're first. My view on Quad is not that it died killing surround sound. But rather that it was the really good first attempt at creating surround. The Hafler system was a poor attempt but it was really the first. If you don't recall, it was 3 channel passive system. In the early 70's I worked as a tech guy for a stereo store in NY. The market there was hot for surround and we sold a ton of systems in that market.

As to the debate on 3D Fad or trend etc, Remember, we're not debating equipment or the means to the end. I took this thread debate to mean the genre of 3D regardless of how it is generated. In that respect, 3D being around the block for decades has to be a trend in entertainment for the theaters. For home theater, it is just now becoming a technology that is good enough to make many spend a considerable sum to have it. Prior 3D was the colored glasses, or anaglyph system which resulted in very poor color accuracy but did work, especially at its peak performance with BluRay. I have a few of those disks here.

My wife and I concentrated our day checking out the 3D stuff at CES and I can tell you that 3D is going to be here for a long time as the technology is cutting the muster. The real debate is what technology will be the winner format, not whether the format is dead in a year or so.

This year I saw Front Projector that not only produced 3D but produced 3D at a PQ far superior to my 2D 1080p projector. The 3D was so lifelike and natural, I was just all giggles over it. IT was the JVC RS40- X9 Very expensive at 12G MSRP but they have a version with less features for $4500 MSRP. Many threads on this PJ set on AVSForum. Reading the threads is a bit tiring as they are cluttered with lots of negativity too, but seeing is believing and we saw what we want in our HT.

Glasses- or no glasses. The technology is taking several twists right now.

Glasses version will be split into a couple of routes that will have their own pros and cons.
1. Passive glasses are polarized type. These require a special screen and display. Now we have a panel display that will do passive glasses. The JVC and LG panel displays are good but the color saturation is a bit washed out, IMO. The Front Projector with special screen is a serious cost problem in that the 3D system ideally will require two screens in order to get results from both 2D and 3D. While the home systems are available, for me, the budget isn't!

Active glasses- Most popular technology now uses the active glasses and there are lots of options. The FP with regular screen will give the best picture quality in a dark room. The Panel LCD/LED or Plasmas will give good results in daylight but, lack the picture detail that can be achieved. With Mits and Samsung and others, sizes up to 83" and growing, is available so size is no longer an issue. Glasses will come down in price as the quantities increase.

Glasses free. Toshiba has made tremendous progress in the past year but the PQ is still sub standard and needs considerable work. The other problem with the Toshiba and other lesser quality Glasses free systems are that you are limited to a sweet spot to view and while the sweet spot is bigger with the bigger screens, it is still best viewed one viewer at a time. The glasses free technology needs much more time in development to sell. Also, while its color saturation and resolution is greatly improved over last year's demo, the system is still way under what the active and passive glasses have achieved.

A note on glasses - WE saw an Rx ready active glasses that can be purchased for those who want their own and need a prescription. MY wife needs correction for distance but then those glasses prevent her from reading. Her prescription contacts are one close and one far, so we thought this would be a problem. Today we testrred this and none of the 3D systems failed with her contacts. She has little difficulty with wearing her glasses which are smaller under the 3D glasses but I understand if you wear those big thick black rim glasses, you will have a problem.

While some of the technology may become fads in home 3D, I don't think 3D is a fad at this point. IT's here to stay now that there are a few technologies that are selling well and several emerging technologies that under improvement for the future. The real question is will you wait for one of these, or will you jump in and enjoy the ride while waiting on the next better way to make 3D in your HT.

Hey,

I've decided to try to buy a 3D capable projector in 2017 so I hope it's here to stay. And I hope they 2017 models are awesome and affordable too.

If you buy a 2011 model in 2017, am sure it will be even more affordable!

Have they started with second generation 3D sets yet?

Hi Don,

Know we're off topic on this, but I think another reason Quad never made it was that at the time audio systems were used for music and many of the discrete four channel mixing made the sound un-natural. People sit in front of orchestras, not in the middle of them. That mixing also created an artifical-type sound -- on an Andy Williams 8 Track, the orchestra came from the two front speakers, Andy's voice from one of the rears and the drum from the other. Now that type of effect is fine for motion pictures but not for music.

In 1975 I purchased an inexpensive Craig receiver (still gathering dust, BTW) that had a matrix processor to lend ambience through rear speakers and it was great. So instead of discrete four channel processing which (like 3D today) required the additional purchases of new turntables, 8-tracks and more expensive records and tape cartridges, I think the industry would have been more successful concentrating on less expensive receivers like the Craig which added the necessary ambience to normal two-channel stereo.

Still hoping for a plug and play 3D system for use with our monitors. Would think such a device would bring 3D into the home much, much quicker.

I was convinced 3D TV was a stupid fad and I had just purchased a 65inch non-3D television a couple years ago. I then watched a few of the demos in store out of curiosity and was impressed. I did not expect to shell out any money. This past Christmas, sales on 3D sets cut them to about half of what they had cost previously or even less. I pulled the trigger on a 73 inch mitsu, and four pairs of glasses.

For me, the glasses do not bother me AT ALL. As someone posted earlier about people not caring about wearing the glasses when they are in the theater to watch a movie, why can't I have the same opinion when I want to watch dedicated content in my home? It does not make any difference to me WHERE I will accept having to wear glasses to see 3d content.

I hope it picks up steam because the sports I have seen in 3D is really fantastic. It reminds me of how I felt the first time I saw a football broadcast in HD after so many years of 480i viewing.

If it is a niche market, I will participate. If 3d sat channels cost extra, I will pay it. If I have to wear glasses, fine by me. I realize that I don't speak for everyone.

But after having the set for a week and playing a few 3D video games and finally getting the Imax Under the Sea blu ray and watching it 3 times the first day, I know I will buy just about anything they put out for 3D television.

People build dedicated home theater rooms to get an immersive experience at home. We buy HD sets the size of my mother, expensive recievers, speakers, bluray players, etc. This is just one more thing to add to the experience. My brother does not think 3D is worth it, but I wonder what he will say after he gets a demo on my new setup.

And don't underestimate the amount that console video games may drive sales in the next couple years. And when manufacturers keep cutting the premium for sets with the capability, people who did not think they would want one, but get the feature as a throw in on a new TV purchase, will find themselves screaming for 3d content.

The question is what you then did with your older 65 inch set. Those of us who love being immersed in our home theater systems already have good quality monitors and even though the 3D bundles can now be purchased for less than $1,500 money is still an issue, not only on the new purchase but not getting one's money's worth on their previous purchase due to the short time it was used.

Again, I don't think it's a question of whether or not we want 3D in the home - I've said all along, the bottom line is that the majority of consumers have already invested in HD monitors over the past few years. I certainly would love to have 3D, however, with two excellent HD monitors and no need a third, the option of simply discarding either of them for a 3D would mean having wasted money somewhere.

I am going to sell it to a buddy for $400. I get it throwing good money after bad for a lot of people. But I think I bought the 65" for $1800 on sale a few years ago and now bought the 73 inch with 3D (73738) for $1600. It was a better and bigger screen than what I had paid for the old one that helped me convince myself it was a steal, the wife was not buying the argument though.

Sure I had to spend some extra money, and yes I was letting a very nice set go for very little, but most people on this forum are like me and cant resist buying gear that supports our hobby/habit. And even if you spent lots of money on nice gear, when the price point is low enough for an upgrade we all need to get that next fix. A net $1200 for me to go to a bigger set with 3D was no big deal, (plus $400 for glasses but I had PS3 for a player) and I did not need it but since they threw in 36 months no interest I said "ok, cool".

But then the mainstream consumer might not feel the same about the net $1,600 and that's what will decide whether or not 3D becomes a nitch or standard fare. Either way, don't see it as a "fad" but for the immediate future, do not see it either as the big hot item as the industry professed since it is more a matter of economics and necessity than it is interest itself.

Enjoy your new set and please let us know how it works with converting 2D to 3D.