3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 61

3D tv is just like watching things in real,this technology should be kept in theaters for real entertainment.

Attached is another article from the L.A. Times. Either the industry still doesn't get it or is trying to salvage what they can from their investments for it is now believed lighter weight and less thicker glasses will turn consumers on. Do they really think it was just an issue of the glasses?

Display Search's prediction of 12 million 3D sets being sold this year is based not on newer glasses but on the realistic aspect that more content that will become available. I agree content is more an issue than glasses and more sporting events televised in 3D would be more of an enticement than the films being made. However, that still ignores the more important factors we foresaw last March and still prevail today, i.e. how many are actually in the market for a HD set or interested in something else; of those, how many will want to save close to $1,000 and get the equivalently sized standard 2D; the traditional family viewing habits, etc. And if they are counting on those lighter-weight "passive" glasses to induce consumers, what happens when potential buyers experience the resolution being cut in half?

We won't know the answers to these questions until the end of next December, but I'm willing to bet a nickel the industry won't come close to it's 12 million prediction -- don't forget, the holiday shopping season and those gigantic mark-downs didn't stimulate interest in HD television in general, let alone 3D. The industry finally admits the market is over-saturated and consumers aren't interested in "upgrading" like they thought. In addition, credit card spending is down, there is still 9.4 percent unemployed, the value of homes has gone down, people are still paying off credit card debt and that those who are spending are interested in other new products rather than 3D television (which, as others have already alluded to, is a new "feature" and not a new "product").


http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-us-tec...,7578101.story

This is a bit of an exaggeration. I bought the UN46C7000 for $1500, the non-3d equivalent at the time was roughly $1250 and the 7000 came with a bluray player and the Shrek starter kit.
You can pick up the UN46C8000 for $1600 currently (sans starter kit and bluray). A $1000 saving gets you a dynex 60Hz LCD, most decent 46" LCD's start coming in at the $1000 mark and above.

HAHAH.

Television industry will suffer and is suffering the consequences of trying to push garbage on the consumers when the majority of consumers don't want it.

3D is a gimmick. 90% of the people I talk to would never want to watch 3D television let alone with special glasses on.

When you try and force something instead of listening to consumers - this is what happens.

3D is NOTHING new! People act like it is a new phenomenon of some sort.

Do you realize that when I was 5 years old I saw Muppet Vision 3D at Disney World.

That means that 3D is 20+ years OLD.

Not a phenomenon. It's been around for ages.

I saw Avatar in 3D and I swore I'd never watch one again. Such garbage.

You lose TV industry. Start working on better Plasmas instead of your hokey garbage 3D that majority of the nation could care less about.

"In 1949, France started its transmissions with an 819 lines system (768i). It was monochrome only, it was used only on VHF for the first French TV channel, and it was discontinued in 1985."
HD at home is also more than 20+ years OLD.
Film has been effectively HD since its inception.
Maybe you should be demanding that the TV companies try and make some better 480p sets, as we never really got that 100% right, and HD is so old that it is obviously not a phenomenon but just a gimmick.
I'm not quite sure why people keep bringing up the fact that 3D has been around for a long time as if that is a bad thing - it just demonstrates that people have maintained some interest in 3D for a long time.

I still don't understand how the CE industry thinks they can bank on 3D for the home when it will always be a limited technology dependent on so many other factors.

Take myself for example, I'm am in the market for another TV for our front room(something the wife can watch when I'm watching TV in the TV room). Now even if I buy a 3DTV, I have no way of watching any "true" 3D media without an additional purchase. Either a 3D Blu-Ray player, or cancel Dish and get Directv for their 3 or 4 channels of 3D programming. Now Dish is saying that they will be getting a 3D channel in the future, but many have the feeling that they are holding off to see if it's worth the money to go ahead with a 3D channel.
As I have said before, Insight, our cable company in Louisville, is still behind in HD, so 3D isn't even on their radar.

BTW: I realize that most of the 3DTVs are bundled with a 3D Blu-Ray player, but that still leaves the consumer having to buy 3D BD at a added cost.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record at times with my postings, but I just feel that the CE industry along with Hollywood is going to end up hurting 3D technology rather then helping it by the way they keep trying to push it. People are going to shy away from 3D because of the way it's being handled. I really feel that for the today & the near future, 3D gaming is where 3D will start really growing and a
new 3D evolution will grow from it.

Ghpr13

That's a good point. I think the primary application is going to be gaming, although the 3D video content seems to get more attention. I believe I will spend many more hours playing games on the PS3 than I will watching 3D movies. 3D channels will come in time, but I don't think the industry can bank on them to drive sales yet. Here's why I believe that:

I was in the perfect position - I needed a new TV, I had saved for a large screen anyway, and I already had a PS3 for my 3D Blu-ray player. Because of the upgrade cost to the new Dish receiver I switched to D* and cut my monthly cost in the process, but that was just gravy.

Now I've had this for a couple of weeks, and I've got the tv and lighting calibrated so I know what to expect. The 3D movies are awesome! As I've said here before, I couldn't see 3D content growing up due to eye surgery, but this new technology works for me. Watching some of the D* 3D items are pretty cool, but the movies are much better with the 7.1 surround, etc. But in order to watch every 3D movie coming out, it appears that ebay is going to be the cheapest outlet, and I use the word 'cheap' loosely. I simply won't be able to buy them all. But the Playstation Network has released several 3D game upgrades and a couple of new games, and that's plenty to keep me entertained for a long time. For watching most of my tv/movie content, the 2D mode is fine.

So if movies are going to be slow in coming, what's the next best thing? Sports! The National Championship game would be in 3D - so I set my DVR to record both the ESPN HD feed and the ESPN 3D feed separately. I watched the whole thing in 3D to see how the experience would feel. It honestly took me a full quarter of the game to realize that it wasn't just the 'regular' ESPN feed with a different picture - it was a different set of graphics, different announcers, and (for better or worse) different commercials! The game and the effects were awesome, but I believe the announcers went a little overboard going "Wow - look at that - in 3D too!" Duh.

After it was over, ESPN 3D dumped you back to the floating D* 3D logo. So I switched back to ESPN HD and watched the post game... and it looked better. It was brighter... it was more vibrant... and it was 2D. So yeah, I'm an early adopter and I don't regret anything. But I don't think the technology is so seamless that everyone will adopt it. My wife tolerated 3 hours of watching a ballgame with me wearing glasses because she knew it was a big deal (to me). But there's no way to have the gang over to watch the game in 3D without paying a lot for glasses and hoping that no one else minds the image being slighly darker. So this is absolutely worth my investment and Avatar will be great, but the tech definitely has room to grow. To answer the OP's question I do believe this is more than a fad and isn't going away. However, that doesn't mean that this is for everyone for even for all types of content. If 2% of TVs sold were 3D then maybe that's somewhere in the middle.

Having missed this topic until now I hope my post hasn't already been posted in a manner of speaking.
Personally I think it's a fad with the advanced in bandwidth and the pending transmission of 2k and what-not.
My biggest concern is the actual logic behind the technology in which makes your eyes converge onto a 'fake spot' thus forcing your eyes to work in a manner they are not meant to. I get head-aches when going to the cinema myself and simply don't watch the 3D version... 2D is fine for me... empty cinema... more comfy seets with no children

3D in films or movies is way older than 20+ years, try almost 90 years if you go back to the 1922 movie "Power of Love". That I also mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1735

And if you want to back even further than 1922, in 1903 there was what many would call the early predecessor to 3D, the very short (approx 55 seconds long) stereoscopic film called L'arrivée du train. Which BTW, you can also view this at the link below with Windows Media Player in stereoscopic, if you have a pair of anaglyph glasses.

http://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/movies.html

Well yeah it's been around a long time, as for people also maintaining some interest in 3D for a long time, that is debatable. The movie industry has pretty much always used 3D as a gimmick and they have constantly brought 3D back out time and time again, only as a way to try and boost lackluster attendance at the theaters.

It's like a never ending cycle that has gone on and on for many years now. Once people start shying away from those 3D films, which they have always done after a time. Then the movie industry has also always gone back to making movies without 3D, simply because it is cheaper for them to make a movie without 3D.

Was being generic but that's not really an exageration. For example, at Best Buy a Sony 55 inch 3D LCD sells for $2,600 while a Sony 55 inch non-3D LCD (120hz) sells for $1,400, which is $1,200 less. The Samsung 55 inch 3D sells for $2,000 with the same size screen without 3D goes for $1,400 which, while being only $600 less, does not include the cost for extra glasses which no doubt would bring it closer to that four figure mark.

That was one aspect I never considered. I did believe that shoving how much we either wanted or needed 3D, even it to just to get the "best" picture quality available (doubtful at that) would turn consumers off for the home theater experience but didn't think the reverse reaction would expand and create less desire going to the movie theater to see a 3D production.

Its use in IMAX has been around for a long time, and is as much a gimmick in those movies as the IMAX resolution itself is. People like to view stuff in 3D, but eventually they won't go see something just because it is in 3D. With a viable home market, 3D would no longer have to rely on just box office receipts.
The movie making process has changed since the last cycle of 3D. CGI heavy movies predominate and CGI is completely 3D friendly. We have 2D to 3D conversion available. Digital cameras are starting to become more common and are easier to use in 3D applications.

When it comes to ESPN, announcers go over the top simply to hype the network, whether it be in 3D or 2D.

But I am very curious as to how the 3D looked for a sporting event. No doubt the effects were awesome, but at the same time, were they natural? Did the field, players and subsequent action appear proportionate to the true depth and distance one would see from the stands? Did individual objects also have depth unlike those seen through a Viewmaster where everything is artificially flat? And, was the resolution, brightness and color the same as 2D?

No, then it depends on people paying a premium for buying or renting a 3D Blu-ray over the lower cost of a non 3D Blu-ray, or even the lower cost of a normal DVD. They also very likely will try to hit anyone that advertises up for extra money if the show/movie they are sponsoring on TV is in 3D. And it's quite possible that people after awhile when the newness wears off, will not be as willing to pay extra premium price for a 3D Blu-ray, and advertisers may start balking if they are being charged a premium price for running ads during a 3D show, if the same ads cost less for a non 3D show.



Not every movie uses a lot a CGI, some use very little. Most 2D to 3D conversions suck when compared to something that was actually shot in 3D. Digital cameras are not necessarily any better than film cameras are, other than they don't need to use expensive film.

I was tod only the other day that they still haven't found the full potential of CRT's ......... Worth a giggle

Laugh all you want, but higher end CRT's are capable of producing black levels that LCD and plasma still trying to achieve, and that they have yet to do so. The ONLY advantages to plasma and LCD based sets, is less weight, they can be made much thinner, and they are cheaper to make. When compared to a top end calibrated CRT, better picture quality is not one of the advantages of LCD or plasma TV.

Whoever told you that was 100 percent correct. The advantage of CRT is a more natural and vivid picture with dimension, detail and color that flat screen technology is still unable to reproduce. Professional studios still use CRT for picture accuracy. CRTs also provides the richest blacks and pure whites available for there is more to getting this accuracy than just exaggerated black levels and contrast ratios that can only be measured on laboratory equipment and go beyond the range of human vision.

The one question to ask why each year manufacturers tell us of a new feature that provides better picture quality than the previous year's model? The human eye can only see up to 60 hz per second, so why 120 hz. And why the disclaimer on the bottom of those advertisements saying "exaggerated for demonstration purposes"?

Again, the advantages of flat screen technology are larger screens and lighter weights and that is fine. But don't knock CRT or rely on the spin made by television manufacturers that no longer sell CRTs in the United States. CRT offers the highest picture quality available, it just cannot reproduce the larger sizes that flat screens do. That is not to say that flat screens do not offer beautiful pictures in their own right. There is no right or wrong in the issue - only preference of which aspect is more important to the consumer.

Would that apply to the rear projection sets that used three separate CRTs, one for each color?

Don't forget geometrical accuracy and linear superiority. Because the CRT technology relies on analog voltage changes, it is impossible to control an electron beam direction in a pure linear pattern by variable voltage control as accurately as the binary switching in digital displays.
While it is true that CRT's were the original display technology and as such became the color standard we use, it is not true that the CRT maintains a superior overall image to digital displays, especially when it comes to geometry at the picture boundaries. In a pixel based display system the pixel accuracy at the edge of the display is the same as at the center. In a CRT their is no pixel but rather a phosphor dot that is turned on by the triggering of a voltage swing. In a CRT if one phosphor dot is to be off while the adjacent one on the limits of this capability is the rise and fall time of the voltage swing as the trace scans across the dots. IN digital the pixels are switched off and on in precise timing to the binary pulses.
Now apply this to three electron beams and the errors multiply, both in timing and direction. The task of synchronized timing in analog voltage swing as well as the position of the beam ( convergence) becomes a task that technology never quite achieved to perfection. Digital with error correction, easily achieved this task and is why technology could advance in these displays.

As for professional practice, the professional studios you referenced began making the switch to digital displays right around 1998 -2000 in a big way. Rarely will you see a CRT cad monitor anymore in a modern architectural design studio that is profitable. True that many TV stations are still using older CRT's for broadcast but as I said, "profitable" the philosophy of modern TV stations is to use it until it can't be fixed because they are all strapped for budget to do any upgrades at all.

Until about 2002, I too stayed with CRT but about that time the LCDs with true 1920x1200 pixel panels came on the market and I got rid of my 20" BVM $8000 monitor in the studio to replace with a nice 24" HD 16x9 digital. Glad I did.

Hi Don,

Know I posted an interesting article about professionals still using CRT monitors somewhere back in this forum. Of course, when I refer to CRT technology, I'm talking in terms of HD and not the old 4x3 standard definition sets.

You are right about geometry but fortunately it is minimal at least on my Sony KD34XBR960. For me personally, that is still worth the trade-off compared to all the advantages of the CRT. But as stated other times, my comments are never meant to knock LCD, Plasma or DLP but are more to defend CRT against those who are always knocking it as inferior compared to today's flat screens.

Hello to all. I just discovered this site and this is my first post.

flemingstuart,
Welcome!

Ghpr13

I just made the jump from CRT to plasma, and i am very impressed. My main tv was a 9 year old Panasonic 47" CRT rptv that was isf calibrated by Avical back in the day. Just moved it into my basement this past weekend, replaced with a Samsung 63c8000 plasma. I also have a 34XBR910 as a secondary tv. I always loved the black levels, but so far I am nearly equally impressed with black levels of my new plasma. And the p picture does seem so much more crisp then both tv's due to the total lack of geometry issues. My rptv was starting to drift quite a bit. The xbr910 was always week in the corners. I can only imagine what the plasma will look like once i get it isf calibrated.

On a side note, i got a 3d tv not for the 3d capabilities but because of it's 2d pictures. That being said, my kids love watching 3d. I think 3d will only succeed because of kids, most adults I know couldn't care less.

Congrats on your new plasma and hope you find some enjoyment with the 3D as the kids do -- after all, daddies deserve to have their fun as well.

Geometry is indeed an issue on CRT, although on some of the higher end HD monitors it can be reduced to minimum with proper callibration (which I did on mine). Would agree, the better the geometry the more sharper image but there are other factors as well, including properly callibrated (not user) black levels, enhancement, overscan, focus, etc. This also enables a set to display the finer details; for example the 32 inch LCD we have provides an extremely sharp picture but there is so much little detail seen on the CRT that is literally smoothed out on the flat screen.

How is the 2D to 3D conversion on your set?

Im with this guy. I bought it because the kids LOVE it. I seriously doubt 3d will fail, 50" 3d TVs are going for as little as $700. The 58" I ordered was $1500 and came with a 3d BluRay player and the Shrek starter kit (2 glasses, 4 movies). Seems reasonable to me.

Enjoy your 3D TV! I ordered a new 3D front projector last week and plan to be upgrading my Sony Vegas editing package later this week to 3D editing. While the library of 3D movies is greatly limited now, at least many venues are embracing it as the future of home video entertainment, in BluRay #D, Games, and TV channels with 3D. Won;t be long before 3D will be an option for everything, some good quality and of course, just like BluRay, some bad quality too.

The least expensive set I could find on the market was for $1,000 - a 55 inch Samsung Plasma with 720p resolution. According to most, 720p at this size would not provide as good a picture quality as 1080p. Does anybody here have it and can give us feedback?

I currently have the 50c490 from samsung. You can easily fint it from 6-800 any given week. Right now its 850 at best buy with 2 glasses, a game and 50 towards a 3d movie.

At 50" you'd have to sit about 7 feet away to tell the differnce between 1080 and 720. I sit about 10 feet and think the pictures great. I'm returning and going with the 58" 1080p model.

I thought I did not care about 3d until I went to the electronics store last week. They got me. The college bowl game was being broadcast in 3d and it was pretty cool. Bastards got me.