3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 65

was looking for a new set and found for less than $300 more could have it, had a channel on a DTV so did it and glad i did. can remember going from B&W to Color so going to 3D was a no brainer. when it comes to new tech stuff the sooner you get it the longer you enjoy it, because if you die and never enjoyed it........... well you know.
my best example is the surround sound system got back in 1989 it was new then and was like $725 + speakers and still use it today. and when heard by others they can't believe it's that old.

This is a bit OT, but interesting none the less. I just had to have my 3rd pacemaker replaced and my doctors decided to do a intensive Cardiac Cath, followed by a 3D imaging of my heart...Well, what should have been an overnight stay turned into a 6 day hospital stay, complete with 2 days in ICU. The 3D imaging software wouldn't work because of a steel rod I have in my back since 1978. Unfortunately, since my 3 doctors were all men, they decided to keep trying to get the 3D software to work, because "it's suppose to" and during the meantime my blood pressure went through the floor...thus causing the "extended" hospital stage.

Now let me just say this, it's one thing when you can't get your 3D picture to come in on your brand new 3DTV, but when 3D heart imaging software doesn't work, just let it go!

Ghpr13

GHPR, you're a tough old bird. Your humor after all you've been through is so inspiring. Hope you're mending well.

The health of a friend is NEVER off-topic!

So glad you're better and sorry about an overnight stay turning into a six-day ordeal due to the 3D imaging not workng properly even though the rod in your back should not have created any problems.

Good health always,

Joe

Thank you. You got to laugh. Laughing always make you feel good!


Thank you, friend.
Ghpr13

Except right after an old-time (pre-laparoscopic) appendectomy.

Good to hear you are doing better.

I went through two hernia operations and suffered through more than one pinched nerve but the worst pain I ever experienced came from an impacted wisdom tooth which required more than just a routine extraction. It was so bad that afterwards I couldn't even smile without my jaw beginning to hurt. Obviously, I could not sleep so that evening a local station broadcast some Three Stooges shorts. That was of course the worst thing for me to watch. Moe, Larry and Curly had me laughing so hard that I was in constant tremendous pain. Adding to that was the realization that the more I laughed the more the agony and the thought of that seemed so funny that it got me to laugh even more, only making the pain even worse.

The only time I was ever into S and M!

Thanks!
Ghpr13

also glad to hear you are doing better.
dr's are ____ sometimes

The video and audio quality of last Sunday's Super Bowl on FOX was only so-so, confirmed by others in another forum that is attached.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1313207&page=3

So if FOX doesn't meet the standards we're use too for high definition, what would that say about the standards we might see on 3D?

Thanks! And you're right about doctors at times.
Ghpr13

.... and this just in from Buckingham Palace:

The Royal Family has decided it will not allow the Royal Wedding to be broadcast in 3-D.

Add Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles to the list of old folks against change.

Can't say I blame them. Have you seen that William lately? He's losing his looks quite rapidly.

Talk about getting cold feet before the wedding!

Friend of mine at work just got a new LED. Loves the picture.

Asked him if it included 3D and he said he wasn't interested for he likes reading the paper, looking at people when talking to them, etc. which he can't do wearing glasses. He also feels that down the road (not right away) non-glasses 3D will be perfected and eventually become the norm.

He's not an enthusiast, just a typical consumer and his reaction I'm sure was typical as well.

Glasses aren't a big deal woopty doo if you have to wear them, get over it!

3D will eventually become standardized but probably when hologram tvs start becoming the norm and it's easier to display 3D without glasses.

I saw that Japan already have a 3D camera that don't need glasses for viewing. I hope these will be released to public this year.

For those like my friend who like to read, switch channels, talk to people, etc. during most of his viewing it would be. I'm sure if 3D was a standard feature in most sets he wouldn't mind but for the many hundreds of dollars extra, it isn't worth it.

Its a fad for movies. I see it as a hit for gamers however.

My own theory is that it needs to become a standard feature on most sets rather than remaining one requiring additional cost. It might really take off or be used as an ocassional lark, that being left to the discretion of the viewer. But that is dependent upon no real extra costs required by manufactuers for 3D to become a standard feature plus those associated with networks, cable companies and bluray disc manufactuers to provide the material.

Also of interest is that there was a drop in movie theater attendance figures this past year, including those films in 3D. Revenue for 3D was up but that is also a two-edged sword. Prices went up but the actual amount of movie goers wearing 3D glasses went down. According to a Sony executive (see attached) the bottom line is less how many pay for the ticket but more how much overall revenue the company makes so head counts don't really matter from a business perspective.

I think that is short-sighted in the long run. One analogy is here in New York with the Mets. New York is a baseball town and the Mets have a big fan base, even though being second fiddles to the Yankees. Ownership built a new stadium which had 12,000 fewer seats and simply raised ticket prices to offset the natural drop in attendees. The results were disappointing attendance figures the first year in a new ballpark (when people go if for nothing more than curiosity) followed by the biggest attendance drop in the majors last season and even poorer advance ticket sales for this coming year. Ticket prices become so ridiculously high that fans weren't willing to pay small fortunes to see a baseball game. This was not entirely due to the poor play on the field (just as fewer watching films in 3D was due to the poor quality of film content). Through the all-star break this past summer the Mets were in contention but had empty seats for big draws like the Yankees, Phillies and Braves. There was less than a full house on opening day too.

So if 3D becomes more expensive as time goes by, the movie industry can expect the same approach to backfire as did the orange and blue - there will come a point when movie goers will simply refuse to pay so much to see a movie in 3D, which won't help promote interest in 3D for the home, either.

http://www.pressherald.com/life/3-d-...011-01-01.html

And as that article points out, less are viewing it in theaters as well.

The article didn't give a break down on 3D in theaters, just that less movie tickets were sold overall, but that the higher price of 3D tickets maintained the box office in terms of revenue. In fact it pretty much states that last year was the first significant year for 3D as avatar sold most of its tickets in 2010, so I bet 3D movie viewing is up some astronomic percentage over 2009.

Exactly the oposite - it pointed out that even for 3D, movie going attendance went down. Less people were seeing 3D films but paying more, hence the quote from that Sony executive ""Focusing purely on headcount is nice if you don't want to accept money but if money goes up while bodies go down, I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing."

It also continued:


"Although 3-D made a significant difference to the bottom line of some movies, it didn't live up to the early hype of its backers. In early 2009, DreamWorks Animation Chief Executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose studio produced all its films in 3-D, told the Wall Street Journal that the technology would make the box office "a growth industry for the first time in many years.

"Nonetheless, returns on 3-D movies have been no more reliable than those on traditional ones.

Some, including "Alice in Wonderland" and "How to Train Your Dragon," were hits; others, including "My Soul to Take" and "Alpha and Omega," flopped. For some films, such as "Resident Evil: Afterlife" and "Piranha 3D," the vast majority of receipts came from 3-D locations; for others, such as "Despicable Me" and "Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," audiences largely opted for the traditional way.

"With the exception of event movies such as "Avatar," there was little evidence that 3-D made a difference in people's decision to go to the theater.'

You aren't reading it right, its saying that even with 3D, movie going attendances went down.
Revenue stayed flat while audiences went down. Revenue stayed flat on lower ticket sales because of the extra $3 added to 3D tickets. If 3D sales had dropped from the previous year, how could the extra $3 added to less ticket sales have made up the shortfall in revenue? The answer is - 3D sales are up over the previous year.
This still says nothing about 3D because there were much greater numbers of 3D movies in 2010 as opposed to 2009, and the biggest (3D) movie of all time by revenue, had most of its ticket sales in 2010. 2010 was the first real year of 3D, so we have nothing to compare it to.

Sorry to have to disagree with you but when industry executives cite they are disappointed with attendance figures including those for 3D then nothing could be more clearer about there being a problem. There were no comments about a growing trend in 3D attendance.

Also the math doesn't add up. The cost of admission for a 3D film is 20% - 30% more than the standard 2D version. Perhaps I should have also attached this other article which also appeared in the Los Angeles Times but I was hesitant because of it's age.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...s-are-goi.html

The bottom line is the industry was disappointed in attendance figures , 3D included and that the higher cost of 3D tickets only salvaged revenue about equaling that of last year.

Regal reported an astounding 833% profit increase in 2010 for Q3. The reason they claimed was due to 3D and IMAX 3D upcharges. It was so good they distributed a huge one time dividend of $1.40 per share then raised dividends for projected earnings increase for 2011 by 16.7%.

People can make up sh!t about stuff to support their myths but when companies put money where their mouth is, I believe that! 3D is a winner and a money maker. The way theaters make money is to offer something the general public can't get at home. 2010 it was a proliferation of quality 3D. When 3D becomes ubiquitous in the home then the theaters will need to find something else to achieve profits.

No doubt the 3D in the theater is a short term solution to a long term problem ( to keep people coming to the theaters) I said that the movie theater needs to continue to find these attractions. today it is 3D, tomorrow??? Maybe motion seating. I just can't say but one thing is clear to me. 3D with the present active glasses is far more popular today than it ever was with anaglyph system in the home. I do believe that given the technology is not all that complicated to upgrade, we will see the inclusion of 3D capability in ALL home TV sets, similar to the way stereo audio evolved to become common-place. The fact that 3D was accepted by the movie theater public and that they embraced it with paying more for that experience ( measured by the stockholder reports on profits) is just one measuring stick to show that 3D is a great tool that is desired and people are willing to pay for it.


True but dividend returns are based on the sales result of that commodity and that was what I referenced. Future worth is the growth aspect of the stock. I made no reference to that as a result of 3D. Again, I claim that as 3D becomes ubiquitous in the home, the theater will need to move to something else new and novel. This does not mean that 3D is just a fad, but rather it shows the acceptance of 3D for a form of entertainment. The sales of 3D media and displays for the home will determine how soon the theater fad will just be another standard requirement of the industry, not whether it will just go away.

Here's the bottom line on this regardless of the outcome. It seems clear that the ones who fear and loath 3D are those who never had it. Those who bought seems are enjoying and clamoring for more content. How many, percentage wise, are there that can say, I bought a 3D display and glasses and got rid of it because I decided it was a waste of time and money?


This is typical wishful thinking on the part of most consumers to be able to save money when they go to experience 3D and are asked to pay for the extra experience. As a consumer I agree but as a businessman, I'll look at the offering and the price and base the price on what the offering will bear. So far, the pricing is working. People are paying for the experience. When the interest falls off, they may be forced to lower prices systematically. If it doesn't fall off then keep or raise the prices.
AS for the home- economic factor will slowly erode as the volume increases. That has been the rule in consumer electronics for decades. I predict 3D will just be another common function of the TV as is stereo audio today.

IMO, sad to say, but I feel 3D has already started taking the same old road it has in the past. Avatar, under James Cameron's watchful eye, became the stander that he hoped all future 3D movies would shoot for. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened and 3D is once again becoming a "add on" to try to get added box office money from a movie.

The more I read on 3D and the more I see what is really happening out there, I feel that 3D in the theaters and 3D in the home are going to end up going different ways. 3DTV is going to have to find a way to make it on it's own, without relying on Hollywood. I think 3D gaming will end up being the main catalysts for 3DTV because of the nature of a "oneness" and being "drawn in" when playing a video game.

One last thought about 3D movies. I was just thinking how limited this genre will always be. Stop to think what "the Godfather" would have been like in 3D. I don't think it would have quite the movie that it was if the viewers had bullets flying at them. IMO.

Ghpr13

Don, I re-wrote my post this morning since I was half-asleep when composing it last night. Most of it is the same but some had been added.


Believe it or not, we both agree that as of now 3D is a winner and money maker in the theaters - it literally salvaged the industry from suffering an overall decrease in revenue.

But those big profits related to 3D were due to higher ticket prices and not higher or equal attendance and as Jeff Blake said, head counts aren't as important as the money being made (eight people paying $20 brings in more revenue than nine paying $16). And the industry admits it is trying to win back movie goers and since overall profits have been flat these past few years, so is the uncertainty about the future.

Don't forget, investments are made on what a commodity is projected be worth in the future, not on what it is worth at the present time whereas profits are based on what the commodity is worth now with successful investors having made their commitments sometime back. So the question is what is being invested now.

More movie theaters becoming equipped for 3D was a commitment made by the theater industry when Avatar and others pushed 3D into new heights of money making. Are exhibitors still planning to do the same now? Producers are also investing less capital into the production of true 3D movies in lieu of less the inexpensive but more profitable 2D to 3D conversion process -- but these have been criticized by most fans of 3D technology. So is investment in 3D beginning to curve downward, just like in the consumer electronics industry with all major manufacturers holding back on production for at least this first quarter? Attached is one analysis:

http://www.reelmovienews.com/2010/08...hard-too-soon/


What is the big investment now for exhibitors? One might be the dine-in theater.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...285064856.html

3D is a unique art form and the industry should lower prices to propel interest rather than look for the quick, windfall profits. It has always been my contention that 3D in the home won't catch on with the mainstream because of the economic factors, not for lack of interest or the need to wear glasses. If lowering the cost of ticket prices is not financially possible, the same factors might apply to the movie theater experience from both the supplier's and consumer's perspective.

In the long-term, more people buying tickets at lower prices could sustain 3D as a profitable enterprise for many years to come. But as you correctly said in your reply to my original post, 3D is a business venture and if less overhead can achieve the same amount of revenue, the industry will disband 3D in a heart beat and resussetate it again for the next generation of movie goers.

See this is where I think 3D would really shine if given the chance, in dramatic movies with great actors. I find 3D movies to be much more relateable than regular movies, something akin to the difference between a play and a movie. Movies, for me at least, are much more abstract - in a play you are much more conscious of the actors as real live human beings. In the same way, for 3D, the actors seem much more 'real' and have an actual presence. I would love to see a movie of the caliber of The Godfather made in 3D, and I wouldn't expect a single bullet to fly out of the screen.