3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 8

With the ever-decreasing prices of all flat panel displays the manufacturers have now found a way to increase their margins by touting the latest in "3D technology". It couldn't come at a better time for them. For us....no so much. Now we get to wade through more buzz words, pseudo-tech, competing standards and clueless sale people just at the time that HD flat panel tech and HD was becoming mainstream and a commodity item.

Thanks for nothing! I for one will NOT be an adopter of in-home 3D on a TV. Regardless of how awsome the 3D effects were in Avatar at the IMAX theater, the experience can NEVER be relived on a 40 inch LCD!

Bottom Line: Gimmick all the way!

lolololololol The glasses were turned on! Ya know,this 3D thing comes around every 10 or 20 yrs. or so but it has never caught on. maybe it will now because the youngsters, ie:twentysomethings have far greater amounts of disposable income than previous gens.and they are in general more tech savvy and more tech addicted IMO than previous gens. and are willing to put up the $$$$$$ for a failed tech. Oldsters like me have seen 3D come and go to many times to be impressed. G.

True, but sitting 8 feet from a calibrated 3D 70" screen might actually be better. I want Avatar in 3D in my house yesterday. I upgraded my TV too early.

My eyes want stereo too. My ears have been having all the fun.

No 3D for me. I don't 'hate' it, I just don't want it. I'm already saving up for my next TV. I have it picked out and I'm about 1/3 of the way there with the money. It's a Panasonic 'G' series plasma. NOT 3D!

I agree with the person who demo'ed at Bestbuy. Just can't see the big deal!!

No 3D tv for me it should stay in the cinemas.

Regards Lino.

Its a FAD

Fad.

After watching a 3D movie I can't say that it was all that impressive.

Film makers would be better off making sure that the films they make get a good transfer to HD on BD or other media than taking time and expense on some 3D scheme.

I agree with many here that having a good source that shows the clarity and definition is all of the depth perspective that you need.

You know you're just seeing 2D watching these movies, don't you? Old tech is good enough for you then.

At the 3 stores where I demoed the available systems from Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic, the salespeople who "assisted" me where not exactly enthusiastic about 3D's prospects for success. They all pointed to the high cost of the equipment, the lack of content, and the large number of people who cannot physically experience the effect as major barriers to be overcome before the technology can become "mainstream".

I have always been very enthusiastic about 3D, and was looking forward to it coming to TV (I've got both Nuoptix and Cyan/Red cardboard glasses in my collection of AV "gadgets"). But after years of enjoying 3D at IMAX theaters, I am very disappointed at what manufacturers are offering to home viewers. Very few people have perfect, non-astigmatic, 20/20 vision, and it seems that one needs just that in order to be able to derive maximum enjoyment from the current technologies. The poorly-worded health warnings are not helping matters, either...who would want to put their children's health at risk just so they can watch an animated feature in 3D?

I agree with some of the posters on here that there needs to be set standards that are mandatory for all content providers and equipment manufacturers; they all need to make their products interoperable to minimize the cost to consumers of adopting the technology. I also think that they also should stop trying to fool consumers into believing that "2D to 3D" conversion is a process that a Blu-ray player or a consumer display can accomplish convincingly. Visual composition and camera angle are a major factor in achieving the illusion of depth, and most material is simply not shot in this manner. I find that (for me, anyway) the most convincing 3D features sequences with amazing depth of field, where everything from the foreground to infinity is in sharp focus. Unless they can figure out a way to do this with existing material, 3D sources will be limited to material specifically shot as such. But how many "Avatars" are even possible? Many non-videophile friends and colleagues who saw this movie at IMAX theaters loved it yet complained that there was so much going on that they felt "nauseated" during some of the action sequences. And those who saw the "home version" of 3D afterwards all felt that it "wasn't nearly as good". Obviously, manufacturers have their work cut out for them if they want 3D for the home to be anything other than just another fad.

I voted "here to stay", and I'll be putting my money where my vote is. I could give all the reasons, but I've already done that on at least 3 or 4 other threads. 3D is not a fad, within 3 years you won't be able to buy a higher-end display that isn't 3D capable. If you don't want to take advantage of it, that's OK too, I'll probably be into my second display by that time.
Autostereoscopic displays? If that's what you're waiting for, I don't think you'll be doing 3D for at least 10 years, probably much longer.

+1 - Well said but I voted not until we have a standard (and glasses-less display technology and MUCH MUCH bigger displays).

Fad for now. I am not going to buy 10 pairs of $100/pop glasses for my theater.

Did no one catch on to the fact that #1 - 3D Glasses are NOT interchangeable between Competing Brands, leading to #2 - Therefore, there can be no competition in regards to the pricing, only, my glasses are better than yours, or my batteries last longer then theirs, so here's my Retail price of $150: pay, or do without! Finally #3 - I've found a properly calibrated System has a 3D quality to it compared to a non caibrated set. Mind you it doesn't jump off the screen, but it does have a sense of depth of field. (And you don't need glasses)

I voted Fad + Hype.

Here to stay.. Seeing is believing!!

I'll buy 3D only when it doesn't require glasses, or, after the price differential drops to zero.

Other than the glasses, it apparently costs just a little silicon for the TV manufacturers to implement, so they will be able to reap early adopter money for a while...and more power to them! After that, 3D probably becomes just another feature we have the option of using/buying glasses.

The disk industry should take a page from the hardware industry if they want to continue to sell disks...give consumers more performance for a lower price. 3D disks should displace Bluray disk premium pricing, and Bluray finally match DVD pricing. If/when that happens, I might start buying disks again.

With people recently spending thousands of dollars for the analog to digital conversion, I can't see many people going out and spending several thousand more for 3D, at this time. If it catches on, it will be a while before it does.

The only reason I will have a 3D set in my house is because I won't be able to buy one without if the manufacturers have their way. I'm really kinda sad that I won't be able to buy a nice LED that doesn't have that ghey ass 3D b_lls__t.

Totally a Fad.... TV companies have nothing else to get you to buy a new TV and even 1080p is old for most people, so 3-D is the thing.

If they find a way to do it with out glasses and no extras, it might take off....

I guess I would change my mind on this if there was a ton of content but, that is not the case.

Would I buy a tv with 3-D ? Hmmmm, if it was the same price as I was looking to spend maybe, but, if it was a few hundred more ? Nope.... figuring I would never use it (partly blind in one eye, so it does not work too well with me)

Wait wait wait. I was arguing that 3D was a fad based on the merits of the idea (based on current technology etc) alone. You know, sports from it's current, and best, viewing angle etc.

I'm a noob when it comes to the actual technology this time around. You mean to say that those glasses actually REQUIRE batteries?!?!?!


Hahahaha. Omg.


And some of you still think this "technology" is here to stay?


Hey did you invest in the DIVX discs too? Hahahahahahaha.

No, this is a common misapprehension. Batteries are actually optional, but many don't realize this, because it hasn't occurred to them to try the glasses without any batteries in them.

I made a comment to a co-worker a while ago that this isn't going to last. Then I saw it in a store and it confirmed my statement. This does not replicate what you see in the theater. In the theater, the image jumps out at you. On a TV, it is like looking into a diarama. All the 3D content is contained inside the bezel of the television. I would go as far as to say that the commercials that Samsung puts out is false advertising.

Like most things if we are willing to pay then it will be produced.

I'm hoping this is a fad as well.

I don't think it's a matter of LOVERS and HATERS of 3D. I have a 2 projector 3D setup with 2 JVC HX1's and I also have an RS35 for watching movies. I can also use the RS35 alone running anaglyphic 3D. People just don't feel comfortable watching 3D for very long periods of time because it causes eye strain for many people. This has been why 3D hasn't been more successful in theatres in the past.

Maybe in the future they'll be able to transplant a chip in your brain that you can just "link-up" by Blue-Tooth to get good 3D without glasses. I'm not against 3D, I just believe that it's still a novelty to be used for special material to enhance your experience. My opinion is simply based on past attempts of the industry to push 3D. I would have thought that ALL material broadcast on TV would have been ALL 16:9 by this time, but even that hasn't happened yet. When all those things come to pass, maybe I'd view the current attempt at 3D more seriously.

I think as long as 3D requires glasses it will always be optional. Support for 3D may not be optional in the near future, but all that really means is 120+ Hz, and that's good for 2D as well. So I REALLY don't understand all the hating going on.

Some of us (like me) really want stereo for our ears AND eyes, and are willing to wear glasses to get the immersion until someone invents a better stereo display that doesn't require glasses (who knows when that will be?). All the people not interested... never fear, you will be able to watch your stuff in 2D too, and the 3D adopters will have the best of both worlds because the equipment will still do 2D as good as any.

I would more understand the animosity if you had to make a choice between them... having 3D as an added feature doesn't hurt anyone, and helps those that want it. I have wanted a 3D display at home since the first time I saw 3D at an amusement park as a child.

I think EVERYONE knew that DIVX was dead in the water before it was even available, just by reading their "rules".

Here to stay.

And what's with the BS about 3D standards? There are 3D standards. 3D BD has it's standard, CBL and SAT have their standard. And by the end of the year SMPTE will have produced a standard for OTA.

What? They are different? . . .

You think there is one HDTV standard?

1920x1080i
1920x1080P
1280x720P

And the BD standard = 1920x1080x24P

Does ESPN3D need 3DTV or a 2DTV will work? If the broadcast is 3D - then the TV does not need to do any conversion - right? 2DTV will be enough. Like Comcast VOD already had some 3D shows - you just need 'right' 3D glasses to see it.

If I am completely off - can somebody explain it pl.?

Since you can turn it on and off and use it when you want I have to say its here to stay to some extent. The technology may even change before they get it perfect but I doubt that the industry will ever stop trying to make 3D movies/viewing.
Personally though, I cant really think of any sporting event or tv show that I care to watch in 3D. Id buy a 3D set to have the capability to watch particular movies in 3d every now and then, but im not interested in putting on goggles everytime I watch tv.

Hell I bought contacts so I wouldnt have to wear glasses.

I don't see how 3D can even be taken seriously and w/o lots of content, it's doomed. Knowing 3D was coming out for 2010, I felt the Samsung 55B8500 & 46B750 were the way to go for me. I'm not an early adopter by any stretch. Besides, after watching the Monsters vs Aliens loop at BB, my eyes were on fire. Wearing glasses over glasses sucks.

In all seriousness, could someone please tell me how sports could be done in 3D? That's really the only hope of mainstream adoption, IMO. Look what it did for HD, I mean while Discovery Channel and PBS were cool in HD, it wouldn't have gotten off so quickly if "guy" hadn't been able to watch big events in HD. (Again, in my opinion)

So how do you do sports? New camera angle?