3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 71

you guys are making me want to go out and look at a DLP 3D demo now....


Warren

Turnne
I said we prefer it in the daytime, like NFL etc. For movies the Kuro is wonderful, but even in the living room we have started to notice the reflective screen much more now that we have the LG. Love the Kuro but I have been told I can get $4,000 for it. That is nearly what I paid for it 3 years ago. Nice.

well if you can get 4K...I would say go for it

I remember seeing clearance floor models at Best Buy 2 years ago for less than half that price for a 60"

I am not a huge fan of LG LCD/LED products...though for a price/performance ratio they are winners

and if you get 4K for the Kuro...you can probably buy 3 LG's( 47 inch)

I just remember looking at their flagship LX9500...especially when stores like Fry's were selling the 55" for like $1699( $1299 for the 47) and thinking what a low price...but something was still lacking (2D wise) between it and the top line Samsungs

and then there was that $1000 price difference as well ,extra for the Samsung

so..I guess you get what you pay for


arren

Warren,
I think you mistook what I was trying to say about "Piranha" and "Drive Angry". I wasn't saying they looked bad to me in 3D. What I was commenting on, is that when watching these "B" grade 3D movies on a 2D TV, one can tell where the "3D" scenes are. It very obvious. While on movies like "Avatar" and "Transformers DOM" you can't really tell what's 3D and what isn't, again when watching in 2D. Movies like "Piranha" and "Drive Angry" follow the old 3D "in your face" 3D effects from the days of the red & blue glasses.
Ghpr13

That might prove challenging since the "thin is in" fad rules the stores. Maybe your Fry's might carry the 73" - 92" Mitsubishi DLP or a specialty electronics store might carry them.

Bang for buck, the 73" Mitsubishi DLP for $1,200 can't be beat. Even if you get 5 years out of it, that's $240 a year.

You have front projection as well. That's what we have and we love it. They're pretty affordable as well.

Retrofitting those into a non-home theater built room is difficult and costly. I would rather have a DLP front projector but I don't have a dedicated HT room and I have a lot of outside light in my room.

In my future home, I would build a dedicated HT room and I would go the route of a ceiling mounted DLP projector.

QVC or HSN, I'm not sure which one, tends to offer a lot of Mitsubishi DLP TVs. And don't forget, they have the "Easy Pay" monthly plan.
But seriously, they do offer a lot of DLP TVs.
Ghpr13

Wow, I've got a non-home theater built room that was easy and cheap to set up a projector in, and I hardly ever watch something before it's dark out. I suspect you're thinking a front projector setup is much harder than it really is. My projector(s) aren't ceiling mounted, but set up upside down on/in a hollowed out cardboard box on a stool on shelf. With plenty of tape for earthquake resistance of course. Not pretty if you look right at it, but it works great!

true...that is a lot of real estate for the price

I do think selected magnolia Home Theaters have these TV's as well..and yes I have seen them in frys...though I have not really taken the time to look

As you say..."thin is in"...so I bypassed all else

Warren

I assume you have seen 2D and 3D versions of all four?

I have seen..in my home..Piranha 3D ..Avatar..2D and 3D....and Transformers 3..in 2D

First off Piranha is a terrible movie...I dont care what D its in
You can throw My Bloody Valentine in that group as well

I have never seen Drive Angry...heard horrible things about that as well

so really no interest

Avatar..is stellar..in both 2D and 3D..in fact I use it as my demo disc when I testing video quality, of a monitor, and sound system demos


Warren

We made similar accommodations. We built a shelf that matches the existing decor, of course, then "ceiling" mounted the projector to it and use a pull down screen over the wall mounted plasma. It's aesthetically acceptable and we get an HT for the effort.

I'd go for Fad also.

Contrary to popular belief, Anaglyph 3D (red and cyan glasses) was rarely ever used for theaterical 3D presentation. It was almost 100% polarized (linear) 3D with the exception of the original IMAX 3D which used active shutter glasses.

The only difference between the 3D movies of the 1950's and those of the 60s, 70s and 80s was the 50s movies were all shot using dual camera rigs. The latter 3D movies used a single camera with a beam splitter to capture the L & R images on a single frame of 35mm film - more cost effective both for capture and projection (only needed a single projector)

OK, I stand corrected on the "red & blue" glasses. But my point still stands.
Ghpr13

Hey,

Didn't know this forum was still open since AVS created another one last Winter. Got a lot of catching up to do.

Since the consensus seems that DLP is better for 3D than Plasma, is it's 2D picture on par with that of Plasma enough to justify purchasing DLP if in the market for a new set? Mind you this would be for one concerned about top picture quality over round more than just 3D.

Joseph , No .. Don't let people on here lie to you . 2d on DLP is subpar next to a Samsung or Panny set . Also, DLP use light bulbs that you have to buy every 3 or so years and the sets are too big . So, no hanging on the wall or moving a around much . Plasma is the way to go .

Hi Will,

That was my thought but wanted to be sure. I also found out that DLP pictures begins to deteriorate once the inside becomes dirty and has to be cleaned by a professional.

Nobody here is "lying" to anyone. Also, you need to get your "facts" straight. The 2D picture on DLPs is on par with plasma. DLP bulbs are only $100 a pop and take 5 minutes to change, no reason to make it more complicated than you are claiming it is.

Also, who on earth moves their home theater setup everyday? I setup my HT in my room and it has not moved in 4 years. Who moves their home theater from room to room????

As far as hanging on a wall goes, that is where a plasma or LCD has the win but for 99% of HT people, they have a shelve or rack for the AV equipment so having a TV sit on top of that cabinet is not a big deal.

Don't buy the "thin is in" that is peddled by Best Buy and the ill informed. Plasma is a great technology but so is DLP, don't be ignorant and say incorrect things about DLP.

Also, show me where you can buy a brand new 73"+ plasma that is 3D ready, for $1,000? You can't but with a DLP you can.

I owned a 61" Samsung DLP for 5 years and never cleaned it and only replaced the bulb once. Don't listen to so-called experts because there are a lot of bad "facts" that people spew around here. If someone has a bias against DLPs, they will espouse bad information.

Plasma's are great as are DLPs. Both are great technologies and each has its pros and cons. Slamming DLPs by stating incorrect information is just plain wrong. The DLP technology is used in 90% of commercial theaters and is the gold standard for 3D movies. Just a heads up...

I think the issue is not about having to wear glasses but rather that doing so prevents one from multi-tasking while watching television. Someone had posted a link that had a picture that could be seen using analglyth glasses. It was quite cool but then I couldn't go back and forth between the picture and the print without taking them off. Many like to read the paper, converse with others or even just doodle while watching TV - of course, they could also make an exception to that for 3D.

This is true, but I don't see why it's a problem. 3D isn't for casual watching, or when you just want something on in the background while you do something, and it doesn't need to be. 3D offers immersion and there's little 3D could add when you're not looking to be immersed. However, most people want to focus on watching when there's a program they really like, when watching a movie, or when playing video games. In these cases people don't want to multi-task, so wearing glasses isn't a problem.

The need to hold a controller and focus on the action hasn't been detrimental to video games. It's no different for 3D and glasses.

Agreed,

One has to diffirentiate between casual viewing and specificly 3D. And with a bluray or DVR, one can pause the program if they want to take the glasses off to do something else.

I agree with that 100%

if you are watching a movie( or gaming) and trying to read the paper...you are not truly interested in one or the other


Warren

I also owned a Samsung 61"DLP( several years ago) for 4 years and never replaced a bulb or had any cleaning done

Even so...that really wasn't the issue with the DLP's of that era. It was the color wheel that people had issues with

You guys still have me wanting to see a DLP 3D demo...I am getting more curious

In regard to 3D..fad or otherwise
As I said more than a year ago...any better( high end) 2D TV will be 3D
capable

The market has changed ...such that there are some TV's that fall into the average picture quality category that are now 3D capable

The middle of the road LG TV's are now 3D capable

Granted its all relative...that middle of the road LG( or other brand) may be incredible compared to what one was accustomed to

Warren

fad

This could be the ultimate movie theater experience at home and for just $799 one might consider going for it. Of course, it also means watching TV by one's self for otherwise it gets quite expensive to use for family viewing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/bu...y-headset.html

I just bought a Optoma 3D projector. I was in the market for a new HD projector and thought..why not. I do think 3D TV is a bit like watching 3d out of a box vs the real cinematic experience, hence I choose the projector for that purpose.

I have been reading a lot about the technology and the way it's perceived by many. It's certainly a "controversial" technology, with it's equal share of lovers or haters, but with a vast majority of "don't care" middle group. For that sole reason I don't think 3D is going to take over any time soon, but it has found a foothold amongst some movie and game fanatics and it may be growing slowly. It depends on the content, Avatar and How to Train a Dragon were freaking awesome, the rest, not so much. Gaming on the other hand is on the rise, as it doesn't have the limitations movies have in terms of depth, resolution, post-processing and things like that.

I have yet to test out the projector in it's full glory, but I'm certainly willing to share my experiences.

Congratulations on your new projector and hope you get many years of enjoyment with it.

My feeling since March of 2010 was that 3D television was not going to be the next hot mass-market consumer electronics item as touted by the industry based - not based on the entertainment value of 3D but rather the economic and behavioral realities of the time. Industry "studies" which touted anywhere between forty and fifty percent of all households would own a 3D monitor by 2014 were not at all credible since these were conducted in-house and hype oriented for the specific purpose of selling (while independent studies showed little interest in consumer purchasing - which is not be confused with interest or liking 3D itself). There will be enough early adopters and videophiles to sustain a niche following but nothing like the mass market consumption the industry wanted us to believe. The reasons are numerous.

We were and unfortunately still are experiencing hard economic times with high unemployment, so many in credit card debt due to frivilous spending habits, mortgage problems, etc. effecting all aspects of consumer spending. In addition, nearly seventy percent of all households now own at least one HD monitor and the same mainstream consumer is not going to suddenly discard the HD monitor purchased over the past few years for 3D. With the HD boom over, the amount of units sold over the past few years has dropped dramatically tremendously and all manufacturers have cut back production of television sets across the board while concentrating on other more popular items such as Iphones, tablets, etc. Industry executives have admitted they were wrong in their belief that consumers were going to "upgrade" their sets every other year like computers.

There is also less interest in television viewing overall as many have turned to other interests inside the home like web surfing and more outdoor activities. And those in the market for a new set have been looking to save money and are going for lower priced models which still allows them to get a big size screen with beautiful pictures.

I do think that if 3D becomes a standard feature in most sets then the interest in the home (which is different than interest in the movie theater) could gradually increase as consumers slowly begin to replace their older sets. But that is a long time coming but not 2014 as the industry hype would have made one to believe.

You are speculating quite a bit in your statement without any clear definitive facts that bear proof.

You would need to have a breakdown of how many upper tier TV's were being sold as compared to low(2nd and 3rd tier) products

Being a success in the marketplace doesn't mean something has to be mainstream

Many brands...that I assume are successful because they are still in business...don't even manufacture products for the mainstream market

any high end audio piece is a perfect example of that

They still sell..in fact I just bought one a couple of weeks ago

I am not sure why you think being mainstream is the litmus test of being successful

Think of Apple compared to Microsoft

One is clearly mainstream...the other..comparatively..is a niche player

if you think something has to be a successful when its sitting on every Walmart shelf..then you have quite a long list of failed products to speak about

As I have said upteen times...anyone who has a discerning eye..and ofcourse can afford it..buys one of the higher end TV's

They all are 3D

A crappy picture is a crappy picture..2D or 3D

so the question should be
how is the high end flatpanel TV market doing?

Those that buy those type of products are always the innovators and get the technology first..and typically pay for the R&D as well

3D technology..this year..has trickled down to..IMO...some sets that have an average level of picture quality

There are many of us who appreciate the value/quality proposition that higher end audio and video products bring

But we cannot compete ( in numbers and likely never will) with those that are still using antennas for TV reception

My understanding is that is still the majority of Americans
So clearly satellite and cable systems are not successful?
And clearly.. the Samsung 8000 series..Panasonic VT series plasma TVs are horrible failures

If I were a betting man ..I would bet those top rated(flagship) TV's actually are very low volume models compared to their lower end brethren

another point is that I bet Walmart moves an incredible number of lower end( perhaps from names you never heard of) TV's

Clearly..I am speculating with the last two points as I have no posted numbers. That would almost need to come from an employee in the sales and marketing arm of the aforementioned companies, with detailed breakdowns, to have any validity

I own and 8000 series Samsung plasma and have for about a year
Its a stellar TV..in both 2D and 3D and well worth what I paid for it(vs the alternatives)


Warren