3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 73

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Warren,
You're comparing apples to oranges...Yes, there were 3D movies before Avatar and a lot were badly made, but until Avatar came out, there had been no real "campaign" for 3D to expand and be taken seriously. Movies like Friday the 13th Part 3, were made for fun and for the "gimmick" part of 3D, with similar 3D movies popping up now and then.

Again with 3DTVs you comparing apples & oranges. You're comparing HDTVs of old with today's HDTVs and 3DTVs. Yes, as we all know, consumer electronics is probably the only consumer product that actually has newer and better models come out at a lower cost than models that were out before. I agree with you on comparing your HDTV costs, mine is similar. My Samsung 40" was $1400.00 when I bought it in 2008. Now you can pick up a Samsung 40" for about $600 or so. I was comparing 3DTVs to 2DTVs pricing in 2009-2010. 3DTVs, be it bundled with glasses and 3DBD player, were about $1500 to $2000 more then a comparable 2DTV. Today things are different. In just 3 years the cost of a current 3DTV is much more closer to the cost of a current 2DTV. But I have notice that there seems to be less bundling out there except for still including the 3D glasses. Of course when you can now buy a 3D BD player for under $100.00 now, it's not really necessary to "bundle" one as an incentive to buy the 3DTV.

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by turnne1

Using your process ...cable, satellite and blu ray are all in trouble

ok....

If asking for detail that disallows "spinning" of a story is pulling hairs. Then I guess I am pulling hairs

You easily have spun the story a different way..ie...check the sales statistics of high end A/V in the United States ...and made the assumption that the top tier of the market could easily be doing well and will be expanding rapidly in product breath and depth

Look at the new Elite brand that Sharp just rolled out


I also find it interesting...that you speculated months ago that 3D was going to be a niche market for A/V enthusiasts

Well..for 2011..the technology has come to mid range products
I don't know many A/V enthusiast that are buying mid line products...do you?

Using your methodology..I would further "speculate"
When the 2012 models rolls out shortly..we will see 3rd tier and store branded panels that are 3D capable

Time will tell...there have already been store branded 3D capable blu ray players released


Would you still agree with your niche market statement?

Warren

Originally Posted by turnne1

then I guess my question would be

Why did you make the reference to today's crappy 3D movies...since you agree that they were always available?

I also find it interesting that you comment on the quality of Avatar( and others) ..but have yet to see it in your own home viewing environment?


In regard to pricing..you are comparing apples and oranges

You are not accurate on several points...

The bundles:

I didn't buy mine with a bundle. Bundles were on again off again last year depending on brand and time of the year


I am the case in point that broad assumptions about bundle buying is not accurate

and $1500-2000 more for 3D?..not really
Apples and oranges..because you could not get the same quality 2D and 3D television in the same manufacturers line
So..how can you even compare the two?

Give me some model numbers..please?..you like to paint these broad statements with no details

Perhaps what you should have said was that last year 3D, for the most part, was only available in the manufacturers top models and not available in mid line models
The prices that prevailed , in those models, was commensurate with the difference in quality in panels of the same size

Excluding Samsung's C590( 50" 720P 3D) from last year..you had to buy a manufacturers top model to get 3D availability

Go back and look at what the differences were in the the Panasonic V10 and the brands mid line models...as well as the Samsung B860 and do the same comparison

Both of those were their respective manufacturers top models from 2009
See what the differences in pricing was...and you will say that 3D was a free item on the 2010 models..based on comparative pricing
For instance the Samsung B860 was a more expensive TV than my C8000...and the B860( from 2009) was not 3D capable

Samsung had a much lower cost 3D blu ray player last year, as well..the BDC-5900...minimal frills...and 3D capable


2011 is a new game...you can now buy a mid line LG with with 3D...I have seen an $89 3D capable blu rayplayer

We haven't even gotten to black Friday yet..my understanding is that there will be sub $300 40" TV's

Lastly...you said you paid $1400 for a Samsung 40A550?
Interesting..I paid about that same price for a model that was 2 steps up..the A750


Warren

TOKYO – Sony posted another quarter of red ink as losses widened to 27 billion yen ($350 million) for the three months to Sept. 30, on weaker LCD TV sales and a strengthening yen that continues to hurt earnings. The company is forecasting a full-year loss of $1.15 billion, after predicting a profit back in July.

Originally Posted by turnne1

You are like the majority of Americans who get their programming over the air



Warren

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin


One aked for proof about deep cuts in televsion production only - not cable, bluray or any other form of consumer electronics - claiming the facts presented were unsubstantiated and speculative only. Proof was provided and thus the subject of television production was ignored and changed to other areas to avoid further discussion of the issue at hand.

Truly "spoken from a person who makes assumption based on facts they can't substantiate" and best be ignored, right GhP?

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

I think a lot of the negativity of 3D & 3DTV came more from Hollywood than anyplace else, IMO. It started on a high note with Avatar...It seemed that 95% of the people who seen Avatar were truly amazed by the 3D effects (my self included). This was not the 3D of old. But then Hollywood, thinking with their short term brains, brought out Clash of the Titans in 3D, and I would bet 95% of the people who seen that hated the 3D effects. After that Hollywood started the push for 3D movies...They just needed to get 3D movies out there, no matter how good or bad they were.

Then the CE manufacturers started the push for 3DTVs in mass quantities, along with high prices. Even though there was very little 3D medium to watch at home, and the fact that you would need a new BD player capable of playing 3D BD. And of course the glasses...but that's been debated to death in this thread, so let me go on.

Now back to Hollywood. More 3D movies coming out to the theaters, but still none that had come close to Avatar. Critics starting to speak out about some of the bad 3D effects, and the evils of post production 3D. Hollywood keeps releasing more 3D movies, most of them not very good, 3D wise. Consumers start questioning paying higher ticket prices for the 3D version of a movie compared to the 2D version.

Meanwhile, home theater enthusiasts, and others who have made the leap to 3DTV await the 3D BD of Avatar. A movie that, IMO, had it been release in 3D BD around the holiday season of 2010, would have really help sales of 3DTVs, but, instead a 2D version is released!(I still feel this is the biggest blunder in 3DTV promoting ever.)

As time progresses, we here more info on movies like The Green Hornet, that was originally produce in 2D, but at the last minute was made 3D to try to ride the 3D wave. Along with stories like this we get the "news" stories about 3D giving people headaches, causing dizziness, bad for the eyes in younger children, can lead to E.D., etc. Some good does come too. Cloudy, with a Chance of Meatballs, and Aliens vs Monsters, stop being the only 3D BD widely available and as the only freebies with a complete 3DTV bundle. And Avatar finally gets released in 3D BD, but only as part of a special 3DTV bundle...but hey, it's out in 3D 2 years later. Transformer: Dark of the Moon, & the re-release of The Lion King in 3D were just 2 of the most recent highs in 3D. (And yes, I went to see TransformersOTM in 3D and it was great!)

So, IMO, a lot of the blame for the negativity of 3D & 3DTV falls at the feet of Hollywood. Hollywood has always put the mighty dollar above all else, giving to us with one hand, while taking from us with the other.

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Warren,
What difference does it matter if I seen Avatar in 3D at the theater or at home? I said the 3D was great in Avatar. Are you trying to say that the home 3D version wasn't as great? That can be the only reason you feel it is so important that I should have seen Avatar 3D on a 3DTV. I seen it, I liked the 3D, so what's the problem. Are you saying the only way to really judge the quality of a 3D movie is on a 3DTV? You make no sense in repeating that I can't have an opinion on the quality of Avatar's 3D because I only seen it at the theater in 3D.

I'm through discussing this issue with you. You haven't grasp what I was saying ever since my post #2076. You act as if anyone who has a different opinion of 3D is against it. Also, I did not say I paid $1400.00 for my LN40A550, I said that is what the cost was at the time. I paid $1000.00 for mine, tax and shipping included. Not that it really matters.

I'm glad you enjoy your 3DTV. I'm glad for anyone who enjoys the TV or other electronics they have bought. I love my Samsung LN40A550, even if it is 3 years old and not in the league of your 3DTV. My next TV will more then likely be a 3DTV. So I don't know what all your whining is about, but I do know that I'm tired of it.

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Can you clarify this statement for me because "the majority of USA households" do not get their TV programing from OTA. They get it from "pay TV (CBL/SAT/TELCO)" Less then 10% of USA HH's get their TV programming from OTA.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Joe:

As far as predictions go - saw this in the news today:


Sony Announces More Losses And Forecasts Red Ink For The Year



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...recasts-256158

So when you take companies/the media to task about making a prediction that is years into the future, Sony couldn't make an accurate prediction that was just 3 months into the future.

Originally Posted by turnne1

You are somewhat accurate...though its hard to find a number that not convoluted by geography

The numbers that use it exclusively as well as a supplement to their pay TV service is large percentage.


http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/96452

Warren

And another thing, Schneider said: “FCC reports that only 10 percent of American homes rely solely on over-the-air TV signals

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Hi Lee,

Been reading the points and sense from what you have written that the actual production cost for adding 3D is nowhere near the additional price tag added to sets with that feature. Though the actual amount is conjecture on anyone's part, based on past consumer electronic items and eventual lower price tags, the cost factor will not present a problem keeping 3D as a feature in most sets so there should be no financial reason to limit it's inclusion down the road. The cost will simply be absorbed into the retail price tag.

As far as the industry/media making accurate projections for the future, it's no different than the stock brokers who buy high and then are forced to sell low.

Joe

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

It isn't conjecture Joe. What is needed to make an HDTV a 3DTV is just a handful of cheap parts. The only exception to this is the Panasonic VT series which uses a different PDP panel then all their other HDTVs.

You should already know that pricing on new products is not based on manufacturing cost. Nor for that matter for many existing products. Just look at DVDs. They cost less then a dollar to manufacture including the packaging.

And if you look at history, you will see one of the very few products that drops in price every year are television sets.



Correct But you still continue to bring up in your arguments from time to time, a prediction that was made concerning the number of households that would have a 3DTV by 2014. Which was made BTW within a few months of 3DTV actually being launched.

LOL - if you would like I can link an article that was written that predicted HDTV would be a failure.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

From your link:



Nowheres in that link does it state the amount of viewing time any of the HHs that have an OTA antenna use it. Just that they have it.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Correct But you still continue to bring up in your arguments from time to time, a prediction that was made concerning the number of households that would have a 3DTV by 2014. Which was made BTW within a few months of 3DTV actually being launched.

LOL - if you would like I can link an article that was written that predicted HDTV would be a failure.

Originally Posted by turnne1

not sure it mentions anything about actual viewing time..just the percentage of households that use an OTA for some or all of their programming

"however these numbers don’t take into consideration the 35 to 50 percent of households that use an antenna as a supplement to pay TV. Close to 50 percent of the 114 million TV-watching households are using an antenna"


Warren

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

So how do they know that 50% of the 114 million TV watching households are really using an antenna? The only ones who track TV viewing in mass are Nielsen. Do they produce any data that substantiates the claim made?

I bought 2 of the digital TV converters. They are still in unopened boxes never once used.

I am counted as a USA HH that has a camcorder. Haven't used it in years. The same for a 35mm SLR camera. And headphones. And a fish tank. And Scuba diving equipment. All are in my closet to name just a few.

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Lee,
What size is your fish tank?
Ghpr13

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

5 gallons. It's sitting right next to a brand new, never been used, purchased in November 2005, 3600 watt gasoline generator. Bought that right after the October 2005 Hurricane Katrina fiascio when I lived in Ft. Lauderdale and lost power for 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by Lbear

The just announced the new movie, shot in 3D, "HUGO". They are toting it as the next Avatar-like 3D movie. Initial reviews said the 3D is on-par with that of Avatar and it is expected to be the highest grossing 3D movie of 2011.

It was directed by Martin Scorsese.

3D dead? I don't think so...

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

So how do they know that 50% of the 114 million TV watching households are really using an antenna? The only ones who track TV viewing in mass are Nielsen. Do they produce any data that substantiates the claim made?

I bought 2 of the digital TV converters. They are still in unopened boxes never once used.

I am counted as a USA HH that has a camcorder. Haven't used it in years. The same for a 35mm SLR camera. And headphones. And a fish tank. And Scuba diving equipment. All are in my closet to name just a few.

Originally Posted by turnne1

Is anyone prefer passive over active 3D?

it seems to have its fan base that is growing...and one can say that the apparatus that you have to use ..ie..the glasses are way more economical and you can use the one you get at the theater/IMAX

I am more a fan of active as I think it presents a sharper picture..to my eyes

Originally Posted by turnne1

Is anyone prefer passive over active 3D?

it seems to have its fan base that is growing...and one can say that the apparatus that you have to use ..ie..the glasses are way more economical and you can use the one you get at the theater/IMAX

If this glassless 3D is every ready for prime time...My assumption will be that it will look like passive 3D

Another assumption is that when the 3rd tier brand 3D capable Tv's roll out in 2012 they will have passive rather than active 3D

Warren

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

It depends on where they source their panel from. Film Pattern Retarder (passive) is a special process that is done during panel manufaturing. Not that many panel manufacturers offer it. Active glasses based 3DTVs are again nothing more then a standard HDTV with a few cheap electronics added which can be done in the assembly process. No special manufacturing needed. No extra royalties paid.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart


It won't. Take a look at the Nintendo 3DS. That is what autostereoscopic 3D looks like and it leaves a lot to be desired when compared to glasses based 3D (active or passive)