3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 80

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Are you aware that you can play current 3D content on those early Samsung "3D ready" DLP RPTVs?

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Is your expectation that 3D-TV, 18 months after it's launch, should be available to everyone? That seems like a very lofty expectation. It wasn't that way for HDTV.

Originally Posted by Johnla

even if they don't want it, they most likely will end up with 3D equipment just through normal equipment failures/attrition, upgrades or replacements.

Originally Posted by SantosLH

Interesting discussion

This is why I think it's here to stay. It doesn't matter if people want it or not if manufacturers stop marketing sets without it. And it seems that's what's happening (just based on some looking around for tvs this weekend). I think they'll probably have to start throwing in more pairs of glasses though until the glasses can be gotten rid of. But for a while I think there will be lots of people with 3D tvs that don't watch anything 3D because no one will make a reg HDTV anymore.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Are you aware that you can play current 3D content on those early Samsung "3D ready" DLP RPTVs?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1265912



Is your expectation that 3D-TV, 18 months after it's launch, should be available to everyone? That seems like a very lofty expectation. It wasn't that way for HDTV.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Warren,

You know I agree with Johnia - there is too little data to properly correlate the slow growth of 3D to that of HD and it's future. Yes, it might become available to everyone but that doesn't correlate to a sudden new wave of television monitors being sold anytime soon and thus can't be compared to the other as far as future adoption.

Compare the reactions by consumers the first time they saw HD (and DVD as well) to independent studies regarding consumer interest in 3D television (not to be confused with the hype and self promoting unscientific "studies" released by the industry). Consumer reaction to HD and DVD was overwhelming and as costs went down and more programming emerged, consumer sales skyrocketed (with so many of us replacing perfectly good analog sets and VCRs). Independent studies conducted today show hardly the same enthusiasm for 3D - with lack of programming being just one of many reasons.

3D is an additional feature whereas HD and DVD were vast improvements over the video standards of the time.

Originally Posted by Johnla

Are you going to start that "It wasn't that way for HDTV" yet again? You just can't seem to grasp the fact that not everyone wants or cares about 3D or 3D availability! And that also has a lot to do with some people not even caring about having a 3D TV or if 3D programming is available or not through cable, sattilite or even 3D Blu-rays. If those people have a perfectly good working non 3D TV, and other associated audio & video equipment, and don't care about or don't want 3D. Then they probably are not going to go out and spend a lot of money to buy all new stuff just to get something they don't even want or care about. Now, if 3D is successful and sticks around and is built into just everything available in A/V gear, then yes, even if they don't want it, they most likely will end up with 3D equipment just through normal equipment failures/attrition, upgrades or replacements.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

1. I am not Warren

2. I have a laugh Joe - the studies you don't like or don't fit your agenda - those are garbage, but the studies that you do like and do fit your agenda - those are spot on.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Lee, forgive me, that's the second time I did that.

I refer to studies conducted by impartial, independent research firms - not in-house marketing firms with an agenda to sell - and those published not only go contrary to your thoughts about growing consumer purchasing (note that is different than consumer "interest") but they have been proven correct by the continued decline of production and combined billion-dollar losses of the major consumer electronics corporations and statements made by corporate executives admitting 3D has contributed to these losses because it has not grabbed consumer interest in terms of sales as they had hoped - even with the prices going down dramatically.

On the other hand, remember I had cited something appearing in an article posted by another forum member but not really discussed - that Vizio and LG were ordering an immense amount of 3D panels for major increases in 3D television (as opposed to other corporations) in what appears to be a head-to-head competition to corner the 3D TV market in 2012. I also cited the inexpensive bluray player as being the impetus to spur the sale of 3D monitors. Why would I say such things if I ignore information that doesn't "fit" an "agenda"?

So I'm not being selective - just not referring to the "garbage" spun by parties with self-interest. So I share a laugh with you every time you question the objectivity myself and others.

27 Jun 2011

About 40 per cent of homes in Western Europe will own a 3D TV by 2015, according to predictions from analyst Futuresource Consulting.

Jim Bottoms, director and co-founder at Futuresource, said about 10 million TVs are sold annually in the UK, which has 25 million households.

"That means every home is going out and buying a TV every 2.5 years," he said.

With such elevated levels of consumption including purchases of additional TVs as well as replacements – and manufacturers introducing new technologies and features into their sets, especially 3D and connectivity – 3D can expect fairly rapid uptake and adoption, he explained.

"Nearly 40 per cent of homes in Western Europe will own a 3D TV by 2015, which equates to an installed base of nearly 65 million," Bottoms said. "Whether consumers use the [3D] feature or not, they will be buying it by default."

Originally Posted by AVTrauma

The debate is over... sorry if your "side" did not prevail, from all indications 3D is here to stay.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Warren,

You know I agree with Johnia - there is too little data to properly correlate the slow growth of 3D to that of HD and it's future. Yes, it might become available to everyone but that doesn't correlate to a sudden new wave of television monitors being sold anytime soon and thus can't be compared to the other as far as future adoption.

Compare the reactions by consumers the first time they saw HD (and DVD as well) to independent studies regarding consumer interest in 3D television (not to be confused with the hype and self promoting unscientific "studies" released by the industry). Consumer reaction to HD and DVD was overwhelming and as costs went down and more programming emerged, consumer sales skyrocketed (with so many of us replacing perfectly good analog sets and VCRs). Independent studies conducted today show hardly the same enthusiasm for 3D - with lack of programming being just one of many reasons.

HD and DVD were vast improvements over the video standards of the time and consumers purchased those new sets and disc players for that specific purpose. 3D is a feature that would be used on occasion.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Nearly half of homes to buy 3D TV by 2015



http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/n...mes-3d-tv-2015

Originally Posted by AVTrauma

I don't consider my self an expert, much less do I spend time researching sales and data trends of the manufacturers... I just rely on some common sense and observations everyone can make.

The thread is "fad or here to stay"... remember???

The number of sets sold in 2010 initially had some relavancy of fad or here to stay, but with more models, even midlevel sets having this feature, the answer in the later part of 2011 is clearly not a fad.

The costs of sets, both 3D and non 3D has dropped,as well as overall sales numbers... this is no suprise. Most consumers have upgraded to HDTV's relatively recently,especially with the change in broadcasting format. One could argue that there was no rush for HDTV owners rushing out to get a new 240Hz set when their 120Hz sets were no longer the latest and greatest, therefore 240Hz sets are a gimmick, fad and failure! (?anyone have data on how many 240Hz vs 120Hz sets are currently in use/have been sold?) The reality is people replace TV's, most don't spend the cash for an upgrade, especially in this economic environment.

Then there is the content variable...

I can't comment on the gaming aspect of this, since I don't have the free time to enjoy this form of entertainment, but many do... and the response I have gathered in my limited exposure to this is an overwhelming approval and acceptance.
Bluray disc sales have historically lagged behind DVD sales, no suprise here also since many have not upgraded to this medium. With the cost of these players at historically low prices, this will change in the near future I believe... and many inexpensive players do include the 3D capability. The number of 3D movies is also significantly changed in the last 18 months, with many more titles in the works at this time.
Broadcast content from providers has also increased, although not as dramatically as the other types of content. Debating the number of households able to receive these broadcasts (basic vs full teir services, how many channels from different providers) is nothing more than a distraction for all intended purposes. Cable and satellite providers, as well as HBO and other content providers are providing this option in many if not most markets, regardless of whether the subscriber utilizes them or not. This actually relates mostly to the availablity of broadcast sporting events, and those that do desire this feature will do what they have to do to receive the programing where possible.
All of the data related to content leads me to the inescapable conclusion that again, 3D is not a fad.

Some will never care for this form of entertainment, that is fair to say. It is an option that is available... like sushi, a convertable top, and choice of political canidate... just an option!

How often will the option be used by those who have adopted this form of entertainment? Again, the debate over percentage of use is irrelevant and a distraction to the question. What is relevant is if it is enjoyed and appreciated. The success, including theater releases, as well as home entertainment adoption shows it has been enjoyed and is appreciated by many, if not most that have experienced it (IMHO).

I may get flamed for this type of "unscientific" thinking, that's fair also. But given the option, I feel most people would opt to have the ability in certain situations (gaming/Blurays/programing) when it comes to their next purchase... especially if the cost is nominal (as it currently is, except for the cost of Blurays).

The debate is over... sorry if your "side" did not prevail, from all indications 3D is here to stay. Like it or not, that's the way most are seeing it, including the manufacturers. Some may not agree, but remember it is an option, no one is being forced participate. But those that have, predominately enjoy and appreciate it for what it adds.

Not a fad... here to stay! And bring on the content!

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis

But, in all fairness, DVD and HDTV didn't really take off until loads of content became available along with lower prices.

Hell, I think it's a testimony to 3D's over all popularity that 3D TV sets are selling as well as they are. I mean to say...just a few 3D Blu ray titles and a couple of 3D channels is all that's out there.

The strength of 3D content currently is what's being shown in theaters and the last 5 films that grossed over 1 billion worldwide, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, Pirates, Transformers and Potter, all had a strong 3D presence.

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

You are really going to have to make uo your mind as to which stance to take. In your previous post you specificaly said that not ALL - as in 100% of people have access to 3D content. NOW you are saying that not all people care about watching 3D.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. No wonder people are calling you out.

Originally Posted by SantosLH

Interesting discussion

This is why I think it's here to stay. It doesn't matter if people want it or not if manufacturers stop marketing sets without it. And it seems that's what's happening (just based on some looking around for tvs this weekend).

Originally Posted by AVTrauma

...Taffy - do you have a bar in LA that Deckard invites replicants too?

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

That is true but I was talking about the initial response when seeing a picture on DVD or in HD. Good chance the whole question will become moot once 3D becomes more established as a feature in most sets and consumers slowly replace what they have now. At that point, since they have the feature, it would make sense that many would at least try it and could then suddenly want more.

Originally Posted by Johnla

It is not unreasonable to think the option of having 3D available to use is here to stay, but it is unreasonable to think it will be as widely accepted, and supported as High Definition is. Even IF, they come out with a way to do a free off air 3D broadcast standard, it's also unlikely that any of the off air tuners in the current 3D sets that people have now, will also be able to tune them in. And that will require people to buy some sort of new external tuner, which would be another thing to upset people. And even though no doubt that Lee will pop in and say they are working on it, the fact is, talk of free off air 3D broadcasts is premature, it is not something that is available now, and until it is, it's nothing more than vaporware. Plus, there is no way that all the off air major networks and all their local affiliates, are going to offer 3D programming on a daily basis like they do with high definition programing. Why, simply because they would then also have to offer their daily programming on two separate channels, with one being for the 3D version and the other one for the HD version. Advertisers certainly are not going to want to pay twice the amount they now just to advertise the same program on two separate channels, even if one of them is in 3D. Granted, every once and awhile there might be something that could be considered special programming, where they might do it, like perhaps the Superbowl. But for everyday programming, it's probably not ever gonna happen. And with the money crunch local PBS stations are feeling due to less financial support than what they used to get in previous years, they could not do anything like adding a second channel for 3D either.

If 3D stays around for the long haul, it will be accepted as a possible available option to use, much like in the way surround sound is. And, although surround sound is also not something that is used by everyone. It is used a lot by those who have the needed equipment to utilize it it, although for mundane things like nightly news they might not use it all the time. But it is used by many, and surround sound no doubt is very popular for a lot of people. And that kind of popularity, or the level it is at, is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis

O Kay. I can't speak of specific studies that relate to consumers reactions to viewing DVD, HDTV or 3D. All I can do is explain my own reactions and what the major differences are when I initially viewed these formats.

In my world... any improvements in resolution pertaining to 2D PQ over the decades doesn't hold a candle to the WOW and POP than I experienced watching Avatar in 3D. I'm new to this tread but what about you? Have you seen Avatar?

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis

O Kay. I can't speak of specific studies that relate to consumers reactions to viewing DVD, HDTV or 3D. All I can do is explain my own reactions and what the major differences are when I initially viewed these formats.

In my world... any improvements in resolution pertaining to 2D PQ over the decades doesn't hold a candle to the WOW and POP than I experienced watching Avatar in 3D. I'm new to this tread but what about you? Have you seen Avatar?

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Not in 3D but don't have to be convinced about the wow factor of 3D when done properly.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

... Independent studies conducted today show hardly the same enthusiasm for 3D - with lack of programming being just one of many reasons.

HD and DVD were vast improvements over the video standards of the time and consumers purchased those new sets and disc players for that specific purpose. 3D is a feature that would be used on occasion.

Originally Posted by Ghpr13

Taffy,
Just to clarify, did you see Avatar at home in 3D or at the theater, or both?
I only seen it in the theater and thought it was awesome 3D...IMO

Ghpr13

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis

So you haven't seen Avatar in 3D. That's unfortunate as this film is considered the "holy grail" of 3D entertainment by which everything else is judged and may be behind the passion most 3D fan express. Personally, I think most consumers that saw this film in 3D would have a hard time giving credence to those "independent studies" you're talking about in your post below:


Also, I'm at odds with the idea behind ..."3D when done properly." First of all...what does that really mean? I saw a 3D film at my local $3.50 cinema titled Shark Night where some scenes were not even shot in 3D, but those that were did add immeasurably to the entertainment value of this cheaply made flick...at least it did for me.

Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis

So you haven't seen Avatar in 3D. That's unfortunate as this film is considered the "holy grail" of 3D entertainment by which everything else is judged and may be behind the passion most 3D fan express. Personally, I think most consumers that saw this film in 3D would have a hard time giving credence to those "independent studies" you're talking about in your post below:


Also, I'm at odds with the idea behind ..."3D when done properly." First of all...what does that really mean? I saw a 3D film at my local $3.50 cinema titled Shark Night where some scenes were not even shot in 3D, but those that were did add immeasurably to the entertainment value of this cheaply made flick...at least it did for me.