or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 84

post #2491 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jeff View Post

hello All, I am brand new to DTV. I Tried the "box" (analog to digital converter) with an old antenna on a really old TV. Not so good luck as I had to reboot it 4 or 5 times a day. Now I have a new TV and a digital antenna (don't need the box). I Have good reception for 18 stations! I want to know is where is there a guide or menu available of the programming for broadcasts in the St. Louis area?

You are in the wrong thread for this, this thread is for comments and talk about 3D television. However, if you want a free online TV guide service that can show you the programming for your local TV stations, go to http://www.titantv.com/ and fill out your location information.
post #2492 of 2615
I definitely think it's a fad! It makes me nauseous
post #2493 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by januarye View Post


Well, at least we got one posting for the month of February.

BTW - as industry leaders said they would do, am seeing the marketing emphasis placed more on the size and picture quality of the particular set with 3D alluded to as one of the many features available. No longer is the phrase "3D television" being used. So with that, the question of 3D in the home being a fad or not has become irrelevant. A more relevant question is how popular is the feature with consumers who purchase new television sets equipped with 3D over the next few years.

BTW - are there any statistics to show any correlation between the number of 3D equipped television sets being purchased and 3D capable bluray players and/or game consoles since 3D first became available? These are the primary sources for 3D entertainment so far and both numbers are in line with the other would indicate the 3D feature is being utilized. If there is a vast difference, that could then be interpreted as 3D being ignored for the moment. And if more 3d bluray players are being sold than televisions, the information is inconclusive since most all bluray players are now 3D equipped as well and can be used by those without 3D monitors.

Lee, you're good at finding this stuff. Hope you can track it down for us.

Joe
post #2494 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Well, at least we got one posting for the month of February.

BTW - as industry leaders said they would do, am seeing the marketing emphasis placed more on the size and picture quality of the particular set with 3D alluded to as one of the many features available. No longer is the phrase "3D television" being used. So with that, the question of 3D in the home being a fad or not has become irrelevant. A more relevant question is how popular is the feature with consumers who purchase new television sets equipped with 3D over the next few years.

BTW - are there any statistics to show any correlation between the number of 3D equipped television sets being purchased and 3D capable bluray players and/or game consoles since 3D first became available? These are the primary sources for 3D entertainment so far and both numbers are in line with the other would indicate the 3D feature is being utilized. If there is a vast difference, that could then be interpreted as 3D being ignored for the moment. And if more 3d bluray players are being sold than televisions, the information is inconclusive since most all bluray players are now 3D equipped as well and can be used by those without 3D monitors.

Lee, you're good at finding this stuff. Hope you can track it down for us.

Joe

Hi Joe

AFAIK, that data is not available. The only "stat" I ever saw was . . . "most people that buy a 3DTV buy a 3D BD player also." For those that don't they may already have a PS3.
post #2495 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Hi Joe

AFAIK, that data is not available. The only "stat" I ever saw was . . . "most people that buy a 3DTV buy a 3D BD player also." For those that don't they may already have a PS3.

Hi Lee,

Thanks for getting back on this. If I come across anything, will let you and the others know.

Joe
post #2496 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapincoming View Post

3D TV, 3D movie, Sorry, I'm shortsighted, when i want to see the 3d movie, i need to wear the 3D glasses, but i already have a shortsighted glasses, so it's Uncomfortable to have two glassses on my face!


Get clip-ons assuming it's passive 3D you are using. I keep several pairs handy just in case I have friends watching 3D who wear glasses. You'll find lots on eBay of you can't find them locally.
post #2497 of 2615
After 2 years...still a niche product with few compelling reasons to buy.
post #2498 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

After 2 years...still a niche product with few compelling reasons to buy.

That's what a few of us were predicting two years ago. And now it is not even a product as it is a "feature".

It will still have a niche following but to see if it grows beyond that cannot be determined for a few more years yet, depending upon the amount of monitors down the road that will incorporate 3D as a feature. Will it be 50/50? Will more have it than not or vice versa? If it's going to be most future monitors, then I think people will be using it to some extent - through broadcasts that are free and not pay per view or additional subscription channels. Whether it grows beyond an occasional lark with the "mainstream", we don't know.
post #2499 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellslove4 View Post

I definitely think it's a fad! It makes me nauseous

Same here on past screenings at commercial cinemas I found myself removing the Dolby3D glasses every 10 or so minutes on Toy Story (1995) and again with The adventurers of TinTin (2011) with its RealD-3D. I virtually watched the rest of the film blurred I kidd you not and the film mix was crap! The stereo surrounds sounded distant, the stage fronts had nice stage bass kick and sub as well.

I can’t stand the dim look of brightness you have to pay a bit more extra for £5.00 Dolby3D and return the glasses or you can buy and keep them for around £20.00 with RealD which £1.00 and you get to keep them for next Halloween party dressed up as, the invisible man.

Its big fad for cinema and the home and how can it possible extend with Dolby Surround 7.1. 7.1 sounds fine with 2D image when sound moves off the screen there is nothing on the sidewalls rear wall the ceiling and even floor, that’s 3D! To put an image everywhere that is filmed discretely so when you listen to the narration at the start of AVTAR you see the sky line in front and trees below, what you should see is more of the skyline and trees around the cinema and different view of the trees going past your feet and the sky above. Blend all that with speakers in 16 or more channels then you have something that is 3D.
post #2500 of 2615
Sorry to disagree, but you are talking about cinema 360... and that is in 2 planes, both verticle and horizontal, to accomplish what you alude to. With all manufacturers now selling 3D TV's that even include the middle of the road sets (not just the high end models), the change in Blu ray players to include this ability, and the increasing amounts of media being produced (and I'm not going to get into the arguements about the quality of said media)... this is not a fad! It is simply an option... like 120 or 240 refresh rates, 720 vs 1080, ethernet/wifi enabled. This is becoming a well established option for those who desire this form of entertainment, which includes gamers as well as those who enjoy the movies.
I repeat... this is not a fad, it's an option!I can understand some don't like it, some don't have the physical ability to appreciate it, and some don't see any advantage to utilize this option... but that doesn't make it a fad!

This thread should be replaced, with one that asks: want it? got it? don't care? rather than continue on the pointless debate about 3D being a "fad", especially since the manufacturers of TV's, Blu ray players, and the movie studios/video game manufacturers are all making this option available to those who may want it.
post #2501 of 2615
Well, if 3D TV were here to stay, chances are I'd choose Passive 3D over Active-Shutter any day of the week. Sure, Active 3D is good for the hardcore 3D enthusiast, but even there, it could come down to whether you like recharging batteries in those glasses, whether you feel comfortable switching the glasses on and off all the time, and whether or not you like the "fake effect" of it.

This is why I feel Passive 3D will win out over Active-Shutter 3D. Anyone that goes for a 3D TV, Passive is not only more affordable, but it feels a lot less fake than active displays, too, which will no doubt make it better in the long run. Also, I don't complain of eye strain when I'm playing a console game or watching a Blu-ray movie in my PS3, and watching it on my Toshiba 32TL515U display.
post #2502 of 2615
It seems the shipments of television sets fell for the first time in six years. 3D, though popular in other parts of the world, accounts for only nine percent of the shipments in the U.S. If nothing more, that is an indication that more than 90 percent of the models available to consumers are without the 3D feature.

This also might indicate a change in production strategy by the industry, at least as this country is concerned, swaying away from sets with the 3D feature based on figures showing overall sales still declining rapidly since the end of the HD boom a few years back and that those in the market for a new one are passing up 3D monitors for who knows what reasons - but my hunch is they see they can get more of what they want in screen size for less without the 3D feature.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...hipments-fall/
post #2503 of 2615
The active glasses turn off by themselves about 30 seconds after not receiving a signal and heres a different take on that article.

Quote:
According to the report, panel makers are targeting strong growth for this year, with a goal of 138 percent growth – i.e. 3D LCD TV panel shipments of 50 million units. This would increase the penetration rate of 3D to 21.6 percent of all LCD TV panels shipped for the year.

David Hsieh, vice president at Displaysearch’s greater China market division, said that the popularity of and the demand for 3D are on the rise as a result of TV manufacturers continuing to raise awareness about 3DTV and promote the technology more.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lcd-t...1203131720.htm
post #2504 of 2615
I did not purposefully go looking for a 3D panel 18 months ago, I was looking for the best LED panel in the biggest size I could afford. 3D was something I wouldn't mind (future proofing?) but certainly not a deal breaker in any way if it wasn't included. My luck got me a great "3D capable" set, at a great price, with the emitter, glasses and Blu ray player included. I might have eventually purchased the optional equipment necessary to view 3D, but as they say, "Free is a very good price". I have enjoyed the 3D experiences making my entertainment experience more emmersive.

I imagine those who are in the market for a new TV have some sort of "minimum requirements" (screen size, refresh rate, or the latest ethernet connected "smart TV").
3D may or may not be something that makes the list, but if it is included at a negligable cost point... I think many, if not most/all would not hesitate making the purchase. In these economic times, it is no suprise sets of all types are not flying out the doors of retailers. I don't think sales figures at this point definitively signal acceptance or rejection of this form of media... it's going to take a few years of sales to see how strongly consumers are willing to adopt 3D
post #2505 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

I did not purposefully go looking for a 3D panel 18 months ago, I was looking for the best LED panel in the biggest size I could afford. 3D was something I wouldn't mind (future proofing?) but certainly not a deal breaker in any way if it wasn't included. My luck got me a great "3D capable" set, at a great price, with the emitter, glasses and Blu ray player included. I might have eventually purchased the optional equipment necessary to view 3D, but as they say, "Free is a very good price". I have enjoyed the 3D experiences making my entertainment experience more emmersive.

I imagine those who are in the market for a new TV have some sort of "minimum requirements" (screen size, refresh rate, or the latest ethernet connected "smart TV").
3D may or may not be something that makes the list, but if it is included at a negligable cost point... I think many, if not most/all would not hesitate making the purchase. In these economic times, it is no suprise sets of all types are not flying out the doors of retailers. I don't think sales figures at this point definitively signal acceptance or rejection of this form of media... it's going to take a few years of sales to see how strongly consumers are willing to adopt 3D

Hi AV,

Well, I just did a quick browse at Best Buy. Let's say the average consumer was looking for a name brand large screen TV (not the biggest one, either) and nothing really more.

A 55 inch Sony 3D edition goes for $1,900. A 55 inch Sony without 3D goes for $1,200.

He or she could also find a 55 inch Toshiba LCD without 3D for $1,000.

A Samsung 3D model goes for just $1,250 but is only 46 inches. For $1,500 Samsung has a 3D set at 51 inches. LG has a model for $1,600 which is 47 inches.

Now there is a Panasonic Plasma 55 inch 3D television for $1,200 - the same price as the Sony without 3D. But then Panasonic also has a 50 inch Plasma screen without 3D for $680. That's $520 more for a slightly bigger screen with 3D.

Whatever the decision, if screen size is the number one priority there are a lot of options for the average consumer just based on this little experimental shopping spree. They can get a 50 inch plasma for just $680. If they want to stay away from plasma they can get a 55 inch LCD for $1,000. An inexpensive brand-name large screen model with 3D would be $1,500 for the Samsung 51 inch model. So they could spend $500 more for the Samsung 51 inch 3D model compared to the 55 inch Toshiba model without 3D

So for those not particularly interested in the 3D feature and cost is a factor, it is doubtful they will find a set where the additional cost for 3D is negligible - at least this year.
post #2506 of 2615
Thanks for your research Joe. Looks to be about $500 minimum increase in price for 3D models, if not more (depending on brand, plus other bells and whistles I imagine). As I have previously mentioned (here or in the 3D threads, I'm not sure), I'm also wondering what the mark up is like on the "smart TV's"... again a negligible cost for the manufacturers to include. Also interested (but haven't the time/energy to research) how many of the recent Blu ray players have/don't have 3D capability... Just a few things that I've pondered.
Makes me happy that I had the opportunity to to get my set at a smokin price, which had the option for 3D and included all the stuff necessary (minus the 2 extra pairs of active glasses for the kids. I had the set for about 2 months before going 3D, since it was Santa that brought all the glasses, emitter, and a few 3D Blurays for the family to enjoy.) Thanks again for your time and efforts!
post #2507 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

Thanks for your research Joe. Looks to be about $500 minimum increase in price for 3D models, if not more (depending on brand, plus other bells and whistles I imagine). As I have previously mentioned (here or in the 3D threads, I'm not sure), I'm also wondering what the mark up is like on the "smart TV's"... again a negligible cost for the manufacturers to include. Also interested (but haven't the time/energy to research) how many of the recent Blu ray players have/don't have 3D capability... Just a few things that I've pondered.
Makes me happy that I had the opportunity to to get my set at a smokin price, which had the option for 3D and included all the stuff necessary (minus the 2 extra pairs of active glasses for the kids. I had the set for about 2 months before going 3D, since it was Santa that brought all the glasses, emitter, and a few 3D Blurays for the family to enjoy.) Thanks again for your time and efforts!

Hi, AV,

It was my pleasure. You raised an interesting question of whether the price difference between a model with and a model without the 3D feature had fallen or not. It seems it hasn't. What I also found out beforehand was that only nine percent of the sets being shipped to the U.S. this year are to include 3D. That goes against the belief that 3D was going to be incorporated in most models beginning this year. The consumer still has a choice.

It is good to know that the price of Plasma sets are so low for if I needed a new one, I think I'd prefer that over the more popular LCD. That's just a matter of preference.

Ciao,
Joe
post #2508 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Hi, AV,

It was my pleasure. You raised an interesting question of whether the price difference between a model with and a model without the 3D feature had fallen or not. It seems it hasn't. What I also found out beforehand was that only nine percent of the sets being shipped to the U.S. this year are to include 3D. That goes against the belief that 3D was going to be incorporated in most models beginning this year. The consumer still has a choice.

It is good to know that the price of Plasma sets are so low for if I needed a new one, I think I'd prefer that over the more popular LCD. That's just a matter of preference.

Ciao,
Joe

Although there are price differences, if you want the better panel/more features (AR coating on plasma's), you need to buy the set with 3D.

It seems like most sets will at least have an option for built in 3D, even if it is not pushed or a main feature anymore.

It seems like the next push will be 4K. Talks have started about 4K blu-rays. Onkyo is advertising the 4K upscaler/processor in recent AVR's, Sony has the S790 bluray player with 4K, and the Sony 4K projector. Prices are still too high, and there is not much available content, but I think there is a shift starting. Of course there is only a real benefit to 4K at larger sizes than most available now. Then again look at Samsung's plasma lineup and how the upper end models go from 51" right to 60".
post #2509 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Pat View Post

Although there are price differences, if you want the better panel/more features (AR coating on plasma's), you need to buy the set with 3D.

It seems like most sets will at least have an option for built in 3D, even if it is not pushed or a main feature anymore.

It seems like the next push will be 4K. Talks have started about 4K blu-rays. Onkyo is advertising the 4K upscaler/processor in recent AVR's, Sony has the S790 bluray player with 4K, and the Sony 4K projector. Prices are still too high, and there is not much available content, but I think there is a shift starting. Of course there is only a real benefit to 4K at larger sizes than most available now. Then again look at Samsung's plasma lineup and how the upper end models go from 51" right to 60".

Hi Pat,

Though videophiles do look for the features you mention, the average consumer isn't so critical. But again what I found interesting is that only nine percent of this year's shipments in the U.S. are expected to include the 3D feature. From what was being suggested by others, I expected that percentage to have been much higher for 2012.
post #2510 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Hi Pat,

Though videophiles do look for the features you mention, the average consumer isn't so critical. But again what I found interesting is that only nine percent of this year's shipments in the U.S. are expected to include the 3D feature. From what was being suggested by others, I expected that percentage to have been much higher for 2012.

That is true. When I walk around in retail stores, the most common thing I have heart is: "It is LED, it must be better." They do not mention edge-lit or full array, just LED. And that is one of the reasons the manufacturers are offering more Edge Lit sets compared to full array.
post #2511 of 2615
Just hurts my eyes. Makes me sick to look at it. 3d is ok for the big screen, but I really prefer plain old 2d.
post #2512 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Hi AV,

Well, I just did a quick browse at Best Buy. Let's say the average consumer was looking for a name brand large screen TV (not the biggest one, either) and nothing really more.

A 55 inch Sony 3D edition goes for $1,900. A 55 inch Sony without 3D goes for $1,200.

He or she could also find a 55 inch Toshiba LCD without 3D for $1,000.

A Samsung 3D model goes for just $1,250 but is only 46 inches. For $1,500 Samsung has a 3D set at 51 inches. LG has a model for $1,600 which is 47 inches.

Now there is a Panasonic Plasma 55 inch 3D television for $1,200 - the same price as the Sony without 3D. But then Panasonic also has a 50 inch Plasma screen without 3D for $680. That's $520 more for a slightly bigger screen with 3D.

Whatever the decision, if screen size is the number one priority there are a lot of options for the average consumer just based on this little experimental shopping spree. They can get a 50 inch plasma for just $680. If they want to stay away from plasma they can get a 55 inch LCD for $1,000. An inexpensive brand-name large screen model with 3D would be $1,500 for the Samsung 51 inch model. So they could spend $500 more for the Samsung 51 inch 3D model compared to the 55 inch Toshiba model without 3D

So for those not particularly interested in the 3D feature and cost is a factor, it is doubtful they will find a set where the additional cost for 3D is negligible - at least this year.

Hey Thanks for the hard reserch but you might want to double check some of those prices...

Here are some of the most popular 3d HDTV that sell

Plasama:

Panasonic VIERA 50" TCP50UT50 3D 1080P 600hz $999.99

Panasonic VIERA 55" TCP55GT31 3D 1080P 600hz $1599.99
(Comes with avatar, 2 pairs of glasses Skype Camera)

Samsung 59" PN59D550C1 3D 1080P 600Hz $1399.99
(comes with 2 pair of glasses)

Samsung 51" PN51D550C1 3D 1080P 600HZ $899.99
(comes with 2 pairs of glasses )

These are some examples Im not gonna post LCD As there prices are around the same.. but its an average of $150-$200 to get a HDTV with 3D over a non one and alot of the 3D Tv's throw in free stuff..

its more of a option I guess today.. I can take it or leave it..
post #2513 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goingpoor View Post

Hey Thanks for the hard reserch but you might want to double check some of those prices...

Here are some of the most popular 3d HDTV that sell

Plasama:

Panasonic VIERA 50" TCP50UT50 3D 1080P 600hz $999.99

Panasonic VIERA 55" TCP55GT31 3D 1080P 600hz $1599.99
(Comes with avatar, 2 pairs of glasses Skype Camera)

Samsung 59" PN59D550C1 3D 1080P 600Hz $1399.99
(comes with 2 pair of glasses)

Samsung 51" PN51D550C1 3D 1080P 600HZ $899.99
(comes with 2 pairs of glasses )

These are some examples Im not gonna post LCD As there prices are around the same.. but its an average of $150-$200 to get a HDTV with 3D over a non one and alot of the 3D Tv's throw in free stuff..

its more of a option I guess today.. I can take it or leave it..

That 51" Samsung 3D unit, according to the link, has been discontinued so it would be hard for many to find it. That 51 inch Plasma would still be $300 more than the 55 inch non-3D model I quoted.

Actually, we don't know what sets would be available when one goes shopping for I don't think the average consumer buys a television set off the web.
post #2514 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Pat View Post

That is true. When I walk around in retail stores, the most common thing I have heart is: "It is LED, it must be better." They do not mention edge-lit or full array, just LED. And that is one of the reasons the manufacturers are offering more Edge Lit sets compared to full array.

The industry is always coming up with new features to get consumers to replace what they already have citing in the improvement in picture quality. Before it was increased contrast ratio, higher refresh rate, more primary colors, etc. which really did nothing to enhance the viewing pleasure since those increased specs can be measured only in terms of laboratory equipment because they go beyond the span of human vision.

At least for the moment it seems they are no longer using the pitch of needing to get a new television for better picture quality and just concentrating on those who are in the market for a new set.

Guess they learned their lesson after trying to justify getting a 3D set for the "improved" 2D picture.
post #2515 of 2615
If I need 3D I'll head down to the movie theater, not gonna buy a 3D anywhere in the near future.
post #2516 of 2615
All of that 3D technology, in a theater or in a TV is just a lame fad and detracts from viewing enjoyment in my opinion...
post #2517 of 2615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt675 View Post

All of that 3D technology, in a theater or in a TV is just a lame fad and detracts from viewing enjoyment in my opinion...

I was wondering if Titanic in 3D would distract from the story but most all the reviews I read said the film was stunning being seen in 3D. The only question one might ask is if one was seeing the film for the first time, not knowing anything about the plot, story line or the acting, what would they have thought about the film overall? Would they find the 3D a distraction or a compliment to the film.

We can assume most everybody who bought a ticket did so wanting to see it in 3D with the story, etc. being secondary since we all know it by now.We will never know how it would have done at the box office orginally if both versions were available then.

But with the success of Lion King before it, Hollywood has found a gold mine with re-releasing classics in 3D. Home theater, that is a different story. But Box office, wow.
post #2518 of 2615
Me and my family love 3d ,but I feel like it should be more for projectors or bigger screens atleast 84 inches because at this size the 3d effect is much,much better than on a smaller tv. I have a 100 inch active 3d dlp projector setup that I paid only $850 for, glasses and everything even the screen and the 3d from 12 foot from the screen is outstanding. The good thing with active 3d dlp is the glasses actually increase the contrast ratio to ink blacks and you have no ghosting or crosstalk because of the superior speed of the dmd chip. The 3d effect from the two seperate eye streams even make the image better than 1080.
post #2519 of 2615
Apr 13th 2012 Samsung admits 3D TV demand underwhelming

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-adm...ar+(SlashGear)
post #2520 of 2615
To me its a fad but unfortunatly here to stay due to the fact that nearly every tv you buy today has the 3D feature built in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay?