3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 15

IMO, being this thread is on AVS, I would tend to believe that 90% of the forum members would jump at the chance to buy the newest electronic product that has just come out...if they really felt is was going to benefit them in any way. If we can convince our CFOs that we need it, we will find a way to move the 2 yr old 50" plasma into another room, and get the new 52" 3D unit...

I'm looking to do this right now. I have a 40" Sammy LCD that I'm wanting to move into the front room and replace with a larger LED unit...now if that unit happens to have 3D in it, so be it, but for me that's not a selling point.



Again, that's all well & good, but I think a lot of us our still thinking of 3D in the home as not practical mainly because of the glasses in a number of different ways...most of those ways have been brought up before on this thread, but here's one more for the list...I have Panny 3D set. My kids invite their friends over to watch Shrek 4 in 3D. Their friends have a Sammy 3D set so my kids tell them to be sure to bring their 3D glasses with them. Oh, but wait...their 3D glasses won't work with our 3D set...bummer, well I guess they'll all watch it in 2D.

Ghpr13

I'm fed up with the entertainment and electronics industries trying to constantly obsolete our equipment, just to get us to buy the "latest and greatest" things! I haven't been to a movie theater since 1991 and have no intention of ever going again, so 3-D movies are of no interest to me. Believe it or not, I don't have HD TV and will stay with my old CRT style TV's as long as I can. Some of us don't have the money to spend thousands of dollars on new-fangled TV's that only last a couple of years and aren't repairable. When my current crop of CRT's die, I'll probably re-learn the old art of reading a book.

I think it goes way beyond those that already bought their HDTVs.

To play devils advocate, a family going out to purchase their first HDTV will be faced with to 3D or not to 3D. From a cursory surf around the web I found that 3D TVs cost 20-30% more than a comparably spec'ed non-3D. Add to that the glasses at over a hundred a pop, and a 3D capable disc player and your looking at >30% over what an HDTV and player would cost.

Now, when faced with the option of paying ≈$2000 for an HDTV and Blu-Ray player, or paying ≈$3000+ for a 3D HDTV, a couple of sets of classes, and a 3D Blu-Ray player...I think for most families the choice will be the lower priced option.

Now this nothing new. I remember seeing my first big screen at a Tweeter store (can't remember how long ago) and it topped out at >$45k. As we all know that came way down and so will 3D. However, it will always be more expensive the non-3D, and until there is a uniform spec I can't see non-3D HDTVs being phased out.

I've seen the demos in the store and it is very cool. However, IMHO, it wasn't as good as a 2D screen. What I mean to say is it's just not nearly as sharp as the same movie would be on a 1080p, non-3D Blu-Ray. I'm not saying it wasn't a good picture. It certainly was. It's hard to explain, but it seems to my eyes (still 20/20...well for distance anyway ) it's like comparing the picture on HDNet to say ABC. They both look great (it is HD afterall) but HDNet is just better. Does that make sense?

Mike

Isn't it impossible to have 3D without glasses? It seems like a lot of people are expecting that. I think you guys are after the technology from the movie Paycheck, and that appears to be about 50 years away if not longer. I can't believe people even talk about it being 2 years away. It's like yea, I'm planning on getting a new car as soon as flying cars come out next fall.

Also, was I the only one underwhelmed by watching Avatar previews in non-3D?

I will not watch that movie at home until I can watch it in 3D. And regular TV broadcasts in 3D? Count me in.

I wish the moderators would step in and clear up the misconceptions. There should be a huge sticky at the beginning of the whole forum explaining what the STANDARDS are for 3D. A lot of people here keep parroting that there ARE NO STANDARDS. The ONLY thing not standard with the new TVs from Sony, Panasonic, LG, Samsung, and Toshiba is the glasses syncing with the emitters, and even the glasses and emitters all work the same way. I really wish that they had established an agreement for the syncing, because then there would be less complaining here, and your glasses would be more portable.

Hi Mike,

For me, DVDs like "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" with the old cardboard glasses are more than enough to satisfy my yen for 3D viewing. Even though it is inferior in quality compared to the new technology, programs could easily be broadcast on separate stations and seen by all - but then, that would eliminate the temptation for anyone with just a casual interest in 3D to buy another new TV set.

FYI:

James Cameron
James Cameron has had plenty to say about 3D. He most recently commented on 3D TV and the role Hollywood has to play in its success. We're going to have 3D TVs all around us ... and we're going to need thousands of hours of sports, comedy and music and all kinds of entertainment.

Cameron also says TV producers need to embrace 3D content production rather than conversion that's more costly in the long run. There's not going to be the time or the money to convert that. It's going to have to be shot live. We're going to learn how to do live shooting. The cost will come down on live 3D production. That's not to say Cameron is completely against 3D conversion, since a 3D version of Titanic is expected to arrive by 2012.

Francis Ford Coppola
Francis Ford Coppola's main complaint was the annoyance of 3D glasses. I feel that until you can watch 3D without glasses, it's the same thing we know. I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses. It's tiresome.

I would rather make a movie in regular 2D and move to larger format for some big scenes much like Abel Gance did with Napoleon.'

Christopher Nolan
Christopher Nolan, director of Batman Returns and The Dark Knight, is on the fence about 3D. His main concern is the need to shoot video, but says conversion technology is moving forward. 3D, I think, is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It's something we're looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I'm not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you're looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways.

Michael Bay
To the surprise of many, big-budget action director Michael Bay sits squarely in the 3D hater camp. Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you're thinking, huh, this kind of sucks.

Ridley Scott
Ridley Scott was quoted as saying he had the option to convert the upcoming Robin Hood arrow-fest in post-production, but chose not to. It's not a big deal. It's all in how you are going to fill the frame. Native 3D may be more up his alley, since two planned Alien prequel films are to be shot in 3D.

Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert was even more vocal, somewhat ironically, in his disdain for 3D. 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.

It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

You guess they'll all watch it in 2D? On one hand you make it sound like it's a bad thing if you can't always watch 3D when you want, and on the other hand it sounds like your OK if it just goes away. So you would prefer that no one has the ability to watch 3D at home?

I saw some of the early 3D features in the early to mid fifties. Nothing special then. I saw Avatar in 3D, and enjoyed the added effects, but have not, and will not seek out other 3D features simply for the 3D.

The problem for me with 3D is that it does not drive, or in anyway I can see contribute to the narrative of the film. In contrast, adding sound to film back in the 20s did very much drive the narrative, and added big time to the story. Within a very few years silent films were virtually dead. Does anyone see that happening now to 2D films? I certainly don't.

There is little doubt that digital electronics and sensors will continue to advance, so that making a 3D film becomes evermore practical. I suspect that glasses will always be required in theaters until "films" become holographic. Glasses will similarly be required at home for more than one viewer, or perhaps a very small number or viewers huddled very close together, again until holographic projection becomes feasible, probably decades from now.

Wes Sokolosky

Fad.

What goes around, comes around. 3-D was a popular fad in the 1950s (House of Wax, It Came from Outer Space). Then it had a brief resurgence in the early 1980s (Jaws 3-D, Comin' at Ya!) Now 3-D is rearing it's ugly head once again for a new generation that didn't get the chance to experience it the 1st or 2nd times around.

Trouble is, the technology hasn't advanced all that much in 60 years. Yes, the blue/red glasses have been replaced by "improved" polarized filter lenses, but it's still a headache-inducing, uncomfortable experience. (Why they haven't figured out how to make those glasses more comfortable than they are is a complete mystery!)

I voted FAD, its so ridiculous asking of us wearing glasses at home to watching 3D. What the hell would people coming to visit do? Cant' ask people to go spend $150 to bring their glasses to watch movies.

I think retailers know this since the TVs debuted at FutureShop for $3200 and not they are $1999

Besides if you just get a small percent like me that get their eyes bothered watching 3D then you got a huge % of population.

You're missing the point here...IMO, it's not that most of us here are saying we "would prefer that no one has the ability to watch 3D at home." As I stated before, if the next TV I buy includes 3D on it, great, no problem, but I think the majority here feels that 3D is not going to be practical in the home environment.

My Onkyo 606 has XM Radio on it, but I don't subscribe to it. My Sammy LCD has a USB input...I have used it once.

Ghpr13

Wes,

You make an excellent point.

People concentrate on the unraveling of the story for most films and 3D would only take that dimension away from the audience. Imagine if "Casablanca" was filmed in 3D - would we be as mesmerized by the performances if we were wearing glasses and concentrating on the smoke from Rick's cafe that was coming right at us?

3D does have the potential to expand the enjoyment of action sequences, but would it then degrade the quality of the screenplay, plot and performances? Few films are like "Avatar". "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" was a mediocre film at best and the only reason I enjoyed it was for the 3D effect.

So 3D might be responsible for the glut of more poor offerings like "Journey" with it's following less concerned about being entertained by a story as they are the visual thrill.

It

Yeah, 3D will keep Hollywood from concentrating on making great movies. I wonder what's kept them from making good movies up until now. There's a handful of truly great movies, but the vast majority are forgettable crap. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the forgettable crap on weekends.

Could you imagine, how your house will smell after all smellovisions?

ones we people get adjusted to 3D effects and it will be our everyday's life, then we will start looking into movies meaningfulness.

Wrong forum?

After more than 40 years, people are still debating over the meaning behind "2001" along with a more recent minor classic about time travel called "Primer" - not to mention whether or not Michael Corleone actually decided to kill Wilfredo when he gave him the kiss of death in Cuba or only after their talk when he concluded Fredo was a threat to the family.

Also think about the problem understanding foreign films heard in their original languages. Imagine those subtitles popping out at us?

I would say the best analogy to moving from 2D to 3D is sound going from mono to stereo. Its more than an analogy actually, it's the same thing, 3D is video going from mono to stereo.

I agree that it does not contribute to the narrative, but it certainly makes the watching experience more immersive, just like additional channels and clarity of audio do, and having a bigger screen with higher definition does.

I would say most people here at AVS love immersion. They like to watch in a darkened room with the sound volume up with as few outside distractions as possible. It seems to me that 3D is perfect for this audience. For the casual viewer that watches a movie while doing the dishes and listening on the speakers that came with the TV, 3D would certainly not be wanted.

So I am more than a little surprised that such a high percentage of home theatre enthusiasts have a negative opinion of bringing 3D into their homes... nothing wrong with that, just an interesting observation.

I still feel that this poll was conducted too early. There is little or no content, and only a handful of people here actually own 3D TVs. Almost every post is based on ignorance, and I am including myself. We won't know how it really looks and feels until we have it in a lot of homes. I've seen some great demos and some really poor demos. I would have a totally different opinion of it if I had only seen the poor demos. We will all know a lot more even a couple of months from now. At this moment in time, there are 779 people that don't even know that there are standards.

fire407,

No one is going to take away your right to watch 3D if you so desire."On one hand you make it sound like it's a bad thing if you can't always watch 3D when you want" It is a bad thing if you invest in 3D and can't watch it when you want to. (lol) I guess they could always share their glasses half way through the movie.


Respectfully,
Willie

Mega,

Agree most who contribute to AVS indeed love being immersed in their HT systems, etc. including me. I love being enveloped by dolby digital sound and seeing a widescreen HD picture in all it's glory with the lights down low sitting with my better half, but it doesn't mean in order to feel "immersed" one has to have have the full spectrum of new products being marketed.

Many are happy with 46 inch LCDs as opposed to 72 inch DLPs, 5.1 audio as opposed to 7.1 and upconverted DVD as opposed to bluray. I belong to a forum of HT afficiados dedicated to the older Sony KD34XBR960 in lieu of a big flat screen monitor for even though it is a bulky and heavy CRT with just a 34 inch screen, it has a reference quality picture that still can't be duplicated. Sure, we would feel more overwhelmed by the size of a larger screen but I wouldn't replace it, even if given a good quality 3D set and all it's accessories for free, because we're already immersed in the experience of such fantastic a picture.

They would if they could. Fortunately for me there are a lot of other people that want it, so at least it will be given a fair shot. If it were up to the majority on the poll, it wouldn't even exist.

fire407,

You are taking these posts to personal. There is nothing being posted on this forum that will interupt the rolling out of 3D. There are people who see value in this revisted technology and those who don't. There is no right or wrong in these postings.


Respectfully,
Willie

Its here to stay, I think it'll be as significant as color was. But I'm biased because I am partially colorblind so color TV was not as "big" to me as it may have been to others, and we were late adopters so it wasn't that expensive an upgrade. But there won't be any "no-glasses" sets any time soon unless your talking images projected directly to your retinas, or in front of your face (like with glasses) - there would not be a screen everyone looks at. At least not with any known technology. Also IMHO the shutter system used in home systems is better then the polarization technology used in theaters because it works when you tilt your head, and you may want to lie down at home.

I find myself looking at older movies and thinking how much better they would have been in 3-D. But like color, its a nice luxury that is not really needed to tell a good story. LOL I wonder if there will be something like colorizing to "fix" old movies in the future!

edit - SOME older movies would benefit, obviously many (most?) movies will not benefit from 3D at all!

[KYA] Mega mentioned stereo sound. Dolby Digital and DTS are fun to listen to. But when the story/plot get you involved, do you notice the surrond sound coming from all angles? I believe not. But with 3D there is the constant reminder that one is looking at a tricked out picture. 3D is a fad and is not here to stay.

You may be right about me taking it too personally. I just don't understand what the uproar about the new technology is. It's really simple---if you don't want it, don't buy it now. If in the future all new TVs have the technology, then you will still have the option of if you want to use it or not. We're actually having a poll before there are any 3D channels available and most people have only seen poorly setup store displays. I can't believe the ignorance of the people that still think that there are no standards. Someone says it, or makes it a poll choice, and a huge amount of people believe it. Again, I won't be as frustrated in a few months. There will be lots of positive talk on this forum about the new 3D tech. As I've said before, not all 3D will be equal and some will actually suck, but there will be some movies and sports that will look fantastic. Let's see what a similar poll will look like in a couple of years.

I understand where you're coming from. I could not agree more regarding the number of channels of sound. I think in a home environment, assuming you sit in the sweet spot, you can place a sound anywhere in your listening plane with 4 channels, so the rest are fluff unless you have a very large room and/or you do not sit in the middle.

But I would disagree with you on screen size as it relates to immersion. I'm not saying you're wrong... I just have a different opinion. IMO the more of your field of vision you can cover, the more immersive. Only when you sit so close that the image is degraded does it detract, but at 1920x1080, that's pretty darn close to even a very large screen.
You make a good point... however, 3D is the same (for me). Of course it depends on the material.

When I watched “Avatar” in the theatre, I got lost in it. I was on Pandora, I wasn't in a theatre wearing silly-looking shades.

Even when I saw “Up”, I forgot about the glasses a few minutes in, and don't recall the 3D as much as the experience.

By contrast, I did see “Clash of the Titans” in 3D and it would have been better in 2D.

I saw “Alice in Wonderland” in 3D, and it had this "layers of paper cutouts" effect, which for the material, kind of worked, but was still a bit distracting.

I even saw “The Final Destination” in 3D, and it was one gory 3D gag after another, and it was fun (in a grotesque way) but also not all that immersive.

My point: The right movies done right in 3D are more immersive than the same material in 2D.

At home, if your screen takes up enough of your field of vision I truly believe you can have a very similar experience, maybe even more so when there is not a row of teenagers texting in front of you. LOL

I am not bashing or trying to be negative towards those not interested. I just feel like sharing my (unpopular) pro-3D opinion.

3D=pet rock

Why wait? Books are good anytime.