3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 26

I think it is simple supply & demand. I don't see anything dubious or insulting about attempting to generating demand with demos and advertising as long as it is honest. The success of Avatar (and a few other 3D movies) proved to the industry there is demand. They are simply trying to meet it. I don't think the timing is shady. It's not like they had a crystal ball and knew that about a year after the switch from analog to digital broadcasting, a movie would make more money than any in history and generate new interest in the consumer market for 3D. The timing is bad for many consumers (me included) but I think it is actually less dubious than the way computer parts are incrementally released. Years ago, Intel used to actually burn out the math coprocessor on half their chips and sell them at a lower price just because they needed two price points (even though the extra step made them slightly more expensive to produce). I still don't see that as wrong since people buying both versions knew what they were getting and paying for but it seems more sinister to me than scrambling to be the first-to-market with 3D in spite of the fact a large portion of the consumers recently upgraded their TV.

Oh, and for anyone reading this, Toy Story 3 had great (not overdone) 3D, and the sound was top notch as well. I wish the theatre I saw it in had a better sound system as it couldn't even handle some of the lowest bass in that movie.

Hi Mega,

Unfortunately, we really don't know what factors shaped the marketing strategy and probably never will since we're not insiders and privy to such confidential information. No doubt the decision to go ahead with 3D television had to be based initially on positive marketing scenarios for otherwise the industry would have held off investment at this time. Statistical analysis can also be misread (which has been the case on many an occasion) and again, these forcasts almost certainly had to be presented prior to the economic downswing that didn't occur until not quite two years ago. I did come across that one independent survey which concluded little interest in 3D at this time across the board but much more than that would be required in order to make a more accurate assessment of the current consumer pulse.

It would also be interesting to see figures regarding both the amount of 3D sets actually stocked in retail warehouses at this time and the amount remaining (or not remaining) on the shelves over the next few months. We probably would get a better handle regarding current marketing projections based on the retail industry perspective as opposed to what has been publicly released by the CE industry which is probably more spin than factual in the first place.

This forum is indeed turning into a very good primer on marketing and business projections in general.

I agree with you here...it's not "shady", but I think the CE manufacturers have stars in their eyes for the add on sales (glasses, Blu-ray players, 3D disc) it could bring them.


What other "3D movies" were such a success? Alice in Wonderland was said to have crappy 3D...Other then Avatar I can't remember any recent 3D movie that anyone raved about, because of the 3D effects. Avatar 3D was applauded by many, yet as a story line goes, many were not please with it.


I agree with the "dubious" on the part of Intel, but the difference is upgrading to a new processor gives the consumer an immediate return on his money...a new computer with the newest processor will out perform and give more power to do multiple tasks. Upgrading to a 3D TV right now, will allow a consumer to watch Monsters vs Aliens over & over & over...


This I'm very please to hear...Remember, I'm not against 3D, I just want to see it done right this time.

Ghpr13

Does anyone know about the results of any marketing surveys taken of movie patrons?

The enormous amount of tickets sold to see Avatar in 3D is indeed an indicator there is enough interest in seeing 3D in the theater and I wonder if questionnaires were distributed to patrons that helped the industry determine this also could translate into interest for the home.

One necessary control factor to protect the validity of the results would be follow-up questionnaires at a later time to determine any shifts in consumer sentiment after the euphoric effect has had time to settle down. Upon leaving the theater, patrons are emotionally immersed in their just completed 3D experience so any analysis based on just that one time factor would be prejudiced, maybe even negatively if coming out after seeing Alice In Wonderland or other films that are poor examples of 3D technology.

Along with the fact of how were the questions worded...If a poll of people who had just seen Avatar were asked if they would like to have an option to view movies at home in 3D, like Avatar, I'm sure the majority would say yes.
If the poll went into more detail questions, IE: Would you be willing to wear glasses in order to view 3D at home? Would you be willing to purchase a new TV with the 3D option on it? Would you be willing to purchase a new Blu-ray player with 3D technology in it? Would you be willing to subscribe to a premium 3D channel? Would you be willing to wait 6 months till something other than M vs A is out to see if your investments were really worth it? (OK, I was being a smart ass with that last one.) How the questions are worded can skew a poll.

Ghpr13

Hi Ghpr,

You weren't being a "smart ass" - that last question is just as important as the others.

I was more concerned about the validity of the findings - the feelings expressed by those just coming out of the theater could be different a few weeks or so later after they have had a chance to unwind from the euphoria of the moment and gather their thoughts. What might initially seem as a non-issue for some could become one and, at the same time, those with negative reactions might have second thoughts and re-consider investing in 3D for the home after their initial reaction was no.

Saw a news report that the NASCAR race at Daytona on July 3 was going to have some 3D cameras broadcasting.

Hey guys and gals,

We're all famous! Not only that, we're touted as being the upper echelon of consumer electronics consumers!

http://www.electronichouse.com/artic...e_content/C155

Because the AVS poll is closed the site is asking the same questions of it's readers and so far about 2/3 also think 3D is a fad -- however, the achielles heel of these results is that only 62 have voted so far!

You can be famous, I'd rather be rich.

The back and forth about 3D is starting to get boring. It reminds me of the opening scene of "The Music Man", where they're on a train and everyone is talking and talking about what makes a good salesman, but, at the end of every argument one salesman keeps repeating "But he's got to know the territory"

Once and for all......IT'S A FAD!........TIS NOT!........TIS TOO!......TIS NOT!......"BUT IT CAN'T BE WITH GLASSES! CAN TOO!......CANNOT!......CAN TOO!......CANNOT!......CAN TOO!......."BUT IT CAN'T BE WITH GLASSES!

Hi Techman,

That's because the train was heading to River City and prior to Robert Preston's arrival life in that midwestern town was itself boring. There were birds in the sky but they never heard them singing....

......Till there was 3D.

Just KNEW you would catch onto that!

OK, if 3D succeeds in the home, I want to see Alfred Hitchcock "The Birds" in 3D.
Ghpr13

Just got it in the mail yesterday. Yes, it's quite . But didn't realize the cost of the glasses is $150 when ordering them with a non-rechargeable CR2025 battery which isn't that expensive to replace. But because the ones with rechargeable batteries are $180 for kids and $200 for adults it makes me wonder if the glasses then drain the coin battery way faster than watches do.

If it really works like we hope it would, then we can all be showered with "good luck" as well.

I got a question for some debate...We all know the Porn helped the spread (excuse the pun) of VHS, DVDs and the Internet. How many out there think Porn will jump on () 3D?

IMO, I think only a few titles might make it to 3D, and for those it will be consider a novelty. Again, due to cost, I don't see many will find it necessary for their, uh, enjoyment of the movie. I haven't made the jump to Blu-ray yet (looking at players now), but for those who follow the BD's, are there many Porn titles on BD or have they pretty much stayed on stander DVDs?

Ghpr13
(This question is purely for discussion and not meant to promote the sale or use of Porn in anyway.)

Guess we'll have to find out how much porn was covered by the industry in their studies -- would love to get copies of their ledger sheets and receipts for personal re-imbursable expenses.

Hey Techman, bet this would at least stop the discussion from staying boring.

I enjoyed the 3D in quite a few recent movies, but I don't recall seeing $$ figures on 3D vs 2D of the same movie on anything but Avatar, so I can't comment directly on if 3D was a big factor. But these 3D movies were enjoyable, and successful: Up, Monsters vs, Aliens, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

I also thought the 3D in The Final Destination was good, but the movie was not very successful.

Clash of the Titans is really the only movie I can say the 3D bothered me. Alice In Wonderland had a strange View Master effect too, but the movie is supposed to be strange and surreal, so it didn't really bother me.

Until recently I didn't realize that 3D glasses required batteries. How often would they need to be re-charged and could this be done at anytime or is it recommended to wait until the battery is low? I couldn't find any information in the Crutchfeld catalog and on-line stores other than that there were two models (chargeable and non-chargeable) to chose from.

And if one simply forgets to re-charge them, the glasses could suddenly conk out in the middle of a broadcast or crucial point in a video game. Am sure we've all experinced that during a cell-phone conversation.

Whether your "glasses" require batteries depends on which system you're using. Certainly, if you're using the system that uses "shutter glasses", what did you think powered the LCD shutters to block and unblock each eye? Batteries or some other type of power. Whereas the other systems use just plain "polarized" glasses, which are like sun glasses but each eye's polarizer is different to match the TV.

That's why I'm waiting till they have glasses that run off of Dilithium crystals!
Ghpr13

I forgot about the glasses needing batteries, strike 3.

Me too!

Just make sure those glasses are fully charged so they won't conk out and cause the shutter fields not work when Kollos, the Medusan ambassador, appears on the screen.

Is there a home solution that uses polarized glasses? If so, the glasses should be like $1 each or less and of course do not require power. But as far as I know (and I could be wrong) there is no home implementation of this technique.

"Scotty! I need more power or I'll be tossed right back into 2D!"

"Then you'll boldly go where no Captain has gone before!"

In this news brief, the HDguru tells of such a display forthcoming from Vizio, and promises "a viewing report along with price and availability next week" the end of which is upon us.

Or maybe get sucked in to a worm hole.

well if this means anything. In hanover n.h [a well to do town] they just put in a state of art 3d theater. This is not a major city in n.h,just a very rich town. Dartmouth college ring a bell?