Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 39

No it isn't. We want to know if people want 3DTV to advance, if they don't want it to (or think it won't) and those who are making up their mind about the subject. Those are the pertinent choices in my opinion. We don't need "poll fodder" and that is exactly what that kind of a choice is . . . on any poll.


Why would choosing FAD be construed as a negative? It could mean they enjoy 3D but they don't think it will last.

And there it is again! YOUR defintion of what a DON'T CARE choice would be.


According to YOU. You made the definitions according to your opinion and your agenda. Do you really believe you are being 100% objective? I don't.

This channel is launching in Europe only.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20037517-1.html

Ghpr13

::thumbup:: ::thumbup::

Well, David, if you whole heartedly agree with him then please explain to me EXACTLY what this means:

I am not buying until standards are met

I really don't think you have a firm grasp on humor. But hey, that is my opinion (Wut is 3Dee..). Do you believe you are being 100% objective? (Parrot mode activated...)

By not including those who don't care the poll artificially says only these persons opinions exist. Not including those who don't care would be mis-representing, and thus the poll is bias.

Currently the poll adds up to 100%. That is 100% of the people who voted. Say that 100% is 50 million people. If 50% of the rest of the world doesn't care that would trump the 50 million who care to voice an opinion.

The poll seeks to move numbers to those that favor it in it's current form. That is why I said a 6% shift is meaningless. 6% of 50 million would be far less significant than 1 Billion who don't care or know nothing of it.

Saying it is meaningless to include who don't care is understandable from a marketing standpoint. That is why I say this poll is bias. It is in the best interest of the poll to exclude.

Herpes 3DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

So am I to assume there are people in the world who would purchase something before standards are in place? Humor again in case you missed it. I guess it is unrealistic for me to believe people won't purchase if the ground hasn't settled beneath a product yet.

I voted for standards. I am not the type to buy before the final outcome is decided. (aka Blu-Ray/HD , Beta, etc.)

Hence, I have never experienced buyer remorse on a single digital device I have. I always buy a year or three behind the curve to keep myself safe from risk. I have quite a few friends that keep me entertained though, although I try to talk them out of it.

Your choices were supposed to be humor based? If so you are right. It went right over my head. I thought the subject was of a serious nature. Now you are telling me it isn't?

I try to be objective. That would also mean seperating fact from fiction. And saying I like 3D, but I understand not all can and will. Isn't that objective?


LOL - you really care about people that don't care at all? Why? So you can do what you have been doing all along? Trying to redefine them so you can regroup them in the negative %. THAT makes me laugh . . . ROTFLMAO!


ALL polls like this add up to 100% This one isn't any different. And the people who don't care aren't going to affect anything. How can they?


BS! It's the exact same poll as the other one. Same questions. Same subforum location where the other poll is located, just a different point in time; Feb. 2011 versus to May 2010.


Your opinion motivated by your agenda. LMAO! Yes - the fact that HERE TO STAY has increased from the first poll to this one really does have you miffed. You can deny it all you want, it is crystal clear.

What standards?

EDIT:

There is no format war like there was with Beta/VHS and BD/HD DVD. Today's 3DTVs can handle all the standards that have been put forth:

Frame Packing (3D BD for movies and games on the PS3)

Frame Compatible (for CBL, SAT and IP)

And Samsung and Mitsubishi 3D Ready DLP RPTVs (2007 - 2009) just use a 3D adapter so they can be compatible with the above standards.

In my opinion the standards are set. The only things that could change are the transmission of 3D Tv shows, but it will be the job of my HTPC or cable box to deal with that side of things, or a move to higher framerates which would require a new blu-ray player and a sort of inverted pulldown to output 24fps from 40 or 60 fps or whatever they moved to. The latter would probably not happen for a while as the 3D bluray standard was just agreed upon.
Other than that my TV will be able to handle any 3D content out there.
If we are talking about the preferred technology, as long as my TV works, I don't care if everyone else switches to 4K passive or whatever.

I have it and am underwhelmed by the quality of the pictures. This is probably mostly due to the glasses. Until there is an industry standard for things like the length of the Left/ Black/ Right picture interval, one cannot be sure that an expensive pair of high quality glasses will be optimized for a particular display.

Penthouse already promised its US audience a 3D channel in the second quarter of this year, but, for whatever reason, it's dishing the goods to Europeans even sooner -- as in, right now.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/01/p...three-dimensi/

I didn't claim the poll was scientific or representative of the general population and would never try to do that extrapolation. I only claimed that you were in denial because you said the numbers were the same.

One thing I learned about poll interpretation in grad school ( scientific data collection and interpretation, UofF Fl SeaGrant) is that it is more important to not derive meaning as an extrapolation of the data when that extrapolation uses other poll data. You may only extrapolate poll data within the domain of the poll itself. ( In layman's lingo, that would mean we can extrapolate the data here within the confines of AVS members) People who extrapolate beyond the domain may be taking a completely scientific collection of data and rendering an unscientific interpretation by contaminating the calculations of the result. Whether or not this is scientific, you still can't execute an unscientific procedure and make an unscientific poll scientific.

In the science of polling, a 6% shift as simple and basic as this was is considered significant, especially at this early stage of the influx of the technology. In another year we may see the increase be higher but less than 6%. What this data would indicate is not just the direction of the trend, but also the beginnings of data set to determine the RATE of acceptance based on the slope of the curve at the knee.
The 6% shift is NOT what we would call a "slam dunk" as there are only two poll sets to create the curve. So, what we have is a straight line with a slope but not a true rate changing curve over time.

In simple definition of this thread poll and the previous one is:
Of all the respondents who voluntarily chose to vote once in each poll, the trend among AVS respondents was a 6% positive shift in acceptance that 3D is here to stay while resulting in a reduction of 6% from those who feel it is a fad.

It is completely wrong to extrapolate the % in this poll to to any other group of people solely because the AVS represents a unique user group. If you stood on the street corner of Time Square and took the same poll until you obtained the same number of qualified respondents, that too would not be considered scientific and would have no relation to this poll. Hire 100 pollsters to stand on the corner of a busy street in 100 cities and you may get a sense of acceptance of the general population. This would not be a simple math of making the poll bigger as you would restrict the total number of respondents as the same.
Assumptions made in this that could not be made in a general population poll: In order to keep the initial respondents selection similar to the AVS poll the initial assumptions have to be maintained. That would be- Here at AVS the poll assumes a couple of basic truths. 1. It assumes the people here taking the poll are interested in Home theater, audio -video, and film making art and science. 2. It also assumes the respondent knows what 3D is and how it affects the present day industry. So, to make it scientific the public poll would need to have a few qualifier questions that need to be answered in a particular way before the 3 pertinent questions could be qualified for the polling data. The respondent wouldn't know this was being done. e.g. if he said I understand "3D" is what they use on Star Trek Holodeck, then he would be disqualified. If he said present day 3D uses colored glasses, he would be disqualified. These two examples would disqualify because the respondent is basically too ignorant of the technology to render a responsible opinion on the key questions.
Hopefully, this gives you a little clue as to how one way a "Scientific" poll can be constructed.


One thing to watch out for in the Here to stay numbers is if at some time in the near future this would change positively or negatively. Most good scientific polls eliminate this by doing their sample in a short window of time. This poll does not do that. Like on May 15 all of the sudden the 19.5% jumps to 28% or drops to 5%. Then we would have to look for what caused this level of shift at that time. Why the change now? Did a new invention of glasses free TV make huge news? Did the major TV manufacturers claim there would be no more 2D only sets and all new sets would have at no additional charge 3D feature? Or, did the government announce that 3D was deemed harmful and ordered the industry to end all production? These would be poll changing events, otherwise the shift in the numbers will likely be based on education and commercial availability and will shift positive from the present 19.5% to 22% to 26% to 30% over a longer period of time. In other words, a significant but small amount over time.

So, please understand that a scientists does not need to have the data slap him in the face to see a trend. It just has to be significant and 6% is certainly that in statistical analysis.

Finally, while you can conjecture "what if" that is not based on what the poll says but what your possibilities are. Statistics ( aka polls) are qualified by possible outcomes but measured by probability.

A 6% shift in 9 months means that it will take 7 YEARS for the poll numbers to swap if trend continues.

Honestly, I can see the bugs being worked out of 3D in 7 years to where 60% of AVS folks would buy into it.

That said, the general population is a whole different story!

I know that was intended as a joke, but I have to point out that that is not accurate.

We are at the beginning of the adoption curve on this, as most of the equipment and software to make quality 3D accessible at home was introduced within the last year. This includes 3D TV sets, 3D bluray players, 3D channels and 3D movies on 3D bluray discs.

The change in the opinion reflects a first-year growth that is actually quite surprising. As more TVs are sold with 3D built in and more content appears, I would not be surprised if the differential growth increased by 2 or 3 times that 6% a year from now.

I read the question of forgetting to count those who don't care came up.

This just my opinion on why a question like this was not placed here while I sure would have used it in a poll I wrote for the general public.

David Bott wrote the poll and I consider it a good one for AVS members. As such the people who spend time here DO CARE. Consequently, it is a foregone conclusion that people here care if the 3D is a Fad or here to stay with the exception of those sitting on the fence until standards are met.

Why would anyone who comes to AVS and reads these threads have a " I couldn't care less about this stuff. " attitude? That person would be an obvious liar in the poll. The active memberships on each day here is what? But how many of those numbers actually voted in this poll? Now you have your I don't care about 3D Fad trend or standards AVS member. The information is there if you want to "extrapolate" it from the domain and remain scientific. Is it valid? I don't know without looking at the difference but I doubt it. Point is, it is a useless piece of information for the purpose of this poll.

I am curious as to the third question, however. What are the missing standards everyone is worried over.
BluRay 3D is ubiquitous.
Active shutter glasses have some specialties but programmable universal glasses are on the market.
Older technology is not being made backward compatible.
New features are not always backward compatible, like hdmi handshaking.

Re Avatar is the benchmark for quality film: I'll reserve my opinion on the home version of Avatar 3D until my copy arrives, but I would guarantee this fill is the benchmark in my book. Heck many don't even thing the story is good and it is a knockoff of Pocahontas. From my recollection of seeing it in IMAX 3D, the 3D technology has been matched by quite a few movies today. Maybe some even surpass it! Bottom line when it comes to quality movie, we all have our opinions, even the Academy which is liberal agenda driven.

So I have a suggestion for those who are on the fence for standards- Make your list of standards you would like to see met and then let the experts here dig through it and see if they can help you determine if any equipment list meets your needs. That's what I did but then had to see for myself and I did a final mind change at CES with the demos. I do not regret my decision and yes, I ended up having to spend about double to be sure I would be happy for a few years. ( PS- that was my wife's decision because I would have waited longer. I'm happy we went with her choice. )

ROFLMAO! I know the math here is goofy but I'm laughing at the use of the word "TREND"

If the "trend" is then it really doesn't matter what % the distribution of TV sets are because the industry will just make to match the surveys they conduct. Or, they will make a one does all set and again it doesn't matter. The funny part is the acknowledgment of question of the poll that we have a trend.

I'd agree with this.

You can't be 100% sure that everyone voting is an A/V enthusiast, but it is a fair assumption to make with our membership - and certainly high enough to label the results as those of "A/V Enthusiasts".

But when dealing with the ultimate success or failure of the technology, it would be important to know what percentage don't care. If 95% of the general public doesn't care about 3DTV (translated: they won't be paying for, or using the tech), it doesn't matter how excited the enthusiasts that remain are about the technology.

But this poll is asking for enthusiasts to predict the future of the tech, not necessarily to vote on what they want to happen. I loved the quality of DVD-Audio & SACD - and hoped it would succeed - but I would have voted "fad" from Day 1 all the way until their failure if asked to vote.

... just like despite the fact that A/V enthusiasts are overwhelmingly in favor of maximum PQ, we all know that the demand for low-res viewings of TV and movies (via mobile devices) is growing strong. We'd have to vote "here to stay", as much as it pains us.

Such is the problem with polling. You have to break down each question into its subsequent parts and define your terms carefully. I don't know which option to vote for: I think it's a fad (as a social phenomenon), I think it's here to stay (as a technical phenomenon), and I think the standards are already defined. So I could vote for all/any of the three choices and add even more ambiguous data to the pile!

To clarify what I mean, today's 3D experience is definitely a technical improvement over previous generations. It may very well improve more on the display end, but the critical tier of having a standardized 3D media format and players that can read it has been reached. And while the display-end tech may change, IMO it's going to continue to be present. New devices will support it at higher and higher rates until it is ubiquitous. I think that explains my view on "standards" and "here to stay", so here's the "fad" part. Today's 3D experience, as a social phenomenon, is a fad. IMO it's driven by the same things that drove previous fads: the gee-whiz factor and exploitation flicks. Instead of giant monsters or slashers, this time it's 3D Space Pocahontas. And you know, to be honest it IS pretty neat. But I'm predicting the novelty will wear off, and the content will prove equally forgettable. I have fond memories of watching Creature From the Black Lagoon in 3D as a kid, and my kid will certainly have fond memories of Avatar, but I doubt either of us will want to repeat it even a decade later. We'll still have the 3D-capable TV though

EDIT: In case I catch some flack for this, I stand by my statement that 3D in the 50's was driven by exploitation flicks. Yes, non-exploitation flicks existed, but they were not the drivers of the 3D tech; rather, they were attempts by the studios to determine if 3D had any life outside exploitation flicks. The studios found that it did not.

The only "standard" I see as being an issue has to do with the communication protocol being used for active shutter glasses. Initially, there were two:

IR
DLP-Link

IR is used for the LCD, PDP and DLP 3DTVs (with an emitter). DLP-Link is a TI propreitary comm used for the DLP 3DTVs only (RPTV & FPTV). Does not require an emitter. And yes, all the primary CEMs used their own IR frequency so Panasonic glasses don't work on a Samsung 3DTV, etc. XpanD now sells the X103 ASGs that are IR comm but can search and find the frequency of the IR emitter being used by the CEM. So they are universal - works with all IR emitters.

There have been two additional ASG comm protocols added in the last 12 months:

Bluetooth
RF

BT is being used by one CEM (Samsung) while RF is being used for the application of universal ASG (Monster/Bit Cauldron) either with an RF emitter or an IR to RF converter emitter

Passive Polarized Glasses for FPR, Zalman or Xpol 3DTVs are all circular polarized to permit side to side head movement.

The 3D Cinema industry uses 4 different types of 3D glasses:

Passive Polarized (RealD)
Linear Polarized (IMAX)
Active Shutter (XpanD)
Color Frequency Difference (Dolby 3D)

Each has it's benefits.

Given the polls to date, we do have a trend, at least by this definition of the word; To extend, incline, or veer in a specified direction. Trends shift and change over time, however, hence my stipulation that the current "trend" is not set in stone.

Also, I am curious as to your intent by the exclusion of what appears to be only myself in your usage of quotes and the reference as to who it was that originally posted them.

He has a grad school degree, but doesn't realize the use of the quote button. Strange indeed.

Normally, he simply quotes a person as one normally would, but with my posts, he's made point to edit my name from the quote. I've seen persons use one or the other exclusively, but the fact that it's only my posts that are being singled out is what I find perplexing.

69? He might be posting from a place of business. He might not like spiders or your disregard for its correct spelling. lol

I think you need to get more spice in your life. Do you really find analyzing my posting process interesting?

Interesting? Not at all. I simply found it curious that you chose to debase only myself by not giving my posts proper credit. I wasn't analyzing you process; rather, I was attempting to discern what would be the catalyst of such a blatant disregard towards my words since I had never shown you any such disrespect.

I thought it best to ask directly and allow you the chance to give meaning to action. However, given your most current response above, it appears your opinion of me (along with your posting TREND) is set for whatever reason.

I'll go crawl back into my boring and pathetic shell of a life now.

From my experience posting here, replying to a piece of a quote without citing the poster is often just to reply to something without it appearing like a direct attack or affront. In the past I've seen it used merely to soften a response so that there is less chance of a flame war starting.

So I don't think there was anything malicious about it, just the opposite.

Just my two cents - YMMV...

That's how I use it , when I do.

... or it's because the person that originally made the point was more wordy and a secondary poster summed up that side of the argument much more precisely. Don't want to quote the 2nd poster and say "I agree" (or disagree) when original "credit" actually belongs to someone else.

Above is how I clip a wordy post or trim it down to only respond to the points I wish to address, thus indicating that there was content before, after, or both should others wish to view the original material and its context.

(Not that your post was wordy, just used yours as an example. )

Settled then!