Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 40

Except that I did (and do) make certain to include the name of the OP with the content, abridged or not.

Anything else simply feels disrespectful to me.

Anyway, I'll let it go now. It's become quite clear what the intent was.

Guys if I realized some of you were so sensitive on this sort of nonsense, I would have avoided the thread altogether.

Here's a clue for the clueless- Yes, I responded to a point made and sincerely apologize for not recognizing the sense of pride another may have had in his literary contribution here. The real reason none of you figured out is that sometimes I am on firefox, sometimes on a smartphone and others I'm on an ipad with the avs app. then sometimes I just copy and paste. They all work differently as to tools and features. This is the first time anyone has been so sensitive over my process of posting a comment. Too sensitive and thin skinned a crowd for me so I'll bid you all a farewell and you all can bitch and moan about me in my absense. Frankly you all are not worth my time on this.

Love my 3D. You'll know where I'll be then.

Wow. Just...wow.

Ask a simple question...

Clue for the clueless (singular). People are moving mirrors.


Way to kill such a positive 3D thread Spyder, geez.
















j/k

I don't understand why 3D is such a big issue. When they started adding USB ports to TVs no one was saying, "I don't think TVs with USB ports will catch on." Or when Netflix was added I don't think anyone said, "I'm not going to hook my TV up to the Net; so I'll buy the lower end model without Netflix and without the better screen."

For Samsung and Panasonic's 2011 plasmas, if you want to get the TV with the best screen, I'm sorry folks, but it's going to have extra features. It will have USB, Netflix, and 3D. It's not that any of it has to "catch on," it's already in there.

This year Panasonic has THREE series of AWESOME plasmas! The ST, GT, and the VT series. I'm really excited! There are a lot of people here who will have to suffer with the subpar screens of the X or the S series, though, because they, for some odd reason, don't want a TV that's 3D capable. Can't you just not use it and forget about it?

Personally, I think this is the companies' fault; thus they've screwed themselves. They continue adding more features to keep the prices propped up as best as possible. When they introduced "Internet capable" TVs and no one was too upset. They didn't market these as "3D capable," though, they tried to make it seem like it was a whole new type of television. In reality it's just another mode that not too many people are interested in.

The main reason people are upset it seems that they already purchased a BD tv set and are not going to purchase another for 3D feature . That's the issue as most people who are looking now for newer tv's don't seem to have an issue with the latest technology .

I guess what would explain some, but if it were me I'd just be like, 'Oh, they made 3D and mine doesn't have 3D. So what.' Most new customers are totally against it. They want the best picture but want it without 3D. When I tell them something like, "Nooo, you've got it all wrong. It's not a 3D TV, it's just 3D capable , if you buy the extras." They get their good screen, don't buy the extras, enjoy the TV.

I myself am in the market for a new TV. I know if I get one with a good screen it will have 3D. 50" is kind of big for my small apartment but if that 46" Panasonic doesn't look nice I'll be getting that 43" Samsung. It wouldn't be 3D but size is usually the most important factor in choosing a TV, then LCD/Plasma,* then unfortunately 3D/non-3D, then picture quality. Go figure

* Plasma is another huge issue people have. Half of them think plasma TVs are the devil and wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot stick. So, instead of getting a decent 50" for $700 they get a washed-out LCDs (they think LED backlighting is "new technology") for $1500. At least they leave happy thinking they've beat me by not letting me convince them to get a plasma. And I make higher commission on a more expensive TV, of course.

Broadcast Driving 3DTV Adoption


http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3-d...adoption-23265

I think your stereotype is off. I picked up the optoma 3d projector when it came out, but returned it cause the quality was poor (RBE) and went with the epson instead in 2D. I honestly do not like the 3D in its current form. It gives me headaches and take away from the purity of film. Furthermore, I don't want to wear glass or be forced to sit within a 20 degree angle of the screen.

There are alot of folks on here who pay more for a 2D display than a 3D display. I think most sales are for folks who get the 3D display, not because of the 3D, but because it may have higher specs and a higher refresh rate.. and in the end do not use it for 3D.

Tell the general public that a TV is capable of 3D and you'll get a resounding "Meh" from most. Tell them that that same TV will make their DVDs, BDs, and TV programming more lifelike and fluid and watch their ears perk up.

"3D Ready" is as significant to most as 5W paper speakers on a monitor at this point.

Over time, things may change.

Fixed it!

Tell them that the TV will make their DVDs, BDs, and TV programming more lifelike and fluid, along with being a 3DTV and watch their ears perk up.

Yeah and each and every one of them is only available as a pay type TV source, nothing at all is available as far as 3D for free over the air TV. So again, seeing as how not everyone subscribes to a form of pay TV source, for those people, there is a still another extra associated cost with getting 3D. You can brag all you want about more ESPN 3D sports programming that is being added, but I don't see each and every single baseball, football, hockey, soccer game, as being shown in 3D in every market in the US and Canada is ever going to happen. And even with pay TV sources, for a lot of people that watch their local home teams in sports, the actual source of the broadcast comes from a local over the air TV station, and those local stations sure are not all going to be broadcasting in 3D anytime soon, if ever.

I think the other reason that there's resistance to 3DTV at this time, is because I think many feel that HDTV hasn't been around long enough to "peak". Many programs are still being made in SD, and many are in "light" HD. 1080p is still very limited, mostly on select VOD. We just haven't had enough time with HD to be looking for something better.

HDTV is like a new pair of shoes to most people...we're just getting used to it...just breaking it in...why go out and buy another pair of shoes when the ones I just got haven't worn out yet?

Ghpr13

Or they believe 3D does to HD what liverwurst does to a cheese danish.

So true! So true!

Ghpr13

This. You can only compare the two polls in specific ways if you're assured that the exact same people took the poll. For anyone to say that 6% of the people's minds were changed is pretty silly. It could have easily been any number of other factors.

It'll be interesting to revisit 3D, specifically this poll and these comments, in a year.

Not really surprising for a 'tax' funded broadcaster, but its still a shame seeing as Planet Earth was a major seller of HD for me.

The same questions were raised by the author of the attached article who admits he doesn't think 3D will take off but provides both sides of the issue.

I've posted many articles regarding industry concerns about the future of 3D in both movie and home theater to interject the questions raised by those within the profession as a devil's advocate and do so again for the same purpose, not to project my feelings one way or another. It is important to know what professionals from both perspectives within the business see as insiders and not helpful in any discussion to simply dismiss what is said by either side.

Also note the repeated references to dwindling attendance figures and while many have argued that what had been stated in previous articles I posted relates to the movie industry in general and not 3D in specific, please keep in mind specific references about faltering attendance appears within the context of the paragraphs related to 3D. Also, as an observer, my feeling is if 3D attendance stayed level or increased that the industry would publicize this fact as much as possible so it can stand out as a positive and offset the otherwise gloomy news for attendance figures. So on this issue, I do believe interest has dwindled. Has anyone found articles citing attendance figures (not box office receipts) being up for 3D?

All I ask is not to be accused of pushing an agenda, being on drugs, or trying to manipulate people. And if anyone is interested, I think a simple dose of good content with lower ticket prices will keep 3D as a healthy venue within the movie theater industry. As the author points out, however, the cost of 3D production is so high and movie goers just won't pay the extra dollars, 3D might just be shelved for being not profitable, even with a strong and loyal following.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=11909

Interesting article, but you are going to have to point out the part where he refers to dwindling attendance figures, because I don't see it anywhere in the article or the following weeks article.

In this specific article, the author cites signs of dwindling interest via high attendance outside North America, while in the U.S. there are trends indicating (at least in his analysis) that 3D-related profit is dropping, less revenue is generated on opening weekends while more 3D films were being offered, there is a declining proportion of those seeing a film in 3D as opposed to 2D, more 3D films are now just breaking even than making profit, etc. The only way (IMHO) this perceived decreased interest can be measured is through less patrons going to see a 3D movie. Whether the author is correct or not is open to debate, however, it is an aspect that must be considered as a discussion point.

In a previous articles many executives and insiders cited higher 3D revenue generated by 3D offset decreased attendance figures. This opened up quite a vocal debate whether they were referring specifically to 3D or to movie theater attendance in general, however, the points about dwindling attendance were made when the issue being discussed was specifically 3D and that increased revenue figures generated specifically from 3D were misleading.

Again, nobody on either side of the coin quotes actual attendance figures so the question to be asked is why isn't the industry touting increased or steady movie attendance for 3D in a year that saw overall attendance drop nearly nine percent (revenue is cited but not attendance figures). The prior year the industry vigorously and correctly publicized how 3D attendance figures skyrocketed. That is conspiciously absent from all movie theater information put out from the MPAA and marketing analysis groups in 2010. This makes me think one of two things: 1) attendance is dwindling and combining this with the disappointing sales figures for 3D televisions would be a marketing disaster, or 2) The industry is just plain stupid by not exploiting a continued growth in movie theater attendance thus missing a golden marketing opportunity.

3D can still easily continue to be successful as a niche, take off with big consumer demand, or fizzle but all that depends upon how viable a money maker it will be. With all the revenue still being generated I didn't at all understand how 3D could even be considered to be on shaky ground, even if there was a dip in attendance this past year. The figures brought out in this and other articles point out that the profit margin is possibly dropping quickly. And because 3D is a business, these are real issues regarding 3D's future status. They also got to give people something better than "The Green Hornet" as well.

Not misleading at all. 3D tickets have a premium attached to them. 30% more revenue is generated by selling a 3D ticket versus a 2D ticket.

Just like IMAX tickets cost more and generate more revenue then regular cinema tickets.

Both are technology driven. And both cost more to produce and present movies in then a standard 35mm/digital 2D movie. So patrons are charged more.

BTW, the NA BO was down approx. 22% for the month of January 2011 (year over year). This was because of AVATAR. And there was a single 3D movie in the entire month; THE GREEN HORNET.

LOL - the UK has had OTA HD broadcasting for what . . . 1 year? They are so far behind No. America and Japan

They've had satellite HD for longer than a year.

They should have waited longer for HD OTA too - to make a better standard, and one that incorporates 3D too.

By waiting longer, you (ie. a broadcaster) can get better standards - so in technology terms you (ie. the UK) aren't far behind - though by waiting longer it might mean they sell/auction off even more of the spectrum .

America uses mpeg2 for HD.
UK uses mpeg4 (H.264) for HD which is more efficient (though they're still broadcasting using a lower Hz).

Joe Bloggs,
Maybe you would know the answer to this question...How long has Japan had HDTV? (And may our prayers go out to Japan after the horrible earthquake they had.)

Ghpr13

From Wikipedia:

Regular broadcasts of Hi-Vision / MUSE since 25 November 1994 - analogue.
"Digital HDTV broadcasting started in 2000 in Japan"

Good words. A reminder of how precious and fragile life can be...

Completely true but what many industry analysts were referring to as "misleading" was not the revenue figures but the interpretation of what these box office figures do or do not represent, citing not only the 30% extra generated by the cost of a ticket but the rise of a 3D ticket price from 2009 to 2010 in which the rise in ticket revenue might not correlate with continued or increased popularity or even the beginning of a downward trend.

I've read the February MPPA report on the state of the industry and unfortunately, all the statistics revolve around box office revenue or demographics (age, number of movies seen by individual movie goers, etc.) with no breakdown regarding the actual amount of tickets sold. We would have more information to work with had those statistics been made available. But again, what I found interesting is how with record revenue sales this year, so many in the industry see downward trends which could effect 3D's future viability as a money maker.

Thanks!

Ghpr13

Courtsey of Cakefoo. First weekend's BO % for 3D movies:



I don't see this trend you are talking about.