Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 5

Originally Posted by poppabk

Ironically 4k might have a chance because of 3D and the current limitations of passive tech.

Originally Posted by bd2003

If there's any upcoming technology I'm really doubtful will catch on with consumers, it's 4k. Each increase in resolution meets with diminishing returns, and 1080p is probably the max most will even be able to notice unless we're using HUGE TVs. There is precedent for this: SACD and DVD-Audio. Sure, they're better than CD, but the difference requires expensive, niche equipment, and I honestly doubt most audiophiles would even be able to notice the difference themselves.

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

That was somebody else who spoke about the IR transmitter. Regarding a faster panel improving 2D on LCD monitors, that is also different than what is being required for 3D which was what I was getting at. From my own experience, I have a 60Hz LCD and am still looking for motion blur on sporting events - and so were those who volunteered to participate in those research studies I mentioned about. Also, there are always disclaimers on those video presentations showing the difference between 60 Hz and 120 hz that read "exagerrated for demonstration purposes".

A few professionals in the other forum brought out an interesting fact. They stated that most all LCDs in a company's line are actually built the same and instead of higher contrast ratios, black levels, etc. only being put into the more expensive units they are instead built into all sets and simply cut off from being used in the lesser expensive ones. Which implies one is not paying for anything more expensive to produce but rather the ability to access it (whether they even improve the picture quality is another issue). If this applies to what is required for 3D as well (i.e., refresh rate) I do not know but I wouldn't put it past the industry.

Originally Posted by poppabk

In fact I am arguing the opposite, that dismissing something because it failed once before in a different market with different technology is pointless. 'It was a fad in the 50's and the 80's and therefore it is a fad now' adds nothing to the conversation if the same reasons for eventual failure still apply now as then state them.

Originally Posted by Mikewarrior

I truly believe those who are against 3D are the ones who can't afford it, or didn't buy into it when they did have the money...

Originally Posted by CPanther95

If anyone were saying that, I'd agree with you.

The point is exactly what you eluded to at the end. This is driven by the movie theater experience, and there is no significant difference between the latest iteration and what we got the last time.

The only difference this time was that the consumer electronic industry was in a position to try and jump in right away and take advantage of the concurrent heavy theater industry promotion.

If it has failed to stick previously at the theater with lightweight glasses - where people are out doing something different than their normal routine anyway, what would possibly make someone come to the conclusion that putting on bulky goggles constantly during their normal bulk TV viewing at home would be much more likely accepted by the public?

Originally Posted by CPanther95

If anyone were saying that, I'd agree with you.

Originally Posted by CPanther95

If it has failed to stick previously at the theater with lightweight glasses - where people are out doing something different than their normal routine anyway, what would possibly make someone come to the conclusion that putting on bulky goggles constantly during their normal bulk TV viewing at home would be much more likely accepted by the public?

Originally Posted by bd2003

Because this time, it's bigger than just movies. It's movies, games, tv, sports. Even home movies and still pictures in the near future. Will people use it for ALL viewing with the glasses? I doubt it, but it'll find a place.

Originally Posted by poppabk

I don't believe that people will be watching the majority of their TV in 3D for another 10 or 15 years at least when glasses-less tech has advanced sufficiently.

Originally Posted by CPanther95

I hope you're right, if it sticks we'll get steady improvements as mfg'ers try to keep people upgrading. If it doesn't, it's much more difficult to get something new on the market when acceptance is unknown.

I just don't see it happening with the marginal impact on movies, TV, or video games. BTW, sports are already in 3D, even without the glasses.

Originally Posted by bd2003

What do you mean by marginal impact?

Originally Posted by CPanther95

The benefit vs. the inconvenience.

But I really do hope that it sticks long enough for the technology to overcome that.

Originally Posted by bd2003

The reason I'm so sure it's going to stick around is that I do a whole lot of gaming, and there's no question that 3d adds an incredible amount to the experience. It also doesn't really add to the cost of development, and the content is going to grow exponentially in the near future.

For movies it's a tougher sell, since there is more argument about whether or not it benefits the medium. For TV it seems an even tougher sell than that.

I can see how it may be of questionable benefit and value to those not really interested in gaming, but even if its just for that alone, its here to stay.

Originally Posted by bd2003

Because this time, it's bigger than just movies. It's movies, games, tv, sports. Even home movies and still pictures in the near future. Will people use it for ALL viewing with the glasses? I doubt it, but it'll find a place.

Originally Posted by coachkecz

Can we please just skip to 4K?

Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin

Yes, I wouldn't mind having fun watching 3D television, even if was for only an occasional lark and not for serious programming. I think the question posed both in this and the previous forum lacked a fourth option as an answer to the poll which could have been something like: "want 3D but not enough to replace what I currently have". It would have addressed the question of 3D being less a fad as it was an inappropriate time to be introduced to the consumer market.

I am also willing to bet a nickel that the industry has the capability to design a plug and play device that provides the necessary refresh rate externally to make it compatible with today's flat screens but opted to make consumers pay much higher prices for 3D television sets instead. That quite easily could have been the next hot item in home theater (just like DVD and HD monitors were) but less consumers spending more can be more profitable than more consumers spending less and (as already stated by so many) manufacturers needed something new to entice consumers into buying another yet otherwise unnecessary television set (and if this isn't the case it still shows how low the industry has sunk to cause such doubt about it's integrity).

BTW - 3D plug and play units that worked with CRT and DLP had been available for quite a number of years but never gained popularity. There were special 3D DVDs (not those like "Polar Express", "Journey To The Center Of The Earth", etc.) that could be played on standard DVD units which included many of the older IMAX titles now being released on bluray 3D.

Originally Posted by texasrattler

I think people still don't understand that 3D is way more than a fad. It's a new feature, like it or not. That is what 3D is. Don't like it, don't get that model that has it.
This is simply just a feature that's built into the tv, just like any other feature. In alot of ways it's the same as wifi. Some 2010 models have a feature called wifi that lets you go online to certain sites. You still have to have a wifi adapter for the 2010 models. Now 3D comes along, it's a new feature in tvs like wifi but requires glasses to view 3D content. Similar to how wifi works as you have to use a adapter to get the apps on your tv. Now most of the 2011 models will have built in wifi. 3D will still require glasses but everything is supposed to be better. We'll see on that soon enough. 3D is a feature, it isn't going anywhere, if anything it will evolve into something better. Maybe glasses free 3D or something all new.

Originally Posted by Mikewarrior

You can disagree all you want with each others posts, and mine... However, I will still believe people who are so against 3D are those who didn't buy into a 3D display, or can't afford to do so now. If you don't like it, I can get you a tissue.

Originally Posted by twisted_oak

I watched Avatar 3d in theater. While I could see the effects, my gf could not. Seems like there are quite a few people who are unaffected by 3d. I had her watch Coraline at home and once again she cant tell a difference.

I even explained what she should be seeing. I think maybe she can physically see the effects, but is unaware because she doesn't look at those sort of details. She is one of those who really argues the merits of HD as well. Yes, her eyesight has been checked (20/20). Hell, I have worse eyesight than her.

I would consider her the majority. People who can merrily watch non-hd content and live their lives without it.

The only way this format will be instituted is if it is forced, ala digital transition. It will be a niche if not. There is not a big enough difference for the common person to switch.