Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 45

Yeah I have seen a bunch of LG ads recently. Shame they had to make it into a pseudo format war spreading FUD, its just gonna hurt overall adoption.

Oh BS! It's not anywhere near being format war as long as it plays all the current 3D sources, which it does. Face it, having to wear glasses of any sort is a issue to a lot of people. Due to many reasons, cost being one of them, and people that already wear prescription glasses don't care to wear bulky shutter glasses over their prescription glasses, but may be open to wearing the throw away passive type like used in theaters. So if anything, the use of lightweight low cost throw away type passive type glasses may help adoption a whole lot more than it will hurt it. Due to their extremely lost cost to make, just watch how fast someone comes out with a clip-on type passive glasses for under $1, for the people that wear prescription glasses.

I know its not a real format war, but the LG ads portray it is such. There are two ways to sell your competing but parallel technology a) demonstrate its capabilities and unique features b) exaggerate the perceived downsides of the competing technology.
LG have been firmly in the b camp, and for the overall medium, spreading doubt and uncertainty is going to make some people hold off on purchases altogether as they are afraid of making the wrong choice. You don't have to show a guy with massive glasses with an extension cord plugged in to sell passive TV's.

A problem that might develop would be many consumers being unaware of the picture quality differences between the format used by LG and some compared to those of Sony, Samsung, etc. Would they see the LG and be less impressed? Just don't know.

Oh please, cry me a river! Someone is making fun of something in their ads, like that is anything new for all manufacturers trying to sell something when there is also competing brands! LG sells sets with both types, so they are also making fun of themselves. What would you prefer, some funny ads, or would you rather they show some of the real problems? Such as how many people are having problems with those expensive shutter glasses staying in sync, or how fragile some of them are and can easily be broken. That issue with how easy some of them are broken, could be a real issue to a family with young kids, and could be a big tipping point in passive, yet they did not bring that up.

If we want to point to any ad that will hurt 3D television sales, it's that one we spoke about earlier from Best Buy with their "upgrade" protection.

How about they push the advantages of their technology and 3D as a whole. Show a room of 20 people watching the game. Tell us about the amazing bright picture, not the bright picture relative to something else. This is just gonna start a tit for tat war with ads from other companies decrying the lack of resolution on passive sets etc. Instead of a united front to support a new and currently slowly adopted technology, they are immediately fragmenting the market.

I don't agree. We have had choices for displays for HDTVs for quite some time; PDP, LCD, MMD, etc. An FPR LCD 3DTV is just that . . . a choice. You still have to wear glasses to see 3D. They just happen to be passive instead of active. Each tech has its benefits and drawbacks.

3DTV will be a very diverse display choice. The nature of the beast.

I agree. I don't take issue with them pushing the FPR LCD's, it is just done in such a negative manner which seems counter-productive for the overall adoption of a controversial technology (3D). Its still possible for 3D to not be adopted by the mainstream, and one way to prevent acceptance is for everyone to start pushing the negative factors that effect the opposing tech such that the overall view of 3D is negative.
Its like a bitter political campaign, where both candidates end up looking like sleazy bastards and the overall outcome is voter apathy because all the choices look like crap.
I don't really remember the start of the HD era in terms of advertising, but I find it hard to imagine it was all negative attack ads for plasma versus lcd.

Since 3D is only a feature on the higher-tier sets, has anybody noticed if the price for one of these has increased with the add on feature from what the equivalent would have sold for two years ago?

Just came across this article this morning:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20...?tag=mncol;txt

Ghpr13

Thanks for posting that very good article. What I found most interesting, however, was the following:


Most people have still not been exposed to 3D outside a movie theater and can't imagine what that would be like at home or why they need it, he says. "Which is why I see the 3DS as an important gateway to experiencing 3D in the home" for less than the cost of buying a TV set.


That is the problem - the industry still trying to tell consumers that they NEED to have 3D. The more they do that, the more they are going to turn consumers off for that type of hype and advertising usually results in the reverse.

Same survey/study . . . different author/site:

NPD: 3DTV Awareness On The Rise

http://www.twice.com/article/466610-...n_The_Rise.php

Sorry, I got so wrapped up in the visuals of my set that I forgot that it was the 65" model. I corrected my post for you. So yeah, there's a big difference (laugh away.)

BTW, the whole sour grapes thing only works if one tries to get the "grapes" and can't. Being that I could buy few dozen of your sets and pay in cash, waving 3D (of any sort) in my face just isn't going to give me a shred of buyer's remorse. I just love a bargain though!

The 3DS commentary was particularly amusing. Someone should tell the author that the 3DS is tanking out of the gate. Now that the early adopters, and scalpers who thought there was going to be a shortage, bought theirs, the adoption rate of the device is dropping quickly.

The majority just don't need / want 3D, and Nintendo is starting to find this out. If anyone is hoping for the 3DS to demonstrate to the masses what they are missing, there's an old saying about putting hope in one hand and something far less appealing in the other, and seeing which hand gets filled first.

There is probably little interest in 3D for most people simply because those of us who follow AVSF are not representative of the typical mainstream consumer, whatever the product might be. And buying consumer products for the home differs from spending on entertainment for outside the home. For the industry to have tied the two together was poor marketing research.

Again, my guess was that the industry instead produced new features like 3D and internet connectivity not based on marketing studies but more as an attempt to reduce the expected downward trend of retail sales after the HD boom leveled off. And one wonders how high the cost of development and manufacturng really was, with the cost of glasses now being reduced from $150 to $50 and more pairs included with sets - yes, prices were expected to drop but they are doing so without the demand to offset it.

Still think 3D is a nice feature to have as a lark but few are going to go and buy new HD monitors just to get it nor would most in the market for a new set spend hundreds of dollars more just for the feature. A less expensive plug and play device that could be connected to the HD monitor one currently has would have been the way to go, but as many suggest, it might not be technically feasible.

I think the CE industry is in for a long summer. With gas and food prices continuing to rise, and unemployment still very high, I don't think many will be buying much home entertainment gear.

Now box office sales might start really climbing as people will be looking for "inexpensive" ways to be entertained, and compared to the price of everything else, movies might seem to be the best deal...it's kind of hard to say...with all the equipment out there to stream movies to your TV, many might just stay home and do that. Still, in summer, most people want to go out and do something, and usually there's always a theater rather close by, so as not to take up to much gas.

What I'm really waiting to see is this holiday season. What kind of CE buying will be done. Or will it be a very "flat" sales season for the CE industry?

Ghpr13

Of course, maybe the CE industry will start pushing 4K, just because they can.

Here's another interesting article I came across...after you read it, take the time to read the comments posted...Very interesting...(to borrow a phrase).

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6191

Ghpr13

Might not be a good year for 3D in general. With the price of many 3D tickets close to $20, many movie-going families might also opt for the less expensive 2D version (overall attendance is already way down compared to last year at this time). And if the coming holiday season will be anything like the past one, forget about the long summer - it's going to be an even longer winter.

Am sure Best Buy will start pushing 4K (as hinted in their obsolete protection policy advertisement) and be charging that much for it as well.

Like others in the industry, he is not taking into account the economic issues faced by the average individual and his or her behavioral habits unless he has inside information that in five years there will be a turnover to 3D because additional production costs will be negligible and that 3D will become standard while not adding any increase to the price of a regular HD monitor. Also, cable companies like Time Warner will not charge extra for 3D like they did when making last weekend's 3D coverage of the Masters finals rounds on-demand items

Joe,
What I found interesting more than the article itself, was the large number of comments posted against 3D. I mean I know on this thread there has been a number of comments both pro & con for 3D, but the comments left after that article were about 99% against 3D both at home and in the movies. These comments are coming from the more "average Joe" (no offense ) than the typical AVS member.

This is why, like you, I believe 3D has a long road yet, specially in the home. I really wish the CE Industry would work on broadcasting true 1080p right now before proceeding to this so call next step to 3DTV. Work with 3D in the theaters until all movies are equal to "Avatar" as far as 3D effects go. Then, if the technology has figured out to broadcast in 1080p, carry on with 3DTV.

Ghpr13

Hi GH,

There were so many negative comments that I simply had to stop after reading them after a while. Considering that the article itself contained so much enthusiasm regarding the future of 3D the backlash of negativity was indeed quite surprising, especially considering that many of them did not express interest even if the cost goes down (glasses, of course, being the big obstacle).

Was trying to find comments about the Masters being viewed in 3D this past weekend and the little that I found focused mainly on PC viewing more than television. It was agreed that the course itself looked stunning in 3D and enriched seeing the arch of the shots but that the focus was uneven (blurry in some areas, sharp in some others) and that the backdrop of the crowd and grounds sometimes made the ball itself hard to see. But they all saw promise in the future and enjoyed what they did see.

I think this may be an issue with people learning to view 3D. People are used to not trying to bring things into focus with a 2D image, you just accept the focal point, whereas when you look 'into' a 3D image you instinctively expect to be able to bring things into focus.

Can you provide some links to substantiate the cost of 3D tickets being close to $20 please. Not IMAX 3D tickets.

By me it's $14:

https://www.fandango.com/purchase/mo...ount=768604466

The Sony Lincoln Square in NYC is $17:

https://www.fandango.com/transaction...ount=768575015

Neither are "close to $20."

$17.00 is not close to $20.00? Where did you learn math? Also, after you pay your $17.00 for your ticket, what else can you buy at the theater for the $3.00 you have left?

Ghpr13

Not in MY opinion. $18 or $19 is close to $20. $17 is closer to $15 then $20. Maybe YOU need a brushup on math.

Hi Gh,

Does that $17.00 include the cost of the glasses? If not, it brings it one dollar closer to being $20.

Yes, the ticket price INCLUDES the glasses they hand out. With RealD theaters, you can keep them if you want. All other 3D theaters, they have to be returned.

And again . . . I chose a prominent theater complex in NYC as being the highest they charge. By me, it is only $14 which isn't even close to the $20 that you said:


That theater also charges $13 for a general admission ticket:

https://www.fandango.com/transaction...27&row_count=0

Joe,
Somethings (or some people) will never change...
It's like having an politician on line.

Ghpr13