AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 52

post #1531 of 1824
6/3/11 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

...If the initial fad phase is over it is now more important than ever that 3D films be good in quality, effect and immersing one more into the story; it cannot survive anymore by just being an effect to ooh and ah over since according to the sample of comments, audiences are now going to be more particular and selective and many care more about the detail and clarity of action films more than things flying around them...

3D is often little more than a parody of itself. Think of Milla throwing her glasses at you in Resident Evil, or harken back to the days of old when the characters themselves donned their 3D glasses in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare to let you know something was about to happen in 3D. Directors are saying, "Wait for it...wait for it...here it comes...BAM! Check that out! 3D...right in your face!" Weak sauce.

Nobody will ever put the time, money, thought, and effort into a 3D film like Cameron did with Avatar. It's not going to happen, although Avatar would have done just fine, even without 3D. There will be, however, plenty of substandard films that will attempt to increase sales by tossing in a few lame-ass seconds of crap bursting out of the screen. How does one make a great 3D movie? By making a great 2D movie. Since you've already made a great film in 2D, will people pay for that extra effect in this economy?

It's my opinion that "Me first!" consumers with their short attention spans will find something else that's "the latest and greatest" and move on. Those that aren't infected with early-adopter-of-everything-ever-made syndrome will continue to put more value on high quality films with engaging plots and sublime acting than suffering the slings and arrows of insultingly poor content with in your face gimmickery.

Me, I'd rather watch The Shawshank Redemption on a 13" black and white TV than Alvin and the Chipmunks on a 200" corner-lit, 5D OLED TV that makes coffee and pinches my nipples. That's not FUD, that's fact.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #1532 of 1824
6/3/11 at 7:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

3D is often little more than a parody of itself. Think of Milla throwing her glasses at you in Resident Evil, or harken back to the days of old when the characters themselves donned their 3D glasses in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare to let you know something was about to happen in 3D. Directors are saying, "Wait for it...wait for it...here it comes...BAM! Check that out! 3D...right in your face!" Weak sauce.

Nobody will ever put the time, money, thought, and effort into a 3D film like Cameron did with Avatar. It's not going to happen, although Avatar would have done just fine, even without 3D. There will be, however, plenty of substandard films that will attempt to increase sales by tossing in a few lame-ass seconds of crap bursting out of the screen. How does one make a great 3D movie? By making a great 2D movie. Since you've already made a great film in 2D, will people pay for that extra effect in this economy?

It's my opinion that "Me first!" consumers with their short attention spans will find something else that's "the latest and greatest" and move on. Those that aren't infected with early-adopter-of-everything-ever-made syndrome will continue to put more value on high quality films with engaging plots and sublime acting than suffering the slings and arrows of insultingly poor content with in your face gimmickery.

Me, I'd rather watch The Shawshank Redemption on a 13" black and white TV than Alvin and the Chipmunks on a 200" corner-lit, 5D OLED TV that makes coffee and pinches my nipples. That's not FUD, that's fact.

Spyder,

Welcome to the League of FUD.
Reply
Reply
post #1533 of 1824
6/3/11 at 8:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

3D is often little more than a parody of itself. Think of Milla throwing her glasses at you in Resident Evil, or harken back to the days of old when the characters themselves donned their 3D glasses in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare to let you know something was about to happen in 3D. Directors are saying, "Wait for it...wait for it...here it comes...BAM! Check that out! 3D...right in your face!" Weak sauce.

Nobody will ever put the time, money, thought, and effort into a 3D film like Cameron did with Avatar. It's not going to happen, although Avatar would have done just fine, even without 3D. There will be, however, plenty of substandard films that will attempt to increase sales by tossing in a few lame-ass seconds of crap bursting out of the screen. How does one make a great 3D movie? By making a great 2D movie. Since you've already made a great film in 2D, will people pay for that extra effect in this economy?

It's my opinion that "Me first!" consumers with their short attention spans will find something else that's "the latest and greatest" and move on. Those that aren't infected with early-adopter-of-everything-ever-made syndrome will continue to put more value on high quality films with engaging plots and sublime acting than suffering the slings and arrows of insultingly poor content with in your face gimmickery.

Me, I'd rather watch The Shawshank Redemption on a 13" black and white TV than Alvin and the Chipmunks on a 200" corner-lit, 5D OLED TV that makes coffee and pinches my nipples. That's not FUD, that's fact.


Sad... just very sad. This forum is fantastic for technical information. Beyond that however...there's entirely too many myopic folks that can't see beyond their own tiny world.
Reply
Reply
post #1534 of 1824
6/3/11 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Hi Gh,...
And one must also recgonize that what might hold true for 2011 might not hold true for 2021 and beyond since contributing factors apt to change rather than remaining stagnent. Remember the "Fight Pay TV" movement of the early sixties?

Joe,
And remember the reasoning for "Pay TV" was that it would be commercial free?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

I'd rather they focus on being able to deliver a single 1080i feed properly before considering anything else. If they got back to full bandwidth 1080i, consumers wouldn't worry as much about 1080p, and even less about 3DTV.

I do agree with you on this 100%. An uncompressed HD signal would be awesome compared to what we get from cable and even satellite.

Ghpr13
Reply
Reply
post #1535 of 1824
6/3/11 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Daddicted View Post

Sad... just very sad. This forum is fantastic for technical information. Beyond that however...there's entirely too many myopic folks that can't see beyond their own tiny world.

...Says the guy whose user ID is "3Daddicted."

If you're "addicted" to 3D and its currently; limited, substandard, and often silly content, I won't try to take that from you. Your cash is yours to spend however you wish. For us the 99% of the people living on our huge planet, 3D isn't there yet, nor is it remotely close to being so. With producers attitudes being what they are, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Enjoy.
Reply
Reply
post #1536 of 1824
6/3/11 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

...Says the guy whose user ID is "3Daddicted."

If you're "addicted" to 3D and its currently; limited, substandard, and often silly content, I won't try to take that from you. Your cash is yours to spend however you wish. For us the 99% of the people living on our huge planet, 3D isn't there yet, nor is it remotely close to being so. With producers attitudes being what they are, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Enjoy.

Still don't think that's enough to disqualify 3D Addicted from membership in the League of FUD.
Reply
Reply
post #1537 of 1824
6/3/11 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghpr13 View Post

Joe,
And remember the reasoning for "Pay TV" was that it would be commercial free?

Ghpr13


I just remember as a kid that I feared having to pay in order to watch "The Untouchables".
Reply
Reply
post #1538 of 1824
6/3/11 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

...Says the guy whose user ID is "3Daddicted."

If you're "addicted" to 3D and its currently; limited, substandard, and often silly content, I won't try to take that from you. Your cash is yours to spend however you wish. For us the 99% of the people living on our huge planet, 3D isn't there yet, nor is it remotely close to being so. With producers attitudes being what they are, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Enjoy.

Argumentum ad hominen. Go ahead and look it up. Ill wait.

This is not a question of whose argument or preference is better. Because frankly, that's stupid. You don't like 3D, I do like 3D - and that's completely unimportant so get over it.

The problem? You're member to a small army that is dissatisfied with simply relegating 3D to the "don't like" pile. Instead, your reaction to 3D is visceral and really bizarre.

No one is infected with 3D by the way, my partner and I got a chuckle when I read that to her. We just like it. There's nothing conspiratorial about that. We don't have an agenda to ruin your experience and we weren't drugged and forced to watch hours 3D propaganda. We saw a VT25 and was "damn that looks good". Nothing more,nothing less and really inconsequential.

Give me reasoning, a premise and a conclusion - not emotional vomit. I'm not unreasonable and I would never want to deny you an option and I love intelligent discussion on just about anything.

I do, however, find the vehemence of some of the anti-3D crowd irrational and odd.
Reply
Reply
post #1539 of 1824
6/3/11 at 4:28pm
Hey, I looked up "argumentum ad hominen" - very impressive!
Reply
Reply
post #1540 of 1824
6/3/11 at 9:00pm
Also found the attached interesting, not because another study indicates that more consumer awareness translates into less consumer interest but that more than 60 percent said their use of 3D would primarily be regulated to bluray with less than 40 percent interested using it to watch broadcast television.

I always thought interest would be equal in both areas. Wonder if the results of similar research explains why 3D is deemed less a priority by the networks and cable providers as well. This would also further explain why those more apt to be adopters of 3D are mostly home theater buffs who represent a much smaller portion of consumers compared to those who are just simply television viewers whose demands go no further than just having a good HD picture. That's also why I disagree with the industry assumption that mainstream consumers would be replacing their televisions every seven years (revised from every other year) - the larger portion of consumers with simple, relaxed viewing habits wouldn't feel the need to replace a new set for a perfectly good older one. And with half the sets in 2014 expected to include the 3D feature, these type of viewers in need of a new one might opt for the the half that does not include 3D.

FUD marches on!

http://www.tvpredictions.com/3dstudy041311.htm
Reply
Reply
post #1541 of 1824
6/4/11 at 10:43pm
The consensus is that the 3D effects for Kung Fu Panda 2 were top rate. The movie itself also got an 8.0 rating on IMDB. So unlike other 3D releases, the sequel had both technical and artistic quality going for it. Yet, during a record grossing memorial day weekend, Kung Fu Panda 2 didn't help reverse the declining attendance figures for 3D movies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...a/30panda.html

Since the decline is being described in terms that go back to last year, it is apparent that higher 2010 revenue figure for 3D was indeed due to higher ticket prices and Avatar still being shown in theaters. As many industry watchers within the media were pointing out, that increased revenue masked the fact that there was an actual decrease in 3D movie attendance by year's end. Forum members who refuted this evidence back in February claimed information was being twisted around by those with an agenda to defeat 3D (along with me) but it can now be seen that it was not a case of bias by most but rather a case of objective reporting, observation and assessment by those who monitor the industry - sometimes referred to as FUD by those with a bias towards a different direction.
Reply
Reply
post #1542 of 1824
6/6/11 at 8:11am
Yikes! I can't believe all the anti-3D posts I'm reading on this thread.
It's as if some alien invader has tarnished hallowed ground. "Back you demons from hell, back"

My guess is most here just don't think 3D is ready for prime time. Fair enough, there are some quirks. Those of you old enough may remember early 'color' TV. Look at it now.

On a personal front, I took the plunge. Frankly, it's a lot of fun, especially using 2d/3d conversion.

Of course, I still view much more 2d material in normal fashion.

Guess I'm saying, give it a chance. Enjoy the adventure. Just my 2 cents.
Reply
Reply
post #1543 of 1824
6/6/11 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

The consensus is that the 3D effects for Kung Fu Panda 2 were top rate. The movie itself also got an 8.0 rating on IMDB. So unlike other 3D releases, the sequel had both technical and artistic quality going for it. Yet, during a record grossing memorial day weekend, Kung Fu Panda 2 didn't help reverse the declining attendance figures for 3D movies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/bu...a/30panda.html

Since the decline is being described in terms that go back to last year, it is apparent that higher 2010 revenue figure for 3D was indeed due to higher ticket prices and Avatar still being shown in theaters. As many industry watchers within the media were pointing out, that increased revenue masked the fact that there was an actual decrease in 3D movie attendance by year's end. Forum members who refuted this evidence back in February claimed information was being twisted around by those with an agenda to defeat 3D (along with me) but it can now be seen that it was not a case of bias by most but rather a case of objective reporting, observation and assessment by those who monitor the industry - sometimes referred to as FUD by those with a bias towards a different direction.

There you go with that Agenda Joe . . .

Only now, you blame 3D for the poor performance of the movie itself:

'Kung Fu Panda 2's' Disappointing Performance Leads DreamWorks Animation's Stock to Hit Two-Year Low

Quote:


The film grossed less than its predecessor (opened to $60.2 million) despite the 3D ticket premium, long weekend, and three years of ticket price inflation, Wible highlighted. This is the latest in a string of disappointments for DWA and is more troubling as Panda has been one of the company's few remaining franchises, which may be showing signs of fatigue.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ointing-193310

And just so you know - the world is bigger than just the USA:

Quote:


And while 3D playoff may losing a bit of its luster in the U.S. and Canada, the exhibition format remained gangbusters overseas for both Pirates and Kung Fu Panda 2 with both titles generating 60 percent or more of their grosses from 3D venues.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ts-kung-192955

Keep peddeling that FUD Joe! And keep denying that you are doing it.
Reply
Reply
post #1544 of 1824
6/6/11 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

Yikes! I can't believe all the anti-3D posts I'm reading on this thread.
It's as if some alien invader has tarnished hallowed ground. "Back you demons from hell, back"

My guess is most here just don't think 3D is ready for prime time. Fair enough, there are some quirks. Those of you old enough may remember early 'color' TV. Look at it now.

On a personal front, I took the plunge. Frankly, it's a lot of fun, especially using 2d/3d conversion.

Of course, I still view much more 2d material in normal fashion.

Guess I'm saying, give it a chance. Enjoy the adventure. Just my 2 cents.

Hi,

For many, this is not at all a judgement call on 3D in the home or at the movies as far as entertainment value is concerned. It is rather a backlash against what was first and still being spun by the industry to proclaim that by 2014 almost half of the mainstream would own a 3D set.

The obvious falicy to that is that with 70 percent of all households now having a HD monitor it is doubtful that half who purchased HD monitors primarily over the past five years would be apt to discard what they already have and are happy with for 3D or any new feature in general - not with the economy being what is. Retail stats prove that the annual sales of HD televsions has been decling the past few years and that the adoption to HD is now in the end-stage.

Even an executive from Sony admitted that at first the industry assumed the average consumer would treat televisions as a comodity which they would "upgrade" ever other year or so. Now the industry suggests that consumers would be replacing their sets every seven years. Again, in a sluggish economy that would be unrealistic. There are also non-economic behavioral factors to consider. Most are more interested in simply having a high quality picture and consider television viewing part of a more multi-functional activity (watching while reading, talking with others, working on a P.C., doing other chores, etc.). Therfore, the desire to spend money on another television set would seem low priority for practical reasons - especially if the nearly three television sets per average household are still in excellent working condition. And those who are looking to replace older analog sets in their secondary rooms (dens, bedrooms, etc.) would on the most part be apt to purchase less expensive models from band name manufactuers.

These were the findings from independent research studies conducted by Nielson and others which are in in sharp contract to those put out by industry-related research firms. Though I do not agree with some of the arguments made by the author, the points he raises serves as examples of mis-information intended to purposly twist facts around to sell a product.

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/...pe-machine.php

So again, for many of us it is not at all being anti-3D but rather something more serious, being against the manipulation of facts to distort actuality which we unfortunately see too much of these days in many aspects of life more important than the subject of 3D television.

Joe
Reply
Reply
post #1545 of 1824
6/6/11 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There you go with that Agenda Joe . . .

Only now, you blame 3D for the poor performance of the movie itself:

'Kung Fu Panda 2's' Disappointing Performance Leads DreamWorks Animation’s Stock to Hit Two-Year Low



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ointing-193310

And just so you know - the world is bigger than just the USA:



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ts-kung-192955

Keep peddeling that FUD Joe! And keep denying that you are doing it.

Lee, it is you that has an agenda and is an expert at twisting words around (in fact, if I ever run for political office, I want YOU as my campaign manager, that's how much respect I have for your talent). For example:

- The Kung-Fu Panda entry got an 8.0 rating on IMDB by those and even if it drew less than anticipated, the percentage (not number) that saw it in 3D was also much less than expected. As per your own attachment "Shares of 3D technology firm RealD dropped even more sharply Tuesday, closing down 11.7 percent at $27.30". This decline in revenue and attendence is in line with the trend of the past year.

- The recent surge of 3D movies overseas has not been around as long it has been in the U.S. and thus the industry has expressed concern that what has occured here might occur there as well, once the initial excitement is over.

Believing I am guilty of what you suggest and not seeing it in yourself is a perfect example of either one who knows a lot of facts but does not know how to understand their meaning or is just simply bullheaded (I will not go so far as to say you manipulate words to be vindicative). As per my reply to CMRA's post, I have always stated my agenda is keeping things honest regarding business ethics; my observing how 3D is doing in the theater in terms of popularity is to kept abreast of it's trend in popularity and the issues petaining to what seems to be declining interest because it is directly related to the immediate future of 3D in the home and those claims made by the industry. It never has nor ever will be anti-3D as a source of entertainment.
Reply
Reply
post #1546 of 1824
6/6/11 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Lee, it is you that has an agenda and is an expert at twisting words around (in fact, if I ever run for political office, I want YOU as my campaign manager, that's how much respect I have for your talent). For example:

- The Kung-Fu Panda entry got an 8.0 rating on IMDB by those who saw it but drew much less in 3D than expected. As per your own attachment "Shares of 3D technology firm RealD dropped even more sharply Tuesday, closing down 11.7 percent at $27.30". This decline in revenue and attendence is in line with the trend of the past year.
My "agenda" is to stick to the truth - not to pay attention to the FUD that the media and people like yourself like to inject in an effort to create sensationalistic headlines or blogs.

What do you think is going to happen when Transformers 3 puts up big 3D ticket sales?

Quote:
- The recent surge of 3D movies overseas has not been around as long it has been in the U.S. and thus the industry's concern that what has occured here might occur there as well, once the initial excitement is over.
Once again FUD - the "maybe it will happen"

Quote:
Believing I am guilty of what you suggest and not seeing it in yourself is a perfect example of either one who knows a lot of facts but does not know how to understand their meaning or is just simply bullheaded. As per my reply to CMRA's post, I have always stated my only agenda is keeping things honest regarding business ethics; my observing how 3D is doing in the theater in terms of popularity is to kept abreast of it's trend in popularity and the issues petaining to what seems to be declining interest because it is directly related to the immediate future of 3D in the home and those claims made by the industry. It never has nor ever will be anti-3D as a source of entertainment.
How can you be honest when you have totally ignored this:

Quote:
The film grossed less than its predecessor (opened to $60.2 million) despite the 3D ticket premium, long weekend, and three years of ticket price inflation, Wible highlighted. This is the latest in a string of disappointments for DWA and is more troubling as Panda has been one of the company's few remaining franchises, which may be showing signs of fatigue.
You see what you want to see and ignore all the rest. And two movies do not equal a trend.

You may be fooling yourself into thinking you don't have an agenda but you sure aren't fooling me. If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Plain as the nose on your face, which you also can't see.
Reply
Reply
post #1547 of 1824
6/6/11 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
My "agenda" is to stick to the truth - not to pay attention to the FUD that the media and people like yourself like to inject in an effort to create sensationalistic headlines or blogs.

What do you think is going to happen when Transformers 3 puts up big 3D ticket sales?



Once again FUD - the "maybe it will happen"



How can you be honest when you have totally ignored this:



You see what you want to see and ignore all the rest. And two movies do not equal a trend.

You may be fooling yourself into thinking you don't have an agenda but you sure aren't fooling me. If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Plain as the nose on your face, which you also can't see.
Good night, Lee.
Reply
Reply
post #1548 of 1824
6/6/11 at 3:36pm
Hey Joe...
I ignore the naysayers because they don't own 3D sets and bashing the 3D tv is all they know.
I love my 3D tv and I'm enjoying it everyday. Back into the bowels of hell you 2D demons.
Reply
Reply
post #1549 of 1824
6/6/11 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamieb81 View Post

Hey Joe...
I ignore the naysayers because they don't own 3D sets and bashing the 3D tv is all they know.
I love my 3D tv and I'm enjoying it everyday. Back into the bowels of hell you 2D demons.

LOL - Joe doesn't own a 3DTV . . . I do
Reply
Reply
post #1550 of 1824
6/6/11 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamieb81 View Post

Hey Joe...
I ignore the naysayers because they don't own 3D sets and bashing the 3D tv is all they know.
I love my 3D tv and I'm enjoying it everyday. Back into the bowels of hell you 2D demons.

I don't own a 3D set but glad you understand I'm not coming across as one who is bashing 3D TV. The points I've been making have nothing to do with 3D as an entertainment value but instead deals with unethical practices of business and advertising of which the promotion of 3D is a perfect example.

I really like the idea of being able to watch baseball, golf and tennis in 3D. I also enjoy the limited effect I have on the anglythic DVDs that I currently own. But the purchase of a new set for the 3D feature for me is impractical, already having two excellent HD monitors in the home. When they start to go, I'll see if the cost is reasonable, the content that I want is available, if the broadcast picture being half the 1080i resolution of HD is more like DVD than standard definition quality and that the extra cost added to the cable subscription is not too high. But I don't expect my sets to break down in the immediate future -- certainly not by 2014. The industry, however, claimed that half the households in the U.S. plans to purchase a 3D TV by that time. With approximately 70 percent of all U.S. households being in the same situation as I am, it is also unreasonable to believe that half will be replacing what most had purchased over the past five years if still working and happy with it's picture quality. Again, that is not bashing 3D TV but rather just one example of the false claims of mainstream consumer intent made by the industry in the guise of scientific analysis conducted by their own research firms. Especially when conclusions from other consumer studies conducted by independent research firms not affiliated with the consumer electronics industry were in sharp contrast with what the industry claimed to be factual.

I happen to be web connected to a HD monitor via the Logitech Revue and that (along with internet connected TV) hasn't taken off with the general public despite similar research claims by the consumer electronics industry touting how people couldn't wait for this to come out either, just like 3D TV. I understood that and all this proves is that one could be supportive of a product and still be against the manner in which it is being spun to the public.
Reply
Reply
post #1551 of 1824
6/8/11 at 8:32pm
OK,

I realize the attached is just another attempt by those of us who feel that the average consumer has little interest in purchasing a 3D or any type of new television for a multitude of reasons, many of which actually have little to do with one not liking 3D in general. Since this again contradicts what the industry tells us, I'm sure the analysis has been manipulated with the intent to spread misleading information. Probably many positive comments have been filtered out as well in order to misrepresent the sentiments of the mainstream.

I'm sure there is a way to straighten us out regarding this negative assessment so to paint a more objective and truer picture of the consumer market and the economic factors that drives it to justify that declining interest in both movie theater attendance and HD monitors is only a fallacy spread by the proponents of FUD.

But joking aside, many do believe that the consumer electronics industry misread the pulse of the consumer public not only in the U.S. but in Japan as well. As professed, 3D television came too soon on the heels of the HD TV buying boom to make it a financial success in the immediate future or to reverse the declining television sales within the consumer electronics industry. The industry might have also been counting on individuals still being frivolous with their money and/or living beyond their means, a trend which has since ceased out of necessity due to the economic recession were all facing.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...dtv-purchases/
Reply
Reply
post #1552 of 1824
6/9/11 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

OK,

I realize the attached is just another attempt by those of us who feel that the average consumer has little interest in purchasing a 3D or any type of new television for a multitude of reasons, many of which actually have little to do with one not liking 3D in general. Since this again contradicts what the industry tells us, I'm sure the analysis has been manipulated with the intent to spread misleading information. Probably many positive comments have been filtered out as well in order to misrepresent the sentiments of the mainstream.

I'm sure there is a way to straighten us out regarding this negative assessment so to paint a more objective and truer picture of the consumer market and the economic factors that drives it to justify that declining interest in both movie theater attendance and HD monitors is only a fallacy spread by the proponents of FUD.

But joking aside, many do believe that the consumer electronics industry misread the pulse of the consumer public not only in the U.S. but in Japan as well. As professed, 3D television came too soon on the heels of the HD TV buying boom to make it a financial success in the immediate future or to reverse the declining television sales within the consumer electronics industry. The industry might have also been counting on individuals still being frivolous with their money and/or living beyond their means, a trend which has since ceased out of necessity due to the economic recession were all facing.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...dtv-purchases/

Joe:

When will you understand that "the average consumer" just doesn't buy new CE technology? Why do you continue to ignore this FACT?

We are 15 months after the launch of 3DTV. That is still within the realm of the early adopter. And the average consumer is NOT an early adopter.

Your own post proves it . . . "the HDTV buying boom" came about in 2005/2006 - 7 YEARS after the laucnh of HDTV (October 1998).
Reply
Reply
post #1553 of 1824
6/9/11 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Joe:

When will you understand that "the average consumer" just doesn't buy new CE technology? Why do you continue to ignore this FACT?

We are 15 months after the launch of 3DTV. That is still within the realm of the early adopter. And the average consumer is NOT an early adopter.

Your own post proves it . . . "the HDTV buying boom" came about in 2005/2006 - 7 YEARS after the laucnh of HDTV (October 1998).

Lee,

This issue is not with 3D but with the spin issued by the industry that still proclaims so much interest on the part of the consumer that up to half the households plan to purchase a 3D set within the next three years based on marketing findings. Those studies were conducted by industry sponsored marketing firms (as pointed out in previous attachments) with questions slanted in such a way to show overwhelming positive figures that have as much validity as the election results in Iran (that many were conducted when leaving movie theaters after viewing a 3D film is not exactly a controlled, scientific environment, either).

Sales figures for this time frame are way below those predicted by the industry yet press releases and non-independent industry-related websites still tout the amount of monitors being "shipped", which is deceptive since that is not the same as the amount being "sold". And right now, the interest one has in 3D doesn't translate into planning to purchase a new HD monitor with that feature. And even putting 3D aside, most consumers do not have any intention to replace the HD monitors they've recently purchased. Consumer purchasing has declined and this is based on fact. And Best Buy didn't lose value in it's stock for nothing.

When the replacement cycle slowly begins (in who knows how many years) and then taking into considerion the same financial circumstances and developing trends that we do now, 3D may find it's way into a facet of mainstream home entertainment. But that is not the case for the immediate future as the industry continues to profess in it's marketing hype (not to be confused with consumer advertising).

Attendence is also declining in the theaters and those in the movie industry have expressed concerns about whether this is just a glitch on the chart that could change (if ticket prices are lowered, more quality type films are released and the effects are improved so not to hamper action scenes like they did with THOR) or an indication that the initial euphroia about 3D has settled down.

These outlooks as they stand at the moment originate from business perspectives based on scientific data from independent sources (I will not add "common sense" to the argument for that alone does not serve as substantial evidence). Disputing them must be counteracted with evidence, not hypothesis. Again, my issue is not with 3D but the manipulative spin on the part of the industry. That is what this particular forum is about -- Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? -- not how much one loves 3D or the merits or problems of the 3D monitor that he or she purchased. That is for a different forum.
Reply
Reply
post #1554 of 1824
6/9/11 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Lee,

This issue is not with 3D but with the spin issued by the industry that still proclaims so much interest on the part of the consumer that up to half the households plan to purchase a 3D set within the next three years based on marketing findings. Those studies were conducted by industry sponsored marketing firms (as pointed out in previous attachments) with questions slanted in such a way to show overwhelming positive figures that have as much validity as the election results in Iran (that many were conducted when leaving movie theaters after viewing a 3D film is not exactly a controlled, scientific environment, either).

Sales figures for this time frame are way below those predicted by the industry yet press releases and non-independent industry-related websites still tout the amount of monitors being "shipped", which is deceptive since that is not the same as the amount being "sold". And right now, the interest one has in 3D doesn't translate into planning to purchase a new HD monitor with that feature. And even putting 3D aside, most consumers do not have any intention to replace the HD monitors they've recently purchased. Consumer purchasing has declined and this is based on fact. And Best Buy didn't lose value in it's stock for nothing.

When the replacement cycle slowly begins (in who knows how many years) and then taking into considerion the same financial circumstances and developing trends that we do now, 3D may find it's way into a facet of mainstream home entertainment. But that is not the case for the immediate future as the industry continues to profess in it's marketing hype (not to be confused with consumer advertising).

Attendence is also declining in the theaters and those in the movie industry have expressed concerns about whether this is just a glitch on the chart that could change (if ticket prices are lowered, more quality type films are released and the effects are improved so not to hamper action scenes like they did with THOR) or an indication that the initial euphroia about 3D has settled down.

These outlooks as they stand at the moment originate from business perspectives based on scientific data from independent sources (I will not add "common sense" to the argument for that alone does not serve as substantial evidence). Disputing them must be counteracted with evidence, not hypothesis. Again, my issue is not with 3D but the manipulative spin on the part of the industry. That is what this particular forum is about -- Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? -- not how much one loves 3D or the merits or problems of the 3D monitor that he or she purchased. That is for a different forum.

Who cares about the aggressive predictions that some made a while ago . . . except you?

It's ancient history. But you continue to bring it up post after post like it means something. It doesn't. Ever see the disclaimer; "These are forward looking statements . . . "

In 2010, they released more 3D movies than in 2009. In 2011, they are releasing more 3D movies than they did in 2010. 2012 is shaping up to have more 3D releases than 2011.

And again, two 3D movies (Pirates and Panda) with reduced 3D ticket sales do not make a trend. If it continues throughout the summer, then it's a trend. If it doesn't, then it was just an anomaly.

And content providers continue to provide 3D content for 3DTVs. There is substantially more 3D content today than there was a year ago. 3DTV continues to get industry support. That hasn't stopped.
Reply
Reply
post #1555 of 1824
6/9/11 at 1:34pm
Who cares about the aggressive predictions that some made a while ago . . . except you?

I didn't raise the question about hype, AVSF did.
Reply
Reply
post #1556 of 1824
6/9/11 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post

Who cares about the aggressive predictions that some made a while ago . . . except you?

I didn't raise the question about hype, AVSF did.

52 pages later, and 1555 posts on this thread and you post this:

Quote:


Lee,

This issue is not with 3D but with the spin issued by the industry that still proclaims so much interest on the part of the consumer that up to half the households plan to purchase a 3D set within the next three years based on marketing findings.

That prediction was made in February 2010 right? Got anything for say May 2011 that says the same thing?
Reply
Reply
post #1557 of 1824
6/9/11 at 2:54pm
Nice thread, I like this forum.


Reply
Reply
post #1558 of 1824
6/9/11 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

52 pages later, and 1555 posts on this thread and you post this:

That prediction was made in February 2010 right? Got anything for say May 2011 that says the same thing?

Is this good enough for you? It was sent by a Mr. Lee Stewart.


IHS iSuppli: Sunny Numbers for 3DTV

Quote:
6 May, 2011

Better marketing, attractive promotions, lower prices and more available content all have combined to push 3DTV shipments to an estimated 23.4 million units in 2011, according to a forecast by IHS iSuppli.
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3d/...ers-3dtv-23886
__________________
Charter Member Of Early Adopters Anonymous


And though the attachment you sent is no longer available, the following did appear in that release as quoted by another post:


IHS iSuppli expects triple-digit growth for the category in 2012, with estimated 3DTV shipments of 54.2 million units. By 2014 there should be more than 100 million 3DTVs shipped, Patel said, with 3DTVs accounting for more than half of the flat-panel HDTV market by 2015.


Also note there is a difference between a prediction which is a hypothesis and a projected forecast that is claimed to be based on acquired knowledge.
Reply
Reply
post #1559 of 1824
6/9/11 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Is this good enough? It was sent by a Mr. Lee Stewart.


IHS iSuppli: Sunny Numbers for 3DTV

Quote:
6 May, 2011

Better marketing, attractive promotions, lower prices and more available content all have combined to push 3DTV shipments to an estimated 23.4 million units in 2011, according to a forecast by IHS iSuppli.
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3d/...ers-3dtv-23886
__________________
Charter Member Of Early Adopters Anonymous


And though the attachment you sent is no longer available, the following did appeared in that release as quoted by another post:


IHS iSuppli expects triple-digit growth for the category in 2012, with estimated 3DTV shipments of 54.2 million units. By 2014 there should be more than 100 million 3DTVs shipped, Patel said, with 3DTVs accounting for more than half of the flat-panel HDTV market by 2015.


Also note there is a difference between a prediction which is a hypothesis and a projection that is proclaimed to be based on acquired knowledge.
But that is not the same as what you said:

Quote:
that up to half the households plan to purchase a 3D set within the next three years based on marketing findings.
Which was predicted in February 2010

The latest data:

DisplaySearch: 3D LCD TV shipments grew 104% quarter over quarter

Quote:
According to the latest DisplaySerach report, 3D LCD TV shipments grew 104% in Q1 2011 (compared to the previous quarter). Current 3D TV penetration (among all LCD TVs sold) is 3.9%. TV makers are targeting 12% penetration for the entire year (and 16.8% for Q4).
http://www.3d-display-info.com/displ...r-over-quarter
Reply
Reply
post #1560 of 1824
6/9/11 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Good night, Lee.
LMAO! The now famous Joe Dubin cop out.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?