or Connect
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 12

post #331 of 1824
Fad.
Think about this; what percentage of total viewable content is available in a 3d format for home viewing?

Or this; out of all of the content you own, or have rented (or is sitting in your rental queue or at your video store waiting for you,) or ripped on to your NAS is in 3d?

Besides that, the fact that in most cases utilizing a 3d set up means loss of brightness, resolution, or both, makes it a step backward for home viewers attempting to create an immersive, quality experience at home.

Sure, there are cost prohibitive ways to have a stellar at home 3d experience, which goes back to the small percentage argument; what percentage of total home viewers have d'argent assez for two projectors and a silver screen?
post #332 of 1824
I bought a JVC X3 PJ a some 10 days ago. I played with it, viewing both 2D and 3D movies. After two days, it instantly became obvious to me, coming from a 3D title back into the good old 2D world, that 3D was the future and, thus, here to stay. It's not really an opinion based on facts, but just a feeling, something that became instantly self-evident to me. Future will tell. In the meantime, let's all enjoy our movies and/or games, be they in 2D or 3D!
post #333 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOVEMYHDTV View Post

HI ALL. FIRST 3D is too expensive and the disc are RIDICULOUS EXPENSIVE !!!!! this is what will kill it. Gaming will be the best material for 3D. OOHHH and sense your gonna upgrade to replace a failed data drive. ARE you folks gonna change to color of the walls ?!?!

That's what they said about ble-ray and look how it won the theatre/movie lovers over.3D is here to stay far too many lovers than haters.
post #334 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamieb81 View Post


That's what they said about blu-ray and look how it won the theatre/movie lovers over.3D is here to stay far too many lovers than haters.

Thanks
post #335 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

There seems to be very basic disagreement about what "3D" really is.

Some (myself included) see 3D as the next obvious step. Human beings have two eyes for a reason. We experience the world in 3D (at least, we're supposed to). You dont need to explain the benefits to me, why wouldnt I want to see a movie as I see the world? For gaming, even more so. I can see how 3D can be used in a silly way, but nevertheless, Id rather see in three dimensions than not. Its as integral to my visual system as color.

Some think of 3D as some sort of parlor trick. As if its some unnatural effect added to the natural goodness of film. I suspect the same people would argue in favor of film grain and 24 frames a second. Theyre used to seeing film in a certain way, and any such drastic change basically spoils it. Theyre fine with the experience as is, and it seems like there's a certain level of realism that they dont want. Likewise, Ive met people who dont like surround sound because they dont want to be immersed, they dont want the movie to take over their whole sensory system, they want that distinction between movie and reality to be clear.

No one is really arguing that the next logical step is 3D. It is the implementation of 3D that is the problem. When Nintendo released the Virtual Boy, it was unanimously hated and scrapped because the effect was extremely poor and the health implications more than just mild. Would you have argued to keep it instead?

The fact that people are still getting nauseated shows how "unnatural" the current 3D implementation can be. If our eyes and visual system are logically tuned in and comfortable with 3D and thus 3D is the next logical step, then why is it such a pain? The IMPLEMENTATION is at fault. They are still using "parlor tricks" to achieve 3D. Even those people who like the effect can get tired after a while. The tech hasn't really advanced in all these years nor has there been a more superior way to achieve 3D that makes it look more realistic and/or lessens the strain. The best analogy would be the CGI effects in movies. The best effects are the ones you DON'T see, or realize are fake. Otherwise, they are really corny. The fact that you can tell it is still fake 3D shows there is a lot of progress to be made before it becomes good enough. The glasses, dimmed vision, and TV size requirements certainly don't add to this idea of realism you are touting so much.

Saying people who don't like surround sound and are fine with 24fps because they don't like "realism" is also rather condescending and ignorant of several facts. For surround sound, when you watch a movie, it comes from a flat screen from one direction. If a man punches a window, why is the glass shattering BEHIND me? Why not where the window is at? The window is in FRONT of me, where the television is. Immersion and realism require logic as well. Surround sound makes much more sense in video games, first-person video games, and less sense in movies, where you are usually just a spectator, unless it is a first-person movie with no scene cuts.

In regards to 24fps, everyone sees and perceives at a different framerate or is less/more sensitive to certain ones. That's why some people get headaches looking at old-school CRT monitors that are below a certain refresh rate and others do not. You ever hear jokes about a movie being cheap because it is like a Mexican soap opera, buttery smooth? How about the fake cheap look of 120hz televisions? The same reason why they like 24fps, and camera blur. You have to respect the fact that not everyone perceives images in the same way, and that their realism is not always the same as your realism, nor is one better than the other. The same goes for grain. And 3D. Some people can't even see 3D, or their brain uses it sparingly or completely ignores it. A perfect 3D image would thus still be completely unreal to them.

Moral of the story. Realism is in the eye of the beholder.
post #336 of 1824
I think it's here to stay, however, I don't think the movie industry will be redoing movies to push it beyond it's normal progression.
post #337 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverwolf0 View Post


No one is really arguing that the next logical step is 3D. It is the implementation of 3D that is the problem. When Nintendo released the Virtual Boy, it was unanimously hated and scrapped because the effect was extremely poor and the health implications more than just mild. Would you have argued to keep it instead?

The fact that people are still getting nauseated shows how "unnatural" the current 3D implementation can be. If our eyes and visual system are logically tuned in and comfortable with 3D and thus 3D is the next logical step, then why is it such a pain? The IMPLEMENTATION is at fault. They are still using "parlor tricks" to achieve 3D. Even those people who like the effect can get tired after a while. The tech hasn't really advanced in all these years nor has there been a more superior way to achieve 3D that makes it look more realistic and/or lessens the strain. The best analogy would be the CGI effects in movies. The best effects are the ones you DON'T see, or realize are fake. Otherwise, they are really corny. The fact that you can tell it is still fake 3D shows there is a lot of progress to be made before it becomes good enough. The glasses, dimmed vision, and TV size requirements certainly don't add to this idea of realism you are touting so much.

I'm in no way saying today's implementations are perfect. There's a lot of room for improvement, but whats out there now is pretty good. I'd definitely prefer not to have glasses.

Quote:


Saying people who don't like surround sound and are fine with 24fps because they don't like "realism" is also rather condescending and ignorant of several facts. For surround sound, when you watch a movie, it comes from a flat screen from one direction. If a man punches a window, why is the glass shattering BEHIND me? Why not where the window is at? The window is in FRONT of me, where the television is. Immersion and realism require logic as well. Surround sound makes much more sense in video games, first-person video games, and less sense in movies, where you are usually just a spectator, unless it is a first-person movie with no scene cuts.

In regards to 24fps, everyone sees and perceives at a different framerate or is less/more sensitive to certain ones. That's why some people get headaches looking at old-school CRT monitors that are below a certain refresh rate and others do not. You ever hear jokes about a movie being cheap because it is like a Mexican soap opera, buttery smooth? How about the fake cheap look of 120hz televisions? The same reason why they like 24fps, and camera blur. You have to respect the fact that not everyone perceives images in the same way, and that their realism is not always the same as your realism, nor is one better than the other. The same goes for grain. And 3D. Some people can't even see 3D, or their brain uses it sparingly or completely ignores it. A perfect 3D image would thus still be completely unreal to them.

Moral of the story. Realism is in the eye of the beholder.

It probably wouldn't surprise you to hear that I'm far more of a gamer than a movie watcher. To me, 24fps is an abomination. There's nothing good about it. It was a great idea a century ago when they needed to save on film costs and it was the bare minimum they could get away with. Nowadays it's a relic, and I hope they do away with it when they fully convert theaters to digital. A high frame rate has so long been associated with video and thus low quality production, so nowadays people ironically prefer the inferior frame rate. If you're going to try to convince me there's any situation where a low frame rate is actually desirable, you're going to fail. Saying "everyone experiences it differently" is a copout that allows you to justify anything you say. The real world doesn't have a low frame rate.
post #338 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamieb81 View Post

That's what they said about ble-ray and look how it won the theatre/movie lovers over.3D is here to stay far too many lovers than haters.

Bluray only accounts for about 11 percent of all titles and players sold, despite the decrease in prices for both. It's problems with popular acceptance parallel those facing 3D today:

1) It came upon the heal of the DVD boom where so many had already purchased players and amassed such a large collection of discs

2) As the prices for bluray players dropped so did those for DVD and now a good up-converting DVD player can be purchased for $60.

3) Whereas many don't like the darker picture associated with 3D, many also don't see enough difference in picture quality with bluray compared to DVD to justify paying more for either the discs or players.

4) Less people are buying players and discs of either format and spending their time and money on other things.
post #339 of 1824
FWIW, the boxing on ESPN last night was amazing. My wife and watched a match that we never would have and were thrilled.

Folks - the content is getting there!
post #340 of 1824
They're talking HoloGraphic already! Therefore, current 3D is a Fad! On the positive side, downloading 3D Movies to watch on your computer, just ain't going to work at the present time.
post #341 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

They're talking HoloGraphic already! Therefore, current 3D is a Fad! On the positive side, downloading 3D Movies to watch on your computer, just ain't going to work at the present time.

That's 10-15 years ahead by that time I will need new tv ,just saying.
post #342 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcpfrid View Post

what good is 3d when almost nobody has a receiver that can pass hdmi 4.1??
I have a 3d TV and 3d blueray player but need to uplug hdmi and bypass my one yr old receiver for 3D from cable. Fortunately oppo bdp-93 has 2 hdmi outs as a work around to get both 3D and master audio for blueray movies.

and 3D is way better experience on the big screen (movie theater) then it is on my 58" tv. Much more immersive.

May I add, the 93 does a very good job at 3D.

The plasma (VT25) I just bought was 3D capable, so I bought a 93 as my AVR won't pass 3D.

I feel better going straight to the display instead of "Through" the AVR.
post #343 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

That's kinda the point. It has been rejected at the theater for decades which is why it has virtually disappeared for decades at a time. The better question is, "If it is a problem for people at the theater, why wouldn't it be a bigger problem with bigger glasses in the comfort of your own home?"

If you are the only one watching your TV, it isn't as big a deal. But for everyone coming through, or making/eating dinner nearby, it takes the social aspect away from the television. And forget about a Super Bowl party with 3D. It's the equivalent of removing all speakers and requiring that everyone wear a set of headphones in order to listen to the TV. Ambient noise is reduced and it offers a more immersive experience - plus people are used to headphones,so it's not a big deal - except that it is. You're taking a big screen that used to service an entire room, or floor, and confining it to providing video only for a few square inches for each pair of goggles available.

I don't see how wearing glasses affects the social aspect of watching TV. People wear glasses for correction in their vision. Does this affect the social aspect that you speak of? No it doesn't. So why should the color of the lens be the determining factor?
post #344 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Funny, I view it exactly the opposite. I don't discuss the programming/movie with my neighbors at the theater. I'm more than happy putting on my glasses and ignoring everyone and everything around me at the theater. When I'm at home, it is much more social, even if it is just me and my wife.

The biggest advantage 3D has going for it in today's market is the fact that there is so much consolidation in the marketplace. Where movie studios in the past may have abandoned 3D the minute it didn't offer a significant cost benefit from moviegoers, many now have access to profits from a variety of other 3D avenues - some like Sony even directly from home electronics sales. This gives them motivation to keep filling the 3D movie pipeline much longer than in the past.

Cripes! Are you one of those guys that feels he has to talk throughout a movie?

J/K
post #345 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted_oak View Post

Some interesting takes....

http://www.destructoid.com/e3-10-joh...k-176787.phtml

The technology has improved, but I can't imagine it overtaking everything in the manner we're being told it will.

Neither can I. Anyone who is promoting this fantasy has no grip on reality.


Guess what? Transformers 3 is being shot in 3D. So much for Bay's BS.
post #346 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

So how is 3D going in America is there one in every household yet?

No - there are TWO in every household!

post #347 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

There seems to be very basic disagreement about what "3D" really is.

Some (myself included) see 3D as the next obvious step. Human beings have two eyes for a reason. We experience the world in 3D (at least, we're supposed to). You dont need to explain the benefits to me, why wouldnt I want to see a movie as I see the world? For gaming, even more so. I can see how 3D can be used in a silly way, but nevertheless, Id rather see in three dimensions than not. Its as integral to my visual system as color.

Some think of 3D as some sort of parlor trick. As if its some unnatural effect added to the natural goodness of film. I suspect the same people would argue in favor of film grain and 24 frames a second. Theyre used to seeing film in a certain way, and any such drastic change basically spoils it. Theyre fine with the experience as is, and it seems like there's a certain level of realism that they dont want. Likewise, Ive met people who dont like surround sound because they dont want to be immersed, they dont want the movie to take over their whole sensory system, they want that distinction between movie and reality to be clear.

3D is an illusion. It really doesn't mimic how we see in the real world. Just like the sense of depth watching a 2D presentation is an illusion, based on the contrast ratio versus being manufactured artifically like 3D

The closest presentation system to how we see in real life was Douglas Trumbull's Showscan; 70mm at 60 FPS. Sadly, it died decades ago.

I have no issues with people that don't like 3D. There are lots of things I don't like. But I don't get on a soap box and trumpet that because I don't like them, they shouldn't exist at all. That to me is the definition of a zealot.
post #348 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukedar View Post

I voted for Standards. Not having enough glasses when you have people over can be an issue, if there were standards, at least you could bring your own.

I think it is here to stay, just hope it gets more sorted out first.

OK - a true issue. Incompatability among CEM active shutter glasses. Can be dealt with by purchasing univeral glasses like XpanD's X103 series. The CEA is trying to get some standards in place but as of this writing, nothing has been accomplished.

The new FPR passive glasses 3DTVs do not have this issue. They are all based on circular polarization.
post #349 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverwolf0 View Post

No one is really arguing that the next logical step is 3D. It is the implementation of 3D that is the problem. When Nintendo released the Virtual Boy, it was unanimously hated and scrapped because the effect was extremely poor and the health implications more than just mild. Would you have argued to keep it instead?

The fact that people are still getting nauseated shows how "unnatural" the current 3D implementation can be. If our eyes and visual system are logically tuned in and comfortable with 3D and thus 3D is the next logical step, then why is it such a pain? The IMPLEMENTATION is at fault. They are still using "parlor tricks" to achieve 3D. Even those people who like the effect can get tired after a while. The tech hasn't really advanced in all these years nor has there been a more superior way to achieve 3D that makes it look more realistic and/or lessens the strain. The best analogy would be the CGI effects in movies. The best effects are the ones you DON'T see, or realize are fake. Otherwise, they are really corny. The fact that you can tell it is still fake 3D shows there is a lot of progress to be made before it becomes good enough. The glasses, dimmed vision, and TV size requirements certainly don't add to this idea of realism you are touting so much.

Saying people who don't like surround sound and are fine with 24fps because they don't like "realism" is also rather condescending and ignorant of several facts. For surround sound, when you watch a movie, it comes from a flat screen from one direction. If a man punches a window, why is the glass shattering BEHIND me? Why not where the window is at? The window is in FRONT of me, where the television is. Immersion and realism require logic as well. Surround sound makes much more sense in video games, first-person video games, and less sense in movies, where you are usually just a spectator, unless it is a first-person movie with no scene cuts.

In regards to 24fps, everyone sees and perceives at a different framerate or is less/more sensitive to certain ones. That's why some people get headaches looking at old-school CRT monitors that are below a certain refresh rate and others do not. You ever hear jokes about a movie being cheap because it is like a Mexican soap opera, buttery smooth? How about the fake cheap look of 120hz televisions? The same reason why they like 24fps, and camera blur. You have to respect the fact that not everyone perceives images in the same way, and that their realism is not always the same as your realism, nor is one better than the other. The same goes for grain. And 3D. Some people can't even see 3D, or their brain uses it sparingly or completely ignores it. A perfect 3D image would thus still be completely unreal to them.

Moral of the story. Realism is in the eye of the beholder.

There is a basic problem to your analysis. The reason why "nothing has changed" with 3D is because the camera still can't come close to mimicing the way the human vision system works, especially the eye's lens. And that will never change because the camera will always be based on mechanical parts while the eye is an organic system.
post #350 of 1824
It's always kind of pointless to ask 3D questions on an AV site because we are so far removed from the actual buying public in our tastes.

Average Joe consumer with his wife and kids aren't buying 3D TVs when he can't even find his remote half the time never mind misplacing multiple pairs of 3D glasses that the kids lose.

If you have a family of 4 chances are one family member is gonna have constant headaches and nausea and if one can't watch then nobody can watch.

And the most obvious reason that 3D is destined for failure at home is the majority of people are doing something as they watch TV. Right now I'm typing this as I watch TV. People are on laptops and read, on the phone or texting. If you can't do that as you watch 3D TV because of dimmed glasses then people won't buy 3DTVs.

Families drive the market and my buddy is a manager at Best Buy and he sees the backlash already with 3DTVs that was never evident with hidef TVs when they came out. People come into his store and specifically state that they don't want to buy a 3DTV and certainly won't pay a premium for it. There's also a stigma out there that a 3D set has inferior 2D capabilities and that won't change anytime soon.

People tend to use all these different technological reasons as to why 3D will now succeed but it's always been the same basic reasons why it's always failed and this latest incarnation is no different. It's pretty simple.
post #351 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan View Post

It's always kind of pointless to ask 3D questions on an AV site because we are so far removed from the actual buying public in our tastes.

Average Joe consumer with his wife and kids aren't buying 3D TVs when he can't even find his remote half the time never mind misplacing multiple pairs of 3D glasses that the kids lose.

If you have a family of 4 chances are one family member is gonna have constant headaches and nausea and if one can't watch then nobody can watch.

And the most obvious reason that 3D is destined for failure at home is the majority of people are doing something as they watch TV. Right now I'm typing this as I watch TV. People are on laptops and read, on the phone or texting. If you can't do that as you watch 3D TV because of dimmed glasses then people won't buy 3DTVs.

Families drive the market and my buddy is a manager at Best Buy and he sees the backlash already with 3DTVs that was never evident with hidef TVs when they came out. People come into his store and specifically state that they don't want to buy a 3DTV and certainly won't pay a premium for it. There's also a stigma out there that a 3D set has inferior 2D capabilities and that won't change anytime soon.

People tend to use all these different technological reasons as to why 3D will now succeed but it's always been the same basic reasons why it's always failed and this latest incarnation is no different. It's pretty simple.

Your 25% eye issue speculation is about double what experts are saying.

And when it comes to new products, Joe Sixpack and his family are the LAST ones to buy in.
post #352 of 1824
3D gets 1 thumb down from me.

And I dont think it has much of a future.
post #353 of 1824
3D in its current format is fad:

Why?
1) expense
2) replacement cost
3) glasses
4) lack of content
5) lack of quality of content
6) average consumer screen size makes it irrelevant

Expense - So in that order. I purchase displays every 6 years. Just bought a Kuro and don't intend on replacing it until it dies. 48 3D options aren't going to change my mind. My picture is just dandy and pretty 3D like for most purposes.

Replacement Cost multiplier - I don't intend on shelling out another $3-4k x3 to replace my current flat pannels for similarly priced new 3D ready displays with lesser quality. I certainly don't plan on replacing 3-4 flat panel displays right now and spending $12,000.00 to be 3D ready in all rooms I watch movies or content. This may not be a huge factor for most with one set but with two or three primary viewing locations it's a non-starter. You can't watch the 3D content in any manner on a non-3D set. At least I could play my Blu-Rays at 480i or 720p on legacy sets and get most of the value.

Glasses - are the deal breaker even if I found a Kuro quality display. I have em, don't want to wear another pair and don't like their off access performance. Oh yea, I don't want to shell out $800 for my average 6-8 viewers including children. Until there are quality displays without glasses there will be no mass adoption.

Content - does Avatar really look that much better in quasi 3D. Personally no it wasn't that impressive. I'll take acting talent and story lines over tech anyday. 48 discs mainly animation or action so far. What does 3D offer to the industry other than gimmick. Let's see Slumdog Millionaire or the King's Speech in 3D. Wow.

Quality of Content - see above. While I love animated product and I am sure that the battle scene in Alice in Wonderland (2009 release live action) would be fabulous in 3D and so too would be the fuderwucken dance, do I really need to see swords or feet flying at me to make that more exciting or engrossing? No.

It's a slasher gimmick and always has been. Think Captain EO at Disneyland or Scream. James Cameron may be brilliant but the Abyss would be no less brilliant with 2D. Jaws just as scary and a heck of a lot less tacky in 2D. I'd still laff my rear of at The Incredibles and Mode's commentary about capes without them flowing in my face through the wind.

3D is in many instances a distraction. IMHO it remains a technolgical gimmick and always will be.

Screen and effect size - This is the second true killer. I don't go see 3D in a small theater, I go IMAX or bigger. The wrap around full immersion effect makes $5 more for a 3D movie sometimes worth it. In the average home with an 11'x14' theater space or family room how immersive is that 46" or 55"? It's not. It's a spot on the wall at 10'. If 3D is about immersion average users with average display sizes and average viewing distances are not getting it.

How about real display sizes at 90" + in those same rooms and at the same viewing distances. That's where the real effect starts. That's the potential "value". What's the penetration of those screen sizes? Joe and Jane at Best Buy aren't buying those display sizes. Without those size and consequent cost multiplers 3D is a fad for the ultra rich who can afford calibrated sets and large projection systems and a bad joke on those with smaller screens who need to sit parked on their couches planted in the necessary effect range.

Bottom line 3D is a fad. Here today and gone tomorow. See it in the theaters where it was intended to be shown on a real screen that truly immerses. Personally I am saving my money until we see glasses-free (if ever) large format displays and I want to invest in a real setup and another $7k+ projector for value content. I don't see that happening in the next 10-15 years so it remains a pipe dream. I'm off to the theater for 3D and some fine quality 2D too.

The King's Speach in 2D please.
post #354 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


3D is an illusion. It really doesn't mimic how we see in the real world. Just like the sense of depth watching a 2D presentation is an illusion, based on the contrast ratio versus being manufactured artifically like 3D

The closest presentation system to how we see in real life was Douglas Trumbull's Showscan; 70mm at 60 FPS. Sadly, it died decades ago.

I have no issues with people that don't like 3D. There are lots of things I don't like. But I don't get on a soap box and trumpet that because I don't like them, they shouldn't exist at all. That to me is the definition of a zealot.

Motion picture in general is an illusion.

I'd probably take 60fps over 3D myself, but I'd rather have 60fps AND 3D. Without glasses. And fully holographic, so I can walk around it. And so on and so forth. All I want is improvement. I'd rather they tried to represent the 3rd dimension imperfectly than not to do it at all.
post #355 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

It seems to me about half don't care for the glasses, and the other half see the entire concept as a blight upon filmmaking.

...and another half are loving it.
post #356 of 1824
i hope it keeps going.. nothing is perfect at first when they come out with it, and there will always be cheap asses who will never spend the extra for anything, they seem to think they can take there money with them when they die.. or they are just as addicted to saveing it as a druggie is to useing drugs.. and can come up with all kinds of reasons why not to buy it... i am one who likes all the new things and have no problem buying it.. the worse part is getting my cheap ass wife to let me.. i am going to buy a 3D TV here in the next week and she has been on me about it the whole time.. we have a samsung 50" 1080i plasma now and she sees no need for a new tv.. next one will be another plasma , but a 58 3D.. but she will not let me sell the old one..
post #357 of 1824
so there are THREE halves?
post #358 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I don't see how wearing glasses affects the social aspect of watching TV. People wear glasses for correction in their vision. Does this affect the social aspect that you speak of? No it doesn't. So why should the color of the lens be the determining factor?

Would you wear them around the house, while cooking/prepping dinner, or while chatting with someone else in the house? If you can do that comfortably, then it would be less of an issue. Personally, I don't find them comfortable enough to do that.

I've needed vision correction since first grade. Like 30 million other Americans, I wear contacts primarily because they are much preferred to having glasses on.
post #359 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

so there are THREE halves?

One per dimension.
post #360 of 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldithomaso View Post

3D in its current format is fad:

Why?
1) expense

You can buy a Samsung 50" 3DTV for less then $1000. Do you consider that expensive for that sized display?

Quote:


2) replacement cost

Like all things CE, the price goes down each year so when it's time for a replacement, your cost is lower then the year(s) before.

Quote:


3) glasses

That only holds true for active shutter glasses. The new passive polarized glasses are cheap. You can use the ones they give you when you go see a RealD 3D presented movie.

Quote:


4) lack of content

3DTV is now 1 year old. It is normal to have a small amount of content for a new TV format. Was that way for Color TV and HDTV. So why should 3DTV be any different? And as I have posted previously, there is more 3D content available then previous new TV formats 1 year after it's launch.

Quote:


5) lack of quality of content

That is a totally subjective issue

Quote:


6) average consumer screen size makes it irrelevant

3DTV being a new product, is not for average consumers. Average consumers don't buy into new products until years after they are launched.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now?