Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 14

That's an expensive solution to a small problem.

Besides, last I heard was fronts at 45 degrees, not the edges of the screen. Might be the same if your screen is huge though.

I think the argument about whether the mainstream is or isn't interested in 3D in the home misses the point. I think 3D has the potential to retain a small but loyal niche following but will not stretch beyond that as long as the financial factor remains a major part of the equation.

Currently it is a feature regulated to higher priced sets. While the costs are going down as expected, so are the costs of all types of sets across the board. Even if it becomes available on all tier levels, it will still be considerably more expensive compared to its equivalent 2D counterpart.

Except for dedicated gamers, the majority of television usage will still be non-3D forms of entertainment, even for that loyal niche of 3D videophiles. For that occasional lark, most others would still continue to think 3D not worth the extra expense.

Cost, not the glasses or household viewing habit, will remain the bottom line decision maker, even when more quality content becomes available. Until that changes, most aren't going to consider it for the home. On the other hand, if 3D becomes a cost-efficient standard feature (including low cost glasses) eliminating the financial factor it will then be in most households with people then deciding how often they wish to utilize it. It is at that time when we will truly know if it is a fad or embraced as another type of staple in home entertainment.

Can that happen? It depends whether or not the industry deems it profitable to just make it a standard feature at little or no extra cost to the consumer. That is not an impossibility if one compares the cost of HD sets today to those of CRTs just a decade ago. At that time, we paid $599 for a 32 inch CRT -- last year we paid $399 for a 32 inch HD LCD.

3D is here to stay.. its the future it will only get better

Whenever you compromise, you get less. Of course people can do whatever they want.


Why? Speakers people are using aren't unidirectional. They are omnidirectional.

This opinion that 3DTVs cost a lot more then HDTVs should be debunked. Amazon sells:

Panasonic VIERA TC-P50GT25 50-inch 1080p 3D Plasma HDTV,

Panasonic VIERA TC-P50G25 50-Inch 1080p Plasma HDTV

The GT25 is a 3DTV while the G25 is not. Same size display. Same 1080P resolution. There is a $70 price difference between them.

They also sell the Panasonic 3DTV Starter Kit for $200 which comes with 2 pair of Panasonic 3D glasses and (2) 3D BDs. I think Costco was selling the same Kit for $40 less.

You failed to take into account some very important factors which debunks your debunking....

One must consider all the options available to the consumer. There is at least one less expensive 50 inch Panasonic Plasma with full 1080p for consumers to buy. The highly rated Panasonic 50 inch TC P50U1 Plasma which goes for $799 at Fry's - a savings of $300.

And that $300 savings is does not include the added cost of that $160 starter kit, two extra pairs glasses and a 3D bluray player -- these jack up the difference to over $800.

Which do you think a typical middle class family of four would opt for - the 3D package going for about $1,600 or the 2D set going for $800? The less expensive Plasma would still provide them a beautiful HD picture at half the cost (give or take a few bucks).

So it's 30% more and it's good for 2 people or 50% more for a TV that can accommodate a family of 4 - at the 50 inch size range.

Plus in all fairness, Amazon isn't selling the non-3DTV any longer, it is priced and sold only by 3rd party sellers.

But you are not comparing apples to apples. You want a 3DTV that uses active shutter glasses, you are going to have to buy them. They are an added cost. Just like a BD player or a surround sound system.

The TV's themselves are only $70 difference.


Doesn't change the fact that there is only a $70 price difference.

Pay $70 less - you have an HDTV . . . and that's it. Pay $70 more and you have a 3DTV ready HDTV. All you need in the future are glasses and a 3D content source.

I did a very simple QDD comparison. No telling what I or someone else could come up with with a lot of time to search for pricing alternatives.

I didn't fail at anything. I disproved your theory that 3DTVs are much more expense then HDTVs.

In this case - both Panasonic, both G series, both 50", both 1080P resolution. $70 price difference.

Of course there are additional charges for 3D active shutter glasses. Duh!

You don't have to buy the starter kits. Just look on eBay for Panasonic glasses

Or buy the starter kits and sell off the two 3D BDs in each kit. They are worth money. About $40 a piece.

If people think they can get a 3DTV with multiple pairs of active shutter glasses for the same price as a comprable HDTV . . . well I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them and guess what? They can collect tolls!

Today, you can buy a BD player for $100. One year after BD was released, could you buy one at that price? At $300? How about $500?

Of course it changes if you are comparing a current Amazon product with a different seller. I bet I can find someone selling an HDTV for more than Amazon is selling an equivalent 3DTV - that doesn't mean that you can draw the conclusion that 3DTVs save you money.


You're comparing purchasing 3DTV from a combination of Amazon & eBay versus what Paul's TV (?) is selling HDTVs for?



So all you are trying to prove is that 3D doesn't cost much if you don't want to watch it - it's only expensive if you do?

I think it is a fad for any sized TV except a 65"-200" dedicated Home Theater. Too many room distractions to be enjoyable otherwise. However, I think the real home run for 3D will be the micro sized market. Meaning 3D HD OLED/SED Goggles. Think Geordi LeForges' panaramic Glasses from Star Trek TNG. You could get a 3D IMAX effect with something like that with an IPOD, ZUNE or direct link with a Blu-Ray Player. I suspect growth could be explosive in the Youth market with hardware like that.

That is a really good point! If the screen is not overwhelming in size it would lessen the intended effects. Not only by distraction, but by not being able to pick up on them completely. Yes, you would see some, but the finer details would be lost unless you went huge.

LOL - did I say 3DTVs save you money? In my comparison, the 3DTV cost $70 MORE - not less.


Like I said, I did a QDD comparison. Went to Amazon, had to put each of the TVs in my cart to see the price and the 3DTV was only $70 more then the HDTV.


It isn't the TV that is expensive. I already PROVED that. It will be the glasses where the additional expense comes from. And that expense will vary.

EDIT:

In the near future, the cost of the glasses will disappear - when the new FPR passive 3DTVs become popular.

They sell those "glasses" today. The size of the image you see in comproable to a 50" to 80" TV. And they are SD definition not HD.

http://itvgoggles.com/details.asp?productID=2

Considering the Pioneer was a 50" set, and the very first 1080p plasma. I would not be surprised if they sold quite a few of them. On the other hand, you are bringing up much smaller 15" & 20" sets that are high priced and saying that they did not sell very well and are also trying to compare their sales to a 50" set. I'm sure it's no big surprise to most people here, that paying a lot for a 20" or smaller set would be a failure.

It seems like folks are overlooking a crucial factor in all of these cost analyses; 3D is not free. As manufacturing processes continue to improve, and as the costs of R&D are recouped, the cost of components drop. There has been a trend from manufacturers to keep prices stagnant by adding "features", rather than dropping prices. These "features" are many times things of little use to many users, but end up driving up the price of the displays. 3D is one of these, and you can believe that it is viewed primarily as an additional revenue stream for hardware manufacturers and content providers, rather than "the next big thing in entertainment".

The fact that it is being forced on consumers in most new model (read: nicer) displays, with no lower cost alternative lacking this ability, is a problem. The moment you force something upon a consumer (and make them pay for it), they become distrustful and will have a higher likelihood of rejecting it. Consumers tend to be a smart group, and when they see the extra "features" being added to the sets and don't see lower cost alternatives sans the add-ons, they fully understand that they are indeed paying for them, whether they like, want or intend to use them.

3D will continue on, not based on it's merits but because it is seen as profitable and you will be forced to buy it. You will always need to use those annoying glasses (at least with the current technology...if you think otherwise, you should do some research on the subject). The glasses will continue to be expensive as long as they are proprietary. And, IMHO, like PIP 10 years ago, it's one of those things that will be on most people's sets that hardly gets used.

Personally, I just upgraded to a 65" Panasonic plasma, with no frills, because of the great price to performance ratio, even though I already have an excellent 2 year old 50" panny plasma. The fact that the 65" unit wasn't 3D capable, so I wasn't paying for something I did not want, was a big part of my decision to jump on the opportunity. That and the fact that the new model 65" that is 3D capable will be costing much more, with no other 65" alternative from Panasonic to be offered.

When the industry comes up with way to do it right, then you you will see consumers flocking to adopt 3D. But don't hold your breath. There's a reason why the industry is using decades old technology; physics.

Why would it be any different for 3D versus 2D?

Lee Stewart: "I didn't fail at anything. I disproved your theory that 3DTVs are much more expense then HDTVs."

If your intention was just to add some levity to the conversation then you got me on that one. But it appears you are quite serious instead. So, to make a blanket statement by comparing one of the least expensive 3D monitors to one of the more expensive non-3D models, dismissing all the 50 inch 1080p Plasma models that sell for hundreds less and not including the extra cost of glasses and bluray players required for 3D i-- well, that is playing with semantics and (even if unintentional) insulting to one's intelligence.

[quote=mcpfrid;20016741]what good is 3d when almost nobody has a receiver that can pass hdmi 4.1??
QUOTE]

It's 1.4.


I can understand this. I guess I was lucky to be in need of a new set for my brand new house.


+1

Except I love my 3D and that's the reason why I bought my 3D bundle.

One thing I learned that through time since 2010 when 3D was introduced, is that 3D is not for all people. You need to have good left eye, good right eye, and . . . here's where most haters fail . . . a good brain to process correctly.

But yeah, 2d just needs at least one good eye.

The best we can hope for in standards for the near future will be programmable glasses.

Let's say I am one who gets invited to several neighbor's all the time to watch in their home theaters ( not that I would because that is not how I like to watch movies). I would own the programmable glasses. This way you sit down and hold the button in until the image locks in and you're good to go! Or you have a set of passive polar glasses you get out and put those on. Kind of like being a pool enthusiast or bowling enthusiast. You own your own Q stick or bowling ball. In fact, my wife would probably prefer to bring her own 3D glasses in this situation anyway that have her own prescription lenses fitted.

BTW- 3D in the theater- Not being interested at all in social movie watching we generally don't go to the theater. However in the past year we went 5 times and 4 of those times were 3D IMAX movies. We try to go on Sunday mornings when the theater is empty or near empty! The 3D IMAX offers what I don't have at home. 1. a movie I can't get. 2. a surround sound with 12KW. Mine is only 4KW. ; 6KW if I turn on the Butt Kicker amp

Years ago when I worked part time as an audio salesman I thought I heard everything. This one is new. I think I know the reason why they say they hate the yellow audio connector. If you plug into the yellow connector, all you will get is a buzz sound.

No, try as much as 96+ years if you count the three reel film "Jim, the Penman" movie, which had some scenes in 3D. Which was a first for a paying audience.

Or 89 years, if you want to use the 1922 "Power of Love", a 3D five reel feature film.

And if you want to count the first talkie, then it's 75 years with the 1936 "Nozze vagabonde"

64 years if you want to count the first 3D color talkie, the 1947 "Robinson Crusoe"

http://www.3dgear.com/scsc/movies/firsts.html


But the heck with all those new modern 3D movies above, when there is the 43 seconds long, 108 year old 1903 stereoscope film "L'Arrivée du Train".

http://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/movies.html

BTW, if you have a pair of Anaglyph glasses around, you can even view it at the above link.

The studios continue to invest...this is excellent news! Today's 3D technology and programming is barely a toddler. Give it time to grow up. Remember your history lessons? The emergence of TV? What did folks say to THAT? "Gosh, no one is gonna watch that silly box, Martha! We've got radio!" C'mon, people. Enjoy OUR newfangled box! LA loves 3D!
--
3net Debuts on DIRECTV
Network to Debut Premieres Every Night Throughout February

CULVER CITY, Calif., Feb. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- 3net, the joint venture television network from Sony Corporation, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corporation today announced that DIRECTV will be the first distributor to launch 3net, the 24/7 3D network, beginning February 13, 2011. 3net will initially be available to millions of DIRECTV customers across the country.

3net will go live at 8:00 PM ET on DIRECTV (channel 107) with a primetime slate featuring world premieres of new, one-hour, native 3D original programs CHINA REVEALED and FORGOTTEN PLANET, in addition to the world 3D television premiere of INTO THE DEEP 3D. Throughout February, the network will offer an unprecedented rollout of original 3D series and new program debuts every night at 9:00 PM ET.

3net will deliver compelling, native 3D content to the marketplace and thus serve as a critical driver for consumer adoption of in-home 3D entertainment. The partnership's commitment to the emerging 3D market is historic, with plans for the channel to offer viewers the largest library of native 3D entertainment content in the world by the end of 2011.

"Today's announcement marks the culmination of a dynamic collaboration, and we are very proud of what has been accomplished in the seven short months since the network began its development," said Tom Cosgrove, 3net's President and Chief Executive Officer. "DIRECTV is the leader in meeting consumer demand for video entertainment and has clearly been an industry innovator in 3D. We are proud to partner with DIRECTV on this historic launch and bring compelling, original 3D programming and key content from our partners to DIRECTV subscribers across the country on a 24/7 basis."

"Quality 3D programming is vital to the success and increased adoption of the technology, and with industry leaders like Discovery, Sony and IMAX making a commitment to this category, it is clear that 3D is here to stay and is only going to get better," said Derek Chang, executive vice president, Content Strategy and Development, DIRECTV. "We are excited to be the first distributor to announce the launch of 3net and we look forward to continuing to provide our customers with the largest and most compelling 3D programming lineup available."

"The broad availability of high-quality, native 3D content is a critical step towards consumers fully embracing 3D," said Rob Wiesenthal, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Sony Corporation of America. "Beginning February 13, a deep and diverse array of great 3D programming will be available in the home 24 hours a day. 3net is an important element in our strategy to maintain a leadership position in all things 3D."

"Discovery's business strategy has always focused on delivering groundbreaking content through new platforms and technologies. The launch of 3net represents a giant leap in our march to bring audiences the closest-to-real viewing experiences," said David Zaslav, President and CEO, Discovery Communications.

"3net brings together three global brands with a single mission -- to deliver premium 3D entertainment experiences to audiences in the comfort of their own homes," said Richard L. Gelfond, CEO of IMAX. "We are proud to embark on this new venture with Sony and Discovery, and we believe that our popular library of breathtaking IMAX content is in great company with the range of compelling programming from our partners."

3net Premiere Night Schedule (all times Eastern):

CHINA REVEALED (8:00 PM)

China's beauty is little seen, often hidden and always surprising. This hour-long series explores the thronging cities, epic vistas and spiritual heartlands of this huge and mysterious nation in stunning 3D. Produced by Natural History New Zealand Ltd.

INTO THE DEEP 3D (9:00 PM)

This IMAX special takes audiences on a spectacular three-dimensional exploration of the undersea world. Using the IMAX 3D camera in its underwater housing for the first time, this film captures unique marine life and magnificent underwater vistas.

FORGOTTEN PLANET (10:00 PM)

Explore the strangest places on earth -- once vibrant cities now completely devoid of all humanity. This series of one-hour programs imagines the world humans will one day leave behind by exploring what we've already abandoned. Produced by Flight 33 Productions.

DIRECTV delivers more 3D programming than any other distributor with its suite of dedicated 3D channels. DIRECTV HD customers received a free software upgrade that enables them to have access to the 3D channels on DIRECTV. DIRECTV HD customers will need a 3D television set and 3D glasses to view 3D programming on DIRECTV. For more information on DIRECTV's 3D programming platform, please visit: www.DIRECTV.com/3D. For more information on the movies available on DIRECTV's 3D programming platform, please visit directv.com/3D.

Honestly, the answer to poll is All of the Above Its here to stay for now because all the companies and stores are pushing it. DUH, they want your money after they got everyone to shell out for HDTVs so what can they entice us with next ? But until you don't need glasses for it and we have some standards because well.. you NEED them... i don't see it going very far. If you like 3D, thats fine, we're not debating that. The poll is basically asking (to me) will it be accepted and adopted by all ? And the answer is a flat out "No." Who wants to spend more money nowadays when I'm sure everyone has already invested in multiple 1080p TVs by now. If they make 3D standard in all new sets that'd be good but it doesn't mean everyone will use it. I buy a new TVs maybe every 4-5 years. I just setup a front projector, that to me is much more worthwhile.

I grew up and still am a tech geek but I don't need or want 3D. I've watched multiple movies in 3D and while its a nice effect, its hardly necessary. Your typical content is not going to show off the effect very well, it will be subtle. Only when its purposely done in a way to have an object come at you does it impress but after awhile that will get old. I don't understand why the glasses are so expensive too. When I watched in theaters, they gave us free glasses that we could recycle after. I have a drawer full of them. No one wants to have to buy an extra accessory especially if its pricey and that you have to wear it is ridiculous. What happens when you have a party like say... for Super Bowl. Are you gonna buy 10, 20, 30+ glasses for everyone ? You can't even ask each person to bring their own because how many would be able to.

We all went to HD for its clarity and increased resolution, better quality overall right ? I also love it for the superior sound and faithful, reference quality picture (in most cases). Remember using DVDBeaver to find the best DVD version because they all had different tints, aspect ratios, bitrates, subtitles, etc. No more of that thankfully. 3D is merely an added dimension, it gives depth. It is an effect and nothing more. You can't go back and make something 3D, it has to be shot that way correct ? 3D will grow but right now, its a niche/fad and is not a killer must-have. It took years for DVDs and now HD to become common in every home, 3D has a long way to go and has been trying for some time. No one wants to put on those glasses, its simple as that. Once in awhile, maybe but not for your everyday viewing.

I've got a mint condition HD-DVD player I'd like to sell to those folks who are rushing to buy a 3D HDTV. I'll even throw in my one HD-DVD of King Kong....

IMHO

3D at best is distracting and at worst more distracting!

I saw most of the set ups at the CES last month and I think it will be embraced by the typical 90% of the home market. Of course the vast majority of these people wouldn't know high quality home theater from their Ipods! And then, maybe.

Give me another look in 5 years!

REPLY: Having spent a hundred bucks or so on extra seat costs to watch 3-D versions in theaters, I have concluded that - in most circumstances ('Avatar' was an exception) - 3-D is a waste of money. And who wants to fuss with those silly glasses in the living room? I think the film that crossed the line for me was spending $33 bucks for two tickets for "The Green Hornet" in IMAX 3-D. Even all that extra technology couldn't make that profane, poorly crafted, worse acted piece-o'-crap worth watching. Even for a good film the 3-D novelty sort of gets in the way of the storyline. Good pie doesn't need whipped cream. It's a distraction.

No more 3-D for me. "2-D's be plenty-o'-D's for me's!!"

Cheers!
Robert

PS. One modifier to my last comment. When manufacturers bring 4-D television to the market - i.e., space AND time - I will definitely buy. Just think how much time we could save in our lives if, for example, we could go forward in time and just watch the final episode of 'LOST' rather than sitting through all six seasons, trying to figure out what the hell was going on!!!

You left out "I hate abs brakes & air conditioning, therefore I'm not spending the extra money for this car. " Again now you naysayers 3D haters hear how you all sound.

As opposed to some of the 3D lovers, who seems like they would even be excited by a 3D Blu-ray of nothing more than a video of paint drying on a totally flat wall....

To me, it all boils down to software (programming) - not hardware.

And the non-movie 3d software being developed TODAY is fantastic. It puts 3D stuff produced 5 years ago to shame.

I used to hate 3d, but a Panny VT25 for the great 2D picture. Eventually tried 3D at home and it blew my socks off. 3D at home is so much better than at a retailer. You owe it to yourself to see it in a home or at a high-end HT dealer.