Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 21

I'm sure they'll always find a new feature. But old features don't go away, and permanent progress doesn't get held back cause of temporary economic conditions.

Would anyone realistically think HD could have been sabotaged by poor timing? Slowed, perhaps. But to question it's long term viability seems a little over the top.

3DTV's success will be dependent on more then just Hollywood movies. Sports and games are going to be big drivers of the format

Like all new products, price is the major consideration for adoption. 3DTV will be a bit different because it has some issues associated with it.

Well, we will have to see how badly the movie makers screw it up to see if it is taken seriously. HD was a no-brainer and resonates with even the most stubborn of adopters. Plus, there is a market for re-release of most movies in HD format because they have been filmed in a higher definition than the media (DVD/TV) and it's delivery.

Is there a market for re-release of a lot of films with 3D, no. If it were, it would take a conversion of some sort. That requires money/risk. Thus the roots of HD had been embedded for years. It was a no-brainer to go that route.

3D is its own creature.

Well, yes of course. Those could be added in there as well.

They better get rid of those glasses for sports. I can't see any average sports watcher wearing elderly goggles. Nacho cheese, jumping up in the air, punching each other, lounging on the couch...not gonna be a good thing.

Games I believe have the BIGGEST long term impact. Getting the children/young used to it will make it a thing of the future. However, that effect is much longer off than an immediate impact.

Sure, but when people say 3d is a fad, I have to imagine they're thinking that it could just go away this time like it did in the 50s and 80s. And as if the timing of it's release into TVs is some sort of deciding factor.

I mean, that's just crazy talk. It's being baked in to midrange TVs at this point, it'll be in all TVs in a few short years. It's success in terms of market penetration in the long term is beyond question...from the CEM perspective it might be a short term cash cow but long term it's a basic feature.

From that point it's just a matter of whether individual content sells.

That's how I see it. The movie industry needed a shot in the arm to drive up sagging box office/dvd sales. Now they can do it without regard to the quality of the actors/writers/screenplays.

Remember that HD was not a new feature added to television sets - it was an entirely new technology introduced to the U.S. consumer market in 1998 even though it took many years before becoming an affordable item and staple in the mass market. If 3D becomes a standard feature that is added to most future sets then the question of it being a fad or not will be based on the amount of the feature being used or ignored by owners. But as of now, one has to consider whether or not consumers want to spend extra hundreds to get for 3D as they did for decades with color television.

As far as lofty predictions for 2014 is concerned, I am sure this report has been referred to on numerous occasions. What we don't know is if this hints of 3D becoming standard fare or an inexpensive upgrade by that time. But despite all the hype, Display Search's original prediction for 2010 had fallen flat and production for the first quarter of 2011 has been reduced from what was originally planned.

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde...on_in_2014.asp

What about those that are wearing corrective vision glasses now? Why would it be different for 3D glasses versus regular glasses?


Could be. Time will tell.

Not really that crazy. Although I have been called that many times in my life.


You do know that 3D glasses have been given away and sold on the cheap for years don't you? It seems it is more crazy to me to predict the success of something just because it is an included feature. Of course, that doesn't minimize number crunchers data that would suggest in the future "that every tv in America is 3D". That guarantees nothing. Just sets up the possibility.


I wholeheartedly agree. Lets just say penetration does not guarantee fruit. lol (pun intended)

It is all speculation at this point. I would say it would have done better if introduced during a time of plenty, with (god-forbid) a higher price tag. Selling something cheaply or the same cost as closely related product part is not necessarily a great thing.

Lets call it the Hyundai effect. Cheap cars = cheap (opinion) quality. Whether, in reality, they are of a substandard quality or not is something the manufacturer has to get past to be taken seriously. They work for years to try and be taken seriously. They make a move to use a 10 year warranty to calm the fears of consumers (all the while increasing their resale value). Then they dominate, YEARS later.

Rambling here, but it would have been a quicker more effective "re-introduction" of 3D if it had been during a time of plenty, with a higher price tag (illusions of "look what I got") and people willing to leap. With this recent introduction it will be a much longer possibility of adoption. The sellers are working against a lot of factors, the main one being economy.

3D's library of movies is very small. But they all could be tapped for release

http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html

Maybe the porn industry can help out 3D. They were unsuccessful with HD-DVD, but 3D, come on...

Wait....nevermind. lol

(Yeah, you can tell what is on my mind today...)

Same could be said for HDTVs. They are the only TV you can buy for the most part and not all people who have an HDTV also have HD service.

THEN HELP WAS ON THE WAY NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/fi...ic-movie-in-3d

People that wear glasses watch sports? hehe

We need some 3D contact lenses then. j/k

In my HT room I have two sets of headsets for audio. When I am sitting up I use the full range cup style (bulky). When I lay down (on my side because of typical couch placement parallel to viewing surface) I use earbuds because it hurts neck and ear to lay on my side with the bulkier model.

Same thing happens here with the glasses. There are major ergonomic concerns. They not only tether you to a somewhat fixed position, they would most likely sink into a pillow when viewing from a prone position.

I imagine a person with glasses might encounter the same sort of issues, but to a lesser extent.

Lee, HDTVs cost hundreds of dollars. Paper glasses cost 50 cents on Ebay or are re-usable by the consumer after visiting a movie theater or purchasing a 3D movie.

Apples/Oranges again. The accessibility of 3D is higher than HD in that regard. Cheap glasses. Rentals. Clearance bins...

So sex couldn't save HD-DVD and so it can't save...

But if only a small percentage had actually subscribed to HD - and was willing to pay for it, the programming would have never come about. Local affiliates would have used their bandwidth for multiple SD channels and there would have never been an HD-DVD/BRD format war.

3D needs more than hardware penetration to stick around. If there aren't large enough numbers willing to pay a premium for programming, it won't matter if you just consider it a "feature" - it'll be a feature that will increasingly not be included on future TVs because the programming pipeline will dry up.

DVI was just a feature that you didn't need to use if you didn't want to. That doesn't mean it stays around indefinitely.

I wonder how many people are like me, when it comes to the 3D home viewing question?

My current situation is that the recent conversion to HiDef home viewing has been such a great upgrade, that I am still getting great enjoyment from it, and feeling very pleased and content with the terrific quality of my current viewing options, compared to when I had to watch mostly analog fare.

Perhaps the manufacturers rolled out their 3D products a few years too soon. After all, the vast majority of the population is just starting to enjoy the first big upgrade in the quality of tv viewing since Color TV was first introduced.

If they are like me, they are probably delighted with the viewing payoff from their fairly recent investment in HiDef equipment, and are not feeling jaded enough yet, to feel any need to upgrade again, in the near future.

Just some food for thought!

I have the money to buy a 3d tv... I can buy whatever I want... I think the technology is to new, Watching 3d tv without glasses is right around the corner, all those people who have the battery operated glasses will be a little put off that they have to now shell out another $3000.00 to $5000.00 for another 3d tv... lol I like to wait until the dust settles a bit before I go waisting my money. I think the technology is great tho, and when I can watch 3d on a projector in my movie theater I will more than likely spend money on that!! Just waiting for that day.. hope it's without glasses but passive glasses will work too!! Just not those damn flickering battery operated ir ones.. pain in the a$$.. just sayin!!

Really? So you really think the fact that 3DTVs cost more then a 2DTV right now doesn't matter in this economy?

Ghpr13

Are you referring to Anaglyph 3D (red/cyan paper glasses)? How many releases do you think have come out in that 3D format on DVD and BD?

The glasses they hand out at RealD theaters only work with the new FPR passive 3DTVs.


Not understanding what you are saying. Can you clarify it?

Another thing that adds to the timing aspect. Return on investment is not unheard of. That is why it is so important for content providers to offer awesome content in order for this to even have a remote chance.

Do you even HAVE kids? I'm sure if you did you would understand how offensive a comment like that is.

Again, ad hominem attacks like that are defining the approach taken by some here as they seem to struggle with coming up with sound points to define their position...

My first two children happen to be first in their respective grades, should you be concerned about how they are being raised, thanks. That doesn't happen by watching TV all day... Now if you could please shift your discussion back to the actual topic, rather than my child-rearing, I'd be much obliged.

But HD programing is offered free OTA...Once the HDTV is bought, no other purchases need to be made. It's there for the taking.

Ghpr13

Put up an OTA antenna (if you can) - free HD. HD on "pay TV" is currently being used as a marketing tool ("we have more HD channels then XXXXX!")

HD TVs Now the Majority, but HD Viewing Lags Behind

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...g-lags-behind/


I don't pay extra for my 3D programming. It's part of my existing HD package plan (Comcast).


Comparison of DVI to 3D?

In total agreement with you.

Ghpr13

Approx. 82% of all USA households get their TV signals from "pay TV."

And not all people can now receive HD OTA. It depends on where you live in relationship to the transmitting tower. Many found this out when the analog to digital switchover was made.

yes paper glasses. They have been out for years and are cheaply had.


I understand why that statement would seem confusing. I am saying 3D content has existed for far longer than HD. Thus exposure, while spotty, is higher in 3D than the initial introduction to HD content. It has been around longer. Hell, even the schools teach kids 3D concepts. HD is something that has been learned here recently (by the masses). 3D is embedded in the minds of a great many people.

3D content can be had on the cheap for years. Get some anaglyph glasses cheaply and rent or buy a 3D movie secondhand.

With all these things in mind, one would think it would have a higher chance of success over the years (decades).

- Originally Posted by greenland:

I wonder how many people are like me, when it comes to the 3D home viewing question?

My current situation is that the recent conversion to HiDef home viewing has been such a great upgrade, that I am still getting great enjoyment from it, and feeling very pleased and content with the terrific quality of my current viewing options, compared to when I had to watch mostly analog fare.

Perhaps the manufacturers rolled out their 3D products a few years too soon. After all, the vast majority of the population is just starting to enjoy the first big upgrade in the quality of tv viewing since Color TV was first introduced.

If they are like me, they are probably delighted with the viewing payoff from their fairly recent investment in HiDef equipment, and are not feeling jaded enough yet, to feel any need to upgrade again, in the near future.

Just some food for thought!

- Originally posted by Ghpr13:

In total agreement with you.

- originally posted by me:

In complete agreement with the two of you.

__________________
Info=Knowledge=Understanding=Better TV!
I see dead pixels!