Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 22

Well - you sure aren't an early adopter. HDTV was launched Q4 1997. You waited what, 10 - 12 years before you adopted it?

People that are buying 3DTVs, for use to watch 3D, want the latest and greatest. That is the definition of an early adopter. The general public doesn't fall into this category.

And I think one of my first comments in the thread was that the "feature" would become more and more common in new TV sets.

As such, it will be available to a wider and wider audience.

Not everyone will put value in the feature, of course. But it will become more common, and as such, I believe that that means it's here to stay.

I don't really see it as offensive, but since you do. I apologize.

I do have kids. 4 of them to be exact. (No need to insert accolades here...)

I was saying that if you don't let your kids watch a bunch of TV, then you cannot argue from the position you were taking. You realize that too much of TV, while not a foodstuff (a physical poison), can take a toll. So not considering possible detriments related to extensive 3D viewing, would not make a whole lot of sense.

While it was not meant as an attack, it may have been phrased as such inadvertently.

Never seen so much half-truth spin and sidestepping coming from a single source before - either that or you are absolutely clueless about HDTV and interpreting survey results.

I'd prefer you just didn't respond to my posts if you aren't going to discuss at least semi-honestly. Plenty of people on both sides of the issue here trying to discuss it productively. I'll do you the same courtesy and disregard your posts.

Yeah I have a 3D 1080p LCD TV and 95% of my viewing is still analog SD. Of my 'full HD' (1080p) viewing, the majority has been 3D content. HD is the fad, not 3D! Where is the poll - is 1080p a fad or here to stay?

Thank you.


That's nonsense.

So if I don't let my kids watch TV all day then I can't comment on whether 3D is bad for their health? Ridiculous, but nice try.

I think most parents should realize by now that watching hours and hours of TV, whether in 2D or in 3D, can have a negative impact on development and motivation.

But watching a reasonable quantity of movies, educational content or even plain entertainment such as The Suite Life on Deck, whether in 3D or in 2D, has not negatively affected them in any way.

Your attempt to use the FIRST point (which is almost universally accepted) to prove the second point (that 3D is bad for kids) has NO logical or argumentative connection, and misses the mark by a long way.

Regardless of what actual issue or concerns exist about 3D viewing, my original point was that using that argument does not hold water.

Watching TV for hours on end, which is bad, does not in and of itself make watching 3D bad also, unless, again, you are watching hours and hours of it.

Too late, the market has already answered the question. Very few people that have HD capable households can manage to only be able to view 5% of their programming in HD. You must watch some real obscure channels if they don't have HD yet.

How about sticking to the real facts. The actual conversion from Analog to Digital/HiDef did not happen way back in 1997. It happened in 2009. Blu-Ray 1080P has also not being around very long. Early adopters tell us nothing about what will actually take off, or fail.

And the 3D looks like crap compared to today's full color 3D. Anaglyph 3D is nothing more then a novelty. A cheap method of watching (if you can stand it) 3D on any TV. For the time it has been available, it is very limited in content.


Most of the memories of 3D (especially in the home) come from Anaglyph 3D previous to 2010. And most of those memories can't be good because Anaglyph 3D in and of itself is sorely lacking, to say nothing of the paper with cellophane lens'd eye wear.

It IMO is not a "WOW" tech, like HD is or can be.

Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's exposure or delivery is a positive.


So have VHS tapes, You can buy them at garage sales for 25 cents a piece. LOL - doesn't mean people want them.


Television is in close to 100% of all USA households (114M).

3DTV has some issues that will prevent it from ever reaching anywheres near that kind of adoption;

1. Approx 12% of all people can't see 3D due to serious vision issues.

2. Another approx 10% get physical side affects from 3D

So you just lost approx 22% of your available market. Those people aren't going to equip their homes with 3D content.

Then you have people who just don't like 3D. It doesn't interest them. Not everyone likes 3D even if they have no vision issues. No idea how large that % is.

3. Then you have the small library of existing 3D content which affects the growth of 3D BD and what can be made available quickly to new 3DTV owners.

You could say that 3DTVs "higher chance of success" would be like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

The facts:

1.In the USA, HDTV was launched at the end of 1997

2.HDTVs first became available to the public in August 1998 (Panasonic) Previous to that people used FPTVs.

3.Blu-ray was launched June of 2006

The analog to digital switchover is just that. It WASN't the analog to HDTV switchover and only affected those that got their TV signals from OTA which was approx 18% of all USA HH's with a TV (the % has stayed constant for quite some time)

Early adopters drive new products. There weren't enough of them to drive HD DVD so it failed. There weren't enough of them to move LD into mainstream so it remained a niche product for 20 years

Early adopters put their desire for new tech before the price when it comes to a buying decision. They want the latest and greatest and will pay the highest price over the life of the product.

Not in the sense that its release now is going to hurt it long term, as opposed to waiting a few years. If success is being measured by how many people have 3DTVs in 2020, the earlier the better. If success is being measured by how many 3DTVs they sell this year, the economy is going to depress high end TV sales no matter what, so it doesnt really reflect on 3D.

Remember, 3D TVs arent really a separate category. Theyre just standard TVs with the ability to do 3D. It requires high end equipment right now, the incremental cost of 3D vs. 2D is getting less and less each day goes by.

Just as you cant really buy a SDTV today, doesnt mean everyone cares enough about HD to even get an HD cable box. It'll be the same with 3D. There if you want to use it, wont hurt you if you dont.

Again, did anyone REALLY expect 3D TVs to fly off the shelves? The fact that they arent doesnt really say anything about the long term viability of 3D in theaters or the household.

I just refuse to pay for them. I get the basic 70 or so cable channels, of which the 6 or 7 local channels have HD versions, and none of them are 1080p. Most of my viewing is hulu, netflix, comedy central online etc and that is rarely even nominally HD. Most of my movie watching is still DVD's with the odd bluray thrown in.
So local channels and a few netflix streams are my only HD content and Blu-ray is my only 1080p content (maybe the odd netflix stream?).
The nielsen survey has HD content at under 20% of total content viewed - if the market has spoken it wasn't a ringing endorsement of HD.

You don't consider Nielsen a qualified source for data?

Are you shooting the messenger for the message?

Have you seen this?

Just 13% Of Q4 Ads Aired In HD: Study

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._Ads_in_HD.php

It will not be successful until the glasses are eliminated and the price of that 50" glassless set is 2500 dollars or less. Until then its an expensive fad.

Stewart,

We get it. You love 3D, so would you please stop trying to bigfoot the discussions. 80% of those who have responded to the poll, have expressed strong reservations about the ultimate success of 3D TV viewing, so hush up for a while and let others have their say.

Also, an important factor here is that the content is fully backwards compatible, just like HD.

All 3D content is 2D content if you view only one side.
All blu-ray 3D movies *should* play on any compliant 2D bluray player.
All cable/sat boxes should be able to downsample 3D to 2D. (if they cant, thats insane)
All future game consoles will absolutely output to 2D if desired.

So 3D content creators arent really taking any huge risks on making it. Its not like 3D content can only be viewed on 3D TVs. If it couldnt, despite how much I like it, it'd be dead in the water.

And if the 3D you see is inferior to todays glasses based 3DTVs?

Wow!

If a whopping 60% of rabid AVS members think 3D is a silly fad, what does that say about the general population's opinion?

Well Land - this is an open forum. I wasn't aware their was a posting limit

Presented like that, yes it has a a lessened potential market from the get go. Don't get me wrong, I am not a pundit of 3D. Just trying to play both sides to see a little more clearly on this subject.

Just saying it has been around a lot longer and has never caught on. Maybe, like you said, it sucked before without newer tech behind it. Peoples knowledge of 3D's existence probably plays against it and for it.

True


But they don't - not all


AFAIK, they don't.


Can't address that one. Not a gamer.


Shooting in 3D is more expensive then shooting in 2D or converting 2D to 3D. But, if they choose, they can only use a single view so the content does have a life beyond 3D as you pointed out.

Clearly you are incapable of exercising any self restraint. You have been busier that a cat trying to bury it's feces on a tin roof, in your frantic efforts to attack anyone who expresses any reservations about the near term prospects for widespread adoption of 3D TV. Carry on Tiger; go scare of that 80% off the responders, who have not yet joined your religion.

IMO, some of the positive memories that people have had from viewing 3D:

1. An IMAX 3D theater

2. A special venue presentation at a theme park (Captain EO, T3-Battle Across Time)

3. Viewmaster!

You should practice what you preach - attack the post and not the poster. Too bad you are sorely lacking in that endeavor.

Just put me on ignore and your problem is solved

Looks like you need to take a closer look at that survey as well.

According to that Nielsen survey: 56% not only have an HDTV, they have an HD source.

If that isn't a ringing endorsement, then 3D TV has no hope at all. It's DOA.

They are factoring all additional televisions in the household. That means if a kid is watching TV on an SDTV (or HDTV without HD service) for the same amount of time that his parents are watching the main TV in HD, the percentage gets cut in half.

Using that survey to come to the conclusion that HDTV was rejected by the public is as ignorant as stating that DD 5.1 is a failure because even when only looking at the households that have a 5.1 system, most of them have it only on 1 television despite having an average of 3 TV's in the house.

I think that's about right - 56% of USA HHs have at least one HDTV (probably higher now) and 56% of those HH's have an HD content source

Nice try, read it again.

Like I said - please stop responding to my posts. Especially since you can't stop trying to reword every single post you come across to suit your own agenda. Let the rest of us discuss the topic without interference.

Excellent point. Though we both agree, that was one aspect to the argument I didn't even consider.

I did read it:

44 percent of homes either do not have an HD set or an HD service

If a home has no HDTV why would they have HD service?

And what exactly is my "agenda?"

That means 56% have BOTH.

Actual penetration of HDTVs is well north of the 67% it was almost a year ago.


Just read some of the 144 posts you've made in this thread and you'll figure it out. (That's >21% if you're curious, and not 21% of 21%)