Originally Posted by duanew
Yea I am afraid of the same thing. I kind of think 3d is a gimmick and that I would not use it very often. I am in the market and I am wondering if it is worth the extra cost specifically in the 80" market.
Is 3D a gimmick.. yes and no. It can be amusing with the occasional 3d bluray or trip to the theater, it can be fun for kids, but beyond that? Almost nobody uses it day-to-day, and overall, interest in 3D among TV buyers is on the decline, and the use of 3D mode by existing 3DTV owners is on the decline. One of the main reasons for this is simply due to the lack of 3D content being produced. It is almost as if broadcasters have lost interest and abandoned their ambitions of producing 3D content. You can’t blame them, though. The hype surrounding 3D television has worn off and broadcasters have realized that the expenses involved in making 3D content aren’t justifiable - the ROI isn't there.
I read a lot of industry stats and studies and have watched roundtables with CE industry execs; its hilarious to see the theories going back and forth. One explanation, that consumers are "confused" and just need more education. They're basically scratching their heads and wondering why the technological revolution they have attempted to manufacture with billions sunken into marketing effort simply hasn't happened. One problem is they haven't really innovated 3D much beyond its 1950's form.
All that aside, as consumers we shouldn't feed into their game by paying a premium on the 3D capable version of a product line, when it costs them less than $10 in additional hardware to add 3D capability to the 120Hz native panel found in their non-3D model. And if that artificial premium weren't bad enough they double dip on the upsell of the glasses.
As fabs continue to standardize on 120Hz+ native panels eventually these premiums will shrink due to price wars and almost every set will just be a "3DTV", but it'll still leave the problem of a severe lack of content. People have tried to make the argument that HDTV took a while to catch on too, but its hardly the same - one is a headache-inducing, eye straining, optical illusion that's subjective and varies from person to person. The other is an absolute, mathematical sextupling of standard def's resolution that's undeniably sharper to anyone with average sight under the age of 80 that's not a crazy person. Not to mention HDTV was mandated by the government. Don't see that happening with 3D.
Bottom line: 3D is much ado about nothing in the context of home use until the developers of day-to-day content (TV broadcast & cable networks) get interested, and again, they're only backing further away. Which tells us a lot, because they follow the sales and usage stats and studies closer than anyone. And until they care, why should we.