Why 3D TV Went From CES Darling to Consumer Reject - Page 2

Agreed, and though I can understand the economic/technical reasons why Peter Jackson went with 48 fps I am hoping that James Cameron goes with 60 fps for Avatar 2/3. For information about The Hobbit movies being filmed at 48 fps this Facebook post from Peter Jackson provides some great information and he gave a bit more information with this later post.

It took 10 years for HDTV to become popular, and even NOW people like the screeen format and TV thinness over the HD part.

3D is far far far from a failure yet.

It will be a failure when you see them stop producing content (the opposite is happening, we have more and more) and like Cable Card, they stop building 3D into the TVs (hasn't happened yet).

Fantastic! I want to hug him. 24fps is positively ridiculous. I remember watching a scene from avatar where the camera panned around the control room and I'm asking myself if I'm literally the only person who can see how awful this looks.

Same when I'm playing a game in 3D. It's almost impossible to track motion in low frame rates. The new sonic game, which is a fast paced sidescroller - is 30fps. It's basically nothing but a camera pan. In 3D it is literally unplayable.

I can just hear the "hobbit looks like a soap opera!" cries already. But it's about damn time.

I'm guessing they're going with 48 over 60 since its probably a much easier conversion to 24 that way. I dunno what they're going to do on bluray though...I don't know of any TV that will support 48, and it's probably a much tricker conversion to go from 48-60. Perhaps they'll just release the 24fps one for the home until TVs catch up.

Bingo.

Is there a reason why theaters can't have native 48FPS while consumers are still stuck at 24 FPS when it comes to Blu-ray? You want high quality looking movies - go to a theater. Or settle for less watching it at home. Makes sense right?

That was the whole purpose of both Todd AO and Cinemascope back in the 1950's as was 3D.

The reason is that I hate going to the theater. The movie might be high quality but the experience is horrible.

3D is not a "consumer reject". 3D market share is ALWAYS going up and NEVER declining even while the technology continues to evolve and improve.

The obvious is that 2D is dead/obsolete/already gone - some supporters of it just haven't figured it out yet.

The flow of content will wax in 2012 and become more and more available in the broadcast/cable streams into every home.

Once a person has seen quality 3D he/she will never be quite as satisfied with the lower visual impact of 2D or "flat" video.

2D to 3D conversion will continue to improve and it's pretty cool now. We've been watching some of our favorite 2D movies with conversion to 3D and some of it is pretty amazing. We really enjoyed watching our 2D 2012 DVD using the conversion feature and some of the 3D effects were better than okay.

WOW - some of our personal 2D home video movies bring giggles when watched in the converted 3D mode.

Sure, more people are still buying 2D - times are tough and money it tight and 3D content is sub par but - as with all new truly inovative tech evolution steps - popularity will continue to grow while price points for hardware and content go down and 3D will replace flat video which is - truly obsolete.

Why in the world would anyone who hates 3D bother reading about 3D and commenting about 3D? If I hate something -- some sort of food for example I avoid it. If I don't like a style of clothing I avoid it. If I don't liked a certain car I don't read about it and so on.

This Grandpa thinks the major problem is lack of content. 3D will always be here from now on. But I think it will never the major content either in movies or on TV until you have compatibility and glasses-less viewing.

When color TV started, you had NBC and RCA (commonly owned at that time) pushing it - a definite common financial benefit to each and an advantage over competitors. Color was compatible with B & W. NBC started broadcasting most major events, Rose Parade, Bowl Games, etc in color and had that wonderful peacock logo opening at the start of a color show,and kept increasing the # of color shows. That sold RCA color TV's, the only brand at first and then with Zenith as the only major competitor for some time. Non color TV owners were wondering what they were missing on their B & W sets when they saw the peacock logo at the start of a show. The other TV networks had to follow suit with color broadcasting, fearing not to allow NBC to get too far ahead of them. So the push was there. That push does not exist currently with 3D TV.

Also there is the glasses issue. People don't mind putting on the glasses occasionally for a couple hour movie, etc. But to have to wear them all evening to watch TV is a daunting proposition. Hopefully glasses-less 3D will come in the future and take away this objection, as will compatibility.

You could encode it at 720p60 under current 3D blu-ray formats/mechanisms. You'd lose resolution (still HD)..but could display closer to the 48fps Jackson and 60fps Cameron wants to use. I wouldn't mind seeing a Hobbit bluray release with two encodes for 3D...one at 1080p24 and the other at 720p60.

Yeah...I'd def choose to watch it in a lower resolution but higher frame rate.

It's easy to see how they get from 48 to 24, but I dunno how they're going to get 48-60 without introducing judder. Maybe at the higher frame rate it'll be less obvious than it is going from 24-60.

Not sure which CES the Wired article Author attend but the one I attended a week or so ago had 3D at all the major manufacturers booths. I was very pleased with the 3D presentation demos. When you walked into the central hall LG had a large multi story display that just smacked you with its 3D image. They were giving many who walked in glasses for the demo.

Why do people who don't like 3d have to not only complain about it, but have to also try to convince others that its no good. Why? This article is pointless because CES was full of 3D and its getting better and better and I hope they keep on improving on it because it has the potential to far outdo the 2d handsdown if done properly. 3D has the potential of giving us a realistic window affect that 2d can never give us even at 4k. I think most people who don't like 3d also want to see it fail, not realizign its potential. If people don't like 3d they should just not watch it and stop throwing such a fuzz.

I guess I am with you, but maybe not as vehement. I jettisoned a perfectly good projector to go 3D this year and was really looking forward to something new. However, like you, I have been somewhat underwhelmed. After paying $72 for my family of four to see the new Underworld in 3D IMAX this past weekend, I am even more underwhelmed, although I love IMAX and liked the movie. IMHO, 3D added absolutely nothing to the experience; although I will have to verify that after I see it in 2D, that was certainly my first impression.

Avatar was fantastic, but only in the CGI rendered scenes, as are many other CGI movies. Animation can be fantastic as well. However, I have yet to see one live action 3D movie scene that "wows" me- not one scene. And, there lies the problem. With 99% of movies being live action, who wants to pay to see a "pop-up book"? Even ESPN (Disney) almost shut down ESPN 3D this year and after watching part of a game during the college season, I can see why- we ended up shutting it down in favor of the 2D HD version.

I have settled in that 3D is a very cool but not very useful toy. One that can be used to demo a system or keep a few kids (and adults) occupied for a while, but little else. I will be keeping what I have and will still buy a combo version BD when the movie comes out, but I am not anxiously waiting for content any longer, and will certainly only buy the next 3D display if it is as good at 2D as I want and the 3D costs no more. It is apparent that is where most people have settled. I am just glad that my projector purchase turned out as good as it did. I at least ended up with a good 2D projector and I can still get a "wow" from time to time from guests, but so far, my family and I have chosen 2D almost exclusively when given the choice.

Well, I just got a Samsung PN60E7000 Plasma and am enjoying the 3D quite a bit.

the 60" size seems okay for me. Coming from an old Sammy 56" DLP.

The glasses that came with it are just $19.99 and can be had online for a few bucks less. Thats not too bad for active glasses.

But yeah, there is still some premium for 3D TV's.

I think a large percentage of people look for TV's under $1000. You can get a 55" regular set for about that now.

Also, HDTV sales were quite high the last few years so people are not wanting to upgrade so quickly. I thought I read 20011 sales were down from previous years?

It's the lack of content and glasses. Even if LG developed the light 3D glasses for the passive 3D tech, if not much movies or videos will be produced for home entertainment, then it will die down.

Around 30 3D movies have been released so far this year in natiove 3D and around 10 more converted. Content is coming.

I look to the internet to move much more 3D content to viewers. Normal media channels have too much inertia, and are slow to come online. The computer world moves much faster. In April, Google made 3D a permanent feature on YouTube (was beta). They already have HTML5 3D in addition to the other formats.

Michael