or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead - Page 9

post #241 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "tgm1024 

Why would "many" people purchase a 3D version they have no intention of watching?  That seems weird. 
Many people who buy a 3D2D combo have no intention of watching the 2D version, its not that different from folks who watch the 2D version and don't care for the 3D version. Folks are looking for a movie and a certain version and when the price is right they don't care.

 

Add to the list of things I've never seen are 3D+2D versions being cheaper than the 2D versions.  You're seeing that?

post #242 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

Add to the list of things I've never seen are 3D+2D versions being cheaper than the 2D versions.  You're seeing that?
I must mention that i spend half an hour a day looking for blu-ray's.

There are many blu-ray movies out there. Sometimes its easier to buy a 3D/2D combopack (when one can not find a 2D single disc version) . Why look any further when you can get a used 2D3D combo for €7? There might be a 2D single disc version out there in a store - but a store is most of the time more expensive - at a minimum price of €10 over here in Europe.

So i can find easily several 3D blu-ray's that are cheaper than 2D versions . Keep in mind that there are also 2D special editions and 2D DVD combo packs out there which are more expensive than 2D single disc versions..
post #243 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 
I don't see the logic in this.

Why buy the 3D version if you don't want 3D and the 3D version costs 50% more than the 2D version?
All those movies i mentioned were 10 euro or less. You won't get sealed 2D single disc versions of those movies in most stores for less than 10 euro so in these specific cases you might as well buy the 3D combo pack.
post #244 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

Add to the list of things I've never seen are 3D+2D versions being cheaper than the 2D versions.  You're seeing that?
I must mention that i spend half an hour a day looking for blu-ray's.

There are many blu-ray movies out there. Sometimes its easier to buy a 3D/2D combopack (when one can not find a 2D single disc version) . Why look any further when you can get a used 2D3D combo for €7? There might be a 2D single disc version out there in a store - but a store is most of the time more expensive - at a minimum price of €10 over here in Europe.

So i can find easily several 3D blu-ray's that are cheaper than 2D versions . Keep in mind that there are also 2D special editions and 2D DVD combo packs out there which are more expensive than 2D single disc versions..

 

If you're buying used movies, then you're not contributing to the buying statistics in question.

post #245 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

If you're buying used movies, then you're not contributing to the buying statistics in question.

Three 3D movies €12.99
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/moviepower-box-2-actie/9200000015334124/


Show me 2D blu-ray versions of these movies, if there are any, cheaper than €5.
Edited by 8mile13 - 10/20/13 at 12:01pm
post #246 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

If you're buying used movies, then you're not contributing to the buying statistics in question.

Three 3D movies €12.99
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/moviepower-box-2-actie/9200000015334124/


Show me 2D blu-ray versions of these movies, if there are any, cheaper than €5.

 

I have no idea what a "movie power box 2" is.  And what is "Actie"?  This a German-only release or something?

post #247 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

I have no idea what a "movie power box 2" is.  And what is "Actie"?  This a German-only release or something?
Its dumb talk. Its dutch. Three 3D movies on three seperate discs in one box €13. Additional you must pay for mailing (,,,€2)

Finding a new cheap 3D 2D combi pack is not easy. I found one, The Three Musketeers €6.69 , mailing(free)
post #248 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn 

On the one hand, you say that 3D failed because it didn't result in more TVs being sold and on the other you say that whether or not more 3D TVs were sold is irrelevant. What's important is how interested people are in watching 3D.


In a welcome piece of good news for the 3D industry, a report indicates 3D content and technology is thriving.
According to an IHS Screen Digest Cross Platform Intelligence report, worldwide metrics are on the rise for 3D technology as a whole. 3D Blu-ray sales nearly doubled in 2012 compared to 2011 in America and the number of 3D cinema screens has increased fourfold over the past three years to 43,000 by the third quarter this year.

In the US-centric report, US consumers will spend $2 billion watching 3D movies, an increase of 8.5% compared to 2011. The spend covers 3D box office, 3D VOD and 3D Blu-ray.
A lot of 3D blu-ray movies are sold as 2D/3D packages and lots of 2D blu-ray disc have a 3D version included on the same disc. Often when you want to buy a 2D blu-ray when its fresh on the market you are forced to buy such a 3D/2D package. Sales don't give you the whole picture. You need to know what folks actually watch.

I've never seen a bluray where one was forced to buy the 3d version if only interested in the 2d one? I see it the other way around though more often than not.
post #249 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 

I've never seen a bluray where one was forced to buy the 3d version if only interested in the 2d one? I see it the other way around though more often than not.

right, i was a bit off track there smile.gif

But, you will find a used 3D2D combo pack now and then cheaper than a non 3D version.
post #250 of 398
And we finally get the truth out about how folks try to skew numbers to fit their personal agenda.

Someone mentioned retail 3D sales figures and you pipe up that the numbers are misleading because you claim "a lot of people buy the 3D version because they have no choice and don't really want the 3D copy". Only AFTER pressure to show how that's possible do you admit that you're going off your own preferences bargain hunting for USED BDs.

FYI, the RETAIL figures do NOT count used copy resale, and yet without disclosing this, you try to use this extremely biased view as evidence? The folks buying new retail 3D copies ARE buying them because they WANT the 3D version. Folks buying used Blu Rays could want to use them for coffee coasters. Who knows?


Max
post #251 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 
And we finally get the truth out about how folks try to skew numbers to fit their personal agenda.

max
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax 
Someone mentioned retail 3D sales figures and you pipe up that the numbers are misleading because you claim "a lot of people buy the 3D version because they have no choice and don't really want the 3D copy". Only AFTER pressure to show how that's possible do you admit that you're going off your own preferences bargain hunting for USED BDs.

max
^^Your problem is that you can't handle 3D scepticisme.


''Worldwide sales of 3D TV jumped 72 percent''
right. The ZT60, VT60, B8500, all 4K TVs and all OLED TVs are 3D capable TVs, just to name a few. Try to buy a TOP TV or new advancements in TV tech that has no 3D ability, good luck with that amigo. So, yes, those numbers are definitely misleading. Folks buying 3D TVs has very little to do with 3D.
post #252 of 398
Nope. I can readily admit the possibility that many 3D displays sold have never been used for 3D. State that all you want.

I DO however, wonder why folks feel the need to skew the numbers with made up claims like, "many people buy 3D BDs for the 2D BD copies and never watch the 3D copy" to contest the increase in 3D BD sales, just for their own personal agendas.


Max
post #253 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I often wonder if this is why Plasma is failing. I see a lot of people who want a 37" or 40" TV. They don't buy Plasma because it means they have to get 46" or 50" Even the 42" models if you can find one are usually not as loaded with some other features people want. So if you want a smaller size, you have to go LCD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, because the people who want larger TVs also overwhelmingly choose LCD.  This is an old topic, but plasma is failing for a few reasons, all of which are fodder for enormous battles in these parts.

I don't want to get too far into this here, but, yes, it matters that there are few small plasmas... a bit. It matters that every mfr. sells LCD a lot, though.

Back to the whole, "Does a 3-D sale equate to someone who wants/watches the 3-D version?" I'd say it does most of the time, but it's simply not true that it does all of the time.

We very occasionally shop for discs at retail (mostly for data gathering) and find there are more than a few times the only BluRay at the store contains a 3-D copy in the kit. When that's true, it's safe to conclude that some portion of buyers never use the 3-D disc.

I think given that retail is lumpier and messier than, say, Amazon, the idea that 3-D retail BluRay sales didn't really double over the past year is probably a little bit true. But, of course, they grew a lot either way.

The question is whether that kind of growth is going to continue. If 3-D BluRay software sales reach $1 billion by next year and $5 billion by 2018, well, everyone is going to be pretty happy. Of course, that's still only about 160 million discs per year, or roughly 1.25 for each TV household in the U.S. So even that scenario (which feels unlikely) suggests a lack of 3-D popularity, unless it's also accompanied by huge spikes in 3-D VOD sales/rentals, Netflix/Redbox offering 3-D discs, etc. etc.
post #254 of 398
I took a look at the 3D Blu-ray sales.

According this ''Spend on 3D Blu-ray nearly doubled in 2012'' link
http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/spend-on-3d-blu-ray-nearly-doubled-in-2012/11518 , 51 percent of global 3D blu-ray spending is done in the USA.

Though spending is up 94 percent compared to 2011 it is still just $220 million - at $20 for one 3d blu-ray that is 11.000. 000 3D blu-ray's sold in the US, which means that worldwide, outside the US, also 11.000.000 3D blu-ray's were sold.. There must be at least 10.000.000 3D TV's in the US on 1 january 2013 so, to put it simple, every 3D TV owner has bought one 3D blu-ray in 2012..


I would expect that most of those who would buy a new TV right now would buy a 3D TV, this does not seems to be the case. Just 14 percent of US consumers said they expect to buy a 3D TV for their next purchase, according a recent - june 2013 - NPD survey.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/

btw there is no 3D TV on the market right now. There are only hybrid 2D3D TVs AKA 3D capable TVs on the market.
Edited by 8mile13 - 10/22/13 at 5:25am
post #255 of 398

Using a store with "lumpy" product availability works both for and against the argument though, at least to some extent.  It's certainly possible that folks looking for a 3D blu-ray have to settle for a 2D blu-ray which they regard as "good enough" but not their first choice.

post #256 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Folks buying 3D TVs has very little to do with 3D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

btw there is no 3D TV on the market right now. There are only hybrid 2D3D TVs AKA 3D capable TVs on the market.

I think you guys need to cool it. You're systematically "unskewing" the data at every possible chance to diminish 3D. There's good news and and bad news for 3D. I think we should accept uncertainty, as that's the reality of 3D right now.
post #257 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion 

I think you guys need to cool it. You're systematically "unskewing" the data at every possible chance to diminish 3D. There's good news and and bad news for 3D. I think we should accept uncertainty, as that's the reality of 3D right now.
To me it's kind a like the Letterman segment ''is this anything?'', i do not know what to make of it yet. Its to early to tell. Good news and bad news means very little at this point.

What's important IMO is wether or not the future is 3D, will 3D replace 2D. I do not believe that will gonna happen., eventually 3D will take a segment of the market, lets just be positive here smile.gif, stabilizing at 20 procent.
post #258 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

What's important IMO is wether or not the future is 3D, will 3D replace 2D. I do not believe that will gonna happen.

I don't think that will happen either. 2D is too simple to be replaced.

I think a good analogy is surround sound. Obviously, it's better than 2.0 sound. But, that doesn't mean that 5.1 surround sound systems are the only option for audio. It doesn't mean that headphones or earbuds can't dominate. For consumers who are willing to pay the premium for surround sound equipment (both in dollars and convenience), the hardware and content are readily available. For those who don't want to pay for it or aren't interested enough in it, they don't have to. I think that is a reasonable future for 3D/2D.
post #259 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion 

I think you guys need to cool it. You're systematically "unskewing" the data at every possible chance to diminish 3D. There's good news and and bad news for 3D. I think we should accept uncertainty, as that's the reality of 3D right now.
To me it's kind a like the Letterman segment ''is this anything?'', i do not know what to make of it yet. Its to early to tell. Good news and bad news means very little at this point.

What's important IMO is wether or not the future is 3D, will 3D replace 2D. I do not believe that will gonna happen., eventually 3D will take a segment of the market, lets just be positive here smile.gif, stabilizing at 20 procent.

 

The stretched idea of 3D somehow "replacing" 2D is not something has anything at all to do with this thread.

 

Without glasses, flawless, all the time, maybe someday.  But this thread was about some "evidence" that the 3D "movement" (<---whatever the @#$% that means) is "already dead".  The 3D "movement" (I feel ridiculous even parroting that term back) is never about 2D vanishing.

post #260 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion 
Originally Posted by Airion 


I think you guys need to cool it. You're systematically "unskewing" the data at every possible chance to diminish 3D. There's good news and and bad news for 3D. I think we should accept uncertainty, as that's the reality of 3D right now.
To me it's kind a like the Letterman segment ''is this anything?'', i do not know what to make of it yet. Its to early to tell. Good news and bad news means very little at this point.


What's important IMO is wether or not the future is 3D, will 3D replace 2D. I do not believe that will gonna happen., eventually 3D will take a segment of the market, lets just be positive here smile.gif , stabilizing at 20 procent.

The stretched idea of 3D somehow "replacing" 2D is not something has anything at all to do with this thread.

Without glasses, flawless, all the time, maybe someday.  But this thread was about some "evidence" that the 3D "movement" (<---whatever the @#$% that means) is "already dead".  The 3D "movement" (I feel ridiculous even parroting that term back) is never about 2D vanishing.
Exactly.

The truth is, even in the US, there's a fairly significant percentage who still haven't made the move to HD completely. They still watch SD video and buy or rent DVDs.

HD has been available for over a decade! Does that mean that "HD is dead!"? Yeah, the same types of mentalities parroted that statement a few years after the introduction of HD, when the market segment was still small. I'm pretty sure we ALL know the validity of those statements now.

Simply put, some consumers tend to adopt things early. Many others do so at a slower pace. Sure, at this current time, there are a lot of 3D-capable displays available, and not all of them are purchased specifically FOR displaying 3D. That doesn't change the fact that 3D media sales are growing significantly (even though the % is still a small share of total sales). As with the slow initial growth of the HD market, as more material people want to watch becomes available, the number of adopters will increase.

What's important to note is that 3D media sales are increasing, and despite what some folks want to claim about buyers purchasing 3D BDs because they have no other option to get the 2D BD, the VAST majority of 3D BD sales are because the buyers WANT the 3D copy.

As far as 3D completely replacing 2D, as the post quoted above mentions, it's not going to happen until glasses free, flawless 3D is commonly available at prices that the majority of consumers can afford. But that has no bearing on this thread.

3D is most certainly not dead, and I fully expect to see its market share increase as time goes by and technological advancements continue to improve the experience. For the folks who seem to loathe 3D for whatever personal reasons, and continually try to forecast its demise, there's a simple solution. Don't watch 3D if you don't like it.


Max
post #261 of 398

A side note.  I've heard from folks that there are still people out there connecting their composite cable to the back of their TV.  When they try to upgrade to a better picture, they go to Component.  Why?  Because they didn't know to ask the cable company for an HDMI tuner, or didn't want to pay the upcharge.  Yes ladies and gentlemen, there were cableboxes out there capable of HD but without HDMI.

post #262 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

  Yes ladies and gentlemen, there were cableboxes out there capable of HD but without HDMI.

Sure, I have two in my house and I'm keeping them. My capture device (Hauppauge HD-PVR) is component input only. Component is okay, stereo only though. Most of my captures are old movies anyway, with mono or stereo.

Capturing via HDMI requires an HDCP stripper, which pretty much means importing it from a non-US source or buying used.

I also capture Comcast's Xfinity 3D programming on occasion. It's the only way I can view them, as HDCP prevents playing via component (that channel only). Anyway, that's a bonus, as I don't pay for it. One of my boxes has the oddity of passing any new channel added since I first got it 6-7 years ago.
Edited by fritzi93 - 10/24/13 at 4:41am
post #263 of 398

My brother ran his 50" plasma with component briefly until he got the HDMI cablebox.  The PQ was horrendous.

post #264 of 398
Something was wrong then besides the difference between component and HDMI. It's nothing like the huge difference between composite and component.

When I first got my HD-PVR, I tested it by capturing a Blu-Ray (in 1080i). Then compared the captures to the same Blu-Ray, with the standalone set to 1080i output. Yes, the captures, even at highest bitrate, didn't look quite as good when played from the HTPC via HDMI. Part of that was of course the re-encode (and my purpose in doing it was to test various capture bitrates, BTW). Any re-encode with a lossy codec loses some quality. Still, it wasn't like I could instantly tell them apart; even though I know what to look for.

It's funny, there are some very experienced members at videohelp who will argue that component is superior to HDMI. Which I don't buy into, but component can yield respectable video quality when using good cables.
post #265 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

Something was wrong then besides the difference between component and HDMI. It's nothing like the huge difference between composite and component.

When I first got my HD-PVR, I tested it by capturing a Blu-Ray (in 1080i). Then compared the captures to the same Blu-Ray, with the standalone set to 1080i output. Yes, the captures, even at highest bitrate, didn't look quite as good when played from the HTPC via HDMI. Part of that was of course the re-encode (and my purpose in doing it was to test various capture bitrates, BTW). Any re-encode with a lossy codec loses some quality. Still, it wasn't like I could instantly tell them apart; even though I know what to look for.

It's funny, there are some very experienced members at videohelp who will argue that component is superior to HDMI. Which I don't buy into, but component can yield respectable video quality when using good cables.

 

superior?  As in going from digital source to analog trasfer to a digital device?  That sounds suspiciously like the broken logic of the analog mastering arguments (DAD) of DVD's that floated around briefly.

 

I'd (honestly) love to hear why they think this.

post #266 of 398
There are far more than 10 million homes with 3D-capable TVs in the U.S. It's more like 30 million....
post #267 of 398
For the movement to be dead you would start to see the new tv products reflecting that, but so far all the new models I've seen are 3dTvs. Also, the resident AVS bluray reviewer gets a bit upset it seems when the studios only send him the 2D version of a movie when there is a 3D version of it available as well.
post #268 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

For the movement to be dead you would start to see the new tv products reflecting that, but so far all the new models I've seen are 3dTvs. Also, the resident AVS bluray reviewer gets a bit upset it seems when the studios only send him the 2D version of a movie when there is a 3D version of it available as well.
And the simple fact is that retail sales of 3D BDs are increasing at a good rate.


Max
post #269 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

superior?  As in going from digital source to analog trasfer to a digital device?  That sounds suspiciously like the broken logic of the analog mastering arguments (DAD) of DVD's that floated around briefly.

I'd (honestly) love to hear why they think this.

Heh, yeah. You're on the right track there.

I'm thinking of one member in particular (though he has some support) who is immensely knowledgeable about filtering and editing. I confess I couldn't quite follow his argument, not having the necessary technical background.
I'll see if I can find a thread or two.

Here's one, and you'll recognize who I mean:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357895-HDMI-Cable-doesn-t-cost-me-a-fortune

I'm pretty sure he's said or implied that component is superior, but haven't found that thread yet where he says so. I suppose I should include a disclaimer that my memory could be at fault here. The subject comes up from time to time.

Here's an older one, but interesting. One poster, edDV, is a broadcast industry pro:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/285650-HDMI-vs-Component

And another one with edDV. Notice that Nelson37 (an IT pro and video hobbyist) relates the same experience you mention as to HDMI providing a dramatic improvement over component:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/269888-Is-1080i-thru-Component-the-same-video-quality-as-1080i-thru-HDMI

And my apologies for going off-topic on this thread.
post #270 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

superior?  As in going from digital source to analog trasfer to a digital device?  That sounds suspiciously like the broken logic of the analog mastering arguments (DAD) of DVD's that floated around briefly.

I'd (honestly) love to hear why they think this.

Heh, yeah. You're on the right track there.

I'm thinking of one member in particular (though he has some support) who is immensely knowledgeable about filtering and editing. I confess I couldn't quite follow his argument, not having the necessary technical background.
I'll see if I can find a thread or two.

Here's one, and you'll recognize who I mean:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357895-HDMI-Cable-doesn-t-cost-me-a-fortune

I'm pretty sure he's said or implied that component is superior, but haven't found that thread yet where he says so. I suppose I should include a disclaimer that my memory could be at fault here. The subject comes up from time to time.

Here's an older one, but interesting. One poster, edDV, is a broadcast industry pro:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/285650-HDMI-vs-Component

And another one with edDV. Notice that Nelson37 (an IT pro and video hobbyist) relates the same experience you mention as to HDMI providing a dramatic improvement over component:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/269888-Is-1080i-thru-Component-the-same-video-quality-as-1080i-thru-HDMI

And my apologies for going off-topic on this thread.


None of those threads make any case at all about Component being superior.  In the first thread, the word component isn't even used (as a connection type).  There's a small amount of vague analog vs. digital arguing going on that was squashed in a paragraph or so.  The 2nd thread (way back from 2008) makes a reference to the deactivation of the upscale filtering, and mostly in reference to DVD output.  The 3rd link (from 2007) the closest they get is to mention that below 42" the differences are even slighter, and (as you pointed out) one person said that HDMI was so remarkably better that everyone noticed right away.

 

In any event, the argument is moot.  And more than a little nutty not just in 2013, but back in 2008 and 2007.

 

There are still people buying vinyl records of all things.


Edited by tgm1024 - 10/24/13 at 5:27pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead