or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Vizio Eliminates 3D at CES 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vizio Eliminates 3D at CES 2014 - Page 2

post #31 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

Have you not heard of Gravity? That got huge publicity and great reviews by both critics and audiences. I saw it and it was amazing in 3D. Over on the blu-ray forum there are lots of people counting down the days to buy this on 3D blu-ray. Hugo was a great film and looked great in 3D. The Avengers was huge in theatres and blu-ray sales. Pacific Rim didn't do well in theatres for reasons beyond my understanding but in the Pacific Rim thread over on blu-ray.com there are lots of people who say it looks fantastic in 3D on blu-ray. I just bought the Wizard of Oz conversion last month and it looks stunning in 3D. In fact when I went to see Titanic, Pacific Rim, Gravity, and the new Oz film last year, the theatre had a pretty good audience. And I go in the afternoon on the weekend. Plus tickets are expensive, and many people stay home now and wait for the blu-ray. I do that often now. For the price of 2 tickets I can wait 4 months and buy it on 3D blu-ray and watch it as many times as I want on my 3D tv.

The problem is 3D haters think nobody likes 3D just because they don't. They talk like only "5 people" like it, like the above commenter joked. More and more 3D classics are hitting 3D blu-ray. House of Wax came out last year and looks amazing since it was filmed so well in 3D (like most older 50's 3D films were). Amityville 3D came out last year by Shout Factory on 3D blu-ray. Creature from the Black Lagoon and Dial M for Murder. They're working on Kiss Me Kate next. For those that enjoy it, there's lots to be excited about for home 3D. If you don't like it, fine, but there are more fans of this technology than you think. It's not just a gimmick when it's used well. Even as a gimmick it can be fun.

People are upset in here because Vizio is dropping 3D entirely form their entire 2014 lineup. It would be one thing if some models had it and some didn't to lower cost. But they're not even offering any new models with 3D as an option. I have a good selection of 3D blu-rays at this point, as many people do, and I certainly would not buy a new tv if I needed one that didn't support 3D. People buy into this 3D tech and buy 3D blu-rays and now some manufacturers don't even want to bother to support the format already.


Well said.
Edited by J y E 4Ever - 1/10/14 at 1:54pm
post #32 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdeath View Post

eagle_2, your samsung F8000 is active 3d?
In that case, can you tell me is you have had or tried the passive 3d? lots of differences? I have read that the active 3d for example in a plasma, makes the image very dark...

I now have Active and Passive at home.

Active for 3 yrs and Passive for under 24 hrs. lol

While Active looks great with the true 1080p to each eye, it gives me a headache and strains my eyes, even makes me nauseous.

Does the same to my wife and she has 20/20 vision and I wear glasses.

I went Passive now because Real3D doesn't bother me in the theater.

As expected, no headaches or eye strain at home either with my new Passive TV.

Sure the Passive doesn't seem as sharp with the 3D as the active does, but its not a huge quality degradation either.

I rather have slightly less 3D sharpness then ill effects.

Those active shutters opening and closing so close to my eyes was brutal.

If Active was the only form of 3D for the home, I wouldn't watch 3D.

Regarding the darkness, Passive seems a tad bit brighter.
post #33 of 116
I like how people who enjoy 3D think they can tell people who don't that "because you put in ear buds you should not mind wearing glasses for a movie". Umm, ok....

Incidentally, the "attach rate" for 3D ticket sales at the box office set record lows for many films this year. Most people don't even see 3D movies in 3D at the theater. There were notable exceptions: People went to see Gravity in 3D. (It wasn't much available in 2D at initial launch, only 20%... more later.. but the 3D was amazing, people loved it....). Pacific Rim did about 50% of box in 3D, fewer than 50% of tickets.. Many sold about 1/3 of tickets in 3D.

This is simply not a product that has captured the imagination of the masses, which doesn't mean it hasn't captured the imagination of a majority. Clearly it has. Vizio, however, sells mass market products.

Now, one could ask why they didn't leave 3D in some product? And the answer is simple and complex. By dropping it entirely, they save the direct costs of it.... Let's say that's $10 per TV x 20 million TVs. If they had left it in 2 million TVs, it would now cost more like $25 per TV (less volume discounting for Vizio). So it would be, say $50 million to support 2 million TVs vs. $200 million to support 20 million. That $25 per-set cost gets multiplied by the time you hit retail and adds more than $100 to the price you pay (Think Vizio margin, sometimes a distributor margin, retailer margin...). And even if it's in the 10%, maybe only 10-20% of those people really value the feature. (That actually meshes with stats that seem to suggest that only low single-digit percentages of people are using 3D in the home... There isn't evidence that even 10% of people have ever used it, and many have only 1-2x in more than a year....).

On top of this, by dropping it entirely, they can eliminate all engineering and support resources for it. That allows them to devote more effort toward UI, other picture quality, etc.
post #34 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by J y E 4Ever View Post


I now have Active and Passive at home.

Active for 3 yrs and Passive for under 24 hrs. lol

While Active looks great with the true 1080p to each eye, it gives me a headache and strains my eyes, even makes me nauseous.

Does the same to my wife and she has 20/20 vision and I wear glasses.

I went Passive now because Real3D doesn't bother me in the theater.

As expected, no headaches or eye strain at home either with my new Passive TV.

Sure the Passive doesn't seem as sharp with the 3D as the active does, but its not a huge quality degradation either.

I rather have slightly less 3D sharpness then ill effects.

Those active shutters opening and closing so close to my eyes was brutal.

If Active was the only form of 3D for the home, I wouldn't watch 3D.

Regarding the darkness, Passive seems a tad bit brighter.

Thank you very much...that's definitely not what I want for us...I really would like to try that active 3d anywhere so I could see if I feel the same as you because that's not what you want when you are trying to have a good time with your family or friends...

Anyway, there is a noticeable difference in quality and sharpness in favor of the active, right? Despite the ill effects I mean

post #35 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I like how people who enjoy 3D think they can tell people who don't that "because you put in ear buds you should not mind wearing glasses for a movie". Umm, ok....

Incidentally, the "attach rate" for 3D ticket sales at the box office set record lows for many films this year. Most people don't even see 3D movies in 3D at the theater. There were notable exceptions: People went to see Gravity in 3D. (It wasn't much available in 2D at initial launch, only 20%... more later.. but the 3D was amazing, people loved it....). Pacific Rim did about 50% of box in 3D, fewer than 50% of tickets.. Many sold about 1/3 of tickets in 3D.

This is simply not a product that has captured the imagination of the masses, which doesn't mean it hasn't captured the imagination of a majority. Clearly it has. Vizio, however, sells mass market products.

Now, one could ask why they didn't leave 3D in some product? And the answer is simple and complex. By dropping it entirely, they save the direct costs of it.... Let's say that's $10 per TV x 20 million TVs. If they had left it in 2 million TVs, it would now cost more like $25 per TV (less volume discounting for Vizio). So it would be, say $50 million to support 2 million TVs vs. $200 million to support 20 million. That $25 per-set cost gets multiplied by the time you hit retail and adds more than $100 to the price you pay (Think Vizio margin, sometimes a distributor margin, retailer margin...). And even if it's in the 10%, maybe only 10-20% of those people really value the feature. (That actually meshes with stats that seem to suggest that only low single-digit percentages of people are using 3D in the home... There isn't evidence that even 10% of people have ever used it, and many have only 1-2x in more than a year....).

On top of this, by dropping it entirely, they can eliminate all engineering and support resources for it. That allows them to devote more effort toward UI, other picture quality, etc.

A big thumbs up. biggrin.gif
post #36 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdeath View Post

Thank you very much...that's definitely not what I want for us...I really would like to try that active 3d anywhere so I could see if I feel the same as you because that's not what you want when you are trying to have a good time with your family or friends...
Anyway, there is a noticeable difference in quality and sharpness in favor of the active, right? Despite the ill effects I mean

To be clear, the difference in "sharpness" is not due to active having a better 3D effect, but that on a standard 1080P panel passive splits the vertical resolution between the two polarized images which nets half the overall resolution. With 4K panels, passive 3D has no resolution loss so it is just as sharp and clear, every bit as "3D-like" etc. as active. Which is exactly why those who like 3D were so excited for a 4K passive 3D set.
post #37 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdeath View Post

eagle_2, your samsung F8000 is active 3d?
In that case, can you tell me is you have had or tried the passive 3d? lots of differences? I have read that the active 3d for example in a plasma, makes the image very dark...

I'll share my experiences. Over the past couple years I tried several 3D tvs in my search for a good set. I tried a Samsung plasma 2012 model and while the image was excellent and the 3D was fantastic I found I had brightness popping issues and image retention issues and I didn't want to get saddled down by those headaches. I also tried a Panasonic plasma and while the image was excellent the 3D was poor. Too dark and the crosstalk/ghosting was awful. It also had issues detecting side-by-side 3D content, and sometimes I couldn't even switch into 3D mode manually because it wouldn't detect the video as 3D even though it was. So that went back.

I ended up with a Samsung ES7500 which had wonderful 3D but a host of panel issues, including banding in 3D mode and horrible flashlighting and clouding. After months of service calls a tech finally declared the set faulty and Samsung gave me full credit for the tv in the form of a Best Buy gift card (where I bought the previous set). By then it was spring of 2013 and the new Samsung sets were just hitting the market so I bought the 46" F8000, which is what I currently own. After a lot of hassle I finally found an excellent set. They moved some internals around in the F8000 so clouding has been pretty much eliminated, at least in my experience. A rep said the internals were causing hot spots that resulted in clouding, and they moved those further back from the panel to eliminate that issue. It worked for me.

As for the 3D with the F8000, it is the best I've seen yet on a home tv set. It's active so it uses shutter glasses. The full 1080p 3D image is astounding when playing a good 3D blu-ray, and I have the color adjusted perfectly in 3D mode. I even used the AVS test disc to adjust the contrast and brightness and color clipping in 3D mode. The result is a wonderful image. The crosstalk is very minimal to non-existent. Some videos do exhibit some mild crosstalk (high-contrast images and very deep 3D like House of Wax, Amityville 3D, and other older titles, are a particular problem for crosstalk in general), but most times the image is virtually crosstalk-free. They did something new with the F series sets last year - they added a new brightness setting especially in 3D mode, which really boosts the panel backlight to compensate for the glasses. The difference is huge. With the lights out, and the 3D brightness boost on, the image is very bright, yet the blacks are still nice and deep. I have the color adjusted to compensate for the slight tinting in the glasses. The panel has very little flashlighting and no clouding so even with the increased brightness there is minimal flashlighting, barely noticeable except in the darkest of scenes in 3D mode.

So that's my experience with the F8000. I'm very happy with it and the 3D is outstanding. I have not owned any passive 3D sets, but I tried a LG briefly in a couple store demos, which I know isn't ideal. I thought the 3D effect was excellent in passive but the loss of resolution was a deal-breaker for me. I will say that watching half-resolution 720p side-by-side videos (1080p side-by-side videos play as 720p in 3D) look awesome on this set also. I think the big difference with the F8000 is the added light output in 3D mode, which helps a lot to compensate for wearing the tinted glasses. I have no issues with headaches or tired eyes from the shutterglasses, but everyone is different. My girlfriend says her eyes feel a bit tired after a 3D movie but she says that when we see a RealD film in the theatre too.
post #38 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdeath View Post

Thank you very much...that's definitely not what I want for us...I really would like to try that active 3d anywhere so I could see if I feel the same as you because that's not what you want when you are trying to have a good time with your family or friends...
Anyway, there is a noticeable difference in quality and sharpness in favor of the active, right? Despite the ill effects I mean

You're very welcome.

Don't get me wrong, the Passive 3D still looks great.

Both actually look great, but Active is a tad bit sharper, but darker.

But what Citivas is saying below is 100% correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citivas View Post

To be clear, the difference in "sharpness" is not due to active having a better 3D effect, but that on a standard 1080P panel passive splits the vertical resolution between the two polarized images which nets half the overall resolution. With 4K panels, passive 3D has no resolution loss so it is just as sharp and clear, every bit as "3D-like" etc. as active. Which is exactly why those who like 3D were so excited for a 4K passive 3D set.

Yup, well said.
post #39 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

No buying vizio's in my future, at least for non business use; they still make great sign displays in an office setting.

Vizio also made the single most impressive TV at CES 2014, the 120-inch Reference Series.

What makes it more impressive than the lg set that's accredited with stealing the show or Sony HDR sets? Or is it just that it's 120inches. What parts of its PQ made it impressive to you?
post #40 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citivas View Post

To be clear, the difference in "sharpness" is not due to active having a better 3D effect, but that on a standard 1080P panel passive splits the vertical resolution between the two polarized images which nets half the overall resolution. With 4K panels, passive 3D has no resolution loss so it is just as sharp and clear, every bit as "3D-like" etc. as active. Which is exactly why those who like 3D were so excited for a 4K passive 3D set.

This is not correct from what I understand. Passive 4k sets also have half-resolution in 3D. It's the same passive panel technology. It's just that half-resolution on a 4k set is 1080p so it's a lot sharper than half-resolution on a 1080p set.
post #41 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

This is not correct from what I understand. Passive 4k sets also have half-resolution in 3D. It's the same passive panel technology. It's just that half-resolution on a 4k set is 1080p so it's a lot sharper than half-resolution on a 1080p set.

A 4K panel does use half of the 4K vertical resolution, but that still results in a full HD 1080P 3D resolution since it has 2160 vertical scan lines to work with. Whereas the existing 4K active 3D panels still only deliver a 1080P resolution on their 20180 scan lines by doubling each one with the same information and only have 1080p 3D sources available. If you look at the new flagship 4K Sony for example, it specifically says that it can only delivery 2K 3D resolution. So that nets out as the passive 3D delivering the same effective resolution as the active set for 4K panels.

Of course in theory a future year model 4K set could deliver twice the resolution in active 3D as passive, but even if 4K 3D content becomes available in the future, the 2014 and earlier sets would not be comp able with it. So it's safe to say that the current and 2014 upcoming hardware has no advantage for active 3D over passive 3D in terms of picture quality, with most of the other advantages going to the passive format since Active one advantage in 1080P was resolution.
post #42 of 116
The 65" passive 4K sets display 1080p 3D blu-rays at full resolution (though the 55" Sony from last year does not), but alas, if 4K 3D content ever arrived, you'd be limited to half 1080. For now viewing a 3D blu-ray on a larger 4K passive set, you are getting the same resolution as you would on an active set, with simple passive glasses.
post #43 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToonMasterTim View Post

That includes sunglasses
[...]
I'm not sure what your point is in posting the article.
My point is that it's completely ridiculous for people to whine about having to wear glasses for 2 hours of movie watching, when just about everybody willingly wears sunglasses on sunny days. You don't hear them whine then, do you?
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve P. View Post

The 65" passive 4K sets display 1080p 3D blu-rays at full resolution (though the 55" Sony from last year does not), but alas, if 4K 3D content ever arrived, you'd be limited to half 1080. For now viewing a 3D blu-ray on a larger 4K passive set, you are getting the same resolution as you would on an active set, with simple passive glasses.

But if and when that 4K 3D content ever arrives, it wouldn't work on the current 4K sets that use active 3D anyway since they would require new chipsets to receive the format. So there is really zero advantage to a 4K set with Active 3D right now over Passive and numerous benefits to the Passive version.
post #45 of 116
No 3D, no sale!
post #46 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmreedjr View Post

No 3D, no sale!

Correct,

Vizio removing 3D for 2014 was a huge let down for me.

I was dreaming about FALD and Passive 3D for weeks leading up to the show.

Then BAM!

I felt like a freight train hit me.
post #47 of 116
Would not be surprised in a year or two to see a thread talking about 4k being dropped just like 3d and don't tell me its impossible.

Content delivery issues may very well be the demise of 4k.
post #48 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Would not be surprised in a year or two to see a thread talking about 4k being dropped just like 3d and don't tell me its impossible.

Content delivery issues may very well be the demise of 4k.

Nope - its part of an evolution in resolution and it will continue.


CES 2014: 4K video and optical storage.

Summary: At CES this week 4k video is everywhere, not unlike 3-D video two years ago. But 4K is different: supply creates its own demand. The implications for storage are enormous.


4k screens for $1000? 4k prosumer camcorders for less than $2000? Major video editing suites transitioned to 4k? Storage fast enough and large enough to edit uncompressed 4k streams?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. Unlike 3-D, 4k video offers real-world benefits for producers and consumers. For producers, 4k future proofs their productions at a low incremental cost.

For consumers, 4K video is a visible step up from HD - if you have a large screen. With low-cost 4K screens from China leading the way, it won't be long before more consumers future proof their media rooms with 4k screens and 4K projectors.

The next step is getting 4k content in the home home. Given the pathetic nature of America's Internet infrastructure, this may be an opportunity for Hollywood to get consumers buying 4k Blu-ray discs.

Many pictures shot on film have already been scanned at 4k and could cheaply be remastered onto Blu-ray. The key is consumers are price sensitive, so Hollywood can't be greedy.

OK, never mind!

The Storage Bits take
People go to theaters for an experience they can't get at home - although a big screen and surround sound can come close. If people can't get quality 4k content over the network, they'll be tempted to buy 4k content on optical media.

In the meantime, 4k upscaling can do for Blu-ray what HD upscaling did for DVDs: make it more than acceptable at 4k resolutions. I saw a demo of upscaled Blu-ray and it looked darn good.

I don't know if Hollywood learned anything from the Blu-ray debacle, but if they did they will keep prices for remastered 4k content low - 15% max over HD - and thank their lucky stars that fans will buy the same content again.

In the meantime the engineers are already working on 8k video. We may start seeing 8k content by 2020 if 4k is successful.

ZDNet Article
post #49 of 116
Yeah, 4K isn't going anywhere.

But 3D will be back.

Its been around for 60 yrs, it will survive.

Eventually it will just morph into virtual reality.
post #50 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterNincompoop View Post

Nope - its part of an evolution in resolution and it will continue.


CES 2014: 4K video and optical storage.

Summary: At CES this week 4k video is everywhere, not unlike 3-D video two years ago. But 4K is different: supply creates its own demand. The implications for storage are enormous.


4k screens for $1000? 4k prosumer camcorders for less than $2000? Major video editing suites transitioned to 4k? Storage fast enough and large enough to edit uncompressed 4k streams?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. Unlike 3-D, 4k video offers real-world benefits for producers and consumers. For producers, 4k future proofs their productions at a low incremental cost.

For consumers, 4K video is a visible step up from HD - if you have a large screen. With low-cost 4K screens from China leading the way, it won't be long before more consumers future proof their media rooms with 4k screens and 4K projectors.

The next step is getting 4k content in the home home. Given the pathetic nature of America's Internet infrastructure, this may be an opportunity for Hollywood to get consumers buying 4k Blu-ray discs.

Many pictures shot on film have already been scanned at 4k and could cheaply be remastered onto Blu-ray. The key is consumers are price sensitive, so Hollywood can't be greedy.

OK, never mind!

The Storage Bits take
People go to theaters for an experience they can't get at home - although a big screen and surround sound can come close. If people can't get quality 4k content over the network, they'll be tempted to buy 4k content on optical media.

In the meantime, 4k upscaling can do for Blu-ray what HD upscaling did for DVDs: make it more than acceptable at 4k resolutions. I saw a demo of upscaled Blu-ray and it looked darn good.

I don't know if Hollywood learned anything from the Blu-ray debacle, but if they did they will keep prices for remastered 4k content low - 15% max over HD - and thank their lucky stars that fans will buy the same content again.

In the meantime the engineers are already working on 8k video. We may start seeing 8k content by 2020 if 4k is successful.

ZDNet Article



Oh wait the vendors at CES so say......lol They also want your money.

Whatever there are dozens of other articles saying content issues will persist and same articles

talk about little to NO DIFF IN PQ.....................believe what you want . Just buy what they tell ya.

They also told you 3d would be HUGE..................you guys are gullible !l
post #51 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Oh wait the vendors at CES so say......lol They also want your money.

Whatever there are dozens of other articles saying content issues will persist and same articles

talk about little to NO DIFF IN PQ.....................believe what you want . Just buy what they tell ya.

They also told you 3d would be HUGE..................you guys are gullible !l

Wow - no need to be a condescending prick. I own neither a 3D or 4K panel - yet. and if you read any of my most recent posts, I am leaning toward a Vizio M-series which is an HD panel. But I do personally believe its part of an evolution - today it was also announced that the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association) has approved a draft extension to the standard, which is currently limited to 1080p video, to include support for Ultra HD content. We shall see if that leads to BD 4K content being available. So I watch like the rest of us and monitor the tech as it evolves and buy as I see fit.

The last you'll hear from me unless you tone down the 15 year old girl Facebook demeanor!
post #52 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Would not be surprised in a year or two to see a thread talking about 4k being dropped just like 3d and don't tell me its impossible.

Content delivery issues may very well be the demise of 4k.

This will not happen, the next step after 4K is already being tested by NHK, it's called 8K. Eventually something will come out where images don't have the be rendered by using fixed pixels anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution

http://www.gizmag.com/nhk-8k-shv/29076/

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/8k-olympics-201309133322.htm
Quote:
NHK has focused on bring 8K to the big screen from the off. Its research into Super Hi-Vision began way back in the mid-1990s, with the first 8K TV clip screened by the broadcaster at its research labs in 2001.
post #53 of 116
I have a 3D plasma. It did not come with glasses and i have not bought any. I only bought it because I wanted a bigger screen. It is plasma. I mourn its' demise.

I believe that the current 3D implementations were simply the result of manufacturers jumping the gun because they wanted something new for that model year and were out of (or ignored) better ideas. I am unlikely to use 3D until it is a seamless presentation not requiring glasses, restricted viewing angles, or reduced picture quality. The industry should have waited for the technology that makes sense arrived. Now we have all sorts of standards and processes to handle inherently human antagonistic technologies and may complicate future developments.

New is not always ultimately better. And there are myriad of new technologies viaing for becoming a standard. They affect 3D, PQ and other issues. We can only hope that the best technologies will reach us rather than the generally OK versions backed by big commercial bucks.
post #54 of 116
Is Vizio being sued or expecting to be sued for their current passive 3d technology in their 2013 lineup? Doesn't make any marketing sense to remove 3d from the entire 2014 lineup.
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiprnt View Post

Is Vizio being sued or expecting to be sued for their current passive 3d technology in their 2013 lineup? Doesn't make any marketing sense to remove 3d from the entire 2014 lineup.

My guess (and that's what it is, a guess) is that Vizio has ended or is about to end an agreement with LG. Up until now, the Vizio passive 3D screens were provided by LG. This would explain the abrupt decision to end the support of passive 3D. Agreements between manufacturers start and stop all the time.

The official "people didn't want it" word from Vizio just doesn't sound very convincing to me.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternety View Post

I have a 3D plasma. It did not come with glasses and i have not bought any. I only bought it because I wanted a bigger screen. It is plasma. I mourn its' demise.

I believe that the current 3D implementations were simply the result of manufacturers jumping the gun because they wanted something new for that model year and were out of (or ignored) better ideas. I am unlikely to use 3D until it is a seamless presentation not requiring glasses, restricted viewing angles, or reduced picture quality. The industry should have waited for the technology that makes sense arrived. Now we have all sorts of standards and processes to handle inherently human antagonistic technologies and may complicate future developments.

New is not always ultimately better. And there are myriad of new technologies viaing for becoming a standard. They affect 3D, PQ and other issues. We can only hope that the best technologies will reach us rather than the generally OK versions backed by big commercial bucks.

By this theory, we should not even buy a tv period, as they have not reached perfection yet. Clouding, flashlighting, limited colors, only 1080p currently, viewing angles, etc.

But we still enjoy our sets don't we? Even though they are far from perfect technology. I love my current Samsung F8000 (for the most part). It's the best tv I have ever owned. And I have been having a blast enjoying 3D films on it. I just watched House of Wax in 3D a few months ago for the first time and I was blown away at the depth I was seeing. They really knew how to film 3D movies back in the 50's. Yeah, I had to wear glasses for 90 minutes. So what? Is the 3D technology perfect? No. But I have two choices: Be glad that I have the opportunity to enjoy some great 3D entertainment in my own home (something I've always dreamed of but never thought would happen), or wait until it is perfected around 2045 or so.

I gotta laugh at the people who say they are waiting until it's perfected with no glasses. Good luck with that. It's going to be a long, long wait before that technology is perfected. 3D home tv is only a few years old and the technology is already pretty amazing, but people are already prepared to abandon it because it isn't perfect. I don't get it. Why can't we just enjoy the tech we have now instead of killing it because it isn't perfect?

Also, people seem quick to blame the manufacturers for looking for a quick gimmick to sell tv sets. This is unfair. Hollywood rolled out a huge new push for 3D, and many people were actually enjoying 3D films in theatres. Just because some don't enjoy them doesn't mean nobody does. So naturally the manufacturers see the possibility that people would love to see those same 3D movies they saw in the theatre in their own homes. So they filled that market. What's wrong with that? It would have been stupid if the manufacturers didn't try to develop a home 3D format, based on all the 3D films Hollywood has been releasing.
post #57 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post

My guess (and that's what it is, a guess) is that Vizio has ended or is about to end an agreement with LG. Up until now, the Vizio passive 3D screens were provided by LG. This would explain the abrupt decision to end the support of passive 3D. Agreements between manufacturers start and stop all the time.

The official "people didn't want it" word from Vizio just doesn't sound very convincing to me.

I gotta agree here. There's a demand for 3D tvs. Not everybody wants one of course, but not everyone wants a 60" screen either but some do. Vizio can't convince me that it makes marketing sense for them to drop 3D. How does it make any sense to drop a format that most other manufacturers support, while there's still brand new films being released all the time in that format? It's ridiculous to think they made the choice to do this - like you said, it's much more likely they lost their deal with LG who provided their 3D panels. But they tried to put their own spin on the reasoning. No company in their right mind would drop 3D currently. Not when new 3D blu-rays are getting released regularly.
post #58 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle_2 View Post

...
I gotta laugh at the people who say they are waiting until it's perfected with no glasses. Good luck with that. It's going to be a long, long wait before that technology is perfected. 3D home tv is only a few years old and the technology is already pretty amazing, but people are already prepared to abandon it because it isn't perfect. I don't get it. Why can't we just enjoy the tech we have now instead of killing it because it isn't perfect?
...

According to the AVS reports from CES, glasses-free 3D is ready for the market in the form of StreamTV's Ultra-D technology. We will see it this year, at affordable prices. Many AVSers were there to see it, and by all their accounts, it's better than other auto-stereoscopic displays from the bigger manufacturers. The ideal display, in my mind, would be a Vizio Reference series TV with Ultra-D technology. That looks like it would be a great fit, and very easy to implement. Ultra-D is display agnostic (works with LCD, plasma, OLED) and scales extremely well to different sizes (from phones to 110" flat panels or bigger).

3D is on hiatus, until James Cameron reminds us again how good 3D can be if done right. The CE manufacturers have short memories. When Avatar 2 makes another 3 billion dollars, 3D will be front page news again, especially when glasses-free makes it as easy to watch as 2D.
post #59 of 116
Check that. The ultimate 3D TV would be a 110" 4K OLED with Ultra-D technology, but that's a little further off. biggrin.gif
post #60 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

According to the AVS reports from CES, glasses-free 3D is ready for the market in the form of StreamTV's Ultra-D technology. We will see it this year, at affordable prices. Many AVSers were there to see it, and by all their accounts, it's better than other auto-stereoscopic displays from the bigger manufacturers. The ideal display, in my mind, would be a Vizio Reference series TV with Ultra-D technology. That looks like it would be a great fit, and very easy to implement. Ultra-D is display agnostic (works with LCD, plasma, OLED) and scales extremely well to different sizes (from phones to 110" flat panels or bigger).

3D is on hiatus, until James Cameron reminds us again how good 3D can be if done right. The CE manufacturers have short memories. When Avatar 2 makes another 3 billion dollars, 3D will be front page news again, especially when glasses-free makes it as easy to watch as 2D.

All the impressions for Ultra-D are really positive. Sharp and bright image, great viewing angles, and a 2D to 3D conversion that works surprisingly well (apparently trumping studio conversions) are all the comments I keep reading. As great as the Vizio 2014 lineup looks, I kind of want to see if StreamTV will actually get a television out this year. They're aiming for summer, but they also said the same thing last year. There out demo units out in the wild in the US and UK, however, so who knows.

StreamTV isn't a big company, though. They can't get the partnerships that Dolby can, and I believe Vizio already signed with Dolby to utilize their glasses-free 3D. The first Ultra-D sets will likely come from Hisense and other Chinese companies, which don't inspire much confidence in me. StreamTV has said they've partnered with a "huge" Japanese company (Toshiba?), but they've yet to reveal which one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Vizio Eliminates 3D at CES 2014