interesting comments from Charles Hansen, President of Ayre Acoustics: he keeps a new spare Kuro in a box:
"Actually we were ahead of the time. We knew that 3D would flop as there were so many problems with it. In my meeting with one of the top Japanese manufacturers of A/V equipment they said that 3D had failed miserably.
There's a logic disconnect here that I'm really not comfortable with.
I followed your link and that post seems (to me anyway) as if he had an initial point of view in the beginning and searched to support it.
3D "failing miserably" ? People say stuff like this and I STILL don't know what that's supposed to mean. WHAT precisely did 3D "fail miserably" at? You either think it's worth having or you don't. But:
- Does a 3D TV cost a lot more than it's non-3D counterpart? No. (Seriously, I think the model sony I had introduced at almost exactly $100 less for non-3D, down from $1750.)
- Does a 3D TV produce fun and wonderful results for many? Yes.
- Does the 3D part of TV in any way hurt its 2D PQ? No.
- Are there 3D releases out there that people absolutely rave about that would love to see at home? Yes. Even if the count is One: Avatar, it's worth it to me. Will there be others? Absolutely.
- Do I love watching my kids and their friends learn about the solar system in 3D? Yes.
- Am I hearing from some gamers how 3D "changes everything". Yes.
And most importantly: To say that 3D "failed miserably" and that he has high hopes for 4K makes no fundamental sense, because the two technologies are disparate notions and do not mutually exclude each other. Was 3D supposed to revive the TV industry or something? Is 4K now poised to hopefully revive the TV industry?
There are arguments being made here with initial premises I just don't follow.
Edited by tgm1024 - 7/13/13 at 9:44am