[hinduclient]

I decided to forgo 3D on my latest TV purchase (Sony 46EX620) thinking the dearth of content will not change anytime soon, and that it added a couple of hundred bucks to the price of the purchase unnecessarily. Even if the technology matures, I just don't see more than a few movies being made each year. Besides, it's kind of cool at the movies, but a non-starter at home. What do you think?

 

[serialmike]

I was against. Now Im for it. Its here to stay. Once its a given feature and everything comes in 3d. Once its not forced down our throat but simply just sold.


Once flicker glasses are gone and passive is the norm. It will be big.

 

[eneyman]

I think 3D sets will peak when The Hobbit films hit bluray

 

[Otto Pylot]

I think the jury is still out on that one. For me, I already wear glasses so donning another pair is a no-go for me. Once 3D is available without glasses, yeah, it will take off, again and probably be the norm. Unless we get holographic tv by then

 

[cl0ckw0rk]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot /forum/post/0


I think the jury is still out on that one. For me, I already wear glasses so donning another pair is a no-go for me. Once 3D is available without glasses, yeah, it will take off, again and probably be the norm. Unless we get holographic tv by then

I normally wear contacts, but the 3D glasses fit just fine over my regular glasses. It doesn't even seen strange.

 

[uni_panther]

I think this question while simple in form goes deeper than the surface of it. Do I think 3D will become used as much as normal HDTV viewing? No but I think the tech is here to stay. I think it is here to stay as a feature. How much they continue to market it and push it remains to be seen but eventually this will trickle down to all models of tvs just like deep color and x.v.YCC has become common among the myriad of other features in an HDTV.


I don't expect the 3D chips to go anywhere. I think too often some people view 3DTV as something completely different than just an HDTV with a 3D chip in it. I think we see a heavy push for it at the theatres because with the boom of HDTV, especially in large sizes and more and more people getting into Home Theatre the theatres and studios have to come up with something to keep people interested.


To me this isn't that far off from when Hollywood changed away from Academy Standard (what we came to know as 4:3) into Academy Flat and Anamorphic Scope. Too many people were staying at home.


The only difference now is that I think they realize people are still going to want to experience it at home so they try to maximize profit from both the theatre and from physical media like a special blu-ray 3D edition.


Home Theatre isn't as niche as it used to be. Granted not everyone has true dedicated home theatres or high end stuff like many of the users here but more and more people are at least getting large flat panel tvs and some type of HTiB system.


So for me it is hard to say as I think the number of homes actually utilizing 3D content might not be that large or may fall off over time but I believe the tech is here to stay whether it gets utilized or not.


It just depends on how long manufacturers try to push it before they move on to the next big thing. It goes in stages. Deep color, 120hz, 3D, eventually moving onto ethernet/internet tvs.


Prices have fallen dramatically and I don't think you really pay much more for 3D. You are paying for everything else that makes a flagship display what it is. It has even moved well into mid tier models this year. It won't be long until it is a normal feature. From that aspect I don't see it ever disappearing.

 

[petesimac]

3D is not going to be here forever. People are already tiring of it at the movies, and until they design a glasses-free 3D TV, there will be a limit to how many people will buy 3D TVs. In fact, sales of TVs are way down? Why? In my opinion, it's because those who have nice LCD sets don't feel the need to "upgrade" to 3D sets. Where's the content anyway?


I am so anti-3D, that even though I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, I may not watch The Hobbit in 3D, opting to catch the film at the 2D screenings. To me it doesn't add to the experience, it interferes with it. Whenever they design scenes to "highlight" the 3D experience, I cringe; you know the arrow directly at the screen, or anything, really, thrown at the screen; pathetic. When 3D is used like color, to merely make the experience better, then I'll jump on the bandwagon; until then, I will not be watching 3D anything.

 

[theblackkeys]

I am tired of people complaining about the supposed lack of 3D content. What more do you want? You have ESPN3D, N3D, 3NET all showing broadcast content some run 24/7, by the end of the year their will be a total of 105 3D Blu-ray's available, you have PS3 games like Killzone and Call of Duty on PS3 and some 3D games on Xbox 360.

What more do you want? NCIS and CSI in 3D??? Your local news in 3D?


Oh and you also have camera's that shoot 3D stills and camcorders that can shoot in 3D and Full HD 3D to make your own content.

 

[Splicer010]

Never be enough content? That's what was said about HDTV, but I digress.


But with that said, people just really do not care about 3D. Nintendo 3DS doesn't need glasses and gives most users a headache with prolonged usage. 3D will continue to evolve however, but will NEVER see mainstream acceptance. Joe six pack simply does not care enough to make it so.

 

[ObsceneJesster]



Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike /forum/post/0


I was against. Now Im for it. Its here to stay. Once its a given feature and everything comes in 3d. Once its not forced down our throat but simply just sold.


Once flicker glasses are gone and passive is the norm. It will be big.

Besides being cheaper and universal, passive technology is still infirior to active technology. The universal thing will end within the next year since Samsung, Sony and Panasonic, all announced the 3D alliance. It means all active 3D glasses made after a certain date will be universal. Right now, depending on what TV and glasses combo your using, you no longer see the flickering from the active glasses.


Just 2 nights ago, I watched parts of the movie Despicable Me in both active and passive. The active set produced better/brighter colors, more depth to the picture and less ghosting. The active set is also capable of 1080p 3D while the passive can only do 720p.


If I had a large family, I would definitely purchase a passive 3D set due to the cheaper price of the glasses. Hell, you can even get them for free. Right now its just my wife and I so spending $150 on 3D glasses to get a better looking 3D picture is worth it to me.

 

[Tigerriot]

3D is definitely here to stay. Do I think it's going to take over the TV landscape as we know it? No, but it's not going anywhere. It will only get better with time.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

I will be surprised if we ever see large panel displays equipped with glasses free 3D. When you read how tge technology actually works, it almost sounds impossible without having horrible ghosting. Even if we do get glasses free 3D, it will never look as good as 3D with glasses. The 3D effects themselves would also be marginally less. You would also have to maintain the perfect viewing angle while watching. The slightest movement of your head would wash away the 3D effects.


Personally, I don't think we will ever see glasses free 3D be as good as 3D with glasses.

 

[BoilerJim]

Never say never. I'm looking out of my office window right now with no glasses on and the world looks great to me in 3D with my 20/15 vision. Someday, "they" will figure out how to do the same with TV. Trust me on this one.

 

[specuvestor]

^^ Maybe but probably if they can first resolve eye tracking blur of 2D motion on a static TV first.


Some things are not as simple as it seems. Our TV are immobile and 2 dimension in the 1st place trying to trick our eyes and brain to think otherwise. The same can't be said of the scenery outside your window.

 

[ObsceneJesster]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim /forum/post/0


Never say never. I'm looking out of my office window right now with no glasses on and the world looks great to me in 3D with my 20/15 vision. Someday, "they" will figure out how to do the same with TV. Trust me on this one.

They will figure it out but its going to take a holographic image. We will be dead.

 

[mrjktcvs]



Quote:
Just 2 nights ago, I watched parts of the movie Despicable Me in both active and passive. The active set produced better/brighter colors, more depth to the picture and less ghosting.

Why don't you go all out and say that active produces better sound as well?

 

[andrew.box]

I agree that glasses-free 3d is probably not something to look for any time soon, if ever. A small device with a fixed viewing angle/distance (such as nintendo 3ds) is another story, but unless you want to draw a chalk line on the floor for where to sit, and only have the display work from that exact spot, it doesn't seem very plausible. Each eye has to see a different image and there are only so many ways to do that.


I hope 3d in its current state is here to stay and more content comes along. I just got a 3d tv, mostly for gaming, and it's pretty darn cool. Call of Duty is awesome. Surprisingly, the 2d - > 3d feature works pretty well too. I played Mass Effect 2 quite a bit with this turned on and it's great.

 

[ObsceneJesster]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjktcvs /forum/post/0



Why don't you go all out and say that active produces better sound as well?

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of most every HD guru who states the sane thing. Its a known fact, that Active 3D gives a brighter and better picture. Ill spend more money in glasses all day long if it means I can view 3D content in 1080. As long as you don't get flicker, there is no reason not to go Active. Unless you have a large family and don't feel like shelling out a lot of money for the glasses.

 

[mrjktcvs]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ObsceneJesster /forum/post/20881563


Don't take my word for it. Take the word of most every HD guru who states the sane thing. Its a known fact, that Active 3D gives a brighter and better picture.

A known fact? The only thing that is known is that you don't seem to understand the difference between what is characteristic of a technology and what can be accounted for by differences between models and their settings when they are viewed side by side.

 

[andy sullivan]

One of the magazines (Home Theater or Sound & Vision) did a comparison of Passive vs Active and passive was not as good on several levels. As far a 3D being here to stay, you bet. Not only do you have all the major movie studios behind it you also have all the TV broadcast companies, all the display manufactures, and the DVD manufactures financially invested in 3D. Look at all the 3D models on the shelves. And notice how the prices have come down. Too many big powerful companies are involved in the future of 3D technology for it to fail, even if it's not really very good.