back to article Brits blasé about 3D TV 'fad'

Brits may have been wowed by Avatar but James Cameron's 3D epic hasn't persuaded them to buy a 3D TV no matter what, research has revealed. Around 3000 punters were polled this month by shopping website but only 1.4 per cent of them - 42 people - said they were willing to stump up the £2000 the first 3D TVs …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Hollerith 1

    Some things work as they are

    We've always had sculpture and we've always had paintings. Theatre is usually less successful in the round than it is behind a proscenium arch. Avatar worked, on the whole, because its 3D was at the service of the story, rather than (in old 3D films) actions being taken (objects thrown at the camera) for the sake of the technology. So it might be that 3D TV, as a default, never takes over, as people won't wear special glasses every time they sit to watch, and because 3D enhances only the visual part of a story -- it doesn't help a weak plot, second-rate acting or poor direction -- and why go to any trouble at all if it doesn't bring benefit? I could imagine putting on the special specs for a special show, in the same spirit that I put on Brahms with my surround-sound but listen to my radio on a cheap little set int he kitchen.

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Still the same crappy old programmes

    Most TV programmes would be just as watchable in B&W. Adding colour, HD, or an extra dimension (although, really it's just a bit of depth perception - not *real* 3D where you could rotate the scene) don't make the story any more compelling, the acting any less wooden or the plots better. Games shows still have awful contestants and cringeworthy presenters, reality shows are no less bad and programmes about the emergency services are still ridden with cliches.

    Maybe what we need are better writers and production staff, financiers who won't pull the plug at the first sign of dipping audiences and less intolerant watchdogs who don't start crusades every time someone says BORLZ in a mid-evening show.

  3. Mr Pedantio

    Who'd have thought it..?

    ... the latest fad turns out to be just a fad.

    And could it also be that people feel burned over first digital, then HD requiring them to stump up for a new telly, with in many cases no discernible benefit?

    Avatar made my eyes tired. My next screen will be a projector or large monitor.

  4. EddieD

    No 3d for me

    I see these stereoscopic 3D thingys as a series of cardboard cut-outs dancing in front of an infinity cyc. No depth - which having seen Avatar is appropriate....

    Holographic imaging on the retina, gief....

  5. PhonicUK

    Price fail

    3D TVs are horribly overpriced. I have a Samsung 2233RZ 23" 3D monitor for use with nVidia 3D vision. Including the glasses and transmitter only cost £250.

    If they stop being stupid and get it down to £700-500 for a decent size set, then people will get interested.

    Of course it doesn't massively help that the age range that can currently afford such things all seem to suffer eye strain and headaches when using 3D glasses, for some reason younger people don't seem to be affected (as badly). I can quite happily play 3D games for hours on end with no ill-effects, my father however feels sick after just 30 minutes of it...

  6. Anonymous Coward

    Fundamental problem

    Has anyone given any thought as to how 3D is supposed to work if you wear spectacles?

    The whole idea has zero appeal to me.

    1. Nigel Whitfield.

      Over your specs

      All the glasses that I've seen at the various technology demos are big enough to fit over ordinary specs.

      Of course, that's also why they end up looking like something that an early 70s futurist might have come up with.

    2. Gavin Jamie

      the word in the pub

      In the pub the other week we decided that there was probably a market for prescription 3D glasses. Probably off the shelf as posh frames are unlikely to be needed if everyone else already looks stupid and, with the TV at a constant distance, varifocals are not required.

      Probably £10-15 price point.

      Then it was closing time.

    3. Rob Moir


      Certainly no-one appears to have thought how this 3d effect is supposed to do anything for those of us who are partially sighted or blind in just one eye. Other than give us a headache that is.

      You know, when you *can't* see the pseudo-3D nonsense even if you wanted to it doesn't take long to realise how ordinary Avatar is without all that rubbish. Pocahontos in space, at best.

  7. GregC
    Thumb Down

    3D - meh

    It's nothing more than Hollywood and the electronics biz trying to find more ways of parting us from as much cash as possible. Saw a demo at a trade show recently of the full fat 1080p 3D experience - technically it's impressive, the technology undoubtedly works, but is it worth £2k+? Not on your nelly. Especially when there's sweet F.A. to actually watch on the thing apart from Avatar and Alice when they come out on Blu-ray (not a footie fan, and that becomes irrelevant anyway if the footie is pubs only).

    Bah and indeed humbug...

    1. Nigel Whitfield.

      Extra specs

      Even more annoying than the cost of the sets is that you'll typically only get two pairs of specs in the box, and noises from the various manufacturers suggest around £100 per pair.

      That's a lot to expect your mates to fork out if they want to come round and watch the match in 3d.

  8. Andrew Ducker

    Well, absolutely

    I'm just not willing to pay £2000 for a TV even if it's bigger than God and makes me breakfast in bed. Asking what factors would make me spend that much is going to get you not much more than a blank stare.

  9. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Two grand for 3-d telly?

    I wouldn't give two quid - it's a pointless and unconvincing fake that - Avatar notwithstanding - hasn't changed in any fundamental way since the stereoscopes of the 1880s. It was a fad then; it was a fad in the fifties, it was a fad in the seventies, and it's a fad today.

    When they come up with a true 3-d - something that doesn't require silly glasses, allows the user to set his own focus point, and more significantly, lets you see even partially behind things - then I might have an interest. Until then, can't be bothered... must be thirty years in broadcast engineering affecting my judgement.

  10. z0mb13e

    Can we have working HD first?

    Can we have working HD first? Cause I'm still waiting for ubiquitous HD to make proper use of the current capabilities of my TV...

  11. 0laf

    3D meh

    I've already got a 3D TV. It's 3 feet wide, 2 feet tall and 2 feet deep and is 15 years old. I can't even get freeview in my area and FM radio reception isn't great either.

    WTF would I care about 3D when I can't even get 1980s radio quality?

  12. Puck

    Pah! Gimmickry. I'm holding out...

    ...for Sony's widescreen 'Smell-o-vision' 42-incher!

    When Eastenders comes on, the room smells of wee, diesel smoke, and Poundstretcher!

  13. A. Lewis

    I agree!

    It is just a fad, I'm sure. Avatar had a handful of shots which I think actually benefitted from the 3D. Apart from that it's just paying extra to wear silly glasses.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does it do

    Does it do 3D porno? If not, I'm not interested.

  15. david bates

    Those of us...

    who BOTHERED to work on our Magic Eye skills back in the day just need to put two smallish TVs with suitably mithered pictures next to each other to be able to get SUPERB 3D...

    1. bluesxman

      magic eye...

      ... tends not to be possible if you have astigmatism.


      1. Anonymous Coward

        And I thought I was just a dimload ...

        Coz I could never see the magic eye pictures. But I'm astigmatic!

        And thick as well, obviously

      2. Semihere


        ...only have sight in one eye!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Amusingly enough

    I just ordered one of the Sony 3d tvs, (46HX903) although it in reality is '3d ready', as you need to buy the glasses and the 'ir transmitter' separately.

    Why did I drop £2,300 (though I get £230 back, because of a in store offer) I hear you ask? Well the thing has integrated Freeview HD and with the World Cup this year, it seemed like a good time to get one.

    The panel its self is simply amazing, 200hz refresh rate (as all 3d tvs will have to be, as they have to display two images so will need a quick refresh) combined with the LED back light system, where the back light can be dimmed to give amazing contrast.

    On top of that it is capable of displaying a 3d image, which the PS3 will support natively. (Both in games and Blueray apparently!)

  17. Flower

    3D TV - will it take off?

    I'm studying for a Master's in DIT Dublin. It's about 3D technology and how people respond to it.

    I'd really appreciate it posters could follow the link below and complete the survey, (copy and paste to your browser). It only takes about 5 minutes.

    The survey takes about 5-6 minutes max, and is designed to capture opinion about this technology. As I can see from the postings here, opinion seems to be divided. . The survey is totally anonymous, and is being used for a college project, not to target consumers!

    Thank you in advance for your help.

  18. HobbleAlong

    Brits blase about 3d TV?

    That shows they have more smarts than a lot of others. Here's to you!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022