World+Dog says 'no thanks' to 3D TV It doesn't matter where in the world you go, one thing is certain: we don't want 3D TV. That's the only conclusion we can draw from 3D TV demand stats posted by North American nabob of numbers, Nielsen. In September, it conducted a survey of approximately 27,000 online consumers in 53 countries. As you can see from the …
Crucially you left out the timescale: 12 months.
Over that timescale I'd have been a no to buying a 3D tele. But the answer is the same if you're asking about a 2D plasma, a 2D oled or a 4:3 black and white CRT. I have a working tele (well 3 in a household of 2 people), its unlikely to break in the next 12 months, so no I won't be buying a tele of any description. Now, will my next tele be a 3D one? Almost certainly, but that purchase is just further in the future than they were asking about. I suspect similar reasoning holds for a lot of people.
One thing to consider with 3D TVs is that because they need to have top class displays in order to produce 3D images their 2D performance is some of the best out there. So even if you're not looking for a 3D TV, they might be worth looking at if you're in the market for a new TV.
@ Vehlin
Yeah, I heard that too I think it was either on the Gadget Show, or BBC Click. But I can't see people paying much extra for it, as the 2D quality is already at a high standard.
As others have mentioned, 3D porn could make a difference to stimulate the market (pun intended). :)
That would explain why the stats for Western Europe show fewer pairs of glasses then 3D TVs have been sold [source: hdtvtest.co.uk]
ISTM the indifference shown to 3D TV is simply a failure of marketing. People just haven't been told in sufficiently convincingly terms that they NEED one of these new tellies. Even if they have only recently upgraded to a super-stonkin-massive HD set. I'm sure that when the campaigns are fully ramped up, we'll all do what we're told and buy them - even if all that's showing is Dad's Army (again)
in my demographic who will buy one. people that wear specs. I hate contact lenses with a grisly passion, and wearing another set of lenses over the top of my regular ones? please. the only way I can see this tech listing off is if next-gen consoles put out a helluva good tech demo for it.
as for HDTV, yes. Im sure its a great technology. its a shame my little pc monitor can cope with QXGA output but a three grand TV still cant.
The better sets that have high refresh rates and support film mode can be made 3D ready for almost nothing. A lot of the sets being counted as 3D may never be used for 3D because of the need to buy expensive glasses, and other costs (expensive cable service, new blu ray player) and not much worth watching.
If I buy a new TV it might be 3D ready (and might have other useless features like playing MP3s from a USB stick) but I'll be buying it because it's a good 2D TV.
Interesting that you used the Grammar Nazi icon...
Alternately means (roughly) to switch between two states or actions.
Alternatively means "in place of" - or in this context, "on the other hand"
Not that I don't agree with you - I wear glasses and those 3D goggles are a pain in the arse unless you wear contacts, and I just end up with a bloody headache watching it anyway.
3D TV for the time being = FAIL as far as I'm concerned.
I get it. The industry is running out of things to "innovate", we're hitting a TV platue. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Let's focus on improved LCD production techniques, or dare I say it? OLED sets.
Stop pushing 3D crap on everyone though. You've already lost me as a theater goer after the tron debacle ( movie was great, but forced to see it in 3D even though most of it wasn't ), I'm on the fence about a new TV ( whether to get one, or cancel cable ). Force 3d down my throat, I'm out.
I'm not alone in this.
TVs use a different delivery method for the 3D effect than at the cinema. Most all TVs use shuttered LCD glasses which will definitely work on your eyes, and will almost certainly not give you a headache. At the cinema, it's completely different with two simultaneously projected images at different light polarisations, with glasses that imperfectly filter one polarisation out for each eye.
Go to a "proper" TV shop (I'm not talking Dixons) if you have one, and take a look at the 3D TVs, it's really good these days.
That's not to say that I disagree with the survey findings - I suspect that they're accurate, and people in thie economic climate aren't thinking to replace their new HDTVs in the next 12 months. I do think people will probably buy a 3DTV next time they buy an HDTV though.
"TVs use a different delivery method for the 3D effect than at the cinema. Most all TVs use shuttered LCD glasses which will definitely work on your eyes, and will almost certainly not give you a headach"
I have a 3D telly with active glasses and I can confirm that the above statement is incorrect.
Whether it's just the act of following 3D pictures (which aren't 3D in the "real" sense) or whether it's the glasses themselves, watching 3D on a TV is tiring, and tired eyes lead to headaches. I know from experience, and not just mine.
@Sean Kennedy: We've been at a TV plateau for 40 years, from the time color TV was introduced in the 1950s/1960s until digital television and HDTV came into the picture (pun-intended) around the early-to-mid 2000s. The difference is that TV makers have had a taste of what computer and electronics makers have had for years: a never-ending cycle of new technology to make consumers' purchases obsolete from the moment they leave the store. And now with HDTVs saturating the market there's no more reason for people to buy new TVs except for the traditional reasons: a TV stops working or the consumer wants a bigger TV, or new TV for a bedroom, kitchen, basement, etc. This is just a ploy to make consumers think they need something they don't. 3D technology is still just about as primitive as it was 10 years ago, and aside from the fact that they're changing TV from something you can have on while you're doing something else into an "experience" where you have to sit down, put on $100 goggles, and stare at the screen for the entire length of the program. I don't watch TV like that, and aside from rare occasions when my friends and I get together to watch a movie at home I don't know anybody who does. 3D is a waste of bandwidth. Instead of developing standards and protocols that can move enough data to provide 3DTV at 720p or 1080i we should be working toward moving everyone up (both content providers/producers and consumers) from 720p and 1080i to 1080p and beyond. HDTV is worthwhile, because it has greatly enhanced television viewing from its low-resolution, interlaced past. 3DTV does nothing to move the technology forward since it will simply sidetrack our progress in making better resolution video (beyond 1080p) mainstream.
Agreed, TV tech didn't improve after color TV. Most of the "improvements" were on the devices themselves, like remote control or display tech; most of the latter thanks to stuff used on embedded devices or computers (LCD?) at least until HDTV came out. 3DTV isn't hot, and is useless for most stuff except for videogames. I hate watching sports so that use isn't in my list, and consoles can probably manage 3D wothout the need of a 3D TV.
One thing that annoys me is the bunch of people that turn on the TV but don't actually *watch* TV. There's a device that works for you, it's called "radio". Thanks to these guys, some Latin American channels have dropped original language audio for crappy Spanish dubs. Want to listen stuff, use a radio! What's the use of an HDTV if you aren't going to watch it?
The recent glut of 3D movies and the pushing of 3DTV in stores seems to be a desperate bid to get people to buy the "old" technology again. I've yet to see a film that was made better by 3D other than as a gimmick. I can't think of any films that would've been impossible to watch if they were "only" in 2D (other than Avatar as the actual plot and script was so poor that it was only worth watching for the 3D effects).
Picture quality or 3D isn't the main thing when watching films. If it is, then the film is sadly lacking in some aspect (plot, script, acting, etc). The main reason people went from VHS to DVD was not because of the superior picture quality, but instead because of the extra features it gave - not needing to rewind, being able to jump directly to scenes, fast forward and rewind quickly and easily, won't stretch and break (easily), etc. The jump from DVD to Bluray was much smaller mainly due to the fact that adding more definition to the picture isn't important to most people.
When will the movie companies learn and start making good films with good plots and good scripts rather than trying to pump out hour after hour of gimmicky effects?
"The recent glut of Colour movies and the pushing of ColourTV in stores seems to be a desperate bid to get people to buy the "old" technology again. I've yet to see a film that was made better by Colour other than as a gimmick. I can't think of any films that would've been impossible to watch if they were "only" in 2D (other than [movie] as the actual plot and script was so poor that it was only worth watching for the "Colour" effects).
Picture or colour quality isn't the main thing when watching films. If it is, then the film is sadly lacking in some aspect (plot, script, acting, etc).
When will the movie companies learn and start making good films with good plots and good scripts rather than trying to pump out hour after hour of gimmicky effects?"
Wow - hope you didn't sprain your brain working out that response, Anonymous Coward...
Anyway, without wasting any more time on that useless wanker, it does actually make the point of the original poster in this thread even stronger. A good film (TV show, documentary etc) stands on its merits regardless of the technology. Technology can help, but if the story is strong enough, it isn't really needed. How many people were impressed by the Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" trilogy? How many have also heard the radio adaptation of "Lord of the Rings"? That stood up on its own merits, and didn't have any picture at all.
Too much stuff seems to be about special effects rather than story-telling. Bring a strong story of interesting people delivered well, and you have no need to worry about the technology.
Bring tired old rehashed stuff, endless remakes with little to no refresh of the story or characters, and you can see why the studios are desparate for the "Ooh, shiny!"
Every single advance in Cinema is tightly linked to a recession:
Sound - the great depression
Colour - the post WW2 recession
Dolby surround and the super wide screens - the dip at the end of the 70-es
By its nature the media industry is _ULTRA_ conservative. It will "innovate" only if there are two bailiffs with baseball bats knocking on the front porch. The "innovation" of this recession is called "3D".
The quotes around "innovate" are intended because the corresponding tech is usually decades old when it was "innovated" into the theatre.
Every single time people grumbled about it. Every time the grumbling was spot on because the directors did not know how to use the new technology and the first sound, colour, surround, etc movies were laughable. Every single time we ended up accepting it because there was no choice.
That however is not the case any more because there is a gazillion of ways of watching a movie nowdays. We definitely do not live in a world where the media corp owns everything from content to the sole way to view it the way it did prior to the 1960-es case which broke the cinema ownership cartels in the US. Prior to that the "innovations" caught on because there was _NO_ choice whatsoever regarding them.
Now... Well do not think so. I for one refuse to watch 3D cinema. I watched how to train your dragon and it was clearly not worth it. I am going to wait for the DVD (and I am not the only one).
Problem with your theory: 3D movies aren't a 2009/10 thing, they've been done as far back as the 50's, and they've failed over and over and over. The last 3D craze came in the 80's with Jaws 3D, Elm Street 3D & co. It has crashed and burned even without our current choices.
Also, those improvements are actually good: would you really prefer soundless, black & white movies? Though Color had been available for quite some time before WW2. There's a critically panned movie back in its time that used it to great effect, maybe you've even heard of it. It's called "Wizard of Oz".
Hell, even Chaplin monkeyed around with sound: Some small parts of Modern Times had sound bits in a couple of scenes.
3D will probably be worth it, but currently few directors are actually good at that. 3D doesn't have to suck, but I don't think its a need-to-have thing yet. The few good 3D movies out there usually come with the red/blue glasses, no need for 3DTVs yet.
...whether people would have one if it was cheaper?
Me, for example - I can take 3D or leave it, but if I were buying a new TV and the choices were one with 3D and one without, and there was say £50 in in, I'd get the 3D one. Else not.
I don't understand why anyone would want to pay more for it.
The effect doesn't really work that well on porn because of the closeness of the...actors. To fully appreciate stereoscopy, you need distance between the parts of the scene. Unfortunately, since porn involves being "up close and personal" and since the human body does not itself provide a lot of distance cues, the effect kinda washes out, especially in close-ups.
Once upon a time, even before the advent of 3D TVs was an erotic 3D movie called Erotek. I believe it relied on the interlaced nature of CRT TVs then along with special shutter glasses (timed to the video signal) to pull off the effect. The whole production was rather forced with one scene, a rotating platform, and weird camera angles that remind me of those 3D sportscasts where the camera travels very low along the ground. As I recall, the idea was never replicated.
Though maybe that's why the "natuire/animal" category did so well. I've read that sort of thing is legal in many states still.
Also, I can't help wondering if anyone on here (ACs no doubt) has seen a 3d grumbleflick yet? Perhaps they would like to treat us to a festive review of the technology too.
+1
I'll get one when I replace my current 1080p HD TV if 3D is already on every half-decent TV anyway by that time at no extra cost. It wouldn't be a reason for me to buy a new set on its own. That whole fake movie 3D thing annoys the shit out of me. I deliberately AVOID 3D versions of films in the cinema.
I am vastly amused that this article comes out less than a week after I purchased a 3D television. What made the difference? Being able to buy the thing for a semi-reasonable price *with all the necessary accessories thrown into the package*, instead of having to pay X for television, plus 15% of X each for two sets of glasses, plus 5% of X each for two 3D movies, plus 10% of X for a 3D video game. The only missing piece was something I already had: a clunky 1st-gen PS3.
The moral of the tale? Sales Lesson #3: make it easy to for people to buy stuff.
actually make much of the dross thats out there actually worth watching though? Rubbish is rubbish regardless of how many dimensions its in and having it repeated every 3 hours (yes, History Channel) does not get better in 3D only.
I'll move to 3D when they start producing stuff compelling enough to persuade me to go to the cinema or bother with a TV licence.
Might be different if I was a gamer.
Nice to see the 3D hypewagon is starting to run out of steam. It gives me eyestrain extremely quickly, I can't ever see this becoming the broadcast standard. It's not 3D, it's just an illusion - fix that and you fix all the other associated problems with strain, nausea, glasses, etc. That means holographic TV and I doubt we'll be seeing that anytime soon.
Of course it won't stop all the "researchers" and "specialists" which have been mentioned in a lot of the tech press from telling us how popular it will be. They're absolutely desperate for something new to shovel, which is a shame when we haven't really exploited all HD has to offer yet.
Paris, because nobody feels sorry for her either.
I saw an interview with David Attenbourgh the other day regarding the new 3DTV dinosaur doc thats coming out on sky. He mentioned that 3D was good for CGI docs like the ones with dinos but as yet not so good for ones with actual animals in the wild as apparently the professional 3D cameras are too big and bulky and require too much power, and too many engineers to get them to work to realistically be set up in the wild and capture nature as its happening.
I would have thought games would have been top of the list myself as the can be designed with making the most of the 3d aspect. where as TV always seems they just put in extra unecessary scenes to show off the 3D technology which are of little or no reference to the rest of it.
3D tv is never going to be mainstream, your not going to want to watch coronation street, question time or the news at 10 in 3D even if it were broadcast in that format.
Having a 3D tv is a bit like having a 4 wheel drive car, useful to have now and again like when it snows but most of the time it will just be as good as any other
"3D tv is never going to be mainstream, your not going to want to watch coronation street, question time or the news at 10 in 3D even if it were broadcast in that format."
When people say "never" you know they're talking downhill.
Games are actually worse in 3D because you're so focused on one center point. WipeoutHD for instance, looks great to observers but you don't realise it's 3D at all when playing it (unless you're prone to nausea).
The problem at the moment is the mistaken assumption that people will pay good money for 3D. Some might but most people recognize that it's still largely a gimmick and there isn't much content either.
However 3D is going to be a standard feature of midrange TVs before long. Just like features such as 1080p, 24fps, 100-200Hz etc. it'll end up on the list of supported modes. 3D is a largely incremental feature that most modern SoCs used by TVs would support anyway.
At some point things will tip where 3D is a demanded feature but I think it will be largely driven by games consoles.
It's not been that long since a crapton of people were persuaded that ditching their old CRT for a flat thing with a vastly inferior picture quality was a good idea. It took years before flat screen technology even started to approach the level of a CRT without costing a gigashitload of money. Even now, when it comes to computer monitors, no flat screen beats my crusty old AOC 5C 19" monitor for picture quality and viewing angle at any resolution you care to think of (and not just one native resolution). You'd think manufacturers would have put some kind of filtering in their flat screens to remove the native rez requirement by now...
We've also had the rise and rise of awful, MPEG-artifacts-everywhere digital television, be it via terrestrial, satellite or cable-based delivery. Seriously, does anybody remember how good the old broadcast-quality standard-def analogue signals used to be? It took until HDTV was released to return to the old level of quality, let alone "improve" things - and that's yet another expense that people have shelled out for.
And now we have manufacturers wanting us to buy 200hz-refresh flat screens under the moniker of "3D TV", spending yet more money to throw out perfectly working kit?
Maybe we've just reached the point where a lot of people are saying "fuck this - maybe when the old one breaks"?
And if you can see the pixels on a 4:3 19" screen with that resolution, you have microscopes for eyes. That or you have your nose up against the glass, and you're going to be going blind real soon.
Now try playing an old game with a maximum resolution of less than your native resolution, and tell me your picture doesn't look like it's being viewed through net curtains. Maybe you want to play a modern game without chewing your GPU up? Even better, try using your operating system without having to tweak everything so that the icons and text aren't eye-strainingly small. Those of us who still have CRTs can just, you know, change resolution. We get this lovely full-screen anti-aliasing effect for free as well, meaning even less GPU chewed up while displaying high-resolution graphics.
Flat screens? Not so much. Not without the net curtain effect, anyway. Plus I can look at a CRT screen from any angle I like, without the picture turning purple or green. Flat screens have the smaller/lighter advantage, I'll give you that. If you want picture quality though? CRT all the way, baby.
I'd love to be able to buy a modern CRT monitor. Silly high resolutions, with all the CRT advantages. They're kind of specialist these days though, yaknow?
If you'd like to believe 2048x1536 (or 1740x1100 as we shall see below) is equivalent to 2560x1600 then knock yourself out.
You have a screen with (as far as I can tell) a horizontal pixel pitch of 0.21mm. As a result the largest meaningful horizontal resolution you can get out of it is roughly 1740 pixels. It also has a 0.25mm vertical pixel pitch, so the largest meaningful vertical resolution is about 1100 pixels. The reason you don't get aliasing when you exceed these values is that the electron beam isn't tight enough, so the pixels just blend together.
Also flat screen != flat panel.
in fact so much so that when I do anything that requires colours to be accurate, I MUST use the CRT.
Video editing, website/graphic design and book/cover designs all work far better (for better read accurately) on CRT than LCD.
One caveat. It is possible to colour correct your LCD....it's just a very long nightmare to do.
Also the back-light makes the job that much harder to do.
the thing with 3d, is that in practice its not that good... you get the odd effect of somthing jumping in your face but thats it....
the only time I have found a 3d presentation any good was Mickey's PhilharMagic and the reason was that it was a masive screen that filled your field of vision... it prought you into the presentation... along with other effects such as tempriture changes, smells etc you became emmersed into the thing.
even on a 50inch TV in your living room, unless your sitting less than 4 feet away.... i dont think i will bother !
We want 3D TV, but we do NOT want 3D TV at excessive additional cost, and not with glasses that cost more than $2 each that require their own power sources.
Get RealD deployed on more TVs (it's on at least one now), using the exact same glasses I get in the movie theater, and I'll have an interest if it add less than $200 to the cost of a TV (regardless of TV size). Adding a circular polarizing LCD layer on top of the existing screen is really not that hard.... the issue mostly is the licensing. the tech costs about as much as 2-3 pairs of glasses, we've already proven it works, and hopefully we'll see many more of these RealD TVs at CES.
Also, release some frelling content already!
Oh, and don't even bother marketing 3D on TVs smaller than 40" and produce a handy guide letting people know just how big that TV should be based on seating distance to get an optimal effect. (a 47" TV in my living room would suck for 3D, but in my loft would work well. I don't need a 60" TV in the living room for comfortable viewing, 47" is fine, but a 3D effect is lost on a 47" screen when I'm sitting 10' or more from it... it must extend at least a little into your peripheral range to have a noticeable impact)
But they haven't seemed to have solved for vertical parallax yet. The tech also seems to be ridiculously expensive, too, IIRC. Then there's the likelihood that the signal required for it wouldn't work in any existing television transmission standards. Doubt we'll see this in the average home anytime soon.
I purchased my 3d TV a month ago on Black Friday. Previously I had been using a 10+ year old rear projection set that only supported component connections and was getting blurrier by the day. When I was shopping for a new set it was apparent that I could get a non-3d set for a lot cheaper than a 3d set. However when I started looking at the quality of the picture, by the time I got to the sets that had a good picture quality, the price difference between 3d and non-3d seemed almost negligible. That and I already owned a PS3 and I wanted to play some of my games in 3d. The place I got my set was running a package deal that included extra glasses plus the wiring plus a decent receiver to handle the device switching so I decided to go with it.
So far I don't regret my decision. I own a couple 3d movies now and I enjoy the 3d games I play :)
I agree with Stucs201. The right questions make all the difference to a survey like this. I also agree with Peter Coffin, The bundle deal with everything included really did help make the decision :)
I want to correct the anonymous coward, people didn't start buying DVD over VHS for that reason at all, in fact if you survey most people they don't use any of the additional content on a DVD 90% of the time it is for the most part niche content and marketing fluff to bump interest.
The reason that they transitioned from VHS to DVD was for a number of factors. Storage being the top on peoples lists. you reduced storage space I think by just over 3/4.
DVD as a format itself was also lead by the pornographic industry. If they had continued to release adult films via VHS it wouldn't have gone as far as it did in the same way that it was said industry that created secure payment concepts for online retail.
It is fact that there has never been (cite) a general release film with multiple camera angles as an integral part of the plot. Pornography however rinsed the gimmick when it was first introduced.
The same will go for 3D. The minute Vivid start releasing good quality 3D movies, suddenly there will be an influx in TV purchases & other industries taking note and jumping on.
I've experienced lots of different types of 3D experiences and can safely say without any bias that it fails on the home front more than anywhere else because instead of an immersive experience which you find at the cinema (even if it isn't a positive one) it lacks greatly because of the constraints of the environment it is in.
"Generally speaking, the younger members of the survey groups were keener on 3D TVs than older folk."
Probably because the older folk (or, really, anyone older than about 30) remember all the other attempts to do 3D and how lousy they were.
We also remember when movies had plots, instead of relying on special effect gimmicks to hold the audience's goldfish-like attention for long enough to make some money. Or when TV shows were well written and original, instead of 15 variants on a franchise used as filler between the ads. Or when computer games had no option but to be fun to play because they couldn't rely on looking pretty to make us buy them.
I'd rather have no movie, TV show or video game at all than one which relies entirely on smoke and mirrors to make it seem like it's worth my time. 3D is just elaborate smoke and mirrors.
(Where's the grouchy old bugger icon when you need it?)
The reason for the lack of interest in North America and Europe might be because we've had more exposure to 3d movies, and realize that it really isn't worth splashing out extra money for. After the novelty wears off... it's harder to watch (esp if you need to wear goggles), a fair number of people get motion sick watching it.
I think the real reason is that it's only after we experience "3d video" that we realize that what we really want is to be able to see the action from a different angle by craning out neck or moving to the other end of the couch - which is well beyond current technology. Not to just see normal video with a more convincing illusion of depth.
I'd be willing to bet a fairly large sum of money that most people with 3d TV's rarely use the 3d functionality after the novelty wears off.
but I'm lying here in my comfy chair with my laptop and the TV on. I'm not sitting bolt upright so all of the 3D tv's on offer would be shit.
My luxury devices are for MY pleasure (which aint pissing money up the wall to look good) so I'm not expecting any improvement in my 3D tissue wasting experiences for a long time yet,
you don't need the bloody silly glasses.
Most of the TV I "watch" is sharing my attention with other things. I do not want to be taking glasses on and off and on and off to watch it. That simple.
Well, that and 99.999% of what's on is utterly pathetic bollocks that doesn't deserve anywhere near full attention anyway.
I just bought a 46" 1080P LED/LCD Samsung because it was $997 on Black Friday. Sweet price point, mature technology that is likely to be stable for some time to come.
The same tv in 3D was $2,597. Was 3D worth the difference? No, it was not.
WAY back in the day, I got bit buying Betamax just before VHS took off so I learned my lesson on early adoption.
I will consider 3D when I don't need active glasses that cost $200 a pair. Why can't they use the passive glasses that you get in the theatre? Because they DON'T cost $200!
What about competing formats for 3D? I'll bet we go through 3 or 4 formats before there is any kind of "standard". As said before, no betamax for me.
Until then, I'll go to the Movie Theatre IF there is something I wish to see in 3D. Obviously there is little to no content out there to see in 3D and the content that IS available costs way too much.
Speaking of content, I reserve the right to sue Fox if I am EVER subjected to Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly in 3D. Talk about "Horrifying", think about what that would look like. 2D is scary enough.
Mark my words.....The ONLY thing that will drive adoption of 3D and a single 3D format will be the same thing that put lousy VHS ahead of Betamax.....PORN.
Now when will my "Smello-Vision" be available? Paris Icon for obvious reasons.
"I will consider 3D when I don't need active glasses that cost $200 a pair. Why can't they use the passive glasses that you get in the theatre? Because they DON'T cost $200!"
Alternate polarisation of left- and right-eye frames as used with common passive glasses poses some technical issues on LCD screens.
It's a depressing result--as a gamer I already have several games that support 3D, but I also probably won't be buying a 3D setup until at /least/ next summer, probably more like a year. Because they're so expensive! I love gaming but where am I supposed to get the money to afford it? Heck, my cat needs dental work; as much as my geeky self is ashamed to admit it, my cat's teeth may actually be more important than 3D. I suppose that puts things in perspective a bit. (ooh, did you see the joke I made there?)
The same applies to 3D on the PC, actually. I'd have gone 3D a long time ago if I could afford a high-scan-rate monitor. But... ouch!
...just laugh at the salesman who are desperate to offload their 3D-ware on to TV production companies. Even if the demand existed, the bandwidth doesn't, and the equipment is very big and expensive. Current trends are for equipment to get smaller and cheaper (like budgets).
3D TV exists to market more hardware to idiots.
The one TV in this house is a 32" Sony Trinitron, purchased new (by me) in 1988. The remote is sitting on top of it, and is cobwebbed to the set-top box ... I don't think it's been turned on in months, and I haven't watched it in years. TV is a vast wasteland, Hollywood is worse.
I think this is an easy one, forget the question of would you buy a 3DTV because of course you would given the choice, i just upgraded my tv to a good HD set and ill not be changing it soon, but at some point i will.
No, the real question is will you USE 3D TV?
for me, nope, it brings very little to my life, glasses at the cinema is ok but not in the home
The disk went in my myth box last week. I've watched nothing and haven't missed the 2d version so I'm not about to pay extra for 3d.
Defense Grid FTW! Actually, that might look quite good in 3d...
I suspect the problem is that 3d adds an extra (ahem) dimension to the content which isn't believable. We're used to seeing through a 2d "window." 3d brings the action "into" the room but it is too restricted to be realistic.
Paris, so thin she's 2d
I bought a 3d tv months ago. Besides Monsters vs Aliens that came with the tv (and doesn't work in a PS3), where's the content?
Go into a BluRay shop and you just can't find anything 3D. There are very, very few PS3 games available in 3D. To drive a 3D tv from a PX you need a bang-up-to-date nVidia card and even then it dowsn't work for everything.
People will buy as and when 3d is no extra cost and there is actually something to watch on the damn thing.
I just got one myself.. came with a 3d blueray and 2 pairs of glasses...
I'd say the lack of demand is because most people just bought a HD telly.. they are not yet looking to replace it just to get 3D...
But the biggest reason is content, I tried to buy some 3D bluerays at about a dozen shops in perth and not one of them had a single title..
As others have said they "would" buy 3D if their current TV broke I've actually just had that exact situation, with my (just over) 5 year old TV going tits up. I did also look at 2D plasma and LCD screens (one of the plasmas even from the same point in the panasonic range) and there was a noticeable difference in the quality of the display even with a 2D stream. I went for plasma ultimately because they are still generally accepted as being better for gaming.
So 3D ended up being a sort of bonus on a screen with a better display quality than its 2D sibling which I was originally looking at.
The thing is, if you'd asked me even 6 weeks ago whether I would buy a 3D TV then the answer would have been no, but then situations can change.
Ok, so my first gen Plasma flat panel is starting to go. I'm trying to wait it out until OLED TVs hit the market. But that doesn't look like it will happen. So I'm looking at TVs. I want fast refresh rates. High end features.
My sister just bought one of the new 3D Sony models. She showed off the 3D blue ray 'Alice' and 3D of 2D content. Sorry, I wasn't impressed and I seriously doubt I could watch a 3D movie for more than 30 minutes before I get a headache. Outside of the 3D, the picture was really, really nice. The built in internet feature was also nice, but I don't know if I'll use it.
So like others, I'm going to pass on the 3D. But I have a problem. I'll end up buying a 3D 'ready' set because of the faster refresh rate, better contrast, and a nice picture. (Plasma, or LCD)
So I guess I'll be counted as one of the 3D sets sold, but I'll probably never use it except to show it off to people who might want it.
3D porn? Sounds too dangerous to me. You might put someone's eye out.
the next tv i will buy will most likely be an OLED 3d TV. but thats in a few years. at present i have a nice 42" HDTV. 3d will only truely take off when you dont have to wear glasses. i think we still have a while before they are of decent enough quality at an OK price. glasses like the ones in the cinema are crap as they desaturate so much. avatar 3d was good but killed the colours so much. for me it looked vastly superior on my tv on blu-ray and 2d!
its not enough of a gamechanger for me as HDTV was (bought one about a month after i bought a ps3)
.. some of it was quite impressive, whereas other things looked like lots of flat objects at different distances.
However the next day my eyes felt so bad, I went to an optician. There was nothing wrong with my eyes, but the optician thought it might just be the flicker with the goggles. So I won't be getting one of those.
I watched Avatar at the cinema and had no problems (perhaps there might be projection systems that use polarized goggles for domestic use, soon.)
I watched journey to the center of the earth with the coloured glasses with a friend, we gave up after about 40 minutes, because we both had headaches. My eyes weren't right for 24 hours.
I think in the home, the requirement for glasses is a fail, even if the system doesn't give you a headache.
Oh c'mon people. The main reason that 3D is being pushed by the film studios is to try and combat movie piracy. They've seen their multi-million $$$ film compressed into a perfectly watchable 700mb file and squirted around the internet. To try and stem this flow they're pumping out a series of truly awful movies where sticks / guns / objects are pointed at the screen to scream "I AM IN 3D!". Film makers ought to concentrate on the art of story telling and not this 3D gimmick.
3D is simply a gimmick and after spending > £1000 on a Panny plasma last Christmas, there is no way I'm going to be doing the same again ... and inevitably losing / breaking the stupid glasses.
After reading the manufacturers brochures, I was looking at getting a 3D TV.
After reading the owners Forums (links below) I formed at a different opinion.
There appear to be issues with at least two major manufacturers 3D plasma TV's across all models in their range and the makers appear to be unwilling or unable to address or fix:
1) Samsung C7000 plasma TV's literally go "on the blink" repeatidly losing the picture for up to a second. Five upgrades to the firmware have not yet fixed this.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/3d-plasma-tvs/1296141-samsung-3d-plasmas-blinking.html
2) Panasonic VT20 does not display 2D content very well at 50Hz. Given that most content is delivered in this form, this is fairly fundamental (unless you intend to spend all your time watching the same meagre quantity of 3D content over and over again). There is a suggestion in the forums below that Panasonic do not intend to fix this in their current 2010 models.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasma-tvs/1274308-panasonic-vt20-owners-blur-pan-shot-issues-part-1-a.html
Caveat Emptor!
A few weeks back I saw a Sky/LG demo (passive glasses) and was fairly impressed. So was my boss who flinched when a rugby ball bounced towards him! Though I'm sure as it was a demo reel, then you're going to see all the good stuff.
But as others have pointed out, there are factors against taking up 3DTV at home:
Getting a 3DTV when you have a perfectly good LCD/plasma (not that usually stops gadget fans)
Glasses. I see that the active Sony ones are £100! Plus if you wear glasses, you probably don't want to wear another pair on top (be it active or passive).
Content. Putting 3D bits in a film 'cos you can is not a valid use of technology!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
