What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by etype55

Interesting perspective. Can you show me the data that lead you to these conclusions? Any surveys? How large were the samples ? What was your articulation?

Can you show me data to the contrary?

I admit that what I said isn't based on hard hitting data, and as such, time could prove me wrong to some extent.

That being said, it is true to that the TV manufacturers are gradually only making 3DTVs. Take this with a grain of salt as it's anectodotal, but someone who works at Best Buy posted in another thread how for larger sets (over 50 inches), for the most part currently the only major name brand options are 3DTVs (and they cost about the same or less as their former 2D counterparts). The only 2D-only options are off-brands or left over older stock of the name brand sets.

And in a sense, that is fine, since these TVs can be used for 2D viewing as well with no problem, and it's not like it's hurting anything for someone to have an extra feature that they aren't going to use if it doesn't add much to the price.

But none the less, each time one of them gets sold, it's all going to go towards statistics that praise how well 3DTVs are selling. That's the problem. The 'data' that you probably take a lot of stock in that says it's doing well is skewed by the gradual lack of an alternative choice.

This, too, is anecdotal, but outside of sites like this, where there is a concentration of people interested in this kind of thing, I can't say that by and large I've ever seen or heard of a great deal of people having any interest in 3D in the home. Most seem to have little to no interest. As opposed to other forms of tech (like HD) which had compartively more postive reactions.... sure there were hold outs, skeptics, etc, but there was a far greater amount of interest than there was with 3D.

[etype55]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I remember back in 2007 when the headline was "Blu-ray sales fizzle around the world".

Practically speaking, no one should make any definitive statements - even if it's easy to do. Judging from my own experience with 3D tech, price drops and word of mouth will champion the products - not demos or marketing blitzes. I just commented on another thread about a very real problem. Most 3D demo stations just plain suck. They're not impressive in the slightest. Couple an uninspired sample with a big price tag and you've guaranteed a sluggish start. If I had not been introduced to the VT series by happenstance I would still think of 3DTV as mediocre because the local best buy has never taken 3D seriously, as evidenced by their joke of a demo.

However, as most who have taken the 3D plunge with a good device can attest, a good 3D set-up can make a big impression on friends and family, i've heard more than one "holy shit", "wow" and "its holographic". To be fair, there has been 1 person to suffer an adverse reaction.

A friend of mine expressed cynicism about 3D - i stuck the glasses on his face and put on Under the Sea (the sea snakes get everyone - lots of fun). He's now planning on purchasing a 3DTV this year if the prices drops to his threshold.

Just an anecdote certainly, and not very scientific, but that's my point. I'm betting that it will be friends showing friends their 3D theaters that drive this market forward.

[TWright]

Originally Posted by pixler

Are 3D TV's and Blu-Rays a fad or are they here to stay? I have no interest in buying 3D TV's or Blu-Rays, so I hope it doesn't take over

I think that it's here to stay, but I don't think you need to be concerned about it taking over. 2D will be with us for a good long time yet. I read a news story last year that mentioned that incorporating 3D into HD sets is inexpensive, and as a result it is likely that all HD sets will soon include the 3D capabilities. People can of course choose to ignore that aspect of their new sets completely and no doubt many will. But I suspect that as the glasses get cheaper, more and more people will tune into it now and then. Frankly I don't see 3D ever taking completely over unless they can develop a glass-less technology, no matter how light and comfy they make the glasses people are always going to see them as a hindrance. Much as I love watching 3D movies, I would really not want to wear those glasses every time I watch anything on my set, it would get very annoying.

[etype55]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Can you show me data to the contrary?

I admit that what I said isn't based on hard hitting data, and as such, time could prove me wrong to some extent.

That being said, it is true to that the TV manufacturers are gradually only making 3DTVs. Take this with a grain of salt as it's anectodotal, but someone who works at Best Buy posted in another thread how for larger sets (over 50 inches), for the most part currently the only major name brand options are 3DTVs (and they cost about the same or less as their former 2D counterparts). The only 2D-only options are off-brands or left over older stock of the name brand sets.

And in a sense, that is fine, since these TVs can be used for 2D viewing as well with no problem, and it's not like it's hurting anything for someone to have an extra feature that they aren't going to use if it doesn't add much to the price.

But none the less, each time one of them gets sold, it's all going to go towards statistics that praise how well 3DTVs are selling. That's the problem. The 'data' that you probably take a lot of stock in that says it's doing well is skewed by the gradual lack of an alternative choice.

This, too, is anecdotal, but outside of sites like this, where there is a concentration of people interested in this kind of thing, I can't say that by and large I've ever seen or heard of a great deal of people having any interest in 3D in the home. Most seem to have little to no interest. As opposed to other forms of tech (like HD) which had compartively more postive reactions.... sure there were hold outs, skeptics, etc, but there was a far greater amount of interest than there was with 3D.

But you can't compare a fully matured market against a brand spanking new one.

For the most part people know there's LCD and plasma for HD and that both knock the old SD out of the park. Even a bad HD tv is blantantly superior to the old tech. 3D however, has a less defined critical range. So people that are exposed to bad 3D will have no idea that it's an inferior presentation. That is exactly what happened to me. I saw bad 3D, I thought 3D sucked, then much later I saw a good 3D home theater - I now have my own and believe in the technology to bring novel and exciting experiences to peoples lives. That wasn't being tricked into a 3DTV purchase, I saw what good 3D was about and I loved it.

Truthfully, 3D and 2D will co-exist. Neither is going away anytime soon. And that's perfectly acceptable.

[TWright]

Originally Posted by etype55

So people that are exposed to bad 3D will have no idea that it's an inferior presentation. That is exactly what happened to me.

That happened to my brother as well, he saw The Last Airbender and was so convinced that 3D was crap that now he watches the 2D versions of 3D movies to save the buck or two extra they charge for 3D. And who can blame him, Airbender was a terrible example of 3D. I've been raving to him about my home 3D setup, but I don't think he'll be convinced until he visits and sees it for himself

[RallyCat]

Originally Posted by pixler

Are 3D TV's and Blu-Rays a fad or are they here to stay? I have no interest in buying 3D TV's or Blu-Rays, so I hope it doesn't take over

That's like hoping 5.1 surround sound doesn't take over because you don't want to buy a new sound system because you like your stereo TV speakers.

When HDTV's came out, they replaced standard definition TV's. TV programming is now for the most part, broadcasted in HD. 3D is not designed to replace HD. It is an addition. Much like the expanded 5.1 surround sound. Just because movies are in 5.1 surround, doesn't mean you have to go out and buy a new sound system. You can still listen to your movies in stereo on your TV speakers if you choose. Or even in mono.

Now the visuals have been expanded and viewed in 3D, but again, it's an option for those selected times when you want to see a 3D film. Or not at all if you prefer 2D.

3D is here to stay and I don't really think it ever went away. It just got better.

But all 3D films can be viewed in 2D. Just like 5.1 surround can be listened in stereo. There should be no fear towards 3D.

[krazeyeyez]

I have asked this before and never got an adequate response imo. How does the 3d conversion stack up against the native 3d content. I see a lot of people saying its just as good and a lot saying its not. It seem to strike me as those that say dvd upconverted is just as good as blu-ray and its really not.

So what is the verdict on 3d on the fly vs 3d native as 3d blu's still seem pretty lacking catalog wise and many seem to be exclusive with sets right now.

[Allforce]

Another problem with 3D catching on is how many consumers over the last few years have just finally jumped on the HDTV bandwagon? Hell I had to convince my parents to get just a cheap LCD TV for their living room when they wanted to upgrade, and they won't even pay for the HD signal from the cable company at that. That's anecdotal but definitely not an isolated situation, as I'm sure millions of other consumers are in the same boat and NOT ready to shell out for a new TV that's incrementally better than the one they just bought in the last few years.

It reminds me of the Best Buy commercial with the guy having the 3D TV delivered and the truck says "Coming Soon, 4DTV!" and the little girl laughing in the yard "You bought the wrong TV silly head!".

For the record I thought Avatar in 3D was a neat one-off experience. I went and saw it in the theater, I wore the dopey glasses and enjoyed myself for three hours. I left and said "That was a really cool experience" and that was about all I needed in terms of 3D entertainment. I never once thought "holy shit I REALLY have to have this technology in my home so I can watch the Masters on ESPN3D!" or anything of the sort and I don't feel any different about it today.

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

I have asked this before and never got an adequate response imo. How does the 3d conversion stack up against the native 3d content. I see a lot of people saying its just as good and a lot saying its not. It seem to strike me as those that say dvd upconverted is just as good as blu-ray and its really not.

So what is the verdict on 3d on the fly vs 3d native as 3d blu's still seem pretty lacking catalog wise and many seem to be exclusive with sets right now.

It doesn't cut the mustard for me. Sorry, I've never used that phrase and wanted to try it out. Anyway, conversions are good at separating layers of depth. It reminds me of the old Mario games with multiple background layers. Creating a 3D model from a single image (which would be required to create a proper alternate perspective image), or even multiple images, is simply impossible. My view is, if it wasn't properly filmed in 3D, I don't want to see it in pseudo 3D.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

It doesn't cut the mustard for me. Sorry, I've never used that phrase and wanted to try it out. Anyway, conversions are good at separating layers of depth. It reminds me of the old Mario games with multiple background layers. Creating a 3D model from a single image (which would be required to create a proper alternate perspective image), or even multiple images, is simply impossible. My view is, if it wasn't properly filmed in 3D, I don't want to see it in pseudo 3D.

I would agree with everything you said, but feel it needs to be stated that the effect is really good...better than I would have imagined before seeing it. It works really well on video games, my only real use of the technology. I have tried it on movies and TV and, while not something I'm really interested in doing, should be checked out if you are. The effect is surprisingly good, just don't expect anything other than depth. There's no real way to add negative space during the conversion.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Canada

3D TV sales fizzle around the world

I think one barometer may be represented by sales of the new 70 inch Sharp Quattron TV's, which are the first "affordable" flat panel TV in that size. The 2D model (70le732u) was released for sale last week at a price of around $3K. The 3D models will be coming in a few months. Since 70 inch models are presumably purchased mainly by A/V enthusiasts, the ratio of 2D to 3D sales should be an indicator of the acceptance of 3D in the A/V community.

[nameisjimbo]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

T.

There will never be a 3D TV that will accomodate for a living room setup where a 12' wide seating area is entirely calibrated perfectly...

never?

I'll take the under

[XundeadhunterX]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Actually, if you think about it, there will be a consumer attitude that WILL give the 3D industry (hardware) a running start. The gaming industry will help propel the industry into expanding substantially.

The main reason I will be dropping $3000+ on a 60"+ 3D TV in August/September is to be able to play Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception in full 1080p 3D glory!

PS3 cant do 1080p 3D HDMI 1.3 can only do 1080i/720p 3D; HDMI 1.4 can do 1080p 3D

[Canada]

Originally Posted by XundeadhunterX

PS3 cant do 1080p 3D HDMI 1.3 can only do 1080i/720p 3D; HDMI 1.4 can do 1080p 3D

PS3 cant do lossless while showing a 3D 1080p image.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Read the comments. There is a valid point made therein.

People are not buying the highest end TVs. Up until this summer, the majority of TVs being purchased are reduced price clearance units from previous production lines. 3DTV sales will begin to skyrocket as the current models will begin to drop in price and the newer models coming out (high AND low end) this year will all have 3D built into them. So, with a much larger percentage of units on the market having 3D capabilities, the number of those units being sold will also increase.

A little common sense leads me to believe that 3D will succeed.

If you measure success by household penetration then you're probably right. Things will likely get to a point (and sooner rather than later) where it doesn't make sense for manufacturers to not include 3D capabilities.

If you measure success by how many people atually use it then it seems 3D could still go the way of BDLive - it looks good on a sticker but people turn it off the second they get it home.

[coolmilo]

I don't think 3D is a fad. Rather, it's a poorly executed technology. Steve Jobs would call it a big bag of hurt. It reminds me of HD DVD, a flawed technology not ready for public release.

If the CE's get it together and come up with compatible standards based on passive technology, it might have a shot. They need to make glasses that are affordable and durable; can accomodate a user's eye glasses prescription; and not lose any resolution, 3D might have a shot. Glasses free 3D sounds interesting too as long as the PQ does not suffer.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

I don't think 3D is a fad. Rather, it's a poorly executed technology. Steve Jobs would call it a big bag of hurt. It reminds me of HD DVD, a flawed technology not ready for public release.

If the CE's get it together and come up with compatible standards based on passive technology, it might have a shot. They need to make glasses that are affordable and durable; can accomodate a user's eye glasses prescription; and not lose any resolution, 3D might have a shot. Glasses free 3D sounds interesting too as long as the PQ does not suffer.

It's funny u should mention affordability, because Samsung went on record this week saying that they are reducing the price of their active shutter 3d glasses to $50 (there's a thread opened about it in the '3d hdtv, projectors and displays' section). I'd say that price will be for their basic battery type model, but it's a start of things to come. Chances are other consumer electronic companies follow Samsung and will do the same thing. I believe in another couple of years active shutter 3d glasses will be down to below $20 a pair.

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

It's funny u should mention affordability, because Samsung went on record this week saying that they are reducing the price of their active shutter 3d glasses to $50 (there's a thread opened about it in the '3d hdtv, projectors and displays' section). I'd say that price will be for their basic battery type model, but it's a start of things to come. Chances are other consumer electronic companies follow Samsung and will do the same thing. I believe in another couple of years active shutter 3d glasses will be down to below $20 a pair.

I saw that too. I am all for 3D and I buy Blu-ray bundles that includes the 3D version of the movie if available to prepare for the future. I am waiting for better hardware before I upgrade because Active Shutter gives me headaches.

[Mr. Al]

Originally Posted by tuck301

has anyone else seen the commercials for the 3d LG TV that uses polarized glasses?

I tried that out at Future Shop yesterday. Definitely thinking about buying one.

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by DimeMecka

I am not buying into it either. Gives me a headache,strains my eyes,definetley cant stand to were glasses and takes away the picture clarity.

I agree. I think the only real market for home 3D is going to be the die-hard gamers and younger people who are taken in by fads like this. Personally, I'm hoping 3D will go the way of virtual reality.