What's Holding 3D Back? (ARTICLE LINK)

[Grif32]

Glasses will hold it back but what about the cost for the 3d Blu-Ray's. I have not seen anywhere how much a 3D BD will run someone. My guess is around $40 - $50 which will kill it IMHO>

[Grif32]

Originally Posted by liquidice

a friend of mine who works for a Chicago based engineering firm has some info on the new upgraded 3D tv's. This company is largely engineering the technology used for the newer tv's we'll see on the market. He did tell me that they are also upgrading current tv's, mostly LCD technology sets. He said the only thing needed to take a current LCD and make it ready for 3D is a software upgrade, and an extra IR, which is costly them nearly nothing for the upgrades. He said this is currently being demonstrated in their engineering lab.

With the minimal costs, it would seem silly to rush out and buy a new tv anytime soon.

I personally will not make any movement towards 3D anything for the next couple of years....at least. It's nothing that really excites me at this time, and we all now how prices for these types of new information will drop so drastically after it becomes more widespread among all A/V companies.

I don't think your friend is correct. But in time we will see.

Quotes found

"none of the TV manufacturers we spoke with said that their current HDTVs can be upgraded to support the new 3D formats. We've heard that slow LCD response times, processing power, new phosphor requirements and an inability to accept the necessary 100Hz input signal (not to be confused with 100Hz and higher display refresh rates) cited as reasons why existing sets are stuck in 2D"

Other's

Myth #6 = All BD players with HDMI 1.3 & BD Live can be upgraded to 3D BD players

FALSE - only the PS3 can be upgraded to play 3D BD's. The PS3 is a software based BD player. It uses the very powerful Cell BE instead of a SoC (System On a Chip) like all other BD players do which are hardware based players. It uses programming that can be updated and upgraded via firmware. Regular BD players can't do this.

Myth #9 = You can upgrade your HDTV to a 3DTV

TRUE & FALSE - 120Hz DLP RPTV's by Mitsubishi and Samsung, that were made as 3D ready, their owners will have the opportunity to purchase later this year, the Mitsubishi 3DC-1000 converter box. This is a 3D format converter that will convert 3D BD, SAT and CBL's 3D formats into the 3D format that these DLP HDTV's use, which is Checkerboard LINK , a 3D format that offers half HD resolution per eye instead of full HD resolution per eye, like the brand new FPD's do just being released. The frame /refresh rate will be 60 per eye, 120 total.

Again, active shutter glasses will be needed along with an external transmitter/emitter to sync the glasses to the TV that plugs into the back of the set in a special 3 pin VESA connection. If your set is equipped with a DLP-Link, then no emitter is required but you will need the DLP-Link 3D glasses like the XpanD X102 series.

So what about all the other HDTV's? The ones with 120Hz and 240Hz refresh rates? No - they will not be able to be upgraded to 3DTV's for a number of technical reasons.

And a great thread on it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1238377

[Henry T]

Originally Posted by steve1971

Good post and interesting article. Sorry to say this but I think the 3-D idea is gonna go the way of HD-DVD: A failure! I believe this due to a couple of things. 1-The Economy. People just dont have the funds anymore to buy brand new equipment and alot of us are happy with our current setup. I know I am. 2-To much to soon. I think the powers that be should have allowed the Blu ray format to grow for a few more years before they introduced the 3-D idea. Blu ray is catching on no doubt but you still have some people hanging on to standard dvd. Get rid of the dvd format first and try to get the Blu ray format into more home's then think of the 3-D idea.

I like Mitsubishi's idea of the black box thing. Instead of replacing my tv I would go for this idea. Just hook up the box via HDMI to my tv and presto I am 3-D compatible!!! I would much rather do that then spend another $1500 or so for yet another tv just so I can get 3-D. Also give me a firmware update for my BDP N460 that allows me to access 3-D content. If they would go the route I just mentioned I would have no problem adopting the 3-D concept. But buying a new tv and Blu ray player fro 3-D is a no go for me because 1- I like my current setup very well and 2- I don't make the kind of money to keep replacing my setup just because something new comes up. This is all just my view and others can do what they like, their choice and their money.

Agree here. Blu-ray 2d still has a long way to go and is a big jump for most average consumers. And considering a floundering US economy I really think 3d at this time was big marketing mistake. 2-3 years down the road we might be ready for it, at least for a slow adoption.

Again average consumers are just starting to recognize BD as a valued upgrade and considering adopting the format. The manufactures are trying to jamb this stuff down our throats too fast IMO. They may just spook people with these rapid changes into holding tight on purchases cause of uncertainty in the format direction.

[raygendreau]

I agree that the major drawback is the shutter glasses. They are too expensive. A better (cheaper) option for glasses would be the passive polarised glasses which cost abbout $1.50.

The displays will probably cost more. Unfortunately LG is going to intro passive 3D HDTV's in England soon, but there is no mention of them introducing anything other than the active systems in the U.S.

http://www.electronista.com/articles....3d.tv.lineup/

I hope we get some reviews from our members across the pond.

[AaronSCH]

What's holding 3-D back? 3-D ...It is just a fad.

[STARSCREAM]

Originally Posted by Grif32

Glasses will hold it back but what about the cost for the 3d Blu-Ray's. I have not seen anywhere how much a 3D BD will run someone. My guess is around $40 - $50 which will kill it IMHO>

+1. Let's say if this is the price on say Monsters vs. Aliens it would be crazy as I bought it during Christmas in 2D for only $10.

[in2video2]

Not a lot to disagree with here: The economy is not strong at all so there's not a lot of cash-flow at the moment for most folks; having to upgrade and replace our recently purchased 2D HDTVs to experience 3D HDTV and then on top of that the extra pairs of expensive glasses - now that is a bitter pill to swallow. Not leaving out the quantity and the quality of Real 3D movies currently being offered doesn't exactly make one rush out anytime soon... And now the latest - watching 3D HDTV may not be a healthy pastime anyway - Health authorities around the world are jumping on the bandwagon, 3D HDTV manufacturers are getting real nervous for not having done the necessary health checks first, and prestigious law firms around the world are rubbing their hands with glee... maybe?

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

What's holding 3-D back? 3-D ...It is just a fad.

Well, people said HD (blu-ray) would never be adopted by the mainstream - soooo.

It's easy to say, it's just a fad - but who thought IPod's would have hookups on every stereo, car, and alarm clock these days.

I think 3D has a chance - but not with the current clunky/overly expensive glasses. Expensive set-up with little to no content = no one is rushing to get this.

I think the clunkiness and price of the glasses will hold this back. What good is having a 3D sports channel if only 2 people at a time can watch it.

I find myself more interested in 3D gaming than movies actually.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Well, people said HD (blu-ray) would never be adopted by the mainstream - soooo.

It's easy to say, it's just a fad - but who thought IPod's would have hookups on every stereo, car, and alarm clock these days.

I think 3D has a chance - but not with the current clunky/overly expensive glasses. Expensive set-up with little to no content = no one is rushing to get this.

I think the clunkiness and price of the glasses will hold this back. What good is having a 3D sports channel if only 2 people at a time can watch it.

I find myself more interested in 3D gaming than movies actually.

$1.50 for a pair of passive glasses sounds right to me, but are we ever going to see the passive 3D TV's in the U.S.?

Anyone visit a pub with an LG passive 3D TV lately? How do they look. They are supposed to be introduced sometime in May on the other side of the pond for consumers.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-tv-video-demo

http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/ne...er-glasses-/p1

[john_1958]

has anyone tried 3d player on regular hdtv?

what if they applied depth enhancer like http://www.fxsound.com/dfx/pages/ove...plus=0&refer=0
http://gigabitwarez.com/software/mul...ncer-9211.html

with video like http://www.inv3.com/v3_depth_enhance..._teaparty.html moe lens towards hdtvs video
lets say with crosstalk reduction

[that1guystudios]

What always holds back any kind of technology is pricing and content. Prices of 3D sets will fall over the next 2 years, and 3D titles will begin to come out more frequently on Blu-ray. The glasses are also too expensive and not universal. But as they are manufactured more frequently and a universal standard is adopted, the glasses will fall in price as well.

Most people on the internet seem to think that 3D is a bomb upon arrival. Most 3-D TV's are just rolling out in stores...the high end Panasonic and Samsung Plasmas don't even officially release until next week!

3-D officially begins it's roll-out this summer. The sporting events will be broadcast first, and then the movies will start to trickle out, and video games will go 3-D as well. I think that within the next 2 years, the majority of TV's sold will have 3D modes on them that are optional. Think of it as an extra feature on a great 2-D TV. No one is forcing you to use the 3-D option, but believe me as someone who works in the Magnolia department at Best Buy, these sets are selling very well, even at high prices, which of course will come down, and the content will arrive, eventually.

You have to remember that when Blu-ray started there was only one Samsung Blu-ray player, which cost over $1,000, that barely worked and there were only about 5 titles to play. Good things come to those who wait.

[Canada]

I think it is the amount of content more than any thing else. If there are only a handful of titles hardly anyone will pick up a player a TV and glasses but if there are 30 or more good titles I could see it becoming more viable.

[markkin]

Headaches.

[john_1958]

i don't mind the glasses but 3dtv should have 2d-3d where it only increases the depth so it looks like the tea pary link i posted earlier

[john_1958]

costs of 3d cameras has to come down in price before a lot of film makers will adopt

http://www.hdcameraguide.com/guide/

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by dboyle

I agree with many of you but I would like to add that the industry've gone a bit too fast in introducing 3D from the perspective that there is a BIG shortage of 3D-content out there!

can always change 2d-into 3d

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by markkin

Headaches.

you been watching anaglyph movies again haven't you
take tynenol

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by Packerfan75

Q: What's holding 3D back?

A: 3D, because it's just not that good.

Bingo!

I've been reserving judgment on this technology and not making any final decisions until I at least saw it with my own eyes. Well, that day came on Saturday at my local Best Buy. They had a Blu-ray 3D demo room setup going, so I had a seat and watched Monsters vs. Aliens 3D for a few minutes. There were parts that were neat, and there was definitely depth to it. When viewing the movie, though, it felt like I was looking into a box that had a three-dimensional scene going on inside it. That is to say: the three-dimensional aspect of the movie wasn't really "immersing" the room with images. To me, it still seemed like the video was confined to the box (the TV). It reminds me of those things you make in grammar school where you have a shoebox and you put a bunch of different things in it to create a scene.

Add to the what I would consider to be "barely neat" video presentation is the fact that I have to wear glasses to experience it, and you've got yourself a losing combination for me personally. I'm all about decking out a home theater with the latest and greatest, but I'm just not feeling the 3D thing as it is now.

It's not about raining on the parades of others who are sold on and love it, nor am I making a claim about its effect on the industry (be it positive or negative); it's just not that cool if you ask me. I would only own a 3D setup if it was given to me; I'd never pay extra for it (as it is now. If it gets better, I'd be more than happy to change my tune).

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

What's holding 3-D back? 3-D ...It is just a fad.

nice to have 3d as well as 2d in one set fad i think not

[ozzsoad]

While I like the idea of 3D and I'm not one to pass it off as a fad, I have to say the current technology for 3D at home is terrible. After checking out "Monsters vs. Aliens" at Best Buy in 3D I was amazed at how bad it looked. There was way too much ghosting and double images(yes I turned the glasses on).

This is what's holding 3D back. The technology isn't ready yet. I couldn't sit through a whole movie that looked like that, not to mention watch TV shows or sports events, talk about killer headaches.

The day they can successfully pull off 3D on televisions, preferably without glasses, is the day I'll invest. As is, I think it's doomed.