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

[Robut]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

There is very little quality content - and it's much higher in price. After watching the latest demo setups in various venues, it's just not that impressive. Especially with "conversions", the sliding cutout look of most offerings just doesn't look that great.

I think there will be a second generation of 3-D, possibly without electric glasses, and that may turn things around. But the prices have to drop - they've positioned prices as a premium upgrade, and for the content offered, it will remain a niche market for a long time.

Do you have a 3D display at home? You seem to be making your judgements from occasional demo viewings at store displays. My opinion, 3D is great and fun and will get better. I hardly ever purchased movies, but with 3D I'm developing a collection and rewatch the movies frequently, something I never used to do.

[ceiph]

Content is just starting to get big, the tvs will all start a unified Bluetooth standard this year and im sure the 3d models will creep more on the entry models. just last year it seemed console games started getting in on the action with halo and uncharted. while i don't want 3d 24/7 it is something neat to be able to change things up.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Robut

Do you have a 3D display at home? You seem to be making your judgements from occasional demo viewings at store displays. My opinion, 3D is great and fun and will get better. I hardly ever purchased movies, but with 3D I'm developing a collection and rewatch the movies frequently, something I never used to do.

You're an aficiando, which is fine. I have a 60" Kuro Elite, a 70" Sony rear projection, and a 52" Sony LCD, along with smaller Sony units for computers, all of them 2D. I simply haven't seen any content worth buying expensive televisions for, including Avatar.

This isn't a criticism of those who like it. I will note that fans appear to enjoy the novelty of it, since it really doesn't look realistic on more than a handful of movies. It's still a "gee-whiz" experience, and if people like that, they will buy it.

The industry, who bet heavily on radical technical changes producing a new windfall of revenues, is still trying technical sweeteners to induce new buyers. Adding gimmicks like new connections methods, more sources to transmit content, and other things of that nature, just don't work. I've even heard breathless tales of the Super Bowl being in 3-D, without explaining whether anyone will hold a big Super Bowl party and buy a dozen pair of glasses to watch what is mostly commercials anyway.

It will be a very slow uptake, with some technology changes on a more fundamental level happening before it's done. The current iteration is simply not mainstream, no matter how many sets can utilize it, and the market has spoken.

[EricJ]

Can you imagine what this year's election would be like if the real press covered it the same way the tech press covers the "death" of 3DTV every week?
Next week's story is always in the past tense: "Some sales figure didn't meet projection, well, that's it, told ya, format's finished, game over, empty shelves, nobody cared, Beta time, people hate the movies and people hated the TV's; so, whaddya think all those Sony execs are going to be doing after the board fires them next week?"

(...Possibly a little wishfully skewed? Nahhh.
But the regulars here believe it every time.)

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Can you imagine what this year's election would be like if the real press covered it the same way the tech press covers the "death" of 3DTV every week?

3D is not covered as "dead". It's covered as "unsuccessful", which probably isn't "fair".

It just didn't take off, and induces yawns in just about everyone shopping at big box stores. Salesmanship and no content just didn't work in moving this style of television.

I know lots of middle class folks who can afford a new television. I personally know no one who, even if they've purchased a television recently, use an 3-D options. Not a single one. This is without regard to age, income, anything.

That's simply not good for a medium that requires a large base to support it. Calling something "dead" is overkill, but calling something "moribund" isn't.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

3D is not covered as "dead". It's covered as "unsuccessful", which probably isn't "fair".

It just didn't take off, and induces yawns in just about everyone shopping at big box stores. Salesmanship and no content just didn't work in moving this style of television.

(Well, there's some carefully researched figures...
Hard to stay away from Tomorrow's Past Tense, ain't it?)

I know lots of middle class folks who can afford a new television. I personally know no one who, even if they've purchased a television recently, use an 3-D options.

There's a difference between Not Knowing and Not Caring--
This is a product that's had user evangelism selling it in the worst way, because...that's how the companies have been selling it. The absolute worst way in thirty years of home-tech history.
Zero information, enforced hardware, customer confusion abounding, instant results expected, killer-app title content held hostage...I consider myself lucky to have gotten my player "free" from Playstation as a customer lure; most of the nice folk who got their TV were either intimidated by being told they'd "have" to buy the player and extra glasses if they bought a 3D screen, or else...just didn't know it was out yet.

As we're just passing the hundred-title mark after, what, two years since '09, it may be a slow seller, but y'know what? So was Blu-ray. How long did it take that one to get a hundred movie titles on shelves?
Nobody wanted Blu-ray when it came out...NOBODY. There was a "taxation without representation" paranoia about why the studios were "making" us buy the same movie twice, after we'd just gotten used to DVD, or worse, that it was a "con job" to make us buy those weird expensive new flatscreens whether we wanted to or not. (And the government was in on it too!--That thing on the news about the FCC making you get rid of your old set was all a big Sony bribe!) And even if you were curious, for two years, "Blu-ray" was synonymous with "Drooling illiterate action-junkie high-school gamer-boiz" as a public image to spread the gospel, while HD-DVD was luring in the curiosity of home-theater movie buffs who could afford the new tech-toys. The entire rest of the mainstream was sitting on the vulture perch of a drooling deathwatch, and claiming the "money-grab" by the studios was the final greedy camels-straw that would come back to bite them in the end, just wait and see. Go back and look up any Blu-hate and tomorrow's-Blu-death article from 2007 you like, circle any words that sound familiar.
It stayed around because studios wanted it for their own corporate bragging rights, and to make back those holy profits from what they didn't make in theaters, and stayed around long enough for the manufacturing prices to come down and the early adopters to show the late adopters that it wasn't so scary after all. The market doesn't necessarily dictate everything.

[Better in Blu]

Excellent points Eric. There are as many or more 3d titles at this point in it's life than blu-rays in it's first couple of years. I talked to several retailers who thought blu-ray would be a niche market. When 3d is done properly, it is a worthwhile experience.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by nycomet

Lack of 3D content is what made 3D stumble.

Will 3D TV fizzle out? Let's hope not. Personally, I enjoy watching 3D blu-rays at home.

Can we agree to disagree?
Personally, I'm fine if another 3D movie is never made.

Conventional sets work just fine for me. 3D tends to give me a headache,
regardless of how well it's done. I still think of 3D as a novelty and,
with the possible exception of Avatar (which I don't think is a good movie),
I don't find that 3D adds sufficiently to the cinematic experience.
Indeed, I think that the opposite is true.

I neither need nor want that complexity at home
(and I doubt that my viewpoint is unique).

If the 3D experience is compelling enough I'll go to the theatre.
(e.g. - Avatar - a whole 'nother smoke as cinematic experiences go, and entirely worthwhile ...
but the movie didn't grab me sufficiently to buy it on disc, and it wouldn't come close to being
the same experience at home, absent a dedicated room and thousands of dollars in equipment)

- Richard

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by EricJ

...There was a "taxation without representation" paranoia about why the studios were "making" us buy the same movie twice, after we'd just gotten used to DVD ...

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

No question that many Blu Ray discs showcase their content well.
But in many other cases (Blade comes to mind), folks might as well
keep their DVDs.

- Richard
[also an inhabitant of the New England paradise]

[expatCanuck]

Not a 3D fan.
As regards the current technology ...
I find the glasses distracting. Makes the picture darker. Gives me a headache.

As regards 3D in general ...
I don't find that 3D adds anything worthwhile or meaningful to the storytelling experience.
More typically, I find that the 3D 'baggage' detracts from the storytelling experience.

Caveat -
Avatar was (IMHO) a meh movie, but a way cool 3D experience.
I almost didn't mind the damned glasses.
BUT - it was only worthwhile (for me) because of the immersive, big-screen/big-sound experience.
(i.e. - absolutely no point in buying a DVD/Blu-ray, 'cause the experience simply can't be recreated in the typical home)
And I suspect that I'd have enjoyed it just as much in a non-3D IMAX presentation.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

Not a 3D fan.
As regards the current technology ...
I find the glasses distracting. Makes the picture darker. Gives me a headache.

As regards 3D in general ...
I don't find that 3D adds anything worthwhile or meaningful to the storytelling experience.
More typically, I find that the 3D 'baggage' detracts from the storytelling experience.

Caveat -
Avatar was (IMHO) a meh movie, but a way cool 3D experience.
I almost didn't mind the damned glasses.
BUT - it was only worthwhile (for me) because of the immersive, big-screen/big-sound experience.
(i.e. - absolutely no point in buying a DVD/Blu-ray, 'cause the experience simply can't be recreated in the typical home)
And I suspect that I'd have enjoyed it just as much in a non-3D IMAX presentation.

In other words, you have nothing new to say that the anti 3D crowd hasn't already said dozens of times on this thread.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

In other words, you have nothing new to say that the anti 3D crowd hasn't already said dozens of times on this thread.

Perhaps not.
Tho' I don't think of myself as part of the anti-3D crowd.
I'm not. No. Really!
For example, had it been available when I saw it, I think I'd have preferred Hugo in 3D.

If it can be used in a worthwhile manner to augment the experience, I'm all for it.
But I think that it's fiendishly hard to do.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

If it can be used in a worthwhile manner to augment the experience, I'm all for it.
But I think that it's fiendishly hard to do.

A lot of people felt the same way about sound in movies. One of Hollywood's biggest stars, Clara Bow, (along with Charlie Chaplin) hated sound despite being extremely popular in both silent and sound films. And Thomas Edison didn't think sound "augmented the experience" of movies either. In fact, many people believed that color didn't "augment the experience" for any movie that wasn't an "epic" and thought that it would be "fiendishly hard to" accept color over black and white. It took 30+ years for color to become the standard. Widescreen was nothing more than a "gimmick" to get people away from their new square TVs - 40+ years for that to be accepted into people's homes. HD also saw it's share of doubters who felt standard def, or DVD, was "good enough." You probably still know some people who own an HDTV and are still watching standard def content because, to many, HD doesn't "augment the experience."

[Nommag]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

Perhaps not.
Tho' I don't think of myself as part of the anti-3D crowd.

You have interesting way of showing

I'm a massive fan of 3d, however, I still enjoy watching the bulk of my content in 2d. 3D provides a unique experience that I can partake in once a week with some friends and popcorn. It is complimented by films that are more 'fun' (thor, drive angry, avatar etc) rather then overly thought provoking films.

Lastly, I don't want to hear about the frustration with wearing glasses. In reality its not a real reason just an excuse to hate on 3d. Lets me honest here, how often do people who read the newspaper and wear reading glasses complain?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(Well, there's some carefully researched figures...
Hard to stay away from Tomorrow's Past Tense, ain't it?)

Carefully researched figures would comprise a cruel indictment of the whole situation. I've actually posted them in the past, creating a furor that proves realism provokes resentment. In any case, any figures are snapshots, and don't truly indicate any trends. I don't play the statistics game any more in this venue, hurt feelings are always the result.

Originally Posted by EricJ

There's a difference between Not Knowing and Not Caring--
This is a product that's had user evangelism selling it in the worst way, because...that's how the companies have been selling it. The absolute worst way in thirty years of home-tech history.

They didn't have much to work with, and it spoke of desperation. Evangelism works - when you have an intrinsically value-laden item to sell. We've seen, in the last 40 years:

- 4 & 8 track tape, then cassettes
- VHS and Beta Tapes
- CD, DVD, and Laser Disc
- Blu Ray and briefly, HD-DVD
- 3-D Blu-Ray

When it's obvious that each medium prior to 3-D is still viable with existing equipment, available since the 1950's, 3-D required an absolute reboot of televisions, and playback equipment. That required value to force what is essentially a sea-change. With no content, it was a dragster with no fuel.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Zero information, enforced hardware, customer confusion abounding, instant results expected, killer-app title content held hostage...I consider myself lucky to have gotten my player "free" from Playstation as a customer lure; most of the nice folk who got their TV were either intimidated by being told they'd "have" to buy the player and extra glasses if they bought a 3D screen, or else...just didn't know it was out yet.

That info is now out there, and most folks are familiar with it. The dollar sign is now the anchor - the market wasn't prepped for it. I bought a Kuro 60", seven months before 3-D's introduction, and I (and seventeen million other buyers) hadn't heard a peep about it. In fact, that 17 million figure of sets sold was during only the last four months of 2009 - a truly stunning figure.

The manufacturers clearly kept a lid on the news, to move out old inventory. The clever lads expected there to be an instant reboot of sales, and the fact that they were surprised this didn't happen in the depths of an economic slowdown never cease to amaze me.

Worse, even a tech-savvy person like myself couldn't get a straight answer about whether my set could be retrofitted to show 3-D for months. An immediately "obsolescent" technology like my Kuro (not obsolete, but obsolescent - some folks don't know the difference) was not something to immediately surrender, especially with the dearth of content, and the exclusivity deals you mention.

Originally Posted by EricJ

(As we're just passing the hundred-title mark after, what, two years since '09, it may be a slow seller, but y'know what? So was Blu-ray. How long did it take that one to get a hundred movie titles on shelves?

It's much deeper than that. Every film ever made is possible to transfer to Blu. Not every film made is eligible for 3-D, unless it is converted - an expensive and not preferred method to use. 3-D make sense if there is a 3-D master already completed, limiting the base to be struck in that format. Even more pointedly, 3-D films being made are primarily sold to certain demographics - comic book adaptations, animated films, etc. - which are marketed to groups not necessarily ready to invest thousands in home theater equipment, for a limited number of films they've already seen.

It will take a while to generate a library of films to offer, and theater releases of 3-D are still a small minority of what is being made. 2-D Blu is much different, and the release rate ramped up much more quickly.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Nobody wanted Blu-ray when it came out...NOBODY.

I did. I already had a 70" 1080i Sony, and enjoyed hi-def on cable - so did many others. It was the format war that slowed adoption. I got into Blu right away, as it was obvious to me (being a computer guy) that the format with the largest storage capacity was going to win, no question.

Originally Posted by EricJ

There was a "taxation without representation" paranoia about why the studios were "making" us buy the same movie twice, after we'd just gotten used to DVD, or worse, that it was a "con job" to make us buy those weird expensive new flatscreens whether we wanted to or not.

People got over that very quickly, but other things slowed them down. I can't tell you how many people were stuck with "entertainment centers" too small for bigger flatscreens - elaborate cabinets designed for "massive" 36" sets. Wives refused to get big screens, to keep these monstrosities still the center of attention for home furnishings, gargoyles and all. Remember, this is a big investment - television, receiver, speakers placed in five or more locations - and it's transformed home furnishing, as well as viewing movies and TV.

I remember buying a new home in 2006, in a development not yet completed, and workmen went on regular visits to my home - all saying, "No one is using their living rooms for television at all." They didn't even run coaxial lines to the living room, even though all the other rooms had it - no one ever actually used living rooms to do anything but gather dust. I had to run my own lines.

All "ceiling speaker" locations were in odd locations in the family room - far off-center from the "TV Nook", and designed for tiny speakers that hid away, for ambient elevator music sound. Some homes in the development - not mine - only had "nooks" that held, at most, a 42" set. With old-school infrastructure still popular only six years ago in a new development, it's no wonder even older homes weren't welcoming new technology for home entertainment.

The value was obvious, though. All of my neighbors have visited, and marvel at the integration of sight and sound into my home. All of them have Blu-Ray, even if the accoutrements supporting it are somewhat less elaborate.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Government was in on it too!--That thing on the news about the FCC making you get rid of your old set was all a big Sony bribe!) And even if you were curious, for two years, "Blu-ray" was synonymous with "Drooling illiterate action-junkie high-school gamer-boiz" as a public image to spread the gospel, while HD-DVD was luring in the curiosity of home-theater movie buffs who could afford the new tech-toys.

It was interesting to watch the head-nodding about "DVD looks just the same", and "My player upconverts to this or that, why bother" and all that stuff. I would play the Master and Commander first cannonade, then Star Wars Pod Race in standard DVD - and everyone would look at me with "see, I told you so" - then I'd play the Terminator 3 fire truck-wrecker battle, or the Apocalypto waterfall scene, and pretty soon, they were asking me which rig was best for doing this. Everyone got converted. They had to see it.

Originally Posted by EricJ

The entire rest of the mainstream was sitting on the vulture perch of a drooling deathwatch, and claiming the "money-grab" by the studios was the final greedy camels-straw that would come back to bite them in the end, just wait and see. Go back and look up any Blu-hate and tomorrow's-Blu-death article from 2007 you like, circle any words that sound familiar.

The waters muddied too fast. Broke-ass mainstream, non-technical "reporters" who couldn't afford any of this stuff were quick to condemn Blu, but they got backhanded by an enthusiastic public who did a one-two whammy on them: first, they went to Sears or Best Buy and saw the difference, then, the Format Wars. Sony hatred was rife, but died quickly.

Originally Posted by EricJ

It stayed around because studios wanted it for their own corporate bragging rights, and to make back those holy profits from what they didn't make in theaters, and stayed around long enough for the manufacturing prices to come down and the early adopters to show the late adopters that it wasn't so scary after all. The market doesn't necessarily dictate everything.

They studios got bogged down pimp-slapping each other in the Format Wars, the biggest impediment to early adoption - not technophobia, exactly. The studios and the public were being hornswoggled by Toshiba, bags of bribe money were being tossed to the studios by Toshiba from passing cars, and the public just wanted to see hi-def movies and figure out which format it was on. Two sections of movies in stores. It was insane - when that died down, Blu adoption took off quickly.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Better in Blu

Excellent points Eric. There are as many or more 3d titles at this point in it's life than blu-rays in it's first couple of years. I talked to several retailers who thought blu-ray would be a niche market. When 3d is done properly, it is a worthwhile experience.

Compare the number of conventional films - and the number of genres - available for in normal 2-D, and those in 3-D. It will always be totally lopsided in favor of 2-D. Also, in that first couple of years, there was a Format War - this is not a similar situation.

You don't see dramas, romantic comedies, or adventure films in 3-D - and many people with disposable income, usually over 40, are not ready to go 3-D to see How To Train Your Dragon, or Kung-Fu Panda, or Megamind, at the higher cost. It's simply not a mainstream choice, and won't be until everything (or a lot higher percentage) of films released are in 3-D.

It's really an invalid comparison.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Nommag

Lastly, I don't want to hear about the frustration with wearing glasses. In reality its not a real reason just an excuse to hate on 3d. Lets me honest here, how often do people who read the newspaper and wear reading glasses complain?

How often do they wear two pairs of glasses to do it? I wear prescription glasses when viewing televisions - as do many in the age group capable of rebooting their technology to 3-D. If they're like me, they're not interested in that.

The other problem is content. I'm not interested in watching most of what's being offered in 3-D. Novely wears off fast, technology is changing, and content is sparse. These are market forces, not anti-3-D sentiment.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

A lot of people felt the same way about sound in movies. One of Hollywood's biggest stars, Clara Bow, (along with Charlie Chaplin) hated sound despite being extremely popular in both silent and sound films. And Thomas Edison didn't think sound "augmented the experience" of movies either. In fact, many people believed that color didn't "augment the experience" for any movie that wasn't an "epic" and thought that it would be "fiendishly hard to" accept color over black and white. It took 30+ years for color to become the standard. Widescreen was nothing more than a "gimmick" to get people away from their new square TVs - 40+ years for that to be accepted into people's homes. HD also saw it's share of doubters who felt standard def, or DVD, was "good enough." You probably still know some people who own an HDTV and are still watching standard def content because, to many, HD doesn't "augment the experience."

While the "you're just an old fogie" argument always sounds good, think it over. If you're a fan of "colorized" films, you may be a fan of 3-D "conversions". If you're a fan of Dreamworks animated features, you may wait eagerly for their 3-D releases.

Many folks aren't interested in converted movies, or movies that are animated and for very young audiences. None of this would matter, I would think, if the studios would release movies in a single format, at present day 2-D prices - it might spur the market, and it might not.

But they're selling it as a "premium", for movies of mediocre quality, both visually and intrinsically, or which are targeted to demographics of limited interest. Your ire should be focused there, not a folks who are not buying into 3-D.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

How often do they wear two pairs of glasses to do it? I wear prescription glasses when viewing televisions - as do many in the age group capable of rebooting their technology to 3-D. If they're like me, they're not interested in that.

The other problem is content. I'm not interested in watching most of what's being offered in 3-D. Novely wears off fast, technology is changing, and content is sparse. These are market forces, not anti-3-D sentiment.

It all depends on what style of perscription glasses you choose to buy. Obviously large frames from prescription glasses may cause a problem, but there's only so much tv manufacturers can do to compensate this. Both my fiancèe and I where prescription glasses, I only need them for reading, driving and watching tv, but my fiancèe wears hers all the time because she is pretty much blind without them. We both have invested in nice light weight stylish perscription glasses which don't have chunky frames (actually my pair is frameless), and we have no problems wearing 3d glasses over them. Also most people who need to wear perscription glasses all the time often invested in contacts as well, because they don't like to wear their perscription glasses every day, so if you do happen to own contacts and wearing 2 pairs of glasses for 3d bothers you, then you always have the option to wear your contacts instead.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

While the "you're just an old fogie" argument always sounds good, think it over. If you're a fan of "colorized" films, you may be a fan of 3-D "conversions". If you're a fan of Dreamworks animated features, you may wait eagerly for their 3-D releases.

Many folks aren't interested in converted movies, or movies that are animated and for very young audiences. None of this would matter, I would think, if the studios would release movies in a single format, at present day 2-D prices - it might spur the market, and it might not.

But they're selling it as a "premium", for movies of mediocre quality, both visually and intrinsically, or which are targeted to demographics of limited interest. Your ire should be focused there, not a folks who are not buying into 3-D.

I agree with you about selling 3D as a premium - that's a huge problem. But what "ire"? Someone posted their feelings about 3D and how it doesn't "augment" the movie going experience, and I talked about how those feelings are nothing new to film history.

As for the folks who aren't interested in 3D conversions, that comes with the territory of casual movie fans who really don't know much about current conversion technology and, because of their lack of knowledge, jump on the "I will only watch 3D *native* 3D movies" bandwagon who don't realize how much of a "natively" shot 3D movie is actually converted but they are unable to tell the difference while watching the movie.