Yahoo article on 3D predicted to be huge flop

[Grand Bob]

It's never easy (or necessarily worthwhile) to predict the future, but it seems like it's still too early for 3D; maybe after a little research and development?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

But the great unwashed out there simply aren't interested.

Just like DVD in 1997, CD in 1983, etc., etc., etc.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Just like DVD in 1997, CD in 1983, etc., etc., etc.

Didn't have to buy new televisions for those.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

It's never easy (or necessarily worthwhile) to predict the future, but it seems like it's still too early for 3D; maybe after a little research and development?

This is definitely a rush job.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Yes, you didn't have to buy a new television to enjoy CD, you're absolutely correct.

Just the CD player. Unlike 3D.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Halcro 1

No one said YOU had to buy a 3DTV either

I'm betting there will be a way around that, if they want to make real money off this thing soon.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Halcro 1

First most I say MOST not all in here are late adapters in the HD world .. I ve had HDTV for 6 years now , when Blu wasent even thought of ...and 3DTV is a couple of years out anyway ...Who complained when they bought a DLP HDTV Like I did 6 years ago ,,, No HDMI No DVI even should I complain about that????How does a late adapter to DVD feel that format will probabally be dead in 5 years ??? I remember when a DVD Player was 1000 ... and my 42 Samsung DLP that was 18 inches deep was 1800 6 years ago...or when CD came out in the 80s and was 1000 for a CD player .... No one said you needed 3DTV ,,, Its not for me at least not yet ... But who knows ??? People get all pissed at this but there are other things in the last few years that have made alot of peoples gear obsolete ....DVI??? HDMI 1.1 Blu profile 1.1 ...Now in 3 years we have HDMI 1.3 Blu profile 2.0 and who even thinks about DLP unless its a projector...

I hear you, since I bought my first HDTV in 2003. With DVI.

Watched it with Blu last night.

All the rest of the changes were very minor...DVI is fully compatible, and the various profile changes aren't what's making Avatar a billion dollar theater attraction.

Anyway, we'll see how it gets accepted. I'm really thinking that by the time the current install base ages enough to replace televisions, the newest sets won't require glasses.

The impetus for that is certainly there.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Really?

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...081030/160508/

If you don't see the glaring contradiction in the paragraph below, I'll highlight it for you.

Standard Technology
And, in fact, the technologies proposed by Panasonic for 3D imagery storage, transfer, etc, all utilize existing standard technology. Image encoding uses the two-channel encoding function implemented in Moving Picture Coding Experts Group Phase 4 Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4 AVC) H.264. The second channel stores only the data different from channel one, holding the increase in data volume to about 1.5 times. The HDMI standard is used to transfer data from the player to the television, with left- and right-eye images alternated in single-field (single-frame) units. “All we have to do is define a flag to identify image data, equipment and other elements supporting 3D imagery. We really don’t need any other major changes,” explained Hiroshi Miyai, director, High Quality AV Development Center of Panasonic.

New televisions aren't a major change? Do tell.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

New televisions aren't a major change? Do tell.

Panasonic is not planning to standardize the techniques for displaying 3D imagery.

The article is about standardizing movie source material, not display technology.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If you don't see the glaring contradiction in the paragraph below, I'll highlight it for you.



New televisions aren't a major change? Do tell.

I think it's pretty clear they're talking about Blu-ray Disc technology, not display devices. That much was pretty clear to me at least. (EDIT - and I see another poster already notes the same thing) Panasonic are using the same technology they showcased at CES 2009, yet you're claiming that you got blindsided at CES 2010.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Just the CD player. Unlike 3D.

Really? I could have sworn you needed an amplifier, speakers, speaker wire and of course let's not forget you had to buy CD's as well. When CD's came out my system was an all in one cassette/FM boombox, couldn't play CD's at all until they eventually brought out those 3.5mm > Cassette adapters.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

The article is about standardizing movie source material, not display technology.

Noted, and agreed...but it has to be played back. The new HDMI standard mentioned in this 18 month old article was just a note in passing...and winds up being, new player, new television.

At least, that's what it looks like. No telling what the Mitsubishi solution is - they're retrofitting HDMI 1.3 televisions with a black box that's supposed to make it work.

This is all very, very unfinished.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I think it's pretty clear they're talking about Blu-ray Disc technology, not display devices. That much was pretty clear to me at least. (EDIT - and I see another poster already notes the same thing) Panasonic are using the same technology they showcased at CES 2009, yet you're claiming that you got blindsided at CES 2010.

If you can find something on HDMI 1.4 that was mentioned in 2009, I'm interested in seeing it.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Really? I could have sworn you needed an amplifier, speakers, speaker wire and of course let's not forget you had to buy CD's as well. When CD's came out my system was an all in one cassette/FM boombox, couldn't play CD's at all until they eventually brought out those 3.5mm > Cassette adapters.

I hooked up my VCR, DVD, and CD players to a Pioneer SC-1010, vintage 1975, with no problems. Finally got a receiver that decoded Dolby, and another that did DTS, somewhere in there. Didn't need them, but they were cheap.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

HDMI 1.4 press release was May 2009 - http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=101

Well it wasn't at CES, which is what I was getting at, but at least they were public about it.

In a way, this release bothers me more - nowhere does it state that it's a requirement for 3D, though that could be implied by the specifications it covers - 1.3 doesn't come close to it.

What bothers me is that the implication of the change wasn't noted by manufacturers, the film industry, or anyone else connected with Blu or broadcast. Why was that? Even with this news, nothing was communicated to the 4.5 million buyers of Blu players during this period.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

You had to replace your receiver to get Dolby and then again to get dts? You must have been up in arms that they weren't fully backwards compatible.

Actually, that wasn't the driver for it - there were so few DTS releases at that time, it didn't really matter. I was setting up a stereo for my oldest son's room, so he "inherited" the older receiver. My new one had optical, too...the cable was something like $40, that's what ticked me off.

So I wound up buying a new receiver, and a DTS decoding player (Sony, still have it, works great), and had all of ten movies that used it. It wasn't a sea change.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Warbler

but I would think converting a movie originally made in 2D to 3D, would be akin to colorizing a b&w movie.

I doubt if most studios would bother. You'd only see two flat-plane images, it wouldn't work, even for most 2D animated stuff. The idea of doing this for any current 2D content, including broadcast 2D (comedy shows converted to 3D for reruns? Not a chance.)

3D costs will be very high in the beginning, even for animated content. This will not result in a huge upsurge of 3D content.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Didn't have to buy new televisions for those.

true for CD, I guess that would have been a new stereo system but for DVD, I actualy did (well more or less) the TV I had in 1997 when I bought my DVD player I bought when I started University and all it had was RF in, no DVD player was created with a modulator so I had to buy a new TV to go with it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

true for CD, I guess that would have been a new stereo system but for DVD, I actualy did (well more or less) the TV I had in 1997 when I bought my DVD player I bought when I started University and all it had was RF in, no DVD player was created with a modulator so I had to buy a new TV to go with it.

Can't fault anybody for being a perfectionist!

My upgrades were gradual...I already had a radical stereo setup, and just added a subwoofer (a JBL unit that promptly fried itself, twice).

I then crept up to S-video, with not much difference from RF, on a TV I inherited - went back to my Quasar with RF, it was really an incredible set.

That upgrade bug bites, there's only one cure...

[Warbler]

I could be wrong, but is seems like some posts were deleted in this thread.

[Deciazulado]

posts were split to the 3D discussion thread