









Comments     Threshold


By TheRequiem on 12/15/2010 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps its because of exclusive deals like Avatar on Panasonic sets that put people off? Or more importantly, a lack of interest to put 3D content on the markets? Release the damn content to the public and then people will use it...

RE: Content?
By TheRequiem on 12/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Content?
By BladeVenom on 12/15/2010 1:05:01 PM , Rating: 5
3d is a fad. Like it was a fad in the 50's and a fad again in the 80's. The current methods needing glasses, won't become the norm. Maybe someday with improved holographic technology, but not today.

RE: Content?

RE: Content?

RE: Content?
Other drawbacks of this 3D fad:


2. Theres Flickering problems.


4. Image quality and colour is degraded.


RE: Content?
I might accept 1-4, but...



RE: Content?

RE: Content?
RE: Content?






RE: Content?
The main drawback isn't the illusion, it's the price.



RE: Content?

RE: Content?
By xpax on 12/15/2010 5:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
+++ Agreed, 100%.

RE: Content?
By FaceMaster on 12/15/2010 5:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
3d is a fad.

Look at things with both eyes open. Now look at it with just one. Which do you prefer? Exactly. 3D is one of the least faddy things I can think of. 2 eyes are better than none, so unless you're all disagreeing with that, there must be something else about the technology you don't like.

Honestly, is it just the glasses putting everybody off? They're not a great solution, I agree, but HAS will be better alternatives in the future. There HAVE to be better alternatives in the future. But for the sake of archives and future-proofing, I think that 3D glasses are a small price to pay for having a 3D archive of footage starting today.

No doubt I'll be rated down for this comment because it goes against popular opinion, though as far as I can see it you're all being short sighted (Or maybe you're blind in one eye ), because the way I look at it , 3D is the one jump we need to make with all forms of media before I'm satisfied with the quality of the footage I watch and archive. Well, 4K would be nice as well, but that will no doubt happen with time. 3D is one of those things that we MUST make now, and then deal with the problems later... otherwise we'll never get around to it. And that would be a great shame.

RE: Content?



RE: Content?
What would 3D gain me in watching the local news?


RE: Content?

RE: Content?



RE: Content?
By glennc on 12/15/2010 8:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
3D is flawed in its current state and i am not talking about the glasses. it is the refresh rate that is the problem. when you are viewing 2D both eyes are seeing the same picture at the same time so 60Hz is enough. when 1 eye sees the image and then the other eye sees a image from a slightly different angle you see the 3D. this is fine until the action speeds up (action movies, sport etc.) where 1 eye is seeing a different object position not just angle (it has moved) the image becomes semitransparent. even avatar suffered from this badly but it is sport where it is going to be most detrimental.

why is no one talking about this? i notice it all the time and then researched it and discovered why. the problem is the source not the device. 240hz, 480hz whatever just screw things up and don't actually improve the situation.

RE: Content?
By SeeManRun on 12/15/2010 10:24:38 PM , Rating: 2

I think 3D will be much better when they don't force focus on objects and allow your eye to focus on anything you want in the 3D world you view. This is what is coming with video games, so it will be the way of movies as well.

When viewing 3D content now it feels more 3D than real life because when I look at something that is out of focus it doesn't clear up, giving an artificial amount of depth to the picture, that makes it look non real. Nothing about 3D in its current form is more realistic, any more than 2D is unrealistic. Once it can track my eyes and make proper focus what I am looking at and adjust the picture accordingly, it will always looks false.

RE: Content?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/16/2010 4:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. That's why I couldn't get used to seeing Avatar (first 3D film I've sen) after half an hour of adjusting. That plainly gave me headache.

But I don't think technology in near future can remedy this problem, it'd require eye tracking.

RE: Content?
By jimbojimbo on 12/15/2010 7:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the optical digital movie industry was a fad doomed to fail when the Laserdisc failed too.

By the way you cannot compare 3D technology now to the old anaglyph technology which washed out all the colors. Completely different. If you think they're the same you're obviously blind.

RE: Content?
By GWD5318 on 12/16/2010 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
3d is a fad....

Yeah, yeah! I agree, ya see?

Ya know what else is a fad? Talkies! Bring back the good ol' silent films! Too much hubbub for me, pally!

RE: Content?
By mdogs444 on 12/15/2010 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 3
I think its pretty obvious why its slow....from the average person's perspective.

First is the price - 3D TV packages are much more expensive than the same non-3D TV set. Sure, the package comes with 2 sets of 3D glasses, but that is obviously not sufficient for typical households. They'd have to buy 2 more in most cases.

Second is the uncertainty of the internet pricing schemes and net neutrality. I use Netflix and think its great...but if they change my internet pricing to a tiered service where its going to cost me an arm and a leg to stream videos, then what good does an internet based TV do if I have no intention of paying $100/mo just for internet? If not for movies, then what? I really have no interest in sitting on the couch and logging into Facebook on a 50" TV.

Third is the idea of 3D and what else you need to get it to work. I'm fairly tech savvy and work in the IT department. I don't own a 3D system so I'm probably in the same boat as many other people in terms of knowledge. But I assume you'd need to buy a 3D capable Blu-Ray player (which I have no interest in Blu-Ray). Also, does the average persons cable package with $10-15/mo add on HD service broadcast in 3D? I don't know, but if you have to pay even more yet again for a small amount of programming available, then its still not worth it to the average person.

RE: Content?



RE: Content?



RE: Content?


RE: Content?




RE: Content?

RE: Content?
By gorehound on 12/15/2010 4:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
I know this much as I work in retail videostore
1.we barely rent any blu-rays so we know that most of our clients are on DVD
2.most of the folks still have CRT's
3.and those who have bought a flat panel are not in the market to upgrade to 3D

for myself i would not bother to get one of these 3d TV.I could care less.the thought of wearing glasses over my glasses just so i can watch movies and TV scifi shows is really annoying.
No Way Jose !!! I will stick to my panasonic 42" plasma with my OPPO bluray player.good enough for me and maybe good enough for oyu.

RE: Content?

RE: Content?

Mode of watching
By Wererat on 12/15/2010 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
A wise person (my wife) enlightened me to a cause of slow 3d adoption yesterday.

She prefers to watch TV whilst doing other tasks.

Therefore, she doesn't want to wear additional glasses or have features on the TV which require her full attention or would detract from her ability to handle whatever else she's doing.

By contrast, a movie in the theatre is (unless you're very rude) an experience where you're devoting your full attention to the show. There, glasses or other aids aren't a hindrance.

RE: Mode of watching
By cmdrdredd on 12/15/2010 9:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
So true and very overlooked. A ton of people have the TV on and "watch" while writing a paper during commercials or reading the online sites such as this one.

Another overlooked aspect is the economy. Unemployment is at record levels and many people are in fear of the uncertain future. They are not going to plop down the needed money on one of these sets with things as upside down as they are now. Plus, right now you can get a Panasonic 42" 3D Plasma for $1100, then you need a 3D player or at least some glasses for viewing 3D content. So you figure $160 for a decent 3D Blu-Ray player and about $280 for the 3D starter kit *roll eyes* which comes with only 2 pairs of glasses and a pretty craptastic movie called Avatar. Then each additional set of glasses is $108 a piece. So lets say a family of 4. You need the TV, the player, the starter kit, and 2 additional pairs of glasses. Grand total of $1756 before shipping and any applicable sales tax. Then you get to watch 1 movie and maybe 1 channel on TV with some 3D content. That price doesn't even include a 3D compatable receiver for surround sound that can pass the 3D signal through HDMI to the TV.

By contrast a 58" 1080p Plasma without 3D is $1100 and you use all your current equipment to watch HD content. No starter kits etc. Most people I know would opt for the bigger set and skip the 3D.

RE: Mode of watching





Brightness/contrast ratio sucks-
By GiantPandaMan on 12/15/2010 12:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone tried a TV in 3d mode at typical family room light levels? The contrast ratio/brightness with the shutter glasses on is simply crap.

3d works fine in theaters because they have optimum light control (total darkness) but for typical people who don't have light controlled rooms or who actually like to see during typical TV watching, the 3d sacrifices too much brightness.

Until this problem is solved, 3d will be a niche product. I'd bet money on that.





Who needs it



RE: Who needs it

Why would anyone want a 3D T.V ?
By Ahnilated on 12/15/2010 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Currently most every plasma or LCD t.v. out there will do 1080P. Find me a company that broadcasts normal t.v. shows in 1080P. DirecTV does it ONLY for their pay per view shows not anything that you don't pay extra for, it is all 1080i. Why would I want to go up to a 3D t.v. when there is no one out there broadcasting a 3D picture being the bandwidth is 3X a 1080P signal? I am upset enough that my 50" plasma gets stuck with lame signals on 95% of the channels on DirecTV. 1080i is decent by they keep advertising they do 1080P but you have to read the fine print. If you look at some other companies they compress the hell out of the signal and then your picture looks horrible and pixelated too.

By djdjohnson on 12/15/2010 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
3D only adds about 25% more data, certainly not 3X.

DirecTV isn't the only one offering 1080p for VOD... Dish Network is doing the same.

For movies and TV shows originally shot at 24fps (which is a lot of them), most of our 1080p TVs are able to extract the original progressive signal and display it at full 1080p. At least the TV models worth owning, anyway. So we do get some benefit from a 1080p set even with broadcast content being sent at 1080i.

Have any of you bought one?

You will be next.

RE: Have any of you bought one?


The reason is obvious
By Dr of crap on 12/15/2010 12:12:53 PM , Rating: 1
First we switched from CRT tube TVs to Flat screens,
then we moved to HD,
now they want us to buy 3D? All in the space of about 10 years!
I have all flat screen HD TV's in my house and am not going to replace any of these anytime soon with something new.

The 3D tech is not refined enough and the content isn't big enough for me to buy.

Now the stores are wondering why the 3D TVs aren't selling.
Do they even know they're consumer base?

RE: The reason is obvious



What a timely article


RE: What a timely article
Gran Turismo 5 in 3D


By zinfamous on 12/15/2010 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 3
I honestly hope that the home 3D concept hits dodo status asap. It is garbage.

Death of photography. leave it for video games and related forms of entertainment, as this is simply not viable for the film medium.

Internet-enabled TV, though...well that is mostly a matter of improper infrastructure as far as I can tell. It will happen.

3d - meh




Wrong focus
I'd buy a 1600p TV tomorrow if I could.

I could care less about upgrading to 3D.



By Motoman on 12/15/2010 3:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
The interest in 3D isn't there because of:

1. Glasses
2. Price
3. Content

All three of those will have to be fixed before it's sufficiently interesting for people to buy into it. No 3D technology that requires special glasses of any kind will ever be popular. Ever. Anything that happens up to that point will be little more than a curiosity.

Price and content are also important...I know that I certainly would not consider 3D capability to be anything I would pay extra for. But the glasses are the total deal-breaker.

As for internet connected TVs...well, how many households have internet connected TVs by virtue of the fact that they have a Wii, or something else, that gives them internet access on their TV? Even low-end Blu-Ray players, like the LG unit I just picked up for $65 have built-in internet access (albeit limited in my case, to weather, Youtube, and Picasa...for some people that may be all they care about). And of course there is some market segment that already has HTPCs in place too. Frankly, if there's nothing wrong with your TV and you just want internet on it, buying a new BD player or a Wii or something else makes infinitely more sense than buying a new TV with native internet access. If and only if you are already in the market for a new TV, and have no other way already to get the internet on it, is native internet connectivity interesting when buying a new TV.

Bundling Doesn't Work


Internet TV - yes 3D TV - no



Uhh, no.
By mindless1 on 12/16/2010 3:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
No. I don't want to wear glasses just to watch TV. I don't need to feel TV is real, that's what getting up from the TV set and getting out into the world is for.

No Way - Go Away
By DBissett on 12/16/2010 6:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
The whole 3D concoction is about the dumbest corporate effort I've seen to suck up more money from a public stuck on prettier and prettier pictures and games. Don't get me wrong...I love my big plasma but putting on glasses to watch TV, or passing out glasses to everyone else who wants to watch TV? Geez, what nonsense. Maybe the idea would get slightly more traction in a booming economy, but who in their right mind now is going to jump at the chance to spend more money when they've just invested in really good 2D, or if they're coming from a CRT, spend the max amount of money possible to get something they can benefit from about 1% of the time?

Wrong headline
By Shadowself on 12/16/2010 6:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Give us a decently priced 3D TV with passive glasses and things might take off"


If this had read instead as ...

"Give us a decently priced 3D TV not requiring any glasses and things will take off"

then you'd have something!

The price is ludicrous.


Internet in the TV, why?
By Targon on 12/16/2010 8:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much every BluRay player has that "Internet" connectivity, with an increasing number including WiFi(so you don't need to run ethernet to connect). This means that there is ZERO reason to spend extra for a TV that has all of these Internet features if you go with a BluRay player with the feature.

That's it, problem solved. 3D is another issue, and in general, the only benefit will show up when filming uses 3D equipment, rather than having 3D added in post processing.

Now, the real advantage to 3D is that you get an increased depth to programming that is recorded in 3D. Most people frown on the old-school approach of "objects popping out" at them, but they do appreciate when movies look like there is depth in the scene, and that is what will make 3D become popular.

When stereo first came out on TV, it wasn't all that exciting for most people. I noticed that for shows like Star Trek: TNG, you could hear the background hum of the ship that was not there without stereo. With surround, for things that use it, you will hear events that happen off the screen, people walking in the door from behind, etc, and it just enhances the overall program in minor but still obvious ways. Action sequences obviously have the potential for hearing objects flying all around the viewer/listener.

So, 3D...if a proper 3D recording is made, you will feel like you are looking at a show with depth, and while it won't be a make or break thing(in the way stereo isn't really REQUIRED), it will be an overall enhancement of the viewing experience once it matures a bit more.

The real thing that is holding back sale of the 3D displays is the cost. Right now, the amount of true 3D recorded programming is TINY, so why would you spend all that extra money for a display that costs twice as much if you don't have enough programming to justify it.

Now, one thing that would help is if the supporting technology for 3D TV would not have a price premium. The lower cost displays have a 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rate, while you see the 3D sets having a 240Hz LED with all of these extra features. This means that you are paying for a higher grade of display, and it is questionable if THAT would also really enhance the experience. If the 240Hz LED is so much better, then if that became the norm for a $800 40 inch display, 3D might only cost an extra $100 to $200(plus glasses of course). That is something that many wouldn't object to, but they will object to spending $2000+ on a 3D TV when they can get the same size for $1200 without 3D, even if the technology isn't as advanced.

3-D content


The title is wrong
Should read:
Consumer adoption of >$500 TVs is slow.


AV Enthusiasts comprise a tiny, tiny minority of the market.


Related Articles
