dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5776
share rss forum feed

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

3D TV dying

3D TV seems to be dying. DirectTV is cutting it's 3D channel to part-time from full-time due to a lack of material.
»hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/···=DEFAULT

From what I've seen of the two 3D channels here in the guide, it's mostly repeats of the same few programs.


gar187er
I do this for a living

join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
kudos:4
comcast doesnt make the content....if the content isnt there, subscriptions will dwindle, so why keep carrying it....i cant blame them...
--
I'm better than you!

LoveHD

join:2011-07-31
reply to andyross
It's too soon for 3D.


TriForce

join:2008-05-27
Chico, CA
reply to andyross
Not surprised, 3D is a gimmick today.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:4
reply to andyross
said by andyross:

3D TV seems to be dying. DirectTV is cutting it's 3D channel to part-time from full-time due to a lack of material.
»hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/···=DEFAULT

From what I've seen of the two 3D channels here in the guide, it's mostly repeats of the same few programs.

3DTV is not dying they are just not providing the content as much because of the lull that was going on for a while with low 3DTV sales and now they are going back up thanks to prices dropping to acceptable levels for people to purchase.

chadb97

join:2009-07-14
Osceola, IN
As long as you have to wear 3D glasses to watch 3D tv, it won't be successful.


ctgreybeard
Old dogs can learn new tricks
Premium
join:2001-11-13
Bethel, CT
+1

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
reply to chadb97
LG has been pushing non-active glasses 3D. But, it cuts vertical resolution in half. We'll have to wait for double-res TV's for that to become realistic.


bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ
reply to andyross
Many people who watch alot of 3DTV are reporting strained eyes and headaches. Until they resolve that issue I do not think the current type of 3DTV will have alot of customers.

mrschultz02

join:2007-09-10
Media, PA
I've been fairly disappointed with the content since getting a 3D TV about a year ago.

There are maybe a handful of movies that have good 3D.

I recently started paying more attention to if something was shot in 3D vs. shot in 2D and converted. The studios must not be spending much on the conversions since those are rarely any better than hitting the 2D to 3D button on the TV.

That said, when it's done well it's great, Avatar, Hugo, Despicable Me and a few others have great 3D. With Hugo the 3D really does add to a great story.

As to the headaches, any method will do that if you sit too close or make the parallax too extreme to boost the effect. You should also only view it in a dark room so you don't see normal objects in the room mixed with the 3D movie.

phudson126

join:2012-06-12
Brooklyn, NY
reply to andyross
I don’t think 3D technology as ever made it to the success point. Considering a variety of drawbacks it carries that includes the cost of making 3D videos and effect on health, 3D technology is far a ahead from where we are now. Let the inventors take some time and bring it to perfection before competing with the HD channels and the HD technology. As of now, it’s a no-competition for 3D market.

Comcast Guy

join:2008-01-16
Harrisburg, PA
reply to andyross
I'm picking up a 3-D TV this week. The new Samsung glasses aren't that bad, but I can't see myself sitting through an entire football game for it. I do look forward to some 3-D blurays.

Many of the best rated HD sets are the 3-D ones, so they'll still be selling it looks like.

mrschultz02

join:2007-09-10
Media, PA
Yeah, I also got a Samsung and the glasses are very light, no different than wearing sunglasses. And the glasses have now gotten way cheaper, I see Target has them for $20 now.

There's a website called "Is it Real or Fake 3D", I wish I had found it earlier, when I go through the 3D Blu-Rays I have all the ones I was disappointed with come from the fake column.

Stuff shot with 3D cameras looks great, stuff converted from 2D is just annoying. For animation it seems to depend on how much depth they used when building the computer models of the scenes (and setting a good angle when rendering the right and left frames).

I had a problem with ghosting on some discs, but turning down the contrast helps that problem.

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
said by mrschultz02:

Yeah, I also got a Samsung and the glasses are very light, no different than wearing sunglasses. And the glasses have now gotten way cheaper, I see Target has them for $20 now.

What type of 3D glasses is that $20 for? LG uses theater-style polarized glasses, which can be cheap, but cuts resolution in half. Most everybody else uses active-shutter LCD glasses, and those are expensive.

Kathygnome

join:2012-05-22
reply to andyross
The problem with the glasses isn't so much wearing them if you're the primary viewer, it's with nobody being able to watch in the same room unless they're also wearing them. They're fine for "Turn the lights down and the volume up, going to watch a blockbuster movie now!" but not so much for the day to day I'm watching a movie, my partner is playing on their laptop, and my daughter is playing on the floor.

Comcast Guy

join:2008-01-16
Harrisburg, PA
reply to andyross
The Samsung active glasses that are non-rechargeable are $19.99 at Best Buy.


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
reply to andyross
I was reading about the ultra hdtv coming out this summer. It's supposed to be 3d WITHOUT glasses BUT the starting price is in the $4,000 or $5000


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
One of the first consumer-grade UHDTV sets out there is the Toshiba 55ZL2, which also provides glasses-free 3D.

However, going by an early review of it by PC Magazine, the glasses-free 3D technology still needs some more tweaking:

Toshiba's 55ZL2 Glasses-Free 3D TV Up Close
By Wendy Sheehan Donnell, PC Magazine - September 2, 2011
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392380,00.asp

mrschultz02

join:2007-09-10
Media, PA
There just no way lenticular displays will ever work as well as glasses. I'd rather wear the glasses than have to sit still staring at the screen.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
Yeah, I agree.

However, Sony demonstrated a 46-inch, glasses-free-3D UHDTV at this year's CES which used a different method that was more flexible with viewing angle and movement:

Sony 46in glasses-free 3D TV
By John Archer, TrustedReviews - January 20, 2012
»www.trustedreviews.com/sony-46in···V_review

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
Of course, none of this is TRUE 3D. It's just a fixed left/right image from one viewpoint. It will look the same no matter where you are sitting.

What I'm waiting for is the true 3D that changes as you move around!!


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
Yes, "True 3D" TV would be what's also called "Holographic TV." Today's 3D TV is actually only "Stereographic TV" that produces just an illusion of depth.

Here are some articles about it:

Forget 3DTV Holographic TV Is The Next Big Thing
By Steve Sanger, WorldTVPC - May 31, 2010
»www.worldtvpc.com/blog/forget-3d···-tv-big/

Holographic TV
Squidoo - March 2010
»www.squidoo.com/holographictv


cypherstream
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
kudos:3
reply to andyross
said by andyross:

LG has been pushing non-active glasses 3D. But, it cuts vertical resolution in half. We'll have to wait for double-res TV's for that to become realistic.

I don't see why that wouldn't be impossible. I mean the new MacBook with Retina display is 2800x1800 I believe and they cram that in a 15" screen. Then the new iPad is 2048x1536 in only 10 inches! Could you imagine that extrapolated to a 50" screen? That would be billions of pixels!

Display technology has really come along in smartphones and tablets. It's time to take what they learned and apply that to TV.

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
It's all about $$$. As mentioned, there are some UHDTV's, but they are very expen$ive right now. It isn't that simple to scale up to such a large screen, especially in the kind of volume needed.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
reply to andyross
Not surprisingly, according to a study just released by J.D. Power, the current 3D TV technology is still not finding much interest among consumers:

Consumers Show Little Interest in 3DTV
Study shows little connection between 3D and HDTV purchases

TV Technology - August 28, 2012
»www.tvtechnology.com/news/0110/c···v/215153

The J.D. Power press release: »www.jdpower.com/content/press-re···port.htm


kweq9

@wideopenwest.com
reply to andyross
3d dying is cuz its too soon & people arent buying it so that they can get no content channels .

hd is whats in & companies arent getting it done fast enuf & some channels arent catching up quick enuf .


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
Yes, it looks like 3D is not selling (new) TVs as the manufacturers had hoped. They are now focusing on the new 4K U-HDTV technology to get people to buy new sets:

What If They Gave A Party, But No One Came?
By Pete Putman, HDTVExpert.com - October 11, 2012
»www.hdtvexpert.com/?p=2446

GTFan

join:2004-12-03
Yet another marketdroid attempt to hype a tech that won't see the light of day anytime soon, at least not in any widespread or usable form.

Ya gotta love the HDTV industry, 90% of it is hype for marginally useful 'features' now.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to telcodad
said by telcodad:

Not surprisingly, according to a study just released by J.D. Power, the current 3D TV technology is still not finding much interest among consumers:

The progression of 3D TV looks similar to the progression of surround sound.

Surround sound started in the 1970's on the consumer side and, while there were some "wows", demand never really grew into a sustainable demand.

Surround Sound The Sequel, i.e., the 5.1 and 7.1 formats we have today, are much better received than the original 4.0 quadraphonic sound. While the addition of the subwoofer (".1") helped make the other speakers smaller and more acceptable in one's living areas, the real boost came from technology delivering a better surround sound experience, i.e., the addition of video to audio, creating surround sound movies.

imo, 3D TV nowadays is the video equivalent of the four channel quadraphonic sound of the 1970's. A cool concept, but maybe a concept that is early, a concept where the contextual technology needs to catch up and provide the compelling need to generate the demand.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
There is one, glasses-free, 3DTV technology that looks somewhat promising to me (and it works best with 4K U-HDTV) - "Ultra-D" by Stream TV Networks: »www.prnewswire.com/news-releases···786.html

Here is a hands-on review of it: »www.gadgetreview.com/2012/08/han···ech.html