dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1637
share rss forum feed

Acct101
Premium
join:2011-09-20
Bensalem, PA

Is 3-D a failure?

I just read where DirecTv is cutting back on their 3-D broadcast which tells me this whole 3-D technology for homes is not cutting it. Especially since it is so expensive to see a movie in 3-D, people are not seeing this technology in action.


MagScribe

join:2001-08-20
West Chester, PA
Between needing special glasses, special TVs and limited software (and some of that is non-compelling) and the fact that a decent percentage of the population either has trouble seeing the 3D effect or gets a headache from it, the future is not too bright for 3DTV.

The value proposition just isn't there.
--
I do local news. My top site: www.unionvilletimes.com


just lou

join:2008-05-16
Staten Island, NY
reply to Acct101
Many tech sites called 3DTV one of the biggest tech fails/flops of 2011, and I agree.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to Acct101
3D has about a 60 year history of repeated failure. Yet Hollywood keeps periodically convincing itself that people want it.

At least it used to not cost consumers anything. This time, they took some dupes along for the ride, making them pay more for TVs that will display an effect no one will soon broadcast.

flashcore

join:2007-01-23
united state
reply to Acct101
3D as it exists now is a complete and utter failure, the only way 3D will ever take off is when they can build a TV that does not require any special glasses to view it. I suspect that the technology for that is still 10-20 years away with another 5-10 years after that for any reasonably priced equipment that will be able to do it and even then it will most likely require all new media to view it.


Squirrelly

join:2000-10-24
Harrisburg, PA
said by flashcore:

3D as it exists now is a complete and utter failure, the only way 3D will ever take off is when they can build a TV that does not require any special glasses to view it. I suspect that the technology for that is still 10-20 years away with another 5-10 years after that for any reasonably priced equipment that will be able to do it and even then it will most likely require all new media to view it.

actually they have the technology and i believe a few TVs already use it but it's expensive. If they would have had 3D TVs out 10 years ago even with glasses it would have probably taken off. Myself like most people are not going to run out and replace a fairly new TV just for 3D. So yes it's a failure


just lou

join:2008-05-16
Staten Island, NY
said by Squirrelly:

actually they have the technology and i believe a few TVs already use it but it's expensive. If they would have had 3D TVs out 10 years ago even with glasses it would have probably taken off. Myself like most people are not going to run out and replace a fairly new TV just for 3D. So yes it's a failure

You're right. They do exist, but the technology hasn't been perfected, and the cost is astronomical. "Glasses free" 3DTV does not deliver the same 3D experience/quality as a set that uses glasses, and costs over $10K for a 55" set. IMO, a complete waste of money.


TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to Acct101
I have a Panasonic VT30 3D set...I hated 3D when viewing it in theaters but it actually looks much better at home for some reason...I'm actually enjoying it a lot more since I bought a 3D TV...I still much prefer 2D but like a lot of things it's a bonus feature that is nice to have...the 2D--->3D upconvert feature is terrible though and should never be used...I also prefer movies shot in native 3D and not any post-conversion crap

3D is not going away anytime soon...'big' movies such as The Hobbit and other upcoming blockbusters continue to push 3D...plus with James Cameron and others such as Martin Scorsese and Ridley Scott now embracing 3D it looks to be here for at least another 5 years

plus most high end (and even mid and low end sets) come with 3D so anyone that is planning on buying a new TV is going to get 3D whether they like it or not...no one is forcing people to watch it if they don't want to...I want to see more 3D content added...FiOS has a nice selection of 3D On Demand movies but they need to add another few 3D channels besides ESPN 3D...3net would be a great addition


MrKal_El

join:2003-01-19
Franklin Square, NY
reply to Acct101
I am sure it hasn't taken off as much as the industry would've wanted, but I just a really nice 2012 Passive LED LCD LG set and LOVE it.

Very convenient and great quality.... as the tech gets cheaper, esp due to passive...I think we will see a lot more uptake.
--
Twitter: MrKal_El

hubrisnxs

join:2009-12-30
Fountain Valley, CA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

My main reason why I don't do 3d is that I wear glasses.

3d glasses on top of regular reading glasses is out of the question.

I wonder what the demographic on that looks like, if most people are like me.


MrKal_El

join:2003-01-19
Franklin Square, NY
I wear my LG glasses on top of my regular glasses all the time... They fit perfectly w/ no ghosting etc...
--
Twitter: MrKal_El


Jackarino
YacCity
Premium
join:2006-12-28
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Acct101
I am not and never will be a fan of 3D

hubrisnxs

join:2009-12-30
Fountain Valley, CA
kudos:3
reply to MagScribe
Wierd, when I put them on I felt a lot of weight on the bridge of my nose, maybe I was just using bad 3d glasses, or cheap ones.

billhere

join:2011-10-21
Santa Monica, CA
reply to Acct101
I watched Avatar in 2D on premium cable. I gave up after about 20 minutes. Perhaps it was better in 3D in a theater. I don't think 3D TV will ever be a mainstream product, certainly not while expensive glasses are required to view it.


MrKal_El

join:2003-01-19
Franklin Square, NY
reply to hubrisnxs
said by hubrisnxs:

Wierd, when I put them on I felt a lot of weight on the bridge of my nose, maybe I was just using bad 3d glasses, or cheap ones.

You are prob talking about Active Shutter 3D, compared to the passive type like in the movies... That's what LG and others are using now...

»www.lg.com/us/tv-audio-video/dis ··· ndex.jsp
--
Twitter: MrKal_El


ImpldConsent
Under Siege
Premium
join:2001-03-04
Mcdonough, GA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to Acct101
I was in the market in 2011 and bought a 60" LG plasma with 3D. Not necessarily for the 3D, but because it fit where I wanted, good price and looked great. About 6months AFTER we bought the LG, we decided to check out the 3D ... let me tell you ... to experience the depth of 3D is a treat. The family and I love it! We don't go out looking for 3D movies, but we might grab one off U-Verse or buy a Blu-Ray with 3D (and now they are usually bundled 2D/3D/DVD). It might be dead, but it sure was fun and that's what we cared about, bringing fun back to TV. I used to give a crap about tech specs, no longer. Even the cheapest 1080p LCD/Plasma look great. 3D just happened to make it look better (in my families humble opinion). Yea, yea, glasses suck (and yes, they fit just fine over prescription glasses), but you forget about them in about 2-3min.
--
That's "MISTER" Kafir to you.


printscreen

join:2003-11-01
Juana Diaz, PR
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Choice Cable TV
·Coqui/PRTC
reply to Acct101
Unless there is a huge technological breakthrough, I don't see glass-less 3D coming to any medium anytime soon. Sure, there are some technologies (like the Nintendo 3DS) that provide some form of 3D viewing without glasses but they rely on watching from a limited "sweet spot" and is not suited for viewing by multiple people at the same time from different angles. Projecting a 3D image on a flat surface (be it a TV or a movie theater screen) will always require projection of two separate images and some sort of method to isolate each image to just one eye. The 3D sensation is created by the brain combining the two slightly different views of the word that each eye provides. The only practical way to separate the images is by using glasses that will either actively block quickly alternating images (as in 3D TV), by polarization (as in movie theaters) or by color artifacts (as in the old-fashioned red-cyan glasses).

At the movie theater it appears to be doing nicely because you are watching a huge screen under a very controlled environment. I haven't watched many movies in 3D at the theater but I prefer the type of movie that inmerses you in an entire 3D world (as if looking at the action through a window) over the movies that try to remind you of the 3D aspect by just throwing things at you.


EliteData
EliteData
Premium
join:2003-07-06
Long Island,
kudos:7
reply to Acct101
i use the 2D > 3D for my PS3 non-3D games (like Fallout) and its great.
it seems the 2D > 3D works much better for certain types of computer generated animated content.
Fallout has a "first person view" game play and operating that in 2D > 3D mode enhances the effect greatly.
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata


DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Martinsburg, WV
reply to Acct101
It's a waste. They need to skip over 3D and go directly to Holodeck.


OverBurn

join:2004-02-21
Greenwood, IN
reply to Acct101
I have two 3D TV's, one 55" LG that has battery powered glasses and one 42" LG that uses passive glasses. Both do 3D equally well IMO, I wear them over my regular glasses without issue.

The thing is I just as soon to see the regular non 3D version. It's just not that special, doesn't seem to enhance the viewing experience much at all.

I'd still buy the 3D TV version again though. Just in case I want to watch something in 3D, my DirecTV that has a few free 3d channels so why not.


royphil345
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lakewood, OH
kudos:3
reply to Acct101
My TV doesn't have 3-D and I couldn't possibly care less if I tried... lol.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Acct101
Besides the fact its stupid you can't even do 3-D right on a 1080p TV. It's takes a 4K Tv which right now are niche product and very expensive. Glass free 3-D TVs will never solve the problem of viewing angles so everyone will have to site right in front of the TV. Oh joy.

Current 3-D would probably sold better even with glasses if they didn't only give you 1 pair then expected you to pay $150 for more. Minimum 4 pairs with each TV. Additional glasses $20. Also glasses should be compatible for ALL TVs.