In-Stat recently published the results of a consumer survey designed to measure attitudes about 3D television in the home. The survey found that 64% were at least somewhat interested, and one out of four overall were either “very” or “extremely” interested. That’s a high level of interest for a new technology, and demonstrates that there [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/10/hdtv_almanac_do_you_want_3d_tv.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - Do You Want 3D TV?
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
cpto
- Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:20 pm
3-D HDTV?
I'd probably like it but there are a few caveats:
1. Heavy, bulky, shutter or polarized lenses that dim the picture aren't my preference - they get tiring after awhile, much less an evening of TV. Forget anaglyphic presentations; they are both dim and cause major poblems when a picture color matches one or another of the lens colors.
2. I think that the 3-D effect would lose much of its punch on a small set. I have no idea what set would be the minimum acceptable but I suspect it's much larger than the current popular sizes.
3. If it made current Blu-Ray disks and most current TV's obsolete I think there would be a good deal of consumer reistance, unless the economy improves drastically. Personally, I've had it with the "early adopter | now it's obsolete" way of buying electronics. This time I'll wait a few years to see if it takes off and works well. Plus, I'm still getting relatively frequent software and hardware updates to my PS3 and Oppo BR players. Shouldn't this be a more well-established standard by now? And who decided that putting BR-live on a disk should prevent stopping and picking up where you left off?
4. Networks put disruptive adversiting for new shows or sometimes just to remind you what you're watching. The florescent colors are irritating enough. Can you imagne the fun the nets will have with 3-D logos?
In sum, I might like it. I'm not enthusiastic about it. And it will be several years before I upgrade to it, if at all. I'm not being a curmudgeon here; my early-ins include beta, minidisc, LD players, DVD, HD-DVD, and HD televisions, not to mention an Advent 750 front projection set in the '70's.
I'm not against progress. I just with the industry could stay with a standard for a few years longer than they do.
1. Heavy, bulky, shutter or polarized lenses that dim the picture aren't my preference - they get tiring after awhile, much less an evening of TV. Forget anaglyphic presentations; they are both dim and cause major poblems when a picture color matches one or another of the lens colors.
2. I think that the 3-D effect would lose much of its punch on a small set. I have no idea what set would be the minimum acceptable but I suspect it's much larger than the current popular sizes.
3. If it made current Blu-Ray disks and most current TV's obsolete I think there would be a good deal of consumer reistance, unless the economy improves drastically. Personally, I've had it with the "early adopter | now it's obsolete" way of buying electronics. This time I'll wait a few years to see if it takes off and works well. Plus, I'm still getting relatively frequent software and hardware updates to my PS3 and Oppo BR players. Shouldn't this be a more well-established standard by now? And who decided that putting BR-live on a disk should prevent stopping and picking up where you left off?
4. Networks put disruptive adversiting for new shows or sometimes just to remind you what you're watching. The florescent colors are irritating enough. Can you imagne the fun the nets will have with 3-D logos?
In sum, I might like it. I'm not enthusiastic about it. And it will be several years before I upgrade to it, if at all. I'm not being a curmudgeon here; my early-ins include beta, minidisc, LD players, DVD, HD-DVD, and HD televisions, not to mention an Advent 750 front projection set in the '70's.
I'm not against progress. I just with the industry could stay with a standard for a few years longer than they do.
-
AVInsights
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:13 am
Folks,
I SO much agree with cpto....................I'm in the business...............and enough is enough..................let the dust settle with HD........................cancel SD[displays are so cheap]..................and enjoy what we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will be some time before the technology is even adequate[3D glasses for instance] & I'm very unhappy that even SMPTE [non-profit???????????????] is so interested. I can understand "Hollywood" wanting to make that "almighty" buck but..............enough is enough. By the way, have these 3D proponents looked at the state of the economy?????????????????
I SO much agree with cpto....................I'm in the business...............and enough is enough..................let the dust settle with HD........................cancel SD[displays are so cheap]..................and enjoy what we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will be some time before the technology is even adequate[3D glasses for instance] & I'm very unhappy that even SMPTE [non-profit???????????????] is so interested. I can understand "Hollywood" wanting to make that "almighty" buck but..............enough is enough. By the way, have these 3D proponents looked at the state of the economy?????????????????
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
It's not that fast....
Actually, 3D has been a long time coming. There was 3D in cinema almost from the inception of moving pictures, and 3D in the movies had a Golden Age of sorts in the 1950s. Even HDTV took about 30 years to get here.
The cause of the rapid change in features is the fierce competition in the market. If the feature set were to stay stable, TV makers wouldn't sell as many sets as they did in recent years, and coupled with steep declines in prices, this means a huge reduction in revenues. They need something to entice consumers to buy, now that the digital transition is behind us, and so they need to rely on new features. This is not new; are you old enough to remember how Detroit brought out new models every September? It wasn't all cosmetic; the technology advances moved along pretty quickly too. And I understand that Sony used to design five models of every new consumer electronic product. The first was for the initial release, and the other four each were ready to replace the prior version the moment sales started to flag. (And don't think that Apple didn't pay attention to that strategy!)
So Bob, the economy is part of the reason why they're doing this. Fortunately, 3D can be added to existing plasma and 120 Hz LCDs models at little incremental cost for parts, so it should soon become a low-cost or no-cost feature, much like 120 Hz in large LCD HDTVs. So once we get past the initial early-adopter stage, competition should bring the price of 3D support down pretty quickly.
And for cpto, I'll answer by the numbers:
1. The sets will use active glasses, and at least for the near to mid term. Without extremely complex technology such as multiple head tracking, autostereoscopic (no glasses) sets cannot work in the living room for multiple users. But competition will go to work quickly as the market takes off. The HDTV makers won't want to be in the glasses business, and makers with idle small format LCD plants in Taiwan and China will compete to make better active glasses at a lower cost. Competition will improve the usability, and whule you have to lose half the light when watching 3D, the glasses will be clear when "idle" and you won't notice them.
2. Yes, 3D is more effective on large screens for multiple viewers, but it works fine on small screens -- even cell phones -- for a single viewer. It's a question of how much of your field of view is filled by the display, and not the absolute size of the screen.
Alfred
The cause of the rapid change in features is the fierce competition in the market. If the feature set were to stay stable, TV makers wouldn't sell as many sets as they did in recent years, and coupled with steep declines in prices, this means a huge reduction in revenues. They need something to entice consumers to buy, now that the digital transition is behind us, and so they need to rely on new features. This is not new; are you old enough to remember how Detroit brought out new models every September? It wasn't all cosmetic; the technology advances moved along pretty quickly too. And I understand that Sony used to design five models of every new consumer electronic product. The first was for the initial release, and the other four each were ready to replace the prior version the moment sales started to flag. (And don't think that Apple didn't pay attention to that strategy!)
So Bob, the economy is part of the reason why they're doing this. Fortunately, 3D can be added to existing plasma and 120 Hz LCDs models at little incremental cost for parts, so it should soon become a low-cost or no-cost feature, much like 120 Hz in large LCD HDTVs. So once we get past the initial early-adopter stage, competition should bring the price of 3D support down pretty quickly.
And for cpto, I'll answer by the numbers:
1. The sets will use active glasses, and at least for the near to mid term. Without extremely complex technology such as multiple head tracking, autostereoscopic (no glasses) sets cannot work in the living room for multiple users. But competition will go to work quickly as the market takes off. The HDTV makers won't want to be in the glasses business, and makers with idle small format LCD plants in Taiwan and China will compete to make better active glasses at a lower cost. Competition will improve the usability, and whule you have to lose half the light when watching 3D, the glasses will be clear when "idle" and you won't notice them.
2. Yes, 3D is more effective on large screens for multiple viewers, but it works fine on small screens -- even cell phones -- for a single viewer. It's a question of how much of your field of view is filled by the display, and not the absolute size of the screen.
Alfred
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
If they can add it on
I had a 3d addon to my PC monitor that used shutter glasses. 120hz was needed and resulted in significant flicker. If this could be wrapped around my plasma, I'd jump on it for sure. But, It can not flicker - that was just horrible after a while. But for me, no new TVs for a few years. And colored glasses (red blue) just make for an unwatchable image.
-
AVInsights
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:13 am
Alfred,
With that in mind, my "hostility" has waned. Thanks for the update............I just hope this new "stuff" does better than Blu-Ray, SACD & DVD-A although you did mention that Blu-ray players will be used for 3D. By the way, I wonder how the ISF is going to teach us to calibrate these displays especially since you mentioned a light output problem................................but we shall see................I even think I'm getting "some" enthusiasm for THIS new technology!!!!
With that in mind, my "hostility" has waned. Thanks for the update............I just hope this new "stuff" does better than Blu-Ray, SACD & DVD-A although you did mention that Blu-ray players will be used for 3D. By the way, I wonder how the ISF is going to teach us to calibrate these displays especially since you mentioned a light output problem................................but we shall see................I even think I'm getting "some" enthusiasm for THIS new technology!!!!
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Changing directions
Bob, I was a huge 3D skeptic for years, having seen all sorts of monitors and televisions and other devices demo'ed endlessly at trade shows. But the more I research the field, the more convinced I am that it will take hold. The movie results are too strong to ignore, and actually, I think I'd enjoy watching football in 3D. (Some of the depth of field cues are really lost in the 2D telecasts, and it would be helpful to have a more accurate view of where the players are in relation to each other.) And if done right (an enormous IF) I can see that some of my favorite 2D television and movie content could be converted to 3D, and I would probably want to watch them again.
Alfred
Alfred
-
AVInsights
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:13 am
-
jjkilleen
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:31 am
If we ever can get to the point where I can invite a dozen friends over to watch the superbowl wearing simple polaroid glasses on my new 3D TV that cost me an extra $200 for 3D, I'll buy it. Until then-forget it!
How much would a dozen shutter glasses cost? Would a set even be able to drive that many?
Glasses-less 3D TV, I can't conceive of it ever being good enough for my "dozen" scenario.
Spending a pile on a set that only will be 3D when watching "Blu-Ray"-not interested!
Can ATSC and QAM even acommodate 3D? I don't know the answer to this.
I saw the original 3D movies-liked them-didn't catch on.
I've seen the new ones-liked them-juries out on whether it will ever be more than a niche market, this time, like last.
How much would a dozen shutter glasses cost? Would a set even be able to drive that many?
Glasses-less 3D TV, I can't conceive of it ever being good enough for my "dozen" scenario.
Spending a pile on a set that only will be 3D when watching "Blu-Ray"-not interested!
Can ATSC and QAM even acommodate 3D? I don't know the answer to this.
I saw the original 3D movies-liked them-didn't catch on.
I've seen the new ones-liked them-juries out on whether it will ever be more than a niche market, this time, like last.