From the Trenches - Who Wants 3D HDTV: Us or Them?

[Richard]

3D is coming to a device near you, in the form of displays, broadcast TV, Blu-ray players mobile phones and new technology to convert 2D to 3D. While I am “up” on 3D technology, I was not aware of the mass market 3D infrastructure that had been put in place over the last few years until I attended the CEDIA show in Atlanta this past fall. 3D is coming, Blu-ray specs have been delivered and broadcast is just around the corner!

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/02/from_the_trenches_who_wants_3d_hdtv_us_or_them.php]Read Column[/url]

[jordanm]

I agree wholeheartedly, Richard, it's them. I just could not care less about 3D with glasses, instead of holography (3D w/o glasses), if it tried.

[ccclvib]

I have to disagree with the two of you. I hadn't thought too much of 3D - just another bunch of hype for the movie-goers to live through - until I saw Avatar. Yes, it's possible the movie was just that good a use of 3D, and there won't be that many more able to do it. In which case, I'll be a lot more skeptical. But, as it stands right now, I'm really looking forward to 3D in the home. I don't care what the glasses look like, and I don't think anyone else will either. Who's going to be watching me (or the glasses) if the content is compelling enough? I really got caught in Avatar. If other movies are that good, both in literary content and production content, 3D will be a wanted accessory.

[Shane]

I agree with you to an extent ccc...

I enjoyed Avatar. It was the best example of 3D I've ever seen. Mostly because the artist in this case (James Cameron) is so good at his craft that he was able to use 3D to enhance the already--stunning visuals, as opposed to past 3D efforts which have been geared toward "in your face, look at me" 3D. As far as the content goes, when 3D is used to enhance the experience, and not the focus of the experience, it's quite amazing.

However, overall I agree with Jordan and Richard ... I am in no hurry to get it in the home. If I could have the same technology as used in Avatar, sure, I'd consider it. But the technology geared for the home is all focused on "Active" 3D systems (shuttered glasses) and not passive systems (as was used in theaters for Avatar) ... and I can't watch "Active" 3D for more than about 30 seconds.

The glasses aren't a big deal to me. And I don't think the price premium will be a factor. But the tech "they" have planned for the home will interfere with my movie enjoyment and not natural for the eyes.

Give me a good passive system for the home, like the X-Pol technology that JVC is using, and I'm in. The problem with X-Pol is that you lose half the resolution (540p to each eye). But if JVC can apply X-Pol to one of their new 4k units .... oh, baby!!!

- Shane

[eliwhitney]

.. Shane & .. ALL ..

RE: Changing to In-home 3D, w or w/o glasses - - -

Certainly true that HDTVs are NOT life-threatening - - BUT - - one ought to consider the possible consequences of constantly offering ever-more involved, more-complex designs?

Consider the current, extremely-costly situation in which Toyota Corp now finds themselves embroiled ... before the multitude of endless lawsuits might ever be resolved just with the ~ ~ 6 million vehicles within the USA, , it might-well bring them down financially!

Perhaps - - a "pause" to make what we already have more dependable / longer-lasting?

...e.g. = current Samsung popping capacitors after ~ ~ 1.5 years, displays that go "wierd" soon after the 365th day, after-warranty repairs that always seem to be more than the cost of the then-newest HDTV ....?

eli

[lcaillo]

IME as a service tech, Samsung is not special with respect to capacitor failures. It is by far the most common type of repair with all brands. Over the last couple of decades, it seems that there is a much greater range of garbage electrolytic capacitors available just as the applications have become more demanding. As long as consumers demand lower prices, there will be companies building products to meet that demand. Samsung has been known for years to cut corners to buy market share with resulting reliablity problems. There are other companies that are much worse.

It is easy to sell at lower prices, as this is an obvious benefit to the consumer. It is harder to sell a better built set. If a manufacturer was to say "buy our set because it is built better," the expectation would be that it should never break, then when it does, the lawyers would be on them worse than ever.

IME, even with these types of failures, most products these days require less service than a decade or two ago. For the price, most people are getting a pretty good value.

[eliwhitney]

Hi Icaillo ...


Certainly your observations have a sad ring-of-truth !!

Recall the demise of Pioneer's Kuro Series of HDTVs ....

Thanks. eli