Nielsen Research just published its State of the Media 2010 report, and we’re watching more TV than ever. But we don’t plan to add 3D to the mix any time soon.
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/01/hdtv-expert-3d-americans-still-arent-buying-it.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Expert - 3D: Americans Still Aren’t Buying It
-
720pete
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:19 am
-
regman
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2002 11:16 am
- Location: San Francisco
The so called "golden age" of 3D was during the 50's with a whopping 50 titles released in 1953 (much of it, surprisingly enough) was very high quality - wide screen, dual 35mm projectors, etc.). It seems every decade or so an attempt is made to bring it back. I have to admit that I have enjoyed some of the imax films (the space station) in 3D. I think that the HDTV manufacturers are throwing good money after bad but we'll have to wait and see how it shakes out.
I have 2 HDTV's now and plan on purchasing a 3rd, bedroom set, this summer. It won't be 3D.
We are a market driven world... maybe laser holography is next!
I have 2 HDTV's now and plan on purchasing a 3rd, bedroom set, this summer. It won't be 3D.
We are a market driven world... maybe laser holography is next!
Early Adopter. Stand alone home theater. Panasonic TH-58PZ700U Plasma, Denon AVR 4306, SpeakerCraft MT3 L/RF, MT2 L/RR, AIM LCR6 center channel, flush mount wall speakers, JBL sub. DTV H20-100S DVR. Sony BDP-300S. Logitech Harmony 1000.
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
I won't be buying for myself in the next 12 months - but I would only buy a 3D TV in the future, and only recommend to people who ask me about TVs at this point. It would make no sense to have this limitation except for the cost if that is a real factor.
Sooner or later each audience segment is going to get hit with a "killer app". For example, when a science describes some technical aspect of our universe, and uses an effective 3D image to illustrate it - I will be impressed.
If a good 3D move is available (like Avatar) I would be very interested in seeing - even if I also were to watch in 2D.
And so on: there is sports, nature, reality shows, techy shows like car and bike building etc. Any venue could make good use of 3D.
We are barely into the time it takes for the generation of, and training on tools to support casual 3D media production to be available. And thus barely into the creation of imaginative 3D media. But it will happen and happen quickly - and even if only used once in a while, I think it would be foolish to write that out.
This is not the era of the 50's of being at the mercy of what shows up at the cinema. This is the time of streaming content, available at any time and of a billion different sources of imagination.
Sooner or later each audience segment is going to get hit with a "killer app". For example, when a science describes some technical aspect of our universe, and uses an effective 3D image to illustrate it - I will be impressed.
If a good 3D move is available (like Avatar) I would be very interested in seeing - even if I also were to watch in 2D.
And so on: there is sports, nature, reality shows, techy shows like car and bike building etc. Any venue could make good use of 3D.
We are barely into the time it takes for the generation of, and training on tools to support casual 3D media production to be available. And thus barely into the creation of imaginative 3D media. But it will happen and happen quickly - and even if only used once in a while, I think it would be foolish to write that out.
This is not the era of the 50's of being at the mercy of what shows up at the cinema. This is the time of streaming content, available at any time and of a billion different sources of imagination.
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Thanks for sharing this info Pete!
For some reason, I find the avg. 35.6 hours/week spent on TV viewing rather scary. That doesn't leave a lot of time for much else (after work and sleep is factored in). That may also explain quite a bit more than we're comfortable with about our society.
71 million homes still with VCRs is a bit of a surprise. Especially since that format is "dead", blank tapes are hard to come by, and rentals have vanished. And especially to see it's still so close to DVD player penetration.
One good thing about slow 3D adoption... it still leaves room for huge growth potential.
I suspect it will have "potential" for years to come, especially if content continues to dribble out at its current snail's pace.
- Tim
For some reason, I find the avg. 35.6 hours/week spent on TV viewing rather scary. That doesn't leave a lot of time for much else (after work and sleep is factored in). That may also explain quite a bit more than we're comfortable with about our society.
71 million homes still with VCRs is a bit of a surprise. Especially since that format is "dead", blank tapes are hard to come by, and rentals have vanished. And especially to see it's still so close to DVD player penetration.
One good thing about slow 3D adoption... it still leaves room for huge growth potential.
I suspect it will have "potential" for years to come, especially if content continues to dribble out at its current snail's pace.- Tim
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Is not about the answer is about the question
I do not see the high number of VCR households as a surprise or as an indicator to extrapolate anything else than usually people do not trash equipment that could still perform a household function, such as playing back any valuable legacy recording that is not available in any other format in the house. Trashing the player will force a conversion that many may consider unnecessary and is a function of how valuable the content is to a) consider conversions compared to b) just keep a VCR that was already paid for.
Assume this scenario: I am calling you and I ask you “do you have a VCR in your house?” most people would probably say yes, but if my question is “do you use a VCR for customary viewing?” most people would probably say no.
It is for this reason I consider that any of these surveys start in the wrong foot by not asking the right questions, and journalists compound the problem by extrapolating from the loosely obtained data.
If you ask me, I will say yes, I do have a VCR, I still have 4 S-VHS units. And I will also say I have a vinyl turntable and two laser disc players and a cassette tape unit, all of hi-end quality. Is that meaning that I still use laserdiscs, audio cassettes, and vinyl records as my normal content consumption, definitely no, but I have media up to the neck on those formats that I do not need to convert/duplicate, and a loosely issued question can obtain the wrong data if the bean-counters do not know how to ask to perform the correct analysis.
Can someone tell that by having a vinyl turntable I should create a surprise? I could probably create more surprise if I tell that I use it with a $25K hi-end pre/amp. Would the turntable factor be considered a negative or a positive by the bean counter? Does the bean-counter know anything about hi-end audio? Does the bean-counter know what he/she is evaluating?
Another example, 3DTVs are nothing else than higher quality TV lines with a 3D feature into them. If you are not typically a buyer of higher quality models could someone extrapolate that you do NOT support 3D? And if most consumers usually not buy higher quality models could someone extrapolate that 3D is dead? Compared to what? Why the comparisons are not done with “how many higher quality models were sold last year compared to this year (the ones that happen to have 3D as an added feature)? Isn’t this the correct question/comparison rather than asking if you are going to buy a 3D set or not this year?
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Assume this scenario: I am calling you and I ask you “do you have a VCR in your house?” most people would probably say yes, but if my question is “do you use a VCR for customary viewing?” most people would probably say no.
It is for this reason I consider that any of these surveys start in the wrong foot by not asking the right questions, and journalists compound the problem by extrapolating from the loosely obtained data.
If you ask me, I will say yes, I do have a VCR, I still have 4 S-VHS units. And I will also say I have a vinyl turntable and two laser disc players and a cassette tape unit, all of hi-end quality. Is that meaning that I still use laserdiscs, audio cassettes, and vinyl records as my normal content consumption, definitely no, but I have media up to the neck on those formats that I do not need to convert/duplicate, and a loosely issued question can obtain the wrong data if the bean-counters do not know how to ask to perform the correct analysis.
Can someone tell that by having a vinyl turntable I should create a surprise? I could probably create more surprise if I tell that I use it with a $25K hi-end pre/amp. Would the turntable factor be considered a negative or a positive by the bean counter? Does the bean-counter know anything about hi-end audio? Does the bean-counter know what he/she is evaluating?
Another example, 3DTVs are nothing else than higher quality TV lines with a 3D feature into them. If you are not typically a buyer of higher quality models could someone extrapolate that you do NOT support 3D? And if most consumers usually not buy higher quality models could someone extrapolate that 3D is dead? Compared to what? Why the comparisons are not done with “how many higher quality models were sold last year compared to this year (the ones that happen to have 3D as an added feature)? Isn’t this the correct question/comparison rather than asking if you are going to buy a 3D set or not this year?
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra