No, this isn't the I-told-ya-so column ... yet. Events have moved much faster than I predicted when I wrote a column on this topic about a year ago, but it seems we are headed for the same forecasted result. In that column I pointed to lack of standards, lack of content, the glasses nuisance and the problematic usage model in the home as probable deterrents to wide (or any) adoption of 3D in your living room. Press releases received over the past few months from various independent surveys have "leaked" reports of disappointing sales from even the most conservative manufacturers estimates. Last week, an article in reuters.com confirmed "3DTV hasn't caught the imagination of consumers". Reasons cited later in the article were ... uhh ... lack of standards, lack of content and, yup, those pesky glasses. To make matters even worse, in an almost unbelievably inept marketing move, studios partnered with specific manufacturers to offer "exclusive" content packages - as if wanting to spend an hour and a half with "Coraline" would cause you to buy a Panasonic display over a Samsung, all other features and functions, including price, be damned.
Here's where I think we are. The only delivery scheme that has a chance in your living room is...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/04/one-installers-opinion-3disappointment-chicken-little-is-screaming-and-other-matters.php]Read Column[/url]
One Installer's Opinion - 3D..isappointment, Chicken Little is screaming ...and other matters
-
terrypaullin
- Member
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:22 pm
-
fsense
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:44 am
No surprise!
In the early 1950s, before everyone had a TV in their home, most folks in our town went to one of the three movie theaters at least once per week. When TVs began to eat into movie attendance, movie producers came up with a new gimmick to try and boost attendance - 3D! The cost to attend a 3D movie was considerably more, since the theater passed out cardboard 3D glasses to everyone. I still remember the first one I saw - "Bwana Devil", a 1952 production featuring lions jumping out of the screen. That's all I remember about that movie, and the craze didn't last long. 3D then had a lot in common with 3D now - the glasses, the lack of content, and the added expense. People flocked to the movie for the novelty, but even kids didn't care to sit around all day watching lions jump out of the screen. Today, the lions have been replace with exploding autos running up hidden ramps and flying over other autos. Otherwise, not much difference.
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
I have to counter the statement that this is "not much difference".
The new 3D is MASSIVELY different. First it is watchable, the old 50's stuff was not - color, brightness, effects were all crap, today they are almost as perfect as 2D. Then the new stuff is truly being crafted for 3D with radical new technologies - from the projection technology/glasses combinations to the filming techniques. Which are getting better and better almost with each big release movie (eg. the big studios).
Lastly, instead of being tied to grade c movies, today's 3D is tied to high quality stories and in some cases designed for 3D. You may not like the movies but that is just the way life is. A strong dramatic story line (or yet another stupid romance) probably does not lend itself to the distractions of 3D, but that is as it should be, and we get to choose what we like and what we don't.
I don't think much of modern movies - I mean try and find a mainstream tragedy, rare indeed (the new Jane Eyre was good though). But do I ever have fun watching 3D graphic cartoons and aliens riding steroidal parrots/dragons/cars/etc.. Who freekin cares if Shakespeare was not on board, it is entertainment - action, eye candy, and ear damaging - and hundreds of millions of people are voting with their $$.
As for buying it for the home. I got slapped for commenting on that while not having one myself. If I can keep up the Overtime, I have plans on a 3D projector - not for daily use, but for the times I want to rock out and have a wild good time. So I am going to assume a lot of the market is with me: No, not dumping my very good TVs right now, but as time goes on there is more and more reason to step up, and have that fun at home.
The new 3D is MASSIVELY different. First it is watchable, the old 50's stuff was not - color, brightness, effects were all crap, today they are almost as perfect as 2D. Then the new stuff is truly being crafted for 3D with radical new technologies - from the projection technology/glasses combinations to the filming techniques. Which are getting better and better almost with each big release movie (eg. the big studios).
Lastly, instead of being tied to grade c movies, today's 3D is tied to high quality stories and in some cases designed for 3D. You may not like the movies but that is just the way life is. A strong dramatic story line (or yet another stupid romance) probably does not lend itself to the distractions of 3D, but that is as it should be, and we get to choose what we like and what we don't.
I don't think much of modern movies - I mean try and find a mainstream tragedy, rare indeed (the new Jane Eyre was good though). But do I ever have fun watching 3D graphic cartoons and aliens riding steroidal parrots/dragons/cars/etc.. Who freekin cares if Shakespeare was not on board, it is entertainment - action, eye candy, and ear damaging - and hundreds of millions of people are voting with their $$.
As for buying it for the home. I got slapped for commenting on that while not having one myself. If I can keep up the Overtime, I have plans on a 3D projector - not for daily use, but for the times I want to rock out and have a wild good time. So I am going to assume a lot of the market is with me: No, not dumping my very good TVs right now, but as time goes on there is more and more reason to step up, and have that fun at home.