1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

3DTV - Why The Hate?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Alan Gordon, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. May 2, 2010 #221 of 543
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Why would you be out $3500??
     
  2. May 2, 2010 #222 of 543
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    Probably more like $1000, the difference between a high end 3D and a high end LED/LCD w/o 3D. Now, if the 3D sets look as good as the top of the line LED/LCD sets, I suppose it would be ok to have the capability, but for me personally, I would be out the full amount, since I already have two high end LCD sets, so Id never recover their costs be reselling them.
     
  3. May 2, 2010 #223 of 543
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    I wouldn't buy a new TV just for 3D, but if I was already in the market for a new TV, it would definitely be 3D capable. The extra $500 or so would be well worth it just in case. Most TV's last a long time, so I wouldn't want to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a display right now only to wish I would have purchased a 3D capable set a couple of years from now.

    It's the same reason I bought an HD display several years ago, even though I only had SD. I knew I'd move to HD eventually and didn't want to have to buy a new set again. It's also why I bought a Blu Ray player 18 months or so ago when my DVD player died and I was still watching (and buying) standard DVD's. I knew the Blu Ray player would still play my standard DVD's, but I'd be ready for the move to Blu Ray. I didn't want to spend a couple of hundred dollars on a DVD player only to have to buy a Blu Ray player in the future.
     
  4. May 2, 2010 #224 of 543
    olguy

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    1,234
    0
    Jan 9, 2006
    All that came along well after trains, cars, planes, etc. My point is that every new device is downplayed as a fad or gimmick by many. And if 3D TV never comes to full fruition I won't be out $3500. The Mits 82" will and does work on 2D. The 3D BluRay player will work on Blu-ray. The only thing I will be "out" is Mits adapter and some glasses. And as I've said in other posts, at 72 we either spend it on us or the daughter-in-law lays claim to it :lol:
     
  5. May 2, 2010 #225 of 543
    olguy

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    1,234
    0
    Jan 9, 2006
    Today I saw a Magnavox BD player at Wallyworld for $78.00. Don't know how good it is but still...
     
  6. May 2, 2010 #226 of 543
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    As I've said before, I've yet to find a pair of home 3D glasses that work acceptably with my own, real glasses. I do keep trying, and the manufacturers keep failing.
     
  7. May 2, 2010 #227 of 543
    olguy

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    1,234
    0
    Jan 9, 2006
    I guess there are some visual problems that cause this. Guessing because I'm not an ophthalmologist or anything. My wife and I both had cataract surgery a couple of years ago. We opted for the multi-focal lens in both eyes. She was reading with out glasses the day after. She needs a slight correction for distance. Me, I'm still in tri-focals. The doc says he will open my pupil a bit with a laser to let in more light and that should take care of it. I dunno... Anyway, the 3D glasses we wore for the BB Samsung demo worked just fine over my tri-focals. And my wife had no problems with her bionic lenses either :lol:
     
  8. May 2, 2010 #228 of 543
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I don't think it's a fad or a gimick.

    However, IMHO, I think it's not very user friendly. I see it as a system where 75% of those that buy a 3D TV will use it a couple of times a year. Those glasses will be the biggest reason.

    I know quite a few people who loved Avatar but didn't like wearing the glasses. Especially those that already wear glasses. They gave me a raging headache both times I saw it, and that was the common complaint I heard from others.

    Maybe it was just me and a couple of others I talked to, but Avatar, while very cool, just wasn't as crisp as a traditional movie would have been. That's my other complaint. There always seems to me to be just the slighest fuzziness...edges didn't seem as perfect as it should have been. That isn't to say it was a bad picture because it wasn't. It just wasn't as good as it should be. Then again, how it looked could be related to why it got a headache watching it. In which case it was my eyes and not the movie. :shrug:

    Mike

    There has to be a better way. There has to away to make them more comfortable.
     
  9. May 2, 2010 #229 of 543
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009
    I'll be happy to stand firm on the reality that the 3D that is here through the current technology is and will continue to be JUST A GIMICK until the technology is completely perfected. THAT WILL NOT BE UNTIL THEY DO AWAY WITH THE NEED FOR GLASSES.
     
  10. May 2, 2010 #230 of 543
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Perhaps, but I'm happy to enjoy that gimmick while it's here.

    I still don't know if Blu Ray will make it, but I've been enjoying using it for more than a year now.
     
  11. May 2, 2010 #231 of 543
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I don't think there's any other way to take 2D and get 3D without some kind on glasses.

    The kind of technology you're talking about is pretty far out there.

    I don't think it's a gimmick. It's just the only way to make it viable for the commercial market. I doubt you'll see anything beyond that for years.

    If lenticular lenses, motion tracking, or what ever 3D tech were viable for the mass market we'd be buying them instead of glasses.

    I don't see is so much as a gimmick as short sighted and rushed to the market. When I don’t get a headache using the glasses it may be useful, but until then it’s not for me.

    Mike
     
  12. May 2, 2010 #232 of 543
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Of course Blu-Ray has made it. I don't think the VHS BetaMax argument fits here.

    The problem I see here is that the glasses aren't usable by a lot of people. I’ve seen a lot of complaints about headaches and the glasses not fitting over prescription glasses. Not until those problems are overcome will this take off. That’s one of the reasons that I don’t see the cost of those glasses. Until demand goes up the prices stay up.

    Mike
     
  13. May 2, 2010 #233 of 543
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    I think it's a pretty small minority, actually.
     
  14. May 2, 2010 #234 of 543
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Maybe, but nearly everyone I talked to that saw Avatar complained about the glasses.

    Un-scientific as it is, based on my own personal sphere of friends/family/co-workers, the miniority was the group that didn't have some complaint about the glasses....I'm just sayin' :grin:

    Mike
     
  15. May 2, 2010 #235 of 543
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone DBSTalk Club

    12,563
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Well, complaining about the glasses and the glasses being unusable are two different things, IMO.
     
  16. May 2, 2010 #236 of 543
    hasan

    hasan Well-Known Member

    5,957
    54
    Sep 22, 2006
    Ogden, IA
    I couldn't have said it better. One word that strikes me is cumbersome, and perhaps another is intrusive (both perceptually and physically).

    For a brief period in specialized situations, I'm sure 3D can be impressive. Beyond that, I would find it oppressive.:)

    The proof is in the pudding, and I wouldn't be buying any stock in 3D companies just yet. I think it will remain nothing but a niche market...and that is if it doesn't outright fail.

    Expensive product, expensive glasses, cumbersome and eventually overstimulating. Hardly a formula for mass success.

    Going from SD to HD is immediately dramatic, but not overstimulating.

    Blue Ray will probably be successful. The players are getting cheap (< $80), and old releases are as cheap as $8.00 (Red Heat with Governor Arnold and James Belushi). Since all of the Blu-Ray players will upconvert standard DVDs over their HDMI connections, there is very little reason not to buy the Blu Ray players these days. Spend a bit more ($128) and you get Blu Ray, NetFlix streaming as well as Pandora, Vudu, Blockbuster, etc.

    One can make a much more convincing argument for Blu-Ray player success than 3D, at least at this point. One thing investors aren't any longer is patient. The road to 3D success, on its current trajectory, is long and filled with pot holes. I'll be astounded if it is navigated successfully.
     
  17. May 2, 2010 #237 of 543
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Agreed.

    I wear prescription glasses, and had no problems using either the Panasonic or Samsung 3D glasses whatsoever - they fit right on top/over mine.
     
  18. May 2, 2010 #238 of 543
    Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    I'm thinking comparing one's experience in a movie theater and what I saw at BB is just not valid.

    You should take a look before you decide. I recommend viewing a program type that you like.
     
  19. May 2, 2010 #239 of 543
    bidger

    bidger Hall Of Fame

    2,014
    18
    Nov 19, 2005
    I checked out the display at BB today. It was an animated feature playing when I slipped on the glasses. Glasses slipped on pretty well over my own. It did add a sense of depth, but I didn't walk away feeling like it was "must own". I have a 1080p 120Hz set with 10 bit processor and just added Blu-ray capability to my HTPC. I'm greatly enjoying that for now. If 3D does pan out in the future, that's fine. Right now I'm happy with what I have and that's all you really can ask.
     
  20. May 2, 2010 #240 of 543
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009
    I honestly think that the media and electronics industries were desperately looking for a new source of revenue and they kind of needed to dredge this gimick up once again as has been done several times in the past..only to go away once again due to the cumbersome and intrusive nature of the equipment and of course the extra expense..


    The biggest issue besides the actual equipment and execution of the 3D is the outright extra expense of it...Whether you like it or not we are still in a deep recession that is not likely to go away anytime soon and that basically will put the brakes on too many folks shelling out for something that is clearly a luxury...Heck most people are just trying to meet basic expenses like mortgages and electric bills.
     

Share This Page