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. Mar 29, 2010 #41 of 543
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    I just don't understand why you need a new TV. I have several DVDs with 3D and they play fine, no need for a special 3D screen. Why would this be any different? It's still a regular HD 2D picture, isn't it?
     
  2. Mar 29, 2010 #42 of 543
    Araxen

    Araxen Icon

    792
    6
    Dec 18, 2005
    3D = waste of bandwidth.
     
  3. Mar 29, 2010 #43 of 543
    say-what

    say-what Active Member

    5,794
    15
    Dec 14, 2006
    New Orleans
    Because these 3D broadcasts use a new technology to display 3D images.
     
  4. Mar 29, 2010 #44 of 543
    ShawnL25

    ShawnL25 Icon

    571
    0
    Mar 2, 2007
    To me it is no different than the screaming that occured a few years back over 1080p. People had just bought one and now the needed a new one. The fact is most going forward will buy a 1080p tv when the next purchase eventually comes around and I would think 3D integration will occur in much the same way.
     
  5. Mar 29, 2010 #45 of 543
    hilmar2k

    hilmar2k Hall Of Fame

    5,251
    4
    Mar 18, 2007
    This isn't the old red/blue paper glasses 3D. That was extremely gimmicky. The new generation of 3D is much better, but requires new TV's and [relatively] expensive glasses.

    http://news.cnet.com/3d-tv-faq/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
     
  6. Mar 29, 2010 #46 of 543
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    I don’t hate it, just sick of hearing about it and having it shoved down our throat.

    Same with the “deep color” barrage several months ago. More BS.
     
  7. Mar 29, 2010 #47 of 543
    dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    "This has all happened before and will all happen again". :D
     
  8. Mar 29, 2010 #48 of 543
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I dont hate it. I just think it is premature when so much is still in SD, why jump on HD. It is the gimmick of the year. The manufacturers expect people to rebuy everything and when they don't, it will crash and burn.

    Most of this has already been posted but:

    - What is up with all the competing technologies. Didn't we just go through this with HD-DVD and Blu Ray? Industry wants to waste more money and have consumers waste it, too? And this time you add in the providers like ESPN and DirecTV into the mix as well. They may have different HD standards that each chooses (720/1080) but at least all that stuff is compatible. Even 1080p DVD players can res to 720 or 1080i for those TVs. When we sent stereo and then dolby digital, etc., the media and players were still compatible with mono, stereo, surround, etc, as needed. Media for color still work(ed)(s) on B&W displays. Heck, even HD can be watched on an SD display and vice-versa. 3D is not being attacked that way from anything I am hearing. If it were, there would not be an ESPN-3D channel, there would be a 3D add-on.

    - It just doesn't add that much. Most 3D is hokey. I have seen many 3D movies (Avatar, Harry Potter, animation, etc.). It can be enjoyable but good, sharp picture fakes your brain into thinking something is real. Go watch a great IMAX piece that is not in 2D. The sharpness makes you think you are looking at something real. (Great PQ is called "looking through a window." Why do you think that is? Cause it is really that way.) But I have never thought that 3D actually adds to my enjoyment of a movie except the "gee, it is 3D feeling." Great PQ, however, has increased my enjoyment.

    - The glasses are a pain. Especially for someone who wears glasses. I don't think there is any way around that unless we have holographs.

    - Wait until you see what gawd-awful things some broadcasters can do with 3D. I shudder to think about TBS in 3D. In fact, I think I just made myself nauseous.

    - Watching most programming, even movies, at home is more of a casual thing. I often have a book open when I watch sports or a movie, or am working at something. How much of a pain is that for 3D with glasses? The only event I would watch every second is something big like a Super Bowl.

    All that being said, I will want to see sports in 3D and see if that adds to the event. Maybe it will, maybe not.
     
  9. Mar 29, 2010 #49 of 543
    ChrisPC

    ChrisPC Godfather

    437
    0
    Jun 16, 2003
    From what I've read, it uses completely different frames for left and right, so 3D Blu-ray is full 1080p.
     
  10. Mar 29, 2010 #50 of 543
    Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    To answer the OP's question - I'm not concerned about it either way. If It works well when I want it and can afford it, I'll move to it (like I did with HD) - if not, then I won't.

    The bandwidth issue? They are adding that all the time, and it seems to me 'channels' we don't have now are more of a contractual thing than a space thing, no pun intended. I don't see it as a zero sum game - they will keep adding the bandwidth as long as they need to.

    A little off topic, but I'm not sure 3D will succeed in big numbers anyway. The argument may be mute.

    The way we watch now (2D) is a very passive experience. We just turn the set on and watch. The most we ever have to do is look through our list of recorded shows and hit play.

    3D requires a lot more than that. The glasses are the issue. Even if they start to give them away so that we will buy the movies to look at them with, people will still have to find them and put them on. Doesn't seem like much, but compared to what we do now - it's a lot more to do.

    Especially when the glasses break because we sit on them, or get lost and we can't find them. Very different viewing experience IMHO. I'm not sure the majority of us will put up with the inconvenience and expense for that.

    It may not fly except for gaming consoles and nitch products like that.
     
  11. Mar 29, 2010 #51 of 543
    Thaedron

    Thaedron Hall Of Fame

    1,886
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Well put.

    I don't think anyone can argue that "format" life cycles are getting shorter. Take the following examples...

    Audio: LP / Cassette / CD / SACD / DVD-A / Digital Downloadable MP3
    Video: VHS (or Beta) / DVD / Blue-Ray / (3D)
    Television: B&W / Color / HD / (3D)

    I have read a few items recently about the concept of "just good enough". One example used is with cameras vs. your smart phone (example iPhone). The arguement is that while the majority will fully recognize that the iPhone (assume 3GS) camera is not as good as a point and shoot camera and certainly not as good as a digital SLR, it is "good enough" quality for typical usage and daily snapshots. The "good enough" concept is enhanced by the fact that it can almost always be with you / readily available.

    Taken in the context of TV... for some people SD is still "just good enough". I think relative to HD / 3D, for MOST people, we're saying that HD is "more than good enough".

    In the Audio example above... I don't think many people would argue that SACD and DVD-Audio are technically better than CDs and MP3s. However digital downloadable MP3s are arguabley "good enough" for the average person and their listening enjoyment. Particularly since the can be always with you. Hence SACD and DVD-A are relegated to their respective (very small) corners of the market.

    IMO, 3D is being pushed (marketed by companies as your old set is now obsolete) more rapidly than the natural evolution by CE manufacturers and retailers. Some of this may be to try to sustain sales volumes or help lift themselves out of the recession. And yes, I said life-cycles are getting shorter, but I think 3D is coming "before it is due". Again just my humble opinion, but I think it's reflective of many of the comments in this thread.

    I don't "hate" 3D. But for me now and presumably a good while to come, HD will be "good enough".
     
  12. Mar 29, 2010 #52 of 543
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    I'm guessing here...

    But, doesn't the new 3D tech use LCD glasses, not the two different eye colors?

    I assume since ESPN is 720p at 60Hz...that the frame for the left eye appears, while a IR/RF signal is sent to the 3D glasses to "shut" the right lens...then the opposite for the next frame. Our brain takes the two different angled shots, fed into each eye, and provides the 3D perception.

    So, wouldn't that give those of us with 2D 720p at 30Hz since we'll only display "one eye's" image?
     
  13. Mar 29, 2010 #53 of 543
    scoop8

    scoop8 Godfather

    488
    2
    Jul 18, 2009
    Dallas TX
    Sums it up for me. If 3D takes off in the average consumer's household, then I'll decide.

    I also was late to the party with HD. I've had DTV HD and my Plasma set for less than 2 yrs. I waited for 2 reasons, 1) prices to drop (displays), and 2) to allow DTV to provide what I considered to be enough HD to make it worthwhile to make the jump to HD. The '08 season was the first season that all of the NFL ST games were available in HD. That's when I entered the 2DHD mkt, August '08.

    I'm also inclined to believe that most consumers consider the jump from SD to (2D)HD to be a much bigger leap than 2DHD to 3D. Time will tell.
     
  14. Mar 29, 2010 #54 of 543
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    At lest right now 3D seems to be live events only and movies.
     
  15. Mar 29, 2010 #55 of 543
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    What if you already wear glasses? Do you wear two pair at once, or do you have to go out and pay $$$ for a prescription set of 3D glasses with bifocals for reading the netbook while you are watching Avatar?
     
  16. Mar 29, 2010 #56 of 543
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    The LCD based 3D glasses are oversized and yes...you wear them over your specs.
     
  17. Mar 29, 2010 #57 of 543
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    ...and so far, I've been unable to find a pair of 3D glasses that fit comfortably over my own, fairly small, eyeglasses.
     
  18. Mar 29, 2010 #58 of 543
    Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    9,094
    100
    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    I certainly understand people's skepticism regarding the future of 3D programming.

    I can certainly understand people's dislike of the glasses... even though they don't really bother me.

    I can even (to a certain point) understand the people who suffer from "upgrade-itis".

    However, I look at the upcoming launch of the 3D channels on DirecTV the same way I look at many other channels on DirecTV. For instance, DirecTV has been circulating flyers showing new HD channels. Of those 5-6 channels listed, only ONE of them interest me. Sure, Travel Channel HD may be of interest to some of you, but to me, it would simply be filling up space that other channels I'M interested in could be taking.

    It just seems like DirecTV is taking heat for trying to be ahead of the curve. That curve may be far removed from where I'm at, but as long as they stick to only the ONE 3D PPV channel, I'm good! :D

    ~Alan
     
  19. Mar 29, 2010 #59 of 543
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    DIRECTV continues to proclaim that they "now" (from the D12 launch date forward) have capacity for "over 200 HD channels". I'm talking about what happens when they need to go well beyond 200.

    There's a considerable bandwidth price associated with broadcasting 24 HD RSNs, some subset of 39 part-time/alternate HD RSNs and 29+/- CinemaHD channels CONUS.

    Just as many have expressed concern about "wasting" bandwidth on West feeds of movie channels that bring no additional content, some subscribers have a righteous concern about 3D taking up bandwidth that only a small minority can watch if they wanted to. How many conventional channels worth of HD bandwidth each 3D HD channel will consume is unknown, but the suspicion is that it will be somewhere between one and two.

    ShawnL25's list from January includes 60 likely and 27 no-so-likely channels that existed at that time that DIRECTV doesn't yet offer.

    While this may not be a widely held concern, it is nonetheless part of the answer to the OP's question.

    http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174045&highlight=3d+hd

    edit: Now that I think about it, this might be an interesting use for CONUS space available on 110W or 119W.
     
  20. Mar 29, 2010 #60 of 543
    Xsabresx

    Xsabresx Icon

    1,042
    4
    Oct 8, 2007
    Hammer meet nail!

    At least in my case anyway.
     

Share This Page