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

Dish Needs to Get Moving on 3D

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by Michael1, May 18, 2011.

What is your current interest in 3D?

  1. I own a 3DTV and am anxious for more 3D content

    28 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. I don't yet own a 3DTV but am planning to buy within the next 6 months

    11 vote(s)
    9.8%
  3. I own a 3DTV but am not really interested in 3D content

    19 vote(s)
    17.0%
  4. I don't own a 3DTV and am not planning on investing in 3D in the near future

    54 vote(s)
    48.2%
  1. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    No, not really, but a few episodes of "Behind the Music: Remastered" have mentioned The Who's Quadrophenia as inspiration for other groups of that day.
     
  2. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    While Quadrophenia was intended to be released as a Quadraphonic title, it was remixed in conventional stereo as it didn't work out.

    Quadraphonic was another technology that came on sounding very exciting but turned out to be more or less a flash in the pan. The equipment (essentially a four-channel turntable or tape player) was pretty pricey. Also like 3DTV (glasses technologies), there were multiple incompatible configurations.
     
  3. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Right. If stereo is twice as good as mono, quad would be even better, four times better than mono. Hah! Some how this topic reminds me of Scopitone. (sp.?) maybe I have the wrong word, but in the 60's, at least in Manhattan, there was a proliferation of juke boxes with videos. Way before MTV. Pretty short lived, though.
    Anyone else? Name right?
     
  4. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,451
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Yeah, I remember those. Video monitor was on top of the jukebox. Didn't have much of a video selection and like you said, it was short lived.
     
  5. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    It's kind of funny i recently came across a Popular Science magazine from June 1953 and there's an article in there about somebody working building the "first 3-D television". And 60 years later they're still working on it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Good find! I bet it took a number of centuries to perfect the first wheel, though!
     
  7. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    I remember quad sound in the 60's on K101 FM in San Francisco.. Didn't last long though.
     
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And yet the modern versions of quadrophonic are a common part of our standard television today. Would you rather watch a movie in stereo or in 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound?

    Technology improves. Perhaps some day 3D will be as common as 5.1 or better audio.
     
  9. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,451
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    In the fifties 3D versions of Hondo, House of Wax, Dial M For Murder, and Kiss Me Kate were released by Hollywood to lure customers back to the theaters and away from their new TV sets. The fad didn't last very long. Same can be said for todays version of 3D. What I do think will be the next big thing is Holographic TV but it's still years before it will be available.
     
  10. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Perhaps it will, but there will need to be a complete redesign around the production of TV and movies to incorporate 3D. To be effective, 3D needs to be shot considerably closer to the subject matter. This is why 3D sports (especially soccer) is so difficult to pull off.

    Multichannel sound is much less of a leap from stereo than 3D video is from 2D and in many cases is at least partially synthesized given what we know about echoes and their phasing. There is 3D video that is synthesized from 2D but it depends on things that aren't always available in the 2D image (relative motion between objects).
     
  11. Aug 1, 2013 #571 of 616
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The point was that for those who were saying "quadrophonic sound didn't last, 3D won't either" that over time the invention improved to the point where the benefit of quadrophonic sound (the surround sound experience) is a standard offering.

    There is room for improvement in 3D where it too can become a standard offering. Some day.
     
  12. Aug 1, 2013 #572 of 616
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,660
    36
    Jun 7, 2004
    Isn't quadraphonic sound today's surround sound, sort of?
     
  13. Nov 4, 2013 #574 of 616
    722921

    722921 Legend

    236
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    Well we had our first in home 3d experience this weekend by renting pacific rim 3d and we gave it thumbs up!
    Don't know why we waited so long to do so...
     
  14. Nov 7, 2013 #575 of 616
    Hunter Green

    Hunter Green Legend

    209
    0
    May 8, 2006
    I just installed my new 3DTV last night, though I'm still doing some of the cabling.

    While 3D has gotten off to a slow start, I don't think this is another "fading fad" for one simple reason. With the current HDTVs, 3D is an easy feature for the manufacturers to add. They've already developed the technology, and it doesn't require any significant change in the construction of the display, just an extra few chips and circuits. 3D isn't going to be the reason to buy a TV; it'll be one of many extra features that the TV comes with, of which you will probably only use some.

    Right now, they're only putting 3D into higher-end TVs, but they're not charging significantly more for them than TVs of similar size and features. They're using 3D as an extra perk, to try to distinguish their model from others on the market. But they're not doing that in lower-end TVs yet, even though it would cost them next to nothing to do it, because that would cannibalize sales of their higher-end units. But inevitably they will keep lowering the threshold of which model they put 3D into, because they'll have already sold as many of each higher tier as they're likely to sell based on using 3D as a gimmick. Eventually, pretty much every TV out there will have 3D routinely, the way they all have HD, they all have USB ports, and they'll eventually all have Internet and apps; it's just a way to make it look better, but at next to no cost to the manufacturer. The same is happening on Blu-Ray players already.

    That'll resolve the chicken-and-egg problem. Lots of people who don't particularly feel like 3D is a premium feature will end up getting a TV that has it anyway, just because the TV that they like happens to have it. Some of those will think "ick, I hate the glasses" and never do anything with the 3D, but more and more, people will start to say "hmm, I didn't buy this for 3D, but I wonder what 3D I can do." They'll rent or stream a 3D movie, or play a 3D game, just to try it. And the demand for 3D content will rise.

    But I can sure see why the broadcasters aren't rushing to produce content right now. They aren't committed enough to make it without an audience just to try to foster an audience. But as an audience appears, they'll follow.
     
  15. Nov 8, 2013 #576 of 616
    BillJ

    BillJ Icon

    859
    6
    May 5, 2005
    Normally we don't even like 3D in theaters. And home 3D has generally been worse. That said, we saw "Gravity" in 3D in the theater and it was like nothing we've seen before. Whatever the producers of the film did that upgraded the 3D quality should be copied by anyone who makes a movie in 3D. And when I can get that quality at home I might consider 3D TV.

    BTW, a couple 3D trailers before the feature were so awful I'd be afraid to see those films in 3D for fear I'd be nauseous half way through the film. With "Gravity" we just enjoyed the film and the 3D without being overwhelmed by it.
     
  16. Nov 8, 2013 #577 of 616
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    While your argument may have seemed reasonable when this thread started, it is clearly argued against by history now. 3D content hasn't become any easier to find and in the case of broadcast 3D, it has become a whole lot harder to find.

    It was commented in the OP that DIRECTV had four 3D channels and now they have two (and one is a PPV channel).

    A lack of compelling content isn't lost on shoppers. There's really no more content coming out now than there was back then.

    Glasses remain the order of the day and the economies of scale in manufacturing have not abated the cost as was theorized.

    What your arguing is akin to saying that you can go off-roading in a sedan but you have to acknowledge that most probably aren't going to do it as the reward isn't worth the wash job.
     
  17. Nov 8, 2013 #578 of 616
    722921

    722921 Legend

    236
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    My glasses were about 20 each...correction- $18.25
     
  18. Nov 9, 2013 #579 of 616
    BNUMM

    BNUMM Hall Of Fame

    1,079
    0
    Dec 23, 2006
    Just bought my 3-D TV. Love it. Didn't think I would ever buy a 3D TV. Bought a Samsung Smart TV. My 4 year old granddaughter loves the 3D.
     
  19. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Is it safe to assume that you're TV features passive 3D technology?
     

Share This Page