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

Is the future of 3D in doubt?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by thelucky1, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. Nov 4, 2010 #61 of 211
    hasan

    hasan Well-Known Member

    5,957
    54
    Sep 22, 2006
    Ogden, IA
    Forget the parties, the friends and all of that, I'm not wearing glasses to watch TV, period. As you noted, I'm not alone.

    3D requiring glasses is a white elephant in hiding. It will only be a niche market if it requires glasses. The only chance of full market penetration is glassless. Until then, it is expensive fun for some, and an albatross for most others.

    Then again, we do have P.T. Barnum to contend with.:)
     
  2. Nov 4, 2010 #62 of 211
    bsprague

    bsprague Legend

    230
    1
    Feb 24, 2007
    I had a "highly rated" 55" Samsung on the short buy list. A salesman at a TV store showed me a Sony that (to my eye) looked better. He "closed the deal" with all the 3D stuff for free. The 2D without the glasses was the best picture quality I could find last week. Next week there may be something better for cheaper, but I got a brilliant picture with no 2D sacrafice. 3D is fun entertainment for as long as it lasts.

    I can't wait for a car racing 3D video game. Bring on the headaches!
     
  3. Nov 4, 2010 #63 of 211
    bsprague

    bsprague Legend

    230
    1
    Feb 24, 2007
    It is not expensive when it comes for free with a new TV. The expensive part is the big LED HDTV! And I do mean free. Same TV from two sources after hard shopping was the same price. Where I bought, all the 3D stuff was free.

    You're right on the "fun" part.
     
  4. Nov 4, 2010 #64 of 211
    RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,500
    142
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    If you had a PS3 there's already a demo of a couple 3D racing games out there for free download.
     
  5. Nov 4, 2010 #65 of 211
    taz291819

    taz291819 Godfather

    385
    0
    Oct 18, 2006
    Why would it die-off due to 4k? You know they can do 3D in 4k, right? That's the best of both worlds.

    And James Cameron agrees with me, he thinks good auto-stereoscopic displays are 8-10 years out:

    http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/J...iscuss-Avatar-Blu-ray-and-the-3D-future.shtml
     
  6. Nov 4, 2010 #66 of 211
    joed32

    joed32 Hall Of Fame

    2,763
    29
    Jul 27, 2006
    I'll try giving it a few years but I'm 70 so not too many.
     
  7. Nov 4, 2010 #67 of 211
    bsprague

    bsprague Legend

    230
    1
    Feb 24, 2007
    Crap, there goes another $300 out of DW's grocery budget. But, anything for the grandkids goes!
     
  8. Nov 4, 2010 #68 of 211
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    He's been wrong on his predictions before.

    This is the same guy who said Blu Ray was questionable in terms of its adoption "until maybe 10 years down the road" - stated 2 years ago during the HD DVR/Blu Ray war near-ending.

    Last week, Blu Ray had about 20% of the disk movie media marketshare...he needs to stick with making movies, not forecasting the industry.
     
  9. Nov 4, 2010 #69 of 211
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Here's one that you'll likely see:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20018421-17.html

    It doesn't address the issue of Superbowl parties of more than two or three viewers.
     
  10. Nov 4, 2010 #70 of 211
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    From the early reports 4K would be a practical minimum for large format auto-stereoscopic 3D. The current thinking seems to be that A-S 3D will result in an apparent quartering of the resolution.
     
  11. Nov 4, 2010 #71 of 211
    Garry

    Garry Legend

    244
    0
    Jul 4, 2006
    There's nothing wrong with a Niche Product. While 3D isn't for everyone, there's no good reason to hope it dies/fails.
     
  12. Nov 4, 2010 #72 of 211
    Garry

    Garry Legend

    244
    0
    Jul 4, 2006
    They still have available bandwidth for new channels so 3D has nothing to do with adding new channels. It's a different issu.

    No one has to buy a 3D Tv and don't think it's right to hope the choice/chance to have 3D is gone.
     
  13. Nov 4, 2010 #73 of 211
    georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    I think adoption will be slow, but it will keep going. The theater owners think they have to do it to survive piracy, and have spent a ton of money on it. Too much to back off now, plus they're finding people will pay a premium (at least for now) to get in.

    Sports seems like the best case for TV, much as it was for HD in the early days.

    That I actually have two 3D-capable TVs (both 60"+) and everything I need to do 3D. . . . and haven't actually gotten around to doing it. . . both say something at this point.
     
  14. Nov 4, 2010 #74 of 211
    Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    I wasn't being Disparaging about it but just put it in that Category versus one that would be Universally acceptable to everyone.

    Heck, I may get one for one of my rooms just for Sports or whatever but I don't think you will see the News in 3D for a long time but I thought Football looked Great on it at last year's CES and I was Impressed but it is a Niche Product for those Special Events or Occasions when you want to watch it much as a Home Theater is.

    Most people that have Home Theater only use it occasionally for watching Movies or Special Events such as Football but have another regular TV for watching ordinary stuff such as Nightly News or whatever.

    Alos, there just is not alot of 3D Content out there right now but in a couple of years there will be enough for me to consider it.
     
  15. Nov 4, 2010 #75 of 211
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I think it is going to be more like 15 years.

    Remember that they already started shooting film and television in HD some time in the 80ties, and that the first HDTV station was launched in 1996 in a local market, after field-testing in 1994 and 1995 all across the U.S.

    In the 80ties there were several varieties of analog HD, (basically just a higher resolution of 4:3) and 16:9 became the standard in the early 90ties, along with it becoming a digital signal.

    Yet, it wasn't until 2005 or so that HD finally started to evolve.

    Also, the HD standard was agreed upon in the EARLY nineties so all TV makers would make the same sets..... no such standard exists yet.

    I think 3D has a LONG way to go, and I really don't want to sit in front of a TV with a pair of glasses on. Really.
     
  16. Nov 4, 2010 #76 of 211
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,399
    46
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Sure there is. Instead of completely getting over to HD distribution/production, ESPN is throwing money down the drain by buying 3D equipment, setting up 3D control rooms, and hiring 3D talent. 3D broadcasts are not exactly the same as their 2D counterparts and are shot differently and have different commentators, etc.

    Plus, DirecTV is spending time and money on putting 3D into their receivers when they could be working on the Tivo, improving performance, adding features that everyone could use, etc.
     
  17. Nov 4, 2010 #77 of 211
    georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    Umm, what? There are several 3D standards, just like there are several HD standards (720p, 1080i, 1080p).
     
  18. Nov 4, 2010 #78 of 211
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,399
    46
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    That's not exactly a valid comparison. 3D standards are more akin to NTSC/ATSC type standards than resolution, since most TVs don't support multiple standards.
     
  19. Nov 4, 2010 #79 of 211
    n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,773
    13
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    I don't personally believe that 3D programming and 3D TVs will catch on until these can be designed to not require special glasses to be worn. For a rare movie at a theater, that's one thing, and a novelty at that. People buying a 3D TV for home use, having to buy extra 3D glasses for the family members, and the fact of having to wear them, that's just not gonna happen. People just don't want it.

    I believe Toshiba has come up with a non-3D glasses design for a 3D TV but only a few thousand are going to be manufactured and only sold in Asia. If the technology works without having to wear 3D glasses, we may see this become popular in several years. I am sure the other major players (Panasonic, LG, Sony, Samsung, etc.) are working on 3D technology that will not require 3D glasses.

    HDTV is a bit different.. HDTV took off when the pricing for sets became reasonable to a large group of people.. no special glasses needed. Once you had the HDTV and HD programming, you were hooked. Just add HD programming to the HDTV and away you go.
     
  20. Nov 4, 2010 #80 of 211
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    That seems to do a good job of presenting the conventional wisdom on this topic, and the views I've heard personally from 90% of the folks that I've discussed it with over the past year.

    For that very reason, I've been closely monitoring the glasses-free technology, and look forward to seeing its progress at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.
     

Share This Page