3D TV......Is it just a gimmicky fad or here to stay??

[donfm]

I've been looking at new televisions recently and frankly I'm not impressed with 3D. The picture to me looks sort of gimmicky. It's not true 3D but is sort of visually layered to give the impression of a 3D picture in my opinion. I can't really imagine watching a football game or something in that it would give me a headache I think. And wearing glasses is a pain not to mention the glasses are expensive. And you need to buy glasses for everybody who watches.

The Electronics companies are marketing 3D hard in Blu Ray and Televisions. But do you think 3D is here to stay or will it burn out once the novelty has passed or until they develop a truly lifelike 3D image????

 

[Sephire]

Its a fad.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nope could care less. Never looks good and always fake.

 

[donfm]

My thoughts exactly. I have looked at a lot of 3D sets in the stores through glasses and I have yet to see one that looks lifelike. It reminds me of those old Viewmasters we had as a kid where you put in the round disk and it changes slides supposed to look like 3D. 🙂 Unless they make some kind of drastic improvement I'm not sold on this new technology at all. 🙂
Heck if you have a large family the expensive glasses might cost as much as the tv.

 

[Syborg1211]

I used to think the same from my experiences with watching 3d at movie theaters.

However, now that I have a Samsung 3D tv with a PS3 as the 3D blu-ray player, I've found it highly depends on the media you are looking at. There are a lot of "3D" movies out there that are really 2D converted to 3D. I've found that when you view the few true 3D things out there, you will be greatly impressed. I have a few IMAX 3d blu-rays, and they are absolutely stunning. Everyone I have shown these 3d blu-rays to have been blown away.

That said, finding true 3D media is tough right now. 90% of what's available are animated movies which, even if they employ the 3D perfectly, still aren't real pictures so you won't ever "buy into" the 3D. The IMAX movies are real pictures which makes you able to get a pretty high level of immersion into them.

Playstation Network has some good 3D stuff available. I watched the trailer for their Sports Illustrated Swimsuit shoot in 3D, and it really felt like the girls were right there posing for you!

Overall I am quite pleased with the purchase and am eagerly awaiting for more media to become available in 3D.

PS- 3D Gaming is pretty freaking awesome too. Having depth of perception in games like Top Spin (tennis) makes the game a blast to play.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I used to think it was a fad (and sure is to some extent). I was in the market for new TV and decided to upgrade to 3D for 300 bucks or so (46" LEDs).

New Samsung has been great so far. I haven't watched any REAL 3D movies YET (only Cars2 3D and Toy Story 3) and even those have impressed me. It's different and it's pretty cool when done right. I really want to see real 3D movie though. Is there a list of them?

As for gaming. I find it ok for TVs (haven't tried 120hz monitors). In BF3 TVs only play at 24hz or you have to run 720p at 60hz. I do NOT run these....bleh.

I leave BF3 on 1080p and just use TV 3D converter (I also put on 3D in game options). It adds depth and certainly improves gaming IMO.

Past few days I have really enjoyed both Gaming and Movies. 3D convert of Broadcast works pretty well too.

So far 3D has mostly added depth to my Gaming, Movies and Cable experience (just remember NONE have been REAL 3D movie). Things don't really jump out at you (although they do come out a little) it just feels like you have a window with a world inside of it (like a hole in the wall).

I enjoy it and certainly don't regret my purchase.

 

[donfm]

I used to think it was a fad (and sure is to some extent). I was in the market for new TV and decided to upgrade to 3D for 300 bucks or so (46" LEDs).

New Samsung has been great so far. I haven't watched any REAL 3D movies YET (only Cars2 3D and Toy Story 3) and even those have impressed me. It's different and it's pretty cool when done right. I really want to see real 3D movie though. Is there a list of them?

As for gaming. I find it ok for TVs (haven't tried 120hz monitors). In BF3 TVs only play at 24hz or you have to run 720p at 60hz. I do NOT run these....bleh.

I leave BF3 on 1080p and just use TV 3D converter (I also put on 3D in game options). It adds depth and certainly improves gaming IMO.

Past few days I have really enjoyed both Gaming and Movies. 3D convert of Broadcast works pretty well too.

So far 3D has mostly added depth to my Gaming, Movies and Cable experience (just remember NONE have been REAL 3D movie). Things don't really jump out at you (although they do come out a little) it just feels like you have a window with a world inside of it (like a hole in the wall).

I enjoy it and certainly don't regret my purchase.

Well the good thing is getting 3D equipment is at a price point where just about anyone can afford it now. So price is really not the determining factor. I read an article where they are coming out with a new 3D BluRay standard. Just makes me wonder if all today's stuff is going to even work in a year or so.....

 

[Vdubchaos]

Well the good thing is getting 3D equipment is at a price point where just about anyone can afford it now. So price is really not the determining factor. I read and article where they are coming out with a new 3D BluRay standard. Just makes me wonder if all today's stuff is going to even work in a year or so.....

everything is outdated before you know it.

My main usage will be Broadcast and 90% of the time I won't have my glasses on.

 

[mmntech]

To me 3DTV has two hurdles to overcome

1. Glasses
Who wants to put on a accessories to watch TV? Especially when the glasses are expensive and there's no standard as of yet. For 3DTV to be widely adopted, glasses-free displays will have to become widely available. BUT, they have another major problem. Parallax displays have a poor viewing angle. You have to be directly facing the screen.

So in other words, 3D is all about trade offs. Poor view angle versus the inconvenience of glasses. Solutions to this issue are still a ways off.

2. Broadcasting
To shoot in 3D, you need 3D compatible cameras. Broadcast cameras run upwards of $30,000. Plus you need the proper control room equipment, compatible computers and storage, non-linear editor support, and train staff how to use it all. It can get quite costly. That's why the HD transition was so slow. A lot of 3D content you see now was shot for a different medium (cinema) or comes from companies with deep pockets, such as the NFL. (As a side note, working for the NFL is any broadcasters wet dream. Their broadcast division likes to spend money for the best toys.)

Basically, 3D is just too costly and adoption isn't happening fast enough to warrant spending money at this time.

Then there's a third issue.

3. The content
3D content is shot gimmicky. I've only seen two things that actually make good use of the new dimensions. That's Avatar and Super Mario 3D Land. Both use 3D to create depth through a diorama effect. It makes the scene feel more realistic. Having things pop out of the screen isn't. Worst of all, it can be jarring. When the first 3D fad rolled around in the 50s and 60s, the popup effect was used ad nauseam. Good 3D, the viewer shouldn't realize they're watching a 3D film, as the illusion will appear naturally done.

It's hard to justify spending the money on gimmicky content. It has to really add something to the experience.

 

[Vdubchaos]

To me 3DTV has two hurdles to overcome

1. Glasses
Who wants to put on a accessories to watch TV? Especially when the glasses are expensive and there's no standard as of yet. For 3DTV to be widely adopted, glasses-free displays will have to become widely available. BUT, they have another major problem. Parallax displays have a poor viewing angle. You have to be directly facing the screen.

Not True. There is 2 standards. Regular glasses that you get at the theater and ones that need batteries (Passive?).

Glasses for my Samsung were $25 bucks each (and 2 came with my TV).

Not expensive if you ask me

 

[gevorg]

I prefer normal 1080p. Every time I try 3D, it looks too blurry, messy and awkward. Maybe the 3D tech will improve in a future, but in the meantime, it will be just a useless gimmick to me.

 

[BD2003]

It's unquestionably here to stay. The tech will remain in the TVs since its pretty simple to implement. The real question is content.

Every game will probably support it starting with the next gen of consoles. That'll be the lions share of content. CGI movies will also universally support it. It's far, far easier to render CGI in 3D cause well....it's already 3D, it's just a matter of displaying it as such.

Movies and TV are another story altogether. Avatar looked great in 3D but it was conceived from the start in 3D. All these conversions just aren't cutting it, and it's seemingly in a death spiral. People don't want to watch shitty 3D conversions, so they're losing interest in general.

So for a large consumer base...it may very well go away. But not fully - the standards and tech are in place. It wont reach universal status, but it'll be around for good. Gaming will lead the charge.

And as a 3DTV owner, frankly, the tech needs to get better. Too many compromises right now.

 

[donfm]

It's unquestionably here to stay. The tech will remain in the TVs since its pretty simple to implement. The real question is content.

Every game will probably support it starting with the next gen of consoles. That'll be the lions share of content. CGI movies will also universally support it. It's far, far easier to render CGI in 3D cause well....it's already 3D, it's just a matter of displaying it as such.

Movies and TV are another story altogether. Avatar looked great in 3D but it was conceived from the start in 3D. All these conversions just aren't cutting it, and it's seemingly in a death spiral. People don't want to watch shitty 3D conversions, so they're losing interest in general.

So for a large consumer base...it may very well go away. But not fully - the standards and tech are in place. It wont reach universal status, but it'll be around for good. Gaming will lead the charge.

And as a 3DTV owner, frankly, the tech needs to get better. Too many compromises right now.

I read an article somewhere that said the response to 3D has been very underwhelming thus far from the public. But you couldn't tell that from going to an electronics store. 3D everything. I personally believe if there isn't some major improvement it will just go away in it's present form. It seems to be more of a novelty to me than an accepted technology at the moment. I can only speak for myself but unless it becomes more "natural" to watch I'm not buying in to the hype....🙂.

 

[KentState]

I was pretty much convinced that 3d was a gimmick and didn't buy into initially. When looking for a new tv, I landed on the Panny VT30 which had 3d standard along with a pair of glasses. I picked a second set up for $75 and my fiancee and myself starting watching movies. Well, between Avatar, Captain America, Thor, and some animated movies we became a huge fan. Watching the Hubble movie was also very impressive. Some games do a great job, while others have issues like crosshairs not being in the correct dimension.

I will say that playing Uncharted 3 in 3d with full surround sound is pretty impressive. I spent about a two hours getting into the game last night and it was the most immersive experience I've had in a game.

 

[BD2003]

I read an article somewhere that said the response to 3D has been very underwhelming thus far from the public. But you couldn't tell that from going to an electronics store. 3D everything. I personally believe if there isn't some major improvement it will just go away in it's present form. It seems to be more of a novelty to me than an accepted technology at the moment. I can only speak for myself but unless it becomes more "natural" to watch I'm not buying in to the hype....🙂.

I certainly think there will be a whole host of people who cease to care. Especially if you're not a gamer, I just don't see the content on the horizon. It really does seem like people just don't care anymore, and no one has outdone avatar yet.

But you won't be able to buy a non-3D capable TV in a year or two. Once it ceases to be a selling point that they can push, its just in by default. Its not like there are real non-HDTV options anymore for those who were fine with SD. 3D movies/TV shows might be a fad....but 3DTVs are absolutely here to stay. The advertising will just go away. They'll just cease to be called 3DTVs and just become regular ol TVs before too long.

 

[BD2003]

I was pretty much convinced that 3d was a gimmick and didn't buy into initially. When looking for a new tv, I landed on the Panny VT30 which had 3d standard along with a pair of glasses. I picked a second set up for $75 and my fiancee and myself starting watching movies. Well, between Avatar, Captain America, Thor, and some animated movies we became a huge fan. Watching the Hubble movie was also very impressive. Some games do a great job, while others have issues like crosshairs not being in the correct dimension.

I will say that playing Uncharted 3 in 3d with full surround sound is pretty impressive. I spent about a two hours getting into the game last night and it was the most immersive experience I've had in a game.

Im def looking forward to uncharted 3 in 3D when I get a chance. Motorstorm apocalypse also had great 3D.

 

[donfm]

I certainly think there will be a whole host of people who cease to care. Especially if you're not a gamer, I just don't see the content on the horizon. It really does seem like people just don't care anymore, and no one has outdone avatar yet.

But you won't be able to buy a non-3D capable TV in a year or two. Once it ceases to be a selling point that they can push, its just in by default. Its not like there are real non-HDTV options anymore for those who were fine with SD. 3D movies/TV shows might be a fad....but 3DTVs are absolutely here to stay. The advertising will just go away. They'll just cease to be called 3DTVs and just become regular ol TVs before too long.

I think you pretty much nailed it. I think 3D will just become another "mode" button on the TV menu to play with unless something improves. Apparently the 3D technology doesn't cost much to implement because the difference between a 3D and a non 3D TV is not prohibitive in cost. In fact pretty soon I think you'll be hard pressed to find a manufacturer that makes a non 3D tv. But as you said it won't be a huge factor just another thing to play with. Seems the cost has been transferred from the TV itself to the glasses. I've seen them anywhere from $30 a pair to $180 a pair. I'm not sure what justifies the huge cost differential. I personally think if the cost of glasses comes down more people may give it a try just for the heck of it.

 

[KentState]

...I've seen them anywhere from $30 a pair to $180 a pair. I'm not sure what justifies the huge cost differential. I personally think if the cost of glasses comes down more people may give it a try just for the heck of it.

The cost difference is the technology used. Active glasses switch each lens on/off a 60hz in sync with the tv. This allows each eye to receive a 1080p picture giving a higher resolution. The passive glasses which are cheaper employee a different color filter for each lens. Because of this, each eye only gets half the resolution since the image for each lens is drawn at the same time. I have the newer Panny glasses and they ran about $70 each and are barely noticeable when watching a movie. They last many hours and the charge time is maybe 20-30 minutes.

 

[BD2003]

I think you pretty much nailed it. I think 3D will just become another "mode" button on the TV menu to play with unless something improves. Apparently the 3D technology doesn't cost much to implement because the difference between a 3D and a non 3D TV is not prohibitive in cost. In fact pretty soon I think you'll be hard pressed to find a manufacturer that makes a non 3D tv. But as you said it won't be a huge factor just another thing to play with. Seems the cost has been transferred from the TV itself to the glasses. I've seen them anywhere from $30 a pair to $180 a pair. I'm not sure what justifies the huge cost differential. I personally think if the cost of glasses comes down more people may give it a try just for the heck of it.

At that's exactly the thing. It's not much of an added cost at all. On the TV side, with active tech, it's pretty much all in the glasses. How good it ends up looking depends on the TV as usual, but the base capability is basically there for every modern TV. It's all in the software. The passive side requires a little more tech in the TV, but it's basically a fancy screen coating.

I dunno if it'll ever be as ubiquitous as HD, at least not until the glasses go away. But it'll be an option for people to enjoy. It'll only get better. Right now we're still in the phase where the majority of 3D is poorly made. That may or may not change with movies, but with gaming it's going to get a hell of a lot better.

I don't think most people have a problem with 3D itself, they had a problem with the sacrifices needed to view it. When those things go away, it'll be appreciated.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Might be interesting when next gen game consoles use the tech.

Till then I could give two shits. Story matters and that is where Hollywood is failing.

 

[donfm]

The cost difference is the technology used. Active glasses switch each lens on/off a 60hz in sync with the tv. This allows each eye to receive a 1080p picture giving a higher resolution. The passive glasses which are cheaper employee a different color filter for each lens. Because of this, each eye only gets half the resolution since the image for each lens is drawn at the same time. I have the newer Panny glasses and they ran about $70 each and are barely noticeable when watching a movie. They last many hours and the charge time is maybe 20-30 minutes.

Ok that brings up a rookie question for me the non 3D savvy person. Can you use any type 3D glasses with any 3D TV or are the glasses proprietary to each manufacturer or each television type? That is can you use any Panasonic 3D glasses with any Samsung 3D TV or any other brand?

 

[jhansman]

If you have normal binocular vision, your non-media view of the world is 3-D all the time, right? So, why not leave visual media two dimensional? Isn't that really what makes it unique? Jus' askin'.

 

[BD2003]

Ok that brings up a rookie question for me the non 3D savvy person. Can you use any type 3D glasses with any 3D TV or are the glasses proprietary to each manufacturer or each television type? That is can you use any Panasonic 3D glasses with any Samsung 3D TV or any other brand?

You can't, because they use proprietary synchronization signals. You can however, buy universal glasses that can adapt to any brand.

 

[BD2003]

If you have normal binocular vision, your non-media view of the world is 3-D all the time, right? So, why not leave visual media two dimensional? Isn't that really what makes it unique? Jus' askin'.

Because its unique 2Dness isnt the reason people consume visual media. Its just a technical limitation that weve grown accustomed to. If flawless 3D was possible from the start, 2D would be a joke. It'd be like going from color to black and white.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Because its 2Dness isnt the reason people consume visual media. If flawless 3D was possible from the start, 2D would be a joke. It'd be like going from color to black and white.

Well said.