3D TV Is No Hit With Viewers

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Guess what? 3D television is still a flop. I have no idea why they thought 3D TV would do any better than 3D movies but, there you have it.

Orlins' problem is that fewer than 115,000 American homes are tuned into 3-D channels at any one time. That's less than a hundredth of the 20.2 million-strong audience that saw television's highest-rated show "NCIS" this week. 3-D viewership is so tiny that The Nielsen Co.'s methods are unable to capture any meaningful data about viewers' programming preferences.
Click to expand...
 
The idea seems interesting but the whole process just gives me massive headaches.
 
Lots of TV companies lost a lot of market value on this and projections based upon it.
 
I have a nice 3DTV, and even though I like the 3D effects, most of the time I just don't want to go though the ordeal of putting the glasses on.

Puts a real barrier for a family watching a movie as a social event.
 
I for one enjoy a good 3d movie. I have a 3d tv, 3d bluray player, and a few 3d movies. However most 3d movies offer no benefit whatsoever. That being said, the 3d movies that are well done draw you into the movie more and add to the experience.

On 3d tv, I watched some of the olympics, but the resolution is so low to begin with. When you then do top/bottom and lower the vertical even further, it looks like crap. I would rather watch something in HD 2D than low res 3D. The only way I would consider 3d tv is if the resolution was not altered.
 
I didn't know they broadcast 3D. Huh. I have a 3Dtv an play PS3 games in 3D and watch 3D films, but that is about it. If I had cable, I'd probably watch 3D as well. Some 3D is better than others, but I want to use what I paid for!
 
Ugh. My parents bought a 3D TV. The only reason they bought it was to show off to everyone during the Holiday parties. It was such a huge waste. My dad has a PhD and is one of the smartest people I know. He's also not unknowledgeable when it comes to tech. Yet somehow... those marketing bastards got to him.
 
3-D channels? That shit costs extra (at least in my area). I think even HBO is over priced what makes you think I would pay for 3-D channels.
 
Well if the 3D channels were as easy to access as say the HD channels maybe there would be more viewer-ship. Locally with comcast, they stick all the 3d channels up in the 700s and have no way to navigate through the menus to find them other than knowing that they are there. I like watching espn in 3d but if i didn't know that it was there I would never turn it on. That and we only get like 7 3d channels. Give me more options.
 
For one, the Neilson system needs to be thrown out. It's not a good system to track what shows are being viewed.

Second, 3D TV won't really catch on until there's a good 3D TV that doesn't require glasses, and even then a majority of people out there got their first HDTV not to long ago. They're not going to throw them away for a 3D TV.
 
Far too many people bought into the whole marketing gimmick of 3D TV. It would be one thing if everyone was clamoring for 3D TV, which they are not. Once the wow factor has passed and the headaches kick in, people realize that a shitty movie is still a shitty movie, regardless of how many 'Ds' are involved.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Ugh. My parents bought a 3D TV. The only reason they bought it was to show off to everyone during the Holiday parties. It was such a huge waste. My dad has a PhD and is one of the smartest people I know. He's also not unknowledgeable when it comes to tech. Yet somehow... those marketing bastards got to him.
Click to expand...

Part of may be that many companies reserve their best for the TVs that also happen to have 3D. I picked up a Panny DT37 (That happened to have 3D) because it has a gorgeous screen.
 
Ruoh said:
Part of may be that many companies reserve their best for the TVs that also happen to have 3D. I picked up a Panny DT37 (That happened to have 3D) because it has a gorgeous screen.
Click to expand...

Err, L37DT30
 
Shocker...

Quite a few people don't seem to notice the flicker, though. I wonder is it their eyes or their brains. Probably the latter.
 
ballistic90 said:
For one, the Neilson system needs to be thrown out. It's not a good system to track what shows are being viewed.

Second, 3D TV won't really catch on until there's a good 3D TV that doesn't require glasses, and even then a majority of people out there got their first HDTV not to long ago. They're not going to throw them away for a 3D TV.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Nothing more than a marketing gimmick with the current technology IMO
 
I've viewed it a little, but it largely comes down to available/timely content on Comcast. Unless I want to subscribe to a premium channel (like HBO), I essentially get two 3D channels. I get ESPN 3D and and Comcast's 3D channel. The ESPN channel largely consists of old soccer matches and old Winter X games coverage. They hardly ever have current games on it, so it mostly becomes a technology testbed/curiosity than something I would want to regularly watch. The Comcast 3D channel largely consists of other canned shows that they repeat 5 times a day. Their On Demand channel also has some 3D content but that's canned content like "Dinosaur 3D adventure" or something similar. Not exactly compelling stuff.

Out of curiosity, I watched a little bit of the Olympics in 3D but the fact that all of it was on a 8-24 hour tape delay compared to the normal 2D channels was a major disinsentive for spending too much time over there. Let me see the stuff live for Pete's sake.

The one nice turn in all of it, though, was that I was able to get Comcast to upgrade my cable box/dvr. That took a couple of days. Their online techs had dealt with 3D so little that they didn't really know what was going on. The were just sure that my few year old Motorola box was capable of showing those channels (after they registered it to do so) which was not the case. Apparently it could only do MPEG-2 and some of their 3D channels force MPEG-4 for compatibility reasons (though I could watch the on demand 3D with the old box). While the old DVR only had a 160GB hard drive (which quickly filled if I was recording HD content), the new box came with a 500 GB hard drive. So... but pushing them for 3D, I got more storage.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Ugh. My parents bought a 3D TV. The only reason they bought it was to show off to everyone during the Holiday parties. It was such a huge waste. My dad has a PhD and is one of the smartest people I know. He's also not unknowledgeable when it comes to tech. Yet somehow... those marketing bastards got to him.
Click to expand...

Well the reality is this, almost every new model TV on the market has the option of 3D. It's very hard to get a nice model TV now that is considered to be a current like and not have this feature.

That being said, did they already have a nice HDTV and were convinced to upgrade for just the 3D? If so then yea, they were buy into the marketing a bit.
 
The issue is CONTENT. There isn't any.
I purchased my 3D TV for gaming.
I think think this is also linked to the weak sales of Blu-Ray DVD players. For most people that is the only way they would view 3D content.
The glasses thing, Meh. My set uses Passive 3D, you can use the leftover 3D glass from the movie theater.
As far as regular television; there isn't a single TV show I would sit still for long enough to watch. GARBAGE.
 
Standard HD is good for now, 4K might catch on, but when DVDs still look accceptable on a 100" screen I think that there may be more in the way of refinements to current technology rather than folks making the jump to 3D. Especially with 1080p screens so affordable ( projectors and flat panels alike)
 
ol1bit said:
I have a nice 3DTV, and even though I like the 3D effects, most of the time I just don't want to go though the ordeal of putting the glasses on.

Puts a real barrier for a family watching a movie as a social event.
Click to expand...

haha, it's like watching in theater while laying down your couch, honestly there is no point of it specially when you're watching comedy shows. 3D might boom if they can get glass free 3D affordable and have least 50% of channels in 3D. well than again (in near future) most of the [H]users would buy the 4k resolution tv rather than 1080p 3D tv.
 
Derfman said:
Well the reality is this, almost every new model TV on the market has the option of 3D. It's very hard to get a nice model TV now that is considered to be a current like and not have this feature.

That being said, did they already have a nice HDTV and were convinced to upgrade for just the 3D? If so then yea, they were buy into the marketing a bit.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the current market, but this was back in December of 2011. They also got a blu-ray player for a bunch of 3D blu rays that they bought and a 3D camera to take 3D photos...
 
3d won't catch on till the barrier to entry are removed. right not it's a horrible process. first you have to find something to watch but you don't have many choices. and then you have to put on the dam glasses but you already wear glasses so they don't fit well and you need a pair for your friend but... your glasses aren't charged so you charge them but now they won't sync so you reset them and they still won't sync and... omfg all I wanted to do was watch tv screw this ill just watch it normal .
 
i am still waiting for the 4k displays and 4k monitors before getting a new tv and monitor.
 
I just wont wear the glasses. The the exact opposite of what i want my home lounge life to be.
 
I don't think 3d will actually b e adopted until it can be done without goofy glasses. Like the new 4k resolution sets that can supposedly give the same effect without the stupid glasses.
 
wtiger said:
I don't think 3d will actually b e adopted until it can be done without goofy glasses. Like the new 4k resolution sets that can supposedly give the same effect without the stupid glasses.
Click to expand...

This. Glasses-free 3D would get me interested. Otherwise, no thanks!
 
I bought my Panasonic plasma 3D Tv last year around this time. I didn't get glasses until the spring, and luckily I only bought two pairs.

I enjoy 3D movies at the theater the few times a spring the extra money, but I just can't get into it at home. I mainly have watched ESPN 3D, but sports in 3D is just weird. The playing surface, whether a field or a court, usually is very flat, and the players look like they came from a kids popup book. I attend a lot of sporting events live, and 3D sports looks nothing like that.

I do have a 3d Bluray player, but I have only purchased one 3D movie, and it just didn't do much for me. And for whatever reason, active glasses do make my head hurt.

I am still glad I bought a 3D tv for the better quality, but I can't see families watching 3D on any kind of regular basis in the future.
 
It seems like the market wants to shove 3D crap down our throats periodically and it always flops. The requirement for 3D glases and the poor implementation of the technology make it a no go. Honestly it always looks like a damn pop up book to me. Something which is clearly 2D trying to stand out on another plane. I guess whatever illusion it uses to work doesn't fly too well with my brain or eyes. It's always done to varying degrees of success but I've never really liked it.
 
Avatar was about the only movie that actually made sense of 3d and used it CORRECTLY. To give things depth and not just as a "gimmick" like most movies did after avatar, throwing crap out at you.

Avatar was like stepping into a whole other movie experience then any movie I had watched before that, it seems only Cameron had the sense of how to use it properly.

Avatar 2 I intend to see in 3d as well for the same reason.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
I haven't looked at the current market, but this was back in December of 2011. They also got a blu-ray player for a bunch of 3D blu rays that they bought and a 3D camera to take 3D photos...
Click to expand...

Oh yea, that is quite excessive... o_O;;
 
Honestly, I don't mind 3D when it's done correctly, but I just don't see it being done well on TV at all. I have a 3DS that I play on when I'm on the train and I like it a lot, but even on some of those games you can see when someone doesn't put in the effort to make it work. The 3D effect isn't set up right and you get double images and that other crap.

That, and TV just isn't worth putting up with 3D stuff for. I don't like most TV in the first place, and even if I had a show I had to watch, it wouldn't be available in 3D. It'll be stuck in the "chicken or the egg" situation, where people won't buy 3D TVs until there's more content, and companies won't make more 3D content because there's not enough people with 3D TVs.
 
Dan_D said:
It seems like the market wants to shove 3D crap down our throats periodically and it always flops. The requirement for 3D glases and the poor implementation of the technology make it a no go. Honestly it always looks like a damn pop up book to me. Something which is clearly 2D trying to stand out on another plane. I guess whatever illusion it uses to work doesn't fly too well with my brain or eyes. It's always done to varying degrees of success but I've never really liked it.
Click to expand...

I agree. The illusion just doesn't work well on me. Clearly I'm not seeing what other people who like the technology see, I wouldn't be wishing that 3D just dies in a fucking fire already and TV/movie producers/directors/studios just give up on the shit already.

The sooner they give up on 3D (again) or improve it to something that doesn't look like shit, the happier I'll be.
 
Almost no programming benefits from it. IMO, 3DTV's are really only good for gaming, and those glasses are still annoying.
Maybe someday whenever we get it without the glasses and limited viewing range it'll finally be worthwhile.
 
I enjoy 3D movies as well as gaming, but content just isn't there. And when it is, to be perfectly honest, I have a hard time giving it my 100% undivided attention. So if I want to mess with my phone or tablet (or even the PC), I have to take the glasses off to really use said devices.

With that said, I'm still glad that I got a 3D TV. I do use it every once in a while, but if they could do away with the glasses, it would be a better experience at home IMHO.
 
I'm thinking of getting rid of my current TV since it's 3 years old, and it's the wrong aspect ratio (16:10 instead of 16:9) since they up and decided to change it just after I bought one....

While shopping around and comparing tv's, i've noticed in the 47+ range the prices have really come down, so why not grab a 3D one when it's only $800 now for a decent brand / screen (lg, panasonic or samsung).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top