Viewers Nix 3DTV Glasses

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
3DTV is suffering minor setbacks in its march to become the next big revolution in TV viewing. High costs, lack of content and especially the 3D glasses may be slowing that march to a crawl.


3D TV set sales are poised to go mainstream in the next 12 months with manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and LG all rolling out sets. Sports broadcasters like ESPN launched its first 3D channel during this year's soccer World Cup.
Click to expand...
 
Its Expensive gives most people including myself headaches. You got to wear goofy glasses. And 10% of the population who have lazy eyes or astigmatism cannot even see 3D properly. It an over-priced gimmick that adds 35% to the cost of a TV. Manufacturers should focus on bringing costs down and making more TV's with LED backlighting. Everyone would love to buy a large 65 inch TV with LED back-lighting for under 2 grand. No one cares about 3D.
 
Yeah, there's a shocker... People get elective surgery NOT to wear glasses. It's a gimmick, will always be a gimmick and will not become the "norm" for generations, if ever.
 
why not just make a cover that goes over the screen, or build it right on top of the display panel? so no need for glasses? or would that not work?
 
The technology requires each eye to process a different color of the light. Hence you need a different lense in front of each eye. Can't have one coat or cover on the screen. When your brain "re-combines" the images it gives it the 3-D effect due to the stereoscopic nature of the image.
 
I oversimplified obviously with "each eye processing a different color." but principle of needing glasses still applies.
 
I like 3D MUCH better for games than movies or TV. The thing if its done right 3D in games is impressive but there's a lot of caveats. But I'll be gaming in 3D until I die or 3D dies.
 
Any 3D tech that requires you to wear anything to view it correclty..will ultimately fail once the "fad" wears off.
 
Evil_SPanKY said:
Any 3D tech that requires you to wear anything to view it correclty..will ultimately fail once the "fad" wears off.
Click to expand...

Yes. We seem to go through this about once per decade. There's nothing new here.

I'm excited about real 3D some day but I know that's at least 5-10 years off by even the most optimistic of estimates.
 
FYI there are TV's coming out with 3d where you don't need the glasses. Holy shit I just blew your mind.
 
Evil_SPanKY said:
Any 3D tech that requires you to wear anything to view it correclty..will ultimately fail once the "fad" wears off.
Click to expand...

I think to much is made of this issue at least with games, you need a controller to play a game for instance in most cases still. The issue is price of the glasses but sure it would better to not have to have the glasses but at the end of the day it is a trick afterall since screens are 2D. But real advances in holographic imaging are needed to make this technology advance no doubt.
 
Has anyone seen the 3D TV's that don't require glasses...or a 3DS?
I'm curious how the quality compares.
I don't like the idea of glasses, but games using it do look pretty cool. I bet those glasses would get old fast, though. Watching a movie for a couple hours is one thing, but going back to a game over and over? I'm not so sure about that.
 
I remember hearing similar statements of "this tech is dead" when Blu-Ray came out...

I'm a big proponent of the 3D movement, but I understand the complaints. The problem is, however, that most of these complaints come from people who have yet to try the technology. Working in a retail store, you get a ton of people, generally in the 45+ age range, who immediately recoil when you mention 3D TVs and 3D movies -- yet most have never actually tried it. When I offer to run a few demos, handing the person the glasses and telling them to step back a bit, the response is almost unanimously positive.

However, the biggest killer right now, at least by my observation, is the lack of content. Gamers have plenty of 3D ready stuff to work with, but for the average joe TV and movie watcher, there just isn't enough out there yet.
 
Would love a TV that used passive glasses (probably polarization, because LCDs already muck with polarization), and if I could get the filters added to my existing eyeglasses, that would be great.

That said, unless there's compelling content, I'm not going to spend the money to get a new TV until one of my current ones break.
 
Problem is, its not true 3D, its just a trick of the eyes. Give me 3D projected holograms, that will be true 3D, and that will catch on, no silly glasses.
 
toast0 said:
That said, unless there's compelling content.
Click to expand...

pr0n?

Evil_SPanKY said:
Any 3D tech that requires you to wear anything to view it correclty..will ultimately fail once the "fad" wears off.
Click to expand...

I dunno, when watching 3-D pr0n, you could consider them protective eyewear... :cool:

(be funny if something like shown in The Jerk happened with prolonged use of these glasses... Would give new meaning to "If you don't stop that, you'll go blind!")
 
I'm not going to jump into the 3D bandwagon until such TVs are out that do not require expensive and annoying 3D glasses. Some Japanese company recently said they already have 1 in the lab that doesn't require 3D glasses. Was it Toshiba? I don't remember.
 
BloodyIron said:
FYI there are TV's coming out with 3d where you don't need the glasses. Holy shit I just blew your mind.
Click to expand...

lol, yeah, and the new DS is probably gonna be pretty popular too, so maybe the galsses will go away and "3D" will stay

i personally couldn't care less at the moment, only saw avater in the theater and thought it was annoying, but maybe without the glasses and without the headaches, it'll be a keeper
 
I wonder what percentage of the "I hate the glasses" group says the same thing about sunglasses. I still don't understand the disdain so many people have about putting on some glasses to watch a 2 hour movie. I used to wear prescription glasses, and I had to wear them to watch any movie.

That being said, the real culprit keeping 3D from becoming more widely adopted is price. What did the companies think would happen when they decided to release overpriced 3D-ready TV's and charged $100+ for each pair of glasses? It's nonsense.
 
Working in a retail store, you get a ton of people, generally in the 45+ age range, who immediately recoil when you mention 3D TVs and 3D movies -- yet most have never actually tried it.
Click to expand...

Those people that "recoil" are people that thought 3D was a joke back when they used to see 3D movies at the drive-ins and theaters in the 60's and 70's. It's still a joke that the younger people haven't caught on to yet, I guess.
 
I'm with SXO. If the price of the TV was the same and extra glasses were $5 each, I'd consider it. As it stands, I'm happy with my plain old LCD TV.

Also, I think that manufacturers really overestimate the averga household's willingness to go buy a new TV. Most households have one "big" TV that they watch most content on, and most just dropped a wad of cash upgrading to an LCD. Those people aren't going to turn around less than a 1-3 years and drop even more to add 3D. Most people just don't have that kind of money.
 
ryken said:
I'm with SXO. If the price of the TV was the same and extra glasses were $5 each, I'd consider it. As it stands, I'm happy with my plain old LCD TV.
Click to expand...

You can't ask to pay below manuf cost for an item and expect new tech to come around in the future. (Let alone for your item to have any warranty)

ryken said:
Also, I think that manufacturers really overestimate the averga household's willingness to go buy a new TV. Most households have one "big" TV that they watch most content on, and most just dropped a wad of cash upgrading to an LCD. Those people aren't going to turn around less than a 1-3 years and drop even more to add 3D. Most people just don't have that kind of money.
Click to expand...

Most people don't have that kind of money because the economy tanked because people bought cars they don't need and can't afford to store in garages in homes they don't need and couldn't afford.

These manufs wouldn't be a striving business if the tendency wasn't for people to over-consume.

Until OTA tv went digital, I was still using a tv set with rabbit ears that I've had ever since before I was a teenager... The $40 box I bought for it died after less than six months of use. Things are purposely made not to last to make us over-consume.

Hell, my 1080p monitor/tv's picture sucks, so from my experience these flat panels tvs aren't made to last... (I have a five-yr warranty on it, but since I don't even use it, I haven't bothered to get it replaced yet, as the more I wait, possibly the better the replacement I get for it may be...)
 
3D has a long ways to go before it matures. there are other potential methods to implement it. Some use pixel level prisms to show the different images per eye. I think the 3D will ultimately have to be implemented at that level. no idea on what the viewing angle/distance will be though.
 
Tolyngee said:
You can't ask to pay below manuf cost for an item and expect new tech to come around in the future. (Let alone for your item to have any warranty)
Click to expand...

The current 3D glasses are NOT new tech. These have been around since the 80's (probably earlier). The Sega Master System had them back in the mid 80's with 3D games. Sega Scope 3-D Glasses They use the exact same tech as the current glasses but were wired and not wireless. The wireless portion is just an infrared receiver (the transmiter comes with the TV or Blu-ray player). There is absolutely no reason these should cost more than $30-40 a pair. another major problem is the incompatability of glasses between manufacturers, another artifical barier to keep costs high.

The direct view 3D tvs I have heard about so far have one major problem. The require you to be sitting in a precise location and not to move around to see the 3D effect. The use a technique similar to that 3D artwork they put on DVD covers sometimes. The Nintendo 3DS uses this same tech I believe.
 
A little off topic, but it got me thinking of that Sega arcade game Time Traveler?
Used to watch many people play the game but never tried it. Anyone remember it? Was it popular?
 
I don't see why you guys are hating on 3-D tech.
Would'nt be awesome if you had 50+ inch TV with Bose surrond sounds, then you turn off all the lights and wear the 3D glasses while playing COD.
It would be epic.

3D used to give me a headache but after a while I would get use to it.

and who cares if it looks dorky, you will be in your house wearing them. It's not like you're gonna wear them outside.
 
The 3DS uses head tracking. It detects your head in relation to the screen using a small camera, so when you move your head it changes the angle of the screen based on your veiwing angle. Which is also old tech (it was first used in some dating sim in japan I think). This only works for usually one single veiwer as the angle has to be calculated for each person. If you polarized peoples glasses you could set a particular stream for each person, but then youd be back to having glasses.

The glasses free TVs use prism type layouts to send images to the left and right eye. Which is why the precise position is needed. Also why it's stupid.
 
3D is one of those concepts/technologies that I think is neat but don't really care about until it's "perfect" or cheap. Perfect to me would mean no glasses (I've worn glasses most of my life, but to improve my vision and not to distort them, however cool the distortion might look) and a wide field of view. Cheap would mean no price differential between regular TVs and 3D-capable ones (this also goes for the Blu-ray players and other devices for content delivery); the glasses would have to cost no more than US$50, and even that's still pricey for families.

I wish those at the bleeding edge of this particular trend good luck and lots of stuff to watch, but I'll be sitting it out until manufacturers come through on the above.
 
I am with several others here, I have no desire to watch 3D anything at home until glasses are not needed to do it. I'll slap them on for a 3D movie once every couple months, but that is about it. Plus, unless the 3D is implemented properly, it usually looks far worse than the traditional 2D images.

Besides, I have 3 HDTV's in the house that I am really in any sort of a hurry to replace, unless I am somehow blown away by the technology and so far, I have not been.
 
BloodyIron said:
FYI there are TV's coming out with 3d where you don't need the glasses. Holy shit I just blew your mind.
Click to expand...

Those TVs require you to sit in the "sweet" spot. Not exactly ideal watching a football game with a bunch of people.
 
Assuming a family of 4 that adds $800 to the purchase of the TV unless you plan to fight over the glasses.

Also, there are kids / adult sized glasses, so you will be buying the kids glasses again, if it lasts that long.

Also not sure that the unknown long term effects on children would warrant the risk.
 
Why do they keep foisting this 3D crap on us? Every few years some company rolls out some 3D tech and hails it as the "Next" thing and by the next buying season it's gone. Seriously. The tech might be here, but the desire is not. Especially when you have to wear those stupid glasses.
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
Working in a retail store, you get a ton of people, generally in the 45+ age range, who immediately recoil when you mention 3D TVs and 3D movies -- yet most have never actually tried it. When I offer to run a few demos, handing the person the glasses and telling them to step back a bit, the response is almost unanimously positive.

However, the biggest killer right now, at least by my observation, is the lack of content. Gamers have plenty of 3D ready stuff to work with, but for the average joe TV and movie watcher, there just isn't enough out there yet.
Click to expand...

Lack of content is right, but, then again, you could be talking about any form of media.

Psychologically speaking, immersive technology requires interaction to be popular. Having said this, it would definitely be a big plus for gamers, but not so much for people who watch TV and movies, which is more voyeuristic in nature, Effects NEVER drive movies/television...stories and dialog do, though effects often help when the storiy's good...but it doesn't offer much even then.

Hey, I'M over 45, and, let me tell you, WE had 3D in the form of the red/green and polarized lenses. Red/Green sucked, but polarized was pretty good. It just wan't enough, not then, and won't be now. It's a fad, plain and simple. (Not talking about gaming.)

Besides, the majority of people actually don't see well enough for it to have an impact, and especially when it's so cost prohibitive. I know lots of people who would never have bought a flat-screen if tubes were still available and cheap, as well as the trend to go cable digital.

When something works for you, you stick with it. Sure, people are impressed, but, to quote W.C. Fields, "Women are like elephants; I like to look at 'em, but I wouldn't want to own one." That's 3-D right now.

Now, HOLOGRAPHY I'd do! I'd sell my car for it.

(I can afford the 3D tech, easy. I already have a 55" flat screen. But I'm not buying.)
 
SXO said:
I wonder what percentage of the "I hate the glasses" group says the same thing about sunglasses.
Click to expand...

I admit im not a fan of the idea of 3d glasses, i dont wear or own sunglasses and i should have normal glasses (short sighted) and i dont so i geuss i am one of those people :p

But really for me the problem is not the glasses, the problem is how many times 3d has been suppodily the next big thing then dissapeared again, so many decades so many failed attempts at 3d.
Plus the fact you are not supposed to use 3d when drunk and i assume tha applys to other drugs as well, (please dont hate/judge me for my life choices :rolleyes: ) i really but i love the idea of taking shrooms combined with 3d gaming
 
This whole 3D thing is such bs, I hate it. At least the way it currently "works" and probably the way it will work for quite some time. I'm tired of all the new movies coming out in "3D" because Avatar made a boat load of money. It was neat, I guess, but most movies do not spend the time or the effort to do it as well as what avatar showed off. That is the problem, the suits think they can cash in on people wanting to see something MORE in 3D than if it was not in 3D. Really? Make a shitty movie, spend a little on the effects, and BAM more money than if you invested more in the movie's quality. Yeah right, that won't work and obviously isn't, so you can hear the WTF moment in the executive offices. They thought they invented the new toaster that has LEDs and see through plastic, and when all the bling tards are done buying theirs and normal people keep buying the shit that is made better and works better, their shit flops. Who'd of thunk it! I want to go to the theater and go into the "big" screen (like 4 of the screens are much bigger) and not worry about glasses, watery eyes, and headaches. It sucks they tack this bs on as some after thought and ruin the theater for the anti-bling people.
 
guoinc said:
I don't see why you guys are hating on 3-D tech.
Would'nt be awesome if you had 50+ inch TV with Bose surrond sounds, then you turn off all the lights and wear the 3D glasses while playing COD.
It would be epic.
.
Click to expand...

LOL, great stuff...
 
DeathPrincess said:
The 3DS uses head tracking. It detects your head in relation to the screen using a small camera, so when you move your head it changes the angle of the screen based on your veiwing angle. Which is also old tech (it was first used in some dating sim in japan I think). This only works for usually one single veiwer as the angle has to be calculated for each person. If you polarized peoples glasses you could set a particular stream for each person, but then youd be back to having glasses.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, the 3DS uses autostereoscopy. It is "real" 3D, not the head tracking stuff. Separate images for each eye and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top