3D TV Is No Hit With Viewers

LordCalin said:
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).
Click to expand...

Keep your eyes open for plasmas. I got a 43" Samsung 3D plasma around a year ago for like 450 IIRC. Don't use the 3D much, but for the price couldn't go wrong. It's a great bedroom TV
 
DeathPrincess said:
You mean 8k! 4k is a stepping stone to the real standard, 4k is a tween level thats kind of pointless (think 720p).
Click to expand...

This is true. Hardest part will be coming up with a source media that can store the content plus be able to stream the data to the TV.

3D sounds great, but when it comes down to it, it's more hassle than entertaining. It should be fairly easy and transparent. It's just 3D, kind of like HD is HD. It's just there (optional, of course). No glasses, no set up, no special location in the room.
 
As far as I know 3D cable isn't even available in Canada. If it is it's bundled with something truly retarded like everything else. Right now I have about 130 channels. Unfortunately most of them are either time zone differences (NYC and LA/Seattle or Toronto and Vancouver and Local) or just the SD/HD broadcasts of those same channels. Actually unique channels... I doubt it even hits much above 40 and that's including stupid stuff like shopping channels and specialty news. HBO is outrageous up here - 30/month! We get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Global, CTV, and CTV in HD. HD package (15/month) includes some things like Discovery HD, HD sports channels, and a few other things in addition to more time zone stuff. Canadian TV services are terrible tho and expensive.
 
ZodaEX said:
How can you hear 3D? I thought you saw it?
Click to expand...

With this!

2dkn8nc.png
 
For as long as it requires glasses it will always be a gimmick. It seemingly resurfaces every 10 years. This shit has been pushed on to the public since atleast the 1950's.
 
i enjoy my 3dtv and own a pretty good collection of 3d films. The only problem with 3d movies are that besides a handful and mainly CGI animation or Transformers. The 3d Films are a flop. The hyped up 3d effects of avengers were a bore at the theatres and at home. There were only a few cool moments. It's also a hassle to have enough 3d glasses for people. I own 4 sets and when its more than a family affair somebody usually will be the odd man out.
 
I have a 3D TV and find it hit and miss. In games and movies where the setting is noce and bright 3D looks great and I find adds to the experience. The problem lies in darker scenes. The colors are really dull and crosstalk is very noticeable especially in games. Uncharted 3 had fantastic 3D effects however every time the setting was dark I turned of 3D and played in 2D.
 
I will add this to my original post.... I started with 3D stuff in 1988 with an Atari ST, paid $300 for just the LCD glasses connected via a wire. Had to code my own 3D stuff! I LOVE 3D! It is not hype, just not as easy to sit down and watch a movie with popcorn or pizza and the family. Sigh...
 
I didnt even know there were 3D TV channels up until reading this post.....

Anyways, I enjoy good quality 3D movies at the theater, it can be cool. However, out of the 5 HDTVs in our house, 0/5 of them are 3D capable.
 
PornoSatan said:
For as long as it requires glasses it will always be a gimmick. It seemingly resurfaces every 10 years. This shit has been pushed on to the public since atleast the 1950's.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've noticed the same thing. It needs to die already. Ditch the glasses or don't bother.
 
Can we call this episode of the 3DTV fad over now? I mean, it was gimmicky from the start, but I know that these things need to run their course. I just hope it's done... until the next time, 3-5 years down the road.
 
Madoc said:
Can we call this episode of the 3DTV fad over now? I mean, it was gimmicky from the start, but I know that these things need to run their course. I just hope it's done... until the next time, 3-5 years down the road.
Click to expand...

I wish other fads like tablets would go first. It's optional, if you don't like it, don't buy it? :p
 
Please, please let the whole 3D craze die a brutal messy death so we don't have to even hear about it again for another decade.
 
I have a Panasonic VT30 3D set...I barely watch any 3D content on it though...I definitely enjoy 3D at home MUCH more then the theater for some strange reason (the 3D effects look better on my home screen) but it's still a niche market that will never grow beyond that...but it just so happens that the best 2D sets also come with 3D so you can just think of it as an additional feature
 
ZodaEX said:
How can you hear 3D? I thought you saw it?
Click to expand...

Sounds great in theory. It's a good idea when you hear about it, but once you see it implemented, it's just ho-hum. Cool, but nothing that is jaw dropping awesome or a must have.
 
I'd buy a 3D TV only because all the best TVs are 3D capable.

Other then that, I can't see the 3D effect so it means zero to me.
 
I refuse to pay for 3D, and it's primarily because I only have one good eye, and this renders the entire effect useless.

I see a huge push from the companies who want to market it, but not so much from the consumer. You can't just watch 3D, you need glasses in most cases to enjoy it. Try wearing a pair of glasses over glasses you need to wear in the first place. Really awkward and uncomfortable.

Go to a movie theater and 3D costs extra.

Even if I had two functional eyes, I don't get the feeling there's anything I'm missing without 3D.
 
Master [H];1039184565 said:
Even if I had two functional eyes, I don't get the feeling there's anything I'm missing without 3D.
Click to expand...

You're missing out on all the headaches! :D

Seriously, I don't think I've been able to watch a whole 3D movie through, I usually have to cover after an hour or two to reduce the brain strain. When things are moving with 3D effects, my brain doesn't perceive 3D anymore, it actually sees the 2 discrete images. When things are stationary, it's fine, but movement is just a mess. I don't think most other people have this problem or 3D would not be popular at all.
 
Roger Ebert got a letter from Walter Murch, a film editor that knows what he's doing, that explains why 3D doesn't work on 2D screens and never can work:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

The tl:dr: "3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another."

Tudz, that is why you get tired and headachey. What you are describing fits precisely with Murch's letter. Everybody is having this problem, and 3D is not popular, as reported by this thread's article.
 
I just read my post and noticed a typo, I mean to say "I usually have to cover an eye after an hour or two"
evilsofa said:
Roger Ebert got a letter from Walter Murch, a film editor that knows what he's doing, that explains why 3D doesn't work on 2D screens and never can work:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

The tl:dr: "3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another."

Tudz, that is why you get tired and headachey. What you are describing fits precisely with Murch's letter. Everybody is having this problem, and 3D is not popular, as reported by this thread's article.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe it's the stroboscopic thing he talks about "The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.", I definitely notice that horribly in 3D. But mostly it's just that I don't even see proper 3D when things are moving quickly, I just see 2 images that occasionally line up for 3D but mostly are just 2 separate and extremely shit looking images. Give me good quality 2D any day. I just irks me the way it's talked about like it's the way of the future when I just think it looks awful :p
 
3D without glasses, thats what im waiting for.

No glasses, no gimmicks....

1 day maybe
 
i never understood the "3d" crap.

it's just 2 layers of 2D. not remotely realistic at all.
 
I will be glad when this 3D rubbish vanishes, but some idiot will try bring it back in 20 years time.
 
Its just a chicken or egg thing.

There are few decent bigscreen TVs available now that aren't 3D capable, and many new computers and next-gen consoles are likely to be 3D ready as well.

When everyone has 3D capability, then there will be more investment by the industry to make 3D filming higher quality since they can get a return on it with the large userbase.

So I expect the transition to be slow but organic and is bound to happen.
 
I bought a 3D tv about 2 years ago. I didn't buy it for the 3D part, but it was such a good deal that I couldn't resist. Have I used the 3D? Nope, lol. I'm tempted to buy an Avengers bluray set that comes with 3D just to try it out. We're going to be in the market for a new tv in a few months, but I'm still not going to buy a tv based on if it is 3D or not. I'll buy whatever deal I find the best, and if it has 3D, so be it; it'll probably just never get used.
 
Call me in a fifty years when they rehash 3D tv's again. I might be slightly interested then.
 
3DTV is gimmicky and cheap looking in the end.
I'll take the pure HD experience over it anytime.
Sorry I spent the extra money for it.
 
Budzman said:
Call me in a fifty years when they rehash 3D tv's again. I might be slightly interested then.
Click to expand...

The industry is fairly reliable about trying to revive 3D every 20 years or so. Early 1920s, late 1930s, mid-1950s, mid-1960s, mid-1980s, mid-2000s. I would expect the next failed attempt around 2030 or so. Apparently, 20 years is just long enough for the industry to forget why it failed the last time.
 
3d on cable and satellite:

Comcast: 2 channels
DirecTV: 4 channels
Dish: 0 channels (on-demand/rent only)

This was the state of HDTV for a few years after HDTVs first became available; a very few channels, all with recycled content. Even now, OTA, cable and sat are still showing us 720p or 1080i. I don't see ABC, NBC, and CBS bothering to standardize around 3d cameras any time soon.

No surprise that nobody watches all zero to four 3d channels, except if they have a guest over and want to 'show off' a 3dTV. Even then it's probably going to be the PS3 or BR player they break out, not some lame cable/sat content.

I *don't* have a 3dTV; I do have a 3d Vision 2 monitor (BenQ XL2420TX) and glasses, which I use *every* time I do online sim-racing, including endurance races 90 minutes in length. They don't make me tired; they make me safer (lots easier to race wheel to wheel if your brain thinks it can see exactly how close you are). Even so, I don't think 3d is the panacea for all content. FPS, meh, except the "deliberate" style FPS games like Thief/Deus Ex (I think I'm showing my age). MMORPGs, usually pretty rough, there's lots of status bars and such that distract. RPGs range from jaw-droppingly cool to Ouch, everything is at the wrong depth.

I'm not an oval fan but I'll name the "killer app" for 3d broadcasting: NASCAR. You get 3d cameras following 43 cars around and people will be fighting each other to get those glasses on.
 
Until they figure out a method to do glassless 3D or get a government mandate to convert I don't see it taking off in mass ... even HDTV had lots of resisters (but it also had a government mandate that forced the stations and consumers to convert) ... also, since we have several other big technology conversions in play right now as well (OLED for super flat panels, voice and motion GUIs, the switch to large displays, etc) 3D kind of gets lost in the shuffle ... it makes sense in the movie environment because it gives them a novelty to lure people to the theaters ... in the home environment other things could be more lucrative for the studios and stations (interactivity, etc) ;)
 
BTW, seems there is no 3D footage on pirate sites. I assume its because pirates are known to wear eyepatches over one eye.
 
It's a neat concept, but it has to be standardized. Every TV has their own system and own type of glasses. If they could standardize it so 3D works the same on all TVs maybe it would do a bit better.

I've watched a few 3D movies and it's neat, but I would not pick out a TV for the sole purpose of getting 3D. I'd also hate to see 3D become standard for regular TV. I'd hate to have to wear glasses just to watch TV. I don't need the weather channel or news in 3D. Guess it could be cool if the weather girl has nice boobs. :p
 
darkstarcow said:
Our eyes see one image in 3d, 3d tv is each eye seeing a different image trying to turn them into one.
Click to expand...

Which is also how you see (unless you have one eye).

Close one eye, everything becomes 2d. It's why you lose depth perception, as you have only a single point of reference to judge distance from. The brain takes 2d images, and makes it 3d by combining them in your head. 3d tries to replicate this by giving the kind of 2d images each eye normally sees If that wasn't how vision worked, it wouldn't work at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top