3D Inevitability ?

[v1c]

Sooner or later have to come to terms with it 3D TV will become the mainstream.

It's inevitable isn't it.

You can't avoid the marketing it's everywhere , all the big players behind it.

Caught the Panasonic P50VT20B the other day and have to say it was better than i was expecting (3D) unlike the Samsung model next to it (didn't look at the model number as it was poor in comparison).

Going by what i saw the Panasonic display i can see the attraction where as before i wasn't at all fussed about it.

It doesn't look like 3D TV without glasses is that far away either see here.

So how long before it going to get fully established ? it only a matter of time better get used to it i suppose.

Thoughts welcome.

 

[roger06]

Well I won't be partaking... saw a demo the other day thought it was just too weird.

 

[v1c]

roger06:
Well I won't be partaking... saw a demo the other day thought it was just too weird.

What screen did you demo it on Roger ?

 

[roger06]

Er, Panasonic? I was in Comet (killing time while car was MOT tested) - looked a fairly decent set up.

It reminded me of those kids' toys from the '70s - the ones where you looked into binocular type things for some 3D scene inside. They had Avatar on and to me it just look too ethereal, and actually less realistic...

So to be fair I've not exactly exhaustively trialed it !

 

[Andrew Everard]

3D inevitability? I don't see it, myself...

 

[roger06]

Andrew Everard:3D inevitability? I don't see it, myself...

I reckon it's a solution looking for a problem... (that doesn't exist).

 

[Anonymous]

agree with the above sceptisim. 3D sucks!
if it aint broke -don't fix it etc .
i will NEVER sit in my house with 3d specks on !
TV manufactures have to sell new product - don't be a consumer robot.

 

[The_Lhc]

roger06:They had Avatar on and to me it just look too ethereal, and actually less realistic...

It looks like that in 2D though?

 

[roger06]

rockmanrock:agree with the above sceptisim. 3D sucks!
if it aint broke -don't fix it etc .
i will NEVER sit in my house with 3d specks on !
TV manufactures have to sell new product - don't be a consumer robot.

Well clearly I agree. BUT - maybe we once said "there's no way I'm having a 42 inch screen and a room full of speakers..."

Nah - no one here would ever have thought that!

I think over the last 100 years film makers have proved what wonders they can achieve in 2D and I just don't see the need for that 3rd dimension...

 

[roger06]

the_lhc:roger06:They had Avatar on and to me it just look too ethereal, and actually less realistic...

It looks like that in 2D though?

Yeah - I don't think I explained myself very well...

 

[Frank Harvey]

There's not only people like us taking a dislike to 3D, it's film directors too. There are a few big blockbusters that haven't been made in 3D because the directors have refused. I see it 'co-existing', but definitely not taking over.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Though Scorsese's next movie - Hugo Cabret - is in 3D... (why, Marty, why?)

 

[roger06]

Clare Newsome:Though Scorsese's next movie - Hugo Cabret - is in 3D... (why, Marty, why?)

A condition of the Exec Producer / studio ?? Film funding is a funny old business isn't it?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Nope - Scorsese is the producer. As this interview shows, he geniunely seems excited about 3D.

But then it is a kids film, I suppose...

 

[f1only]

roger06:

Well I won't be partaking... saw a demo the other day thought it was just too weird.

Same here i watched a 46" Samsung in currys that was set up, when i put the glasses on it just looked like a jumbled mess to me i could see the picture better without the glasses,.

Perhaps iv'e got dodgy eyes but there was no way i could watch that at home

 

[roger06]

f1only:roger06:

Well I won't be partaking... saw a demo the other day thought it was just too weird.

Same here i watched a 46" Samsung in currys that was set up, when i put the glasses on it just looked like a jumbled mess to me i could see the picture better without the glasses,.

Perhaps iv'e got dodgy eyes but there was no way i could watch that at home

Yeah 'jumbled mess' is a better description - but still not quite there. I think my main reaction was to laugh - it just looked somewhat stupid to me...

The bits I thought would be amazing - those big dinosaur bird things flying around - didn't even look 3D. I then saw the bit where the main 'characters' were hopping over trees etc and it just looked silly.

You can probably guess I didn't really like Avatar in any format. I failed to have any empathy with the blue people and actually quite disliked them. I think the film makers failed in that I was on the side of the big-corporate-military-machine who wanted to wipe them all out!

 

[Anonymous]

I Can't see it becoming mainstream myself until there is a lot more 3d content and glasses are not required . 3D won't be a requirement for my next TV but I will keep an eye on how the technology develops.

Don't know if it is just me but I see layers at different depths rather than 3d, bit like those kids popup books that were around when I was a kid.

 

[grdunn123]

This is kinda like the reception that Sky got when they first introduced their HD box4 years or so ago. It cost £300 + installation + sub and there was very little material worth watching. I guarantee that in 3-4 years max we'll all have 3D tv's......

 

[Anonymous]

3d tv's are as cheap as chips already, and kids are gonna want em, the ps3 can play 3d movies, so yes i think 3d will be widespread soon, don't mean one has to watch it though, just like the x factor really

 

[roger06]

grdunn123:This is kinda like the reception that Sky got when they first introduced their HD box4 years or so ago. It cost £300 + installation + sub and there was very little material worth watching. I guarantee that in 3-4 years max we'll all have 3D tv's......

But HD is what people wanted - it's not hard to see it as a natural progression. I just don't think there's a groundswell of demand for 3D and that unlike most other TV innovations it seems it's just like something that can be done so is being done.

However, I don't recall us 15 years ago all really wanting to carry a phone around with us permanently and being contactable 24/7 - but hey, that happened...

 

[Big Aura]

grdunn123:This is kinda like the reception that Sky got when they first introduced their HD box4 years or so ago. It cost £300 + installation + sub and there was very little material worth watching. I guarantee that in 3-4 years max we'll all have 3D tv's......But with HD, it was the "punters" who weren't taken, and people like us who where. There's been a fairly consistent "meh" factor for 3D here...

 

[grdunn123]

roger06:
grdunn123:This is kinda like the reception that Sky got when they first introduced their HD box4 years or so ago. It cost £300 + installation + sub and there was very little material worth watching. I guarantee that in 3-4 years max we'll all have 3D tv's......

But HD is what people wanted - it's not hard to see it as a natural progression. I just don't think there's a groundswell of demand for 3D and that unlike most other TV innovations it seems it's just like something that can be done so is being done.

However, I don't recall us 15 years ago all really wanting to carry a phone around with us permanently and being contactable 24/7 - but hey, that happened...

You've hit the nail on the head Roger. As 3D tv's improve ( see LG's pledge for 2011 on this site) and content becomes more widespread AND once we don't have to wear stupid looking glasses that cost 2 arms and a leg then we will want 3D with the option of reverting back to 2D when we want to on the same TV.

 

[Jonnyhifi]

I was still pretty sceptical when the rest of the family insisted we needed to go 3d back in September.The animated movies courtesy of the Panasonic deal (Coraline, Ice Age 3 ) were impressive but what else was there to watch? And could I ever get used to the glasses? But soon came Sky 3d with the occasional film and football ( and first the stop-start Ryder Cup which was at times stunning ). Afew months later I'm hooked on the 3d footy games, much more involving than 2d viewing and with pitchside camera angles giving a different feel to it all. The glasses don't feel like an incumberance anymore , and no eye fatigue. The Spurs (not a fan) vs Milan game was a highlight. The resolution might not be full HD but it's much better for picking out people in the crowd, players on the pitch etc. In fact watching matches in 2d has lost alot of appeal now.

The lack of content and manufacturer exclusivity deals on blurays is not helping to spread the format; surely this has got to be addressed. Without the Sky content it would have stalled by now.

I think it is inevitable 3d will eventually take off beyond the premium/'must have the latest' end of the market as the number of 3d blurays and games increases and Sky produces more footage. Projectors are where 3d will come into its own. It is really made for the big screen. Looking forward to cheaper 3d PJ's soon!

But the glasses-free version will take years to get right and then it will be impossible to successfully transfer to home projector set ups, which mostly involve on retractable screens.

 

[Anonymous]

I really think that if you all had the chance to see 3D done properely on a big screen and with a decent projector one or two of you might want to have a re-think.

Since we`ve had the jvc in the demo room on our 138" 2.40:1 scope screen everyone and I mean everyone who has seen it so far has had nothing but praise for the quality of the 3d imageing.

Yes I know there isn`t enough movie material out there yet, but it will come of that i`m sure.

And yes I know that so far its all mainly animation stuff thats available apart from the Imax and demonstration discs, but after watching Avatar again in 3D and then clips in 2D i`m afraid to say that even I am a big converted fan of 3D, the 2D version just lacked something and seemed a little lifeless.

I can`t see me watching everything though in 3D to be honest, but save it for some good movies and documentaries and i`m sure it will give more pleasure than some things related to AV have done in the past.

And all this is from someone who 2 months said

"I`m only going 3D because I have to"

How wrong was I !!

 

[Lee H]

It's a good debate. I'll be in the market for a new TV next year, and I do wonder if I should go 3D. I'm a little concerned though that it's early days for 3D and I could end up with something almost obsolete in a year or so. On Sky right now it's free, but it's almost inevitable that there'll be a "3D pack" for another £10 coming along soon. I can't afford the best 3D TV's so would I just be wasting money?