Still early days for 3D TV

[bigboss]

CEA has finally begun the standards process for 3D glasses. I still think the best time to invest in a 3D TV will be after a couple more years.

 

[chris hollands]

Think you are right bigboss, however , it will be almost impossible soon to buy a high end TV this year that has not got it !!

Cannot remember the last time i watched mine in 3D, mainly because 2D is so much better !!

 

[sonycentre]

I still think we need to get rid of the negative responce certain people have about 3d tv.It is here to stay,i must admit that im still blown away when i watch 3d at home,granted i don't watch 3d all the time but when i do i still gives me that "wow" factor.Im not even selling 3d tv's at work with the "yes it;s a 3d tv" but selling it as a high end 2d tv with 3d caperbility's.Seems to work very well for me,It also helps that if you show 3d content that people like watching in 2d e.g sport's.gaming,films.then the wow factor is better for the consumer.look how many arguments there were when hd first came out."it looks as good as my crt tv" spring to mind.and we all take hd for granted now don't we.It's like second nature to us all now.And 3d ready tv's also make amazing td tv's too.There are still folk's out there that have hd ready tv's that don't even have a hd source.

 

[chebby]

I still think we need to get rid of the negative responce certain people have about 3d tv.It is here to stay...

But then you would say that.

My only 3D demo was actually in a Sony Centre (a 40" model I forget which) and it was dismal. I spent quite a while being shown a mixture of clips from feature film/animations/sport/and games and it all had that multiple 'plane-of-focus' effect whereby the 3D effect was like an old Viewmaster (or a stage set where the scenery is painted on different flats at different distances).

Also the 3D effect would disappear momentarily when the camera was panning (especially on the sports footage).

Like 3D photographs it was a novelty but not one I want to live with day-in, day-out.

As a keen photographer, I understand that depth-of-focus - with wider apertures - becomes very shallow and can be a pleasing effect that makes the in-focus subjects 'pop'. The odd thing about the film/movie 3D footage was that sharp focus started up again in certain out-of-focus backgrounds so you would have foreground sharp then the background out of focus then a sharp background behind that! (Our eyes don't work that way and it was just plain wrong.)

I just hope commercial pressures don't inflict this technology on all movie/TV output eventually.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

I still think we need to get rid of the negative responce certain people have about 3d tv.It is here to stay...

it all had that multiple 'plane-of-focus' effect whereby the 3D effect was like an old Viewmaster (or a stage set where the scenery is painted on different flats at different distances).

Also plainly seen on the WHF Bristol demo with the Sky Sports clips.

Noggin the Nog "terracing" -it looks awful. (LINK REMOVED by mods - please don't link to sites containing inappropriate language)

The animated clips however were impressive,but it can't keep that up all film.

I think it will stay "there if you want it".

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

Sorry sonycentre, I won't lose my 'negative response' until I like it. To those who do like it, great you can have it.

What I'd like to get rid of is the 'consumers want it' attitude of the major producers. It's an effect and not everyone can see it. I don't go to the cinema to watch 3D movies if there's a 2D alternative. Andrew has already quoted Panasonic officials saying 'the uptake of 3D glasses isn't great'...people seem to be buying TV's but not because they are 3D - it's just another feature...

I have my own mind - I am capable of making my own choices.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[laserman16]

I'm afraid I was unimpressed by the demo I saw in a Sony Centre as well.IMO it was just gimmicky and did nothing for me at all,and I could not have worn those glasses for any period of time. It's a pity that its being foisted onto consumers whether they want it or not rather than having the choice.Still,just my opinion.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

I still think we need to get rid of the negative responce certain people have about 3d tv.It is here to stay...

it all had that multiple 'plane-of-focus' effect whereby the 3D effect was like an old Viewmaster (or a stage set where the scenery is painted on different flats at different distances).

Also plainly seen on the WHF Bristol demo with the Sky Sports clips.

Noggin the Nog "terracing" -it looks awful. (LINK REMOVED by mods - please don't link to sites containing inappropriate language)

The animated clips however were impressive,but it can't keep that up all film.

I think it will stay "there if you want it".

Sorry- didn't see the comments underneath.Must remember to scan them too before posting

 

[Anonymous]

For one I do like the 3D effect, but there's a large difference between the 3D material that's available. For example "Alice in Wonderland" is actually fairly poor with 3D, it only has a few moments where it's good. On the other hand "A Christmas Carol" is a wonderful 3D experience. It's not going away, but it's also just another feature on the higher end models not a reason to buy one. While late, I think it's good that the format for 3D synch will become standardized.

 

[Andrew Everard]

For example "Alice in Wonderland" is actually fairly poor with 3D, it only has a few moments where it's good. On the other hand "A Christmas Carol" is a wonderful 3D experience.

Yes, but the former was retrofitted with 3D, whereas the latter was made in 3D end-to-end.

 

[Alec]

"I just hope commercial pressures don't inflict this technology on all movie/TV output eventually."

I agree. If it ever got to a situation like the digital switchover where you have to take action or opt out of TV altogether, I would do the latter. I'm quite serious. However, "eventually" is the word.

 

[strapped for cash]

I think it's unlikely we'll reach a point in anything like the near future, if ever, where all content is 3D.

Commercial pressure to adopt 3D will only continue for as long as hardware manufacturers and software providers feel there is profit in 3D formats.

In other words, if the novelty of 3D cinema fades and a smaller percentage of audiences choose to watch the 3D version of a film (and there's evidence this has already happenned post-Avatar) and 3D TVs fail to attract a strong consumer base (which was certainly the case in 2010) then a point must be reached where 3D is no longer regarded as commercially viable.

I've seen so many reports that suggest lack of content is the principal barrier to 3D TV adoption, but I don't buy this theory. On a more fundamental level, many people are simply unenthusiastic about 3D TV; and I still maintain that 3D at home is a markedly different experience from 3D in the cinema.

 

[Anonymous]

The Commotion for 3D TV have not hit the dizzy heights it ought to be by now. I do wonder if it is the issue around having to wear the glasses or that we are not quite there yet with a set that display 3D without any shutter/polarised glassses been adorned.

LG's solo run for the Passive system only confuse things.

Also the software have not got people outthere demanding 3D en mass - on the PSN network there are still little 3D games - the recent Sports Illustrated swim wear series converted to 3D is using sex appeal to sell a rather dated product! Really is this what 3D is good for?

GT5 and Kill Zone are scrathing the surface or keeping 3D on the edge of a fall.

The issue that speak the loudest against 3D must be as I have read from those who cliams that 6 million years of human evolution have not prepared us to see 3D from a flat surface - thereby inducing eye strains and faitigue. How true! Ditto

If we get high refresh sets without glasses then... then 3D TV for the home stands a better chance of mass adoption.

-It's the software that drives the hardware sells and not vice versa -

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that it's the studios that are pushing for it's adoption more than the manufacturers due the difficulty in being able to copy 3D material. As a once very 3D antisceptic, my views have changed on the subject, I enjoy watching the footie in 3D with my son and loved "despicable me" on 3D blu ray, but I tried to watch " my bloody valentine" recorded off sky last week, and it was dreadful, I turned it off after 5 minutes. It's definitely dependant of software/content, but not just an abundance of it, but the right type, could you imagine seeing Coranation Street or Eastenders in 3D, nightmare.

 

[sonycentre]

Yes granted 3d is not for everyone,but when 3d is done well it look's AWESOME.And no i don't watch 3d all the time,i tend to use it as an event(killzone 3 on ps3 is brill,as is gt5,wipeout 3d and so on) Went on xbox today on xbox live and there was a game based on the forthcoming Battle: LA,so downloaded the trial,alas its in 3d.All i can say is oh dear,It was using the over/under screen format,i had to take my glasses off.But it is the first 3d that has made me think that sometimes there can be a mis-fire.

 

[bigboss]

The point of my first post is that 3D has not yet been standardized across manufacturers. After 3-4 years, there will be many makers of 3D glasses once 3D format is standardized which can be used with any 3D TV (although there will be 2 types: active & passive). This will obviously bring the costs down drastically.

If you buy a 3D TV today & you need to buy a new pair of glasses 3-4 years down the line, you'll still be stuck with the same manufacturer's expensive glasses which may not be available in abundance as even they would've changed their technology in order to achieve standardization.

In the next 2-3 years, we'll also know which way the 3D technology is going. If the manufacturers don't think it's commercially viable, who knows, they may stop investing further in this technology (although this seems less likely).

 

[Anonymous]

My 50" Samsung 3D TV is stunning! the 3D blows me away every time i watch it. I normally watch a Footie match every weekend in 3D & have about 5 3D Blu-Rays & lots of stuff recorded from Sky TV in 3D. Everyone who watches it are simply amazed and want to buy one for themselves straight away!

And this 50" 3D TV all for just £700 from Richer Sounds! Bargin!

 

[Andrew Everard]

And this 50" 3D TV all for just £700 from Richer Sounds! Bargin!

Which of course means 3D isn't doing what the TV manufacturers were hoping it'd do – ie push TV prices up and bring some profitability into their TV divisions again.

 

[Anonymous]

And this 50" 3D TV all for just £700 from Richer Sounds! Bargin!

Which of course means 3D isn't doing what the TV manufacturers were hoping it'd do – ie push TV prices up and bring some profitability into their TV divisions again.

No but the studios are happy because the consumer in this case has bought 5 x 3D movies, not illegally downloaded them and sky is happy as they have another full package subscriber, signed up.