Is your future 3D?

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Is your future 3D?

So far I've seen 2 movies in 3D (UP and Avatar) and I find it really distracting.  I also saw the  3D display at the sony store and it looked identical to the movies.  Yes, I can see the different depths of field, but the objects still just look like 2D objects on a 3D world.  When I watch 3D many parts of the screen are really out of focus, I can see artifacts from the polarized glasses, and in general I can't stand watching anything in 3D. 

I didn't like UP or Avatar and I think it is because I was distracted by the crappy 3D. 

I have one eye with kinda bad vision.  It doesn't bother me in my day to day and I don't wear glasses, but I wonder if that is why I hate 3D.

I wonder if anyone makes 2D glasses so I can go to these movies and watch them normally?

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

I'm leaning heavily towards a 3D TV as my next plasma purchase, but that won't be for a little while still.  I have yet to see Avatar (hopefully we'll finally break down and see it this weekend), but if that movie doesn't wow me with the 3D, it will definitely derail my plans for a 3D TV.

jennyfur's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Oct 2006

I have absolutely no interest in 3D. I'll buy it only once my stuff dies and I have no other choice.

7MC - Hauppauge WinTV-DCR-2650 - Avermedia M780 - Dvico Fusion HDTV7 - Terk HDTVa - Xbox 360 S - Logitech Harmony 650 - Panasonic V10 - Onkyo HT-RC160

Mike Garcen's picture
Offline
Joined: 1 Oct 2006

agree with jenny. i personally have ZERO (0!!!!!) desire in 3D...but it would be foolish if i had to buy a new TV in the next 12-18 months to not at least consider the 3D-capable models...just in case it does take over the world *UGH*

Mike Garcen (shadymg) MissingRemote Editor-in-Chief Windows Entertainment and Connected Home MVP (formerly Media Center MVP) Twitter @mikegarcen MissingRemote on Facebook

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

shadymg wrote:

agree with jenny. i personally have ZERO (0!!!!!) desire in 3D...but it would be foolish if i had to buy a new TV in the next 12-18 months to not at least consider the 3D-capable models...just in case it does take over the world *UGH*

Okay, I have to ask.  Why do some people seem to despise 3D so much?  There seems to be such passionate hatred towards such a relatively new (as far as going mainstream) technology.  I'm not exactly in love with it and I'm certainly not going to go out and replace my current set just to have a 3D TV.  Let's face it, there's very little content right now, but that does seem to be changing very quickly, especially with ESPN and DirecTV launching 3D channels sometime this year.  If HDTV was any indicator, sports broadcasts going 3D could be the ticket to widespread 3D adoption.  So, I'm certainly open to it and ready to dive in given the right circumstances (content, quality, and price).

jennyfur's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Oct 2006

I don't despise it, I just don't see the point.
I'll be interested in 3D when it makes it to holodeck levels Tongue

7MC - Hauppauge WinTV-DCR-2650 - Avermedia M780 - Dvico Fusion HDTV7 - Terk HDTVa - Xbox 360 S - Logitech Harmony 650 - Panasonic V10 - Onkyo HT-RC160

Offline
Joined: 12 Aug 2007

Skirge01 wrote:

shadymg wrote:

agree with jenny. i personally have ZERO (0!!!!!) desire in 3D...but it would be foolish if i had to buy a new TV in the next 12-18 months to not at least consider the 3D-capable models...just in case it does take over the world *UGH*

Okay, I have to ask.  Why do some people seem to despise 3D so much?  There seems to be such passionate hatred towards such a relatively new (as far as going mainstream) technology.  I'm not exactly in love with it and I'm certainly not going to go out and replace my current set just to have a 3D TV.  Let's face it, there's very little content right now, but that does seem to be changing very quickly, especially with ESPN and DirecTV launching 3D channels sometime this year.  If HDTV was any indicator, sports broadcasts going 3D could be the ticket to widespread 3D adoption.  So, I'm certainly open to it and ready to dive in given the right circumstances (content, quality, and price).

I think, at least in my case, it has something to do with the "tiring" factor.  There's no way that I want to sit there and watch an entire anything in 3D.  It's too annoying.  Both with the way it looks and having to wear the glasses.  You know how much 3D is worth?  Remember last year during the Super Bowl when they showed the movie preview and the commercial in 3D?  That's about how long watching something in 3D should last.  It's such a novelty.  For the first few minutes it's like, "Hey, that's neat."  But after a while it just wears off.  And how's it going to be when you have access to it all the time?  Then the novelty wears off and you just want to go back to seeing a clear, vibrant picture.

Offline
Joined: 2 Dec 2008

I saw avatar this past weekend and was very impressed with the 3D.  Now I watched it using the Real D 3D technology.  The whole movie I felt like I was the actual camera, right there next to the action.  It took me a little bit to get used to it but once I became adjusted to the 3D it was amazing. 

I haven not seen a 3D TV yet, we do have a sony store so I may have to check out to see if they have any 3D TV's there yet.  If the 3D tv's are anything like avatar then I can see 3D TV taking off but its going to have0 to be marketed really well.  The downside to the whole 3D TV is that you are pretty much going to have to upgrade a bunch of your equipment since it uses HDMI 1.4.  I havent seen anything about HDMI 1.3 if it will pass through 1.4 (like a receiver.)  Then it would make upgrading your system a bit less painful.  Will I upgrade to it?  Not for a long time.  Its kind of like the HD-DVD and blue ray war.  I'm going to sit back and watch and see if 3D TV does take off then I will considering moving towards a 3D TV.  I dont want to buy into if I'm going to have 2 or 3 channels that are 3D.

Offline
Joined: 20 Dec 2006

For me and my wife, 3D anything makes us physically sick.  I attribute it to motion sickness for myself.  Another issue is the whole "glasses" thing.  For it to become even remotely popular they have to do it all without requiring any 3D glasses, IMO.  Not just because of the hassle of needing to keep them around (and spares for when you have company), but for us we've found they never fit right.. causing the field of vision to be off-center.  Maybe it will be different for me now that I got Lasik and don't have to wear glasses on-top or under the 3D glasses...

Seriously, we went to Disney World a couple years ago and watched the Bug's Life show, and I think one other, in 3D and left nauseous.  There is no way I want to experience that on a daily basis just trying to watch TV.

Then there is the whole marketting issue.  Just like cable/satellite charge extra for HD channels, I 'm sure they are going to have a 3D tier  ::)  Yay... one more expense I don't need.

For those who like 3D, more power to you.  I'm happy with the old standard for now and don't have any strong desire to move forward.  I've hoped 3D would take off since I saw Jaws as a kid... just not holding my breath anymore.  Considering my wife still isn't overly impressed with HDTV (she's happy watching most of her shows in SD still), 3D isn't even on the radar....

Offline
Joined: 8 Aug 2008

I can't say I have ever sat watching a show and thought "i wish this were in 3D".

i feel the same way about the upcoming apple tablet. Ive never once thought "this laptop is nice, but i really wish it didn't have a physical keyboard" or "this iphone is nice, but i would be willing to sacrifice being able to keep it in my pocket if it had a bigger screen"

that being said, if it becomes as ubiquitous as it seems that it will, then Im sure my next television will have the capability and perhaps i will watch some things in 3D. maybe sports could be cool?

I think the real potential for 3D being worthwhile is in video games. with a project natal-esque camera that can tell where your eyes are relative to the screen and where they are specifically looking (if its not possible now, it soon will be, im sure) you could have some very immersive effects.

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

DavidStein wrote:

I can't say I have ever sat watching a show and thought "i wish this were in 3D".

This is the way I think most people are looking at 3D, which is completely opposite of my view.  I definitely agree that current content does not scream "transfer me to 3D!"...  not even close.  However, that's a somewhat limited viewpoint.  In my mind, the appeal of 3D is that it's a completely new aspect for which the producers, directors, and writers now need to take into account when developing something.

I feel it's akin to when movies went from silent to "talkies" ("having sound", for the folks who aren't history buffs), as well as going from B&W to color.  As the transition happened, everyone needed to change their approach to movie making in order to fully take advantage of these new aspects.  It can no longer be a gimmick, where someone says, "Hey, what if we have X jump out of the screen at the audience?"  It needs to be, "Hey, how do we bring the audience into the screen?"  Again, I have yet to see Avatar, but I suspect this is what James Cameron has done with this movie.

Think about B&W movies or silent movies.  Did they transfer well to color?  Most people would say they did not.  Would a silent movie have it's same effect if they added sound?  Certainly not.  The format the content was written and produced for was correct for the time.  Updating it--usually--does not improve upon the original.  Conversely, would anyone go see a silent movie nowadays?  Hell no.  Would we go see a B&W movie?  Movies like Sin City and 300 sort of say that some people would, but it's a novelty now...  a gimmick, if you will.  I predict that some day in the future, we'll look back at 2D films the same way.

Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2006

I don't recall much of anything jumping out in avatar. It was more of a diorama where you look beyond the frame for depth and not like the typical popup book where things extend out from the frame. I think the diorama style will be what people would want to see sports and action flicks in. Save the pop out style for the scary movies or movies for children.

Offline
Joined: 2 Dec 2008

Meester.Rip wrote:

I don't recall much of anything jumping out in avatar. It was more of a diorama where you look beyond the frame for depth and not like the typical popup book where things extend out from the frame. I think the diorama style will be what people would want to see sports and action flicks in. Save the pop out style for the scary movies or movies for children.

Great way of describing avatar.  Yea I agree that if things are not popping out at you then it will be enjoyable.  Sporting events by far will be the most interesting imo......as for the porn industry this may be a whole new ball game for them Tongue

Offline
Joined: 15 Mar 2007

In avatar there were a lot of things that floated around in the field of view in front of the action which made those floaters stand out.  Because they were not part of the action, they were out of focus, but because they were novel and floated around your head, you watched them instead of the intended scene, and then you wondered why they were so out of focus.  All this took my attention away from the movie and instead forced me to think about the distracting 3D effects.

The Sony store in Stanford Shopping Center had a 3D TV on display powered by a PS3.  When I got there there was a retarded couple hogging the glasses and taking pictures with their camera through the glasses. 

When I finally got the glasses, the effect was the same as what I saw on avatar.  2D looking images in a 3D scene with a lot of content out of focus.  So, if you liked what you saw in Avatar and Up, then you will like the 3D TVs.  The program material was monkeys playing on a jungle gym.

When watching at home, you will have to pop on glasses to watch TV.  When you turn your head even slightly, the 3D effect goes away because the polarization in the lenses needs to match up with the polarization from the display.  Shifting your head, the image becomes blurry and unwatchable.  So, at home, in order to watch 3D, you will need to sit still and upright with your glasses on. 

Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2006

jennyfur wrote:

I'll be interested in 3D when it makes it to holodeck levels Tongue

I completely agree...  When it's photons and force fields that I can touch??,  Then it will interest me.

Nothing is more dangerous than a person who's title exceeds their intelect.

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

phoneguyinpgh wrote:

jennyfur wrote:

I'll be interested in 3D when it makes it to holodeck levels Tongue

I completely agree...  When it's photons and force fields that I can touch??,  Then it will interest me.

Then the complaint will be that movies are too much work for the audience!  "I'm paying money to be IN the movie?  Come on, this is ridiculous!  That's what actors are for!"  ;D

Offline
Joined: 8 Aug 2008

Quote:
Think about B&W movies or silent movies.

On the other hand, I bet there were people thinking 'man, i sure wish this movie were in color' or 'imagine what they do with movies if we could hear sound as well'

to look at it another way: we can all agree that a holodeck style 3D would be amazing. it wouldnt even have to be the way it was portrayed in star trek (being an interactive story) but simply you sitting in an immersive world watching a story unfold. This would clearly be preferable to current technology because you would feel like you were inside the world.

I just can't see an image on a rectangular screen ever reaching that level of immersion, even if it had some depth.

So I dont think immersion is going to be the driving force for 3D on flat panel televisions. For video games, i can see it being useful, because you can do some interesting things with the way the player is interacting with the world since its being rendered in real time. For sports... maybe I could see it providing more information, perhaps helping us figure out if it was really out of the strike zone or if his foot touched the ground before going out? I dont know, but thats what it needs for me to find it compelling.

surprisingly, i think this line of argument makes using 3D for horror films where the weapons fly out of the screen at the audience more compelling since being scared is the point of a horror film. I can also see it being popular for porn, especially the POV-style.

jennyfur's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Oct 2006

The way this discussion is heading brings me back to the comments I made regarding 3D in the first thread we were talking about it in. I'd just seen the Final Destination movie in 3D at the time. And basically what I was saying was that it was the type of movie that was made for 3D, that is, gimmicky stuff flying at you. That's what you're there for, not a plot. I would be fine with 3D being used in this particular situation because it's a purposely forced mechanism and is fitting for the genre. The 3D elements are written into the script on purpose, and they're highlighted in the scene. Had the movie not been 3D they would be entirely pointless and awkward.

7MC - Hauppauge WinTV-DCR-2650 - Avermedia M780 - Dvico Fusion HDTV7 - Terk HDTVa - Xbox 360 S - Logitech Harmony 650 - Panasonic V10 - Onkyo HT-RC160

Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2007

I saw Avatar in 3D, I enjoyed it, but the 3D gave me a headache, and I think I spent the first 2/3s of the movie noticing the 3D instead of paying attention to the movie (although the story was so light I don't think I missed much).  The only other 3D "movie" I have seen was U2 IMAX, I was very underwhelmed by the 3D in this movie, none of the objects had any depth, it was like each object was flat, but "moved" with perspective to the other object in the shot, very distracting.

I had this debate with another techie friend a few weeks ago.  3D is just a fad, again. The difference is this time the technology to put it in the home is "relatively" inexpensive.  But, I just don't see it taking off or the majority of people replacing their fairly new flatpanel TVs just to get 3D.  Most people just laid out a lot of cash for a new HD, probably flatpanel TV, the last thing they want to do is buy it again, along with a new BD player, new cables, new receiver, etc.  (Although I did hear that some 3D BD players may "split" the HDMI signal, a 1.4 port/cable with video to the TV and a 1.3 port/cable to the receiver with audio)

And then there is the whole glasses issue; do you want to replace the batteries in your glasses halfway through a movie or a game; are you going to buy enough pairs of glasses to "have the guys over for the game" or is everyone going to have their own pair to bring with them, I think not.   And not to mention, as soon as you turn your head away from the TV, your going to see all your buddies with those ridiculous glasses on.

For a cinema experience (sitting stationary for an extended period of time to watch a feature length movie) I think 3D may have its place, but I don't see it taking off for regular TV, sports or god forbid news (the CNN hologram was bad enough).

Offline
Joined: 15 Mar 2007

For me it's really simple. The 3D image on the screen doesn't simulate the way I see things in real life.  I feel like 2D TV is more representative of what I see normally.  Maybe I'm one of those 10% that are stereo blind?

Or maybe it's that the algorithms they use today in 3D are designed to put emphasis on the 3D effect and it overdoes the effect such that it doesn't look real anymore, it looks exaggerated.

Offline
Joined: 12 Aug 2007

If this forum is an indication of the general population then it doesn't look like 3D will succeed.  Doesn't look like anyone is going to run and buy a set or replace what they have.  If us tech geeks don't really care, what does that say about the "normal" folk, LOL?

Offline
Joined: 8 Aug 2008

be wary of extrapolating from tech geeks to the normal population. if it were up to us SACD/DVD-A would be popular and mp3 would have fell by the wayside (at least in favor of FLAC).

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

htpc_user wrote:

If this forum is an indication of the general population then it doesn't look like 3D will succeed.  Doesn't look like anyone is going to run and buy a set or replace what they have.  If us tech geeks don't really care, what does that say about the "normal" folk, LOL?

I'm certainly not going to go out and buy a new TV to replace my current one, simply to obtain a 3D set.  However, I currently own a 720p plasma set and am definitely planning to get a 1080p in the near future.  So, when I do my shopping, if a 3D set is only slightly more than a non-3D set, I'll be picking one up.

I still say people are looking at 3D with the mindset of how we currently have TV presented to us.  Yes, broadcast TV in it's current form does not translate very well to 3D, but that doesn't mean they won't be able to figure out a way to make it appealing by presenting the entire show differently.  What if they were able to make it so that it truly made you feel like you were ON the set:  in the hospital with House, walking through a crime scene with the detectives on Law & Order, in the octagon with the UFC fighters, as opposed to simply observing from afar via a third person perspective?  What about a Sports Center broadcast where it seemed like you were sitting WITH the panel and they were each talking directly to you?  Maybe it's just me, but this type of thing sounds really exciting.

Offline
Joined: 8 Aug 2008

its going to need to be a bigger screen if its going to make us feel like we are on the set.

LowTech's picture
Offline
Joined: 30 Nov 1999

I think that I'll just wait for the 4D sets to arrive  Laughing out loud

Offline
Joined: 2 Dec 2008

Skirge01 wrote:

htpc_user wrote:

If this forum is an indication of the general population then it doesn't look like 3D will succeed.  Doesn't look like anyone is going to run and buy a set or replace what they have.  If us tech geeks don't really care, what does that say about the "normal" folk, LOL?

I'm certainly not going to go out and buy a new TV to replace my current one, simply to obtain a 3D set.  However, I currently own a 720p plasma set and am definitely planning to get a 1080p in the near future.  So, when I do my shopping, if a 3D set is only slightly more than a non-3D set, I'll be picking one up.

I still say people are looking at 3D with the mindset of how we currently have TV presented to us.  Yes, broadcast TV in it's current form does not translate very well to 3D, but that doesn't mean they won't be able to figure out a way to make it appealing by presenting the entire show differently.  What if they were able to make it so that it truly made you feel like you were ON the set:  in the hospital with House, walking through a crime scene with the detectives on Law & Order, in the octagon with the UFC fighters, as opposed to simply observing from afar via a third person perspective?  What about a Sports Center broadcast where it seemed like you were sitting WITH the panel and they were each talking directly to you?  Maybe it's just me, but this type of thing sounds really exciting.

I agree.  I think from a tv show/ sports production stand point possibly the camera perspective will change to basically taking the place of a persons head?  The problem is we are the geeks and not the normal population.  The normal population is going to follow the trend and eat it up.  Sure it may take a few years for this to catch on but it will eventually if it is advertised correctly.  Once the prices come down and 3D tv is only costing the consumer a few extra dollars when purchasing a HDTV; I think you will see people going for the 3D TV and spend the few extra dollars.  I myself would spend the few extra bucks when I purchase a full 1080 screen here in the next few years.  Hopefully by then it will be a few extra bucks to upgrade to a 3D tv.  My question is do you think this will be built into projectors?

Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2006

Skirge01 wrote:

What if they were able to make it so that it truly made you feel like you were ON the set:  in the hospital with House, walking through a crime scene with the detectives on Law & Order, in the octagon with the UFC fighters, as opposed to simply observing from afar via a third person perspective?  What about a Sports Center broadcast where it seemed like you were sitting WITH the panel and they were each talking directly to you?  Maybe it's just me, but this type of thing sounds really exciting.

Well that's the real trick isn't it? 
Now while you're reading this, stop for a few seconds and look up...  just look around yourself for a few seconds...  and pay very, very, very close attention to what makes the room (or environment) that you are in 3D??  Look at something close, then with out moving around, look at something further away.  Please note that this is TRUE 3D.  Now does the SIMULATED 3D in the theater or on a TV provide the exact same experience?  For one a movie or TV screen does not wrap completely around you like the world does, so there is one hit against it.  When you look at an object in the distance, the foreground objects are now out focus and the reverse is true when looking at a foreground object, the background is out of focus.  I have seen too many SIMULATED 3D attempts where all the objects were completely in focus wether in  the foreground or background.  The producers are trying to show off the coolness of the 3Dness that they are trying to simulate and therefore totally miss the point that 3D is meant to try and simulate a real world perspective or view.  Just like surround sound attempts to simulate the 3D sound of really being there that's what 3D should do.
George Lucas made a statement about SFX in movies, he said words to the effect that the FX are a tool to help tell a story, if you have an FX that is there just to show off the new FX that you can do, then it's just a gimmick, and movies (and TV) should be about stories not gimmicks.
At this point I think the 3D TV is still in it's gimmick stage, and it will be some time before it matures past that point.
Just another note about the gimmick factor, (for all the old-timers out there) remember when vinyl LPs first started to get produced in stereo??  And remember how the records weren't engineered to make it sound like you were siting right in front of the band but instead to just show off the "WOW we can produce records in stereo" factor?  All the instruments on one channel and all the vocals on the other??  That's the gimmick factor.  Until 3D is used to make the images look natural instead of "WOW lookie here!!  3D!!"  I won't be interested, or spending my money.

Nothing is more dangerous than a person who's title exceeds their intelect.

skirge01's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2006

phoneguyinpgh wrote:

Look at something close, then with out moving around, look at something further away.  Please note that this is TRUE 3D.  Now does the SIMULATED 3D in the theater or on a TV provide the exact same experience?

I didn't say we were already at the height of the 3D technological advancement, did I?  ;)  We're still on our way there and have a long way to go.  Actually, I'm saying this before seeing Avatar, so maybe the tech is pretty close?  At any rate, just as you point out here:

Quote:
Just another note about the gimmick factor, (for all the old-timers out there) remember when vinyl LPs first started to get produced in stereo??  And remember how the records weren't engineered to make it sound like you were siting right in front of the band but instead to just show off the "WOW we can produce records in stereo" factor?  All the instruments on one channel and all the vocals on the other??

...it's going to take some time for them to figure out the best way to present it and get the technology to do exactly what they want.  I don't think it's going to take as long as many people believe.

Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2006

Skirge01 wrote:

...it's going to take some time for them to figure out the best way to present it and get the technology to do exactly what they want.  I don't think it's going to take as long as many people believe.

Perhaps...  But then, perhaps, right after they figure out how to do it nice and natural on a TV or movie screen, they will come out with holo-bands like in Caprica...    And we'll all have to buy HD holo-bands.  Wink

Nothing is more dangerous than a person who's title exceeds their intelect.

Offline
Joined: 8 Aug 2008

Quote:
George Lucas made a statement about SFX in movies, he said words to the effect that the FX are a tool to help tell a story, if you have an FX that is there just to show off the new FX that you can do, then it's just a gimmick, and movies (and TV) should be about stories not gimmicks.

george lucas is the last person who should be drawing attention to the stories in his movies as opposed to the graphics!

Offline
Joined: 12 Aug 2007

I will be buying a new TV in a couple of years (I hope), and I will spend a little extra to get a 3D TV, too.  But I won't be using the 3D, at least not at length.  It's like all the modes on my receiver...I changed to the different modes to see what it sounded like and then continue to use the same ol' regular modes.

I think 3D will sell, but just for the reason that I and others have said about upgrading to new TV's.  It's better to have and not need, than to need and not have.  But I see 3D TV as being on one of those lists in the future of tech that failed.  Like someone else said, if it becomes subscription based on satellite and cable, I don't know that a lot people will pay extra for it.

For it to succeed the image would have to be perfect, just like I see it on regular TV, but in 3D.  Nothing blurry, nothing off-color.  I think another factor against it is how people multi-task now while watching TV.  I read something not long ago where more and more people are on the internet while they're watching TV.  With 3D, you'd have to make a commitment to the show, because who's going to take their glasses off and on?

Offline
Joined: 20 Dec 2006

htpc_user wrote:

I think another factor against it is how people multi-task now while watching TV.  I read something not long ago where more and more people are on the internet while they're watching TV.  With 3D, you'd have to make a commitment to the show, because who's going to take their glasses off and on?

This hit another issue I have with 3D dead-center.  My wife and I are in that group that multitasks.  There isn't enough time in the day to just sit and watch TV.  About 90% of the time we are watching TV we are on the laptops at the same time, or folding laundry, or washing dishes, or playing a board game with our daughter, or .....  If we get 2 hours a week to just sit and watch a movie without anything else... we are doing amazingly well that week.

LowTech's picture
Offline
Joined: 30 Nov 1999

The answer is obvious…laptops with 3D desktop environments. 

Laundry, dishes and board games are already 3D but don’t require glasses to see the effect (unless, of course, you have monocular vision) so you still might have to chunk the specs.

Offline
Joined: 27 Aug 2007

If I save up enough money I can buy it spot cash I will do so.
I want a 3D tv, but the truth is the only way I will buy one is in boxing day 2011 and Only if the reviews are good.
That will give it a full year on the market and let the reviews and word of mouth build up and let me save the money for the stuff I would need: blu ray htpc, blu ray tv, some blu ray movies, the glasses.

Offline
Joined: 30 Sep 2006

3D? Would I buy a TV for it?

No way. I can't stay the 3D movies that are in theaters much less do I want to watch one at home with those stupid glasses. Call me in five to ten years when 3D tech has evolved into true 3D without the silly glasses that make my eyes and head hurt.

jennyfur's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Oct 2006

Yeah now that I have my shiny new V10, I don't plan on buying another TV for a VERY long time. Like Crim said, maybe 5-10yrs when the 3D tech has evolved I'd reconsider.

7MC - Hauppauge WinTV-DCR-2650 - Avermedia M780 - Dvico Fusion HDTV7 - Terk HDTVa - Xbox 360 S - Logitech Harmony 650 - Panasonic V10 - Onkyo HT-RC160

captain_video's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Jul 2007

I'll let the early adopters suffer with the growing pains.  I bought two 60" HDTVs within a span of about three years so I doubt my wife would be too crazy about me getting another TV anytime soon.  Besides, I don't see enough 3D material being available in the near future to make the purchase worthwhile.  Hollywood is going to have to put their 3D production into overdrive if they expect to have enough material ready for 3D TVs to make any sort of dent in the marketplace. 

I see 3DTV as a niche market, sort of like SACD's, until enough source material saturates the market.  I honestly don't see the format surviving unless that happens.  HDTVs are just now getting into homes at a high enough percentage to make it worthwhile for TV production studios to make the switch.  I don't think there's a large enough market for 3D when you consider that many people have only recently taken the plunge into HDTV and aren't ready, willing, or financially able to upgrade to a 3DTV.  I think the consumer electronics industry jumped on this far too soon considering the current economic climate.  I also think that in order to make this an attractive medium for most consumers it's going to have to be done without the need for the viewer to don a pair of glasses.

Topic locked
Website design by Yammm Software
Powered by Drupal