Huge Shocker — 3D TVs Not Selling

itwbennett writes "It comes as no surprise to the vast majority of us who haven't rushed out to buy a 3D TV, but according to a DisplaySearch report consumers aren't doing their part to make 2010 the year of 3D TV, says blogger Peter Smith. And the stats are even worse than Smith imagined they'd be: 'DisplaySearch estimates that 3.2 million 3D TVs will be shipped in 2010. Note, that's shipped, not sold. 3.2 million equates to 2% of all flat panel displays shipped (as far as I can ascertain, that's worldwide shipments). So yeah, there are not many 3D TVs being shipped this year. But wait, that's not the end of the bad news. In Western Europe (the only region where they offered this data point) sales of 3D glasses are less than 1 per 3D set sold. In other words, a lot of Western Europeans who buy a TV with 3D capability don't even bother to buy the glasses to use that feature.'"

Comments

I know why.. lack of standardization

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe it's because there's no 3d standard yet.
I know I'm holding off until I don't have to choose from eighteen different technologies ranging from shutter to active to glasses free to holding flash cards infront of my head.

Make a 'standardized' 3d format, and I'll dive in.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[WrongSizeGlass]

Actually, it's just how you look at the sales numbers. If you're wearing your 3-D glasses they look much better.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[delinear]

I doubt most buyers even understand the different formats, they probably just think 3D TV is all the same. No, it's more likely higher cost plus lack of a real need just yet that's behind this - sales of HDTV were similarly low when sets first started appearing on the consumer market, due to both the high cost and the lack of content. It's way too early to say 3D TV has failed as TFS seems to be suggesting - let's wait until 3D movies are widespread and prices of sets have dropped a little before making blanket statements (although from a geek perspective I'm totally with you - I wouldn't buy into 3D until I knew which format was going to win, I just don't think the average consumer thinks that way, which is why some people got burned by HD-DVD).

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Scrameustache]

maybe it's because there's no 3d standard yet.

Maybe it's because its an expensive device that delivers a sub-par viewing experience in exchange for a gimmick that people are already fed up with.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Defenestrar]

Or perhaps because it's not really worth the sticker shock for all 4 movies out there you want to watch in 3D. Wait - let me correct that. Don't want to pay the sticker shock price for a 2D stereoscopic projection.

Heck - I'm not even willing to pay that percentage of my annual income for a regular HD TV. Then again, I have different hobbies and fairly limited free time, so I probably don't spend more than two hours a week in front of a TV. So my comments should be taken with a whole spoon of salt since this I'm not the targeted demographic.

Slightly off topic, but where do they get off calling something HD (both regular 2D and 2D stereo) that computer monitors in the early 90's were doing in a fraction of the physical viewing space?

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[AlecC]

I don't think they are saying that 3D TV has failed, merely that this is not "The year of 3D TV". Which doesn't surprise me. Leaving aside the format problem, which is serious, the consumer needs to have much more awareness of the products and much more available material in order to put out that amount of money. I think they are not totally stupid - they know that the home TV experience will not match the experience that the got watching big movies - not to mention that while some moves have looked brilliant in 3D, others have less satisfactory. It does not at all surprise me that consumers are playing wait-and-see.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[digitalunity]

You've got it all wrong.

HD isn't "High Definition", it's "Higher Definition". That is to say that it is higher definition than the really abysmal NTSC specification called out.

On another note, I just got rid of my old 21" Viewsonic CRT. I think it was close to 18 years old and still had higher resolution than my new widescreen LCD monitor.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[EdZ]

As far as I know, there are only two methods of encoding 3D that are actually in use for consumer products (ignoring proprietary and bespoke systems, For That Way Madness Lies): page-flipped, and side-by-side. Page flipped is basically stored at twice the normal framerate, with one eye image then the other. Uses double the bandwidth/bitrate, but as it's storing two full frames there is no loss in quality. Side-by-side encodes the images side-by-side anamorphically in a regular frame. Easy to broadcase because it uses exactly the same bandwidth (and same broadcast equipment) as a 2D signal would, but with half the horizontal resolution (not too noticeable with stereo). You can probably guess that page-flipped is used for Blu-Ray,and side-by-side for broadcast.
Displaying 3D is not standardised (horizontal or circular polarisation, active shutter, funky-multi-layer-dichroic-anaglyph, etc), but this makes no difference whatsoever. There are multiple methods of displaying a HD image (LCD, plasma, CRT, DLP projection, etc), but thatdoesn;t mean HD isn't standardised.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Rasperin]

And have been fed up with since the mid 80's

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[mlush]

Actually, it's just how you look at the sales numbers. If you're wearing your 3-D glasses they look much better.

That only applies if the figures were made in 3D, if they were converted from 2D you may as well rub mud in your eyes.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Firethorn]

Displaying 3D is not standardised (horizontal or circular polarisation, active shutter, funky-multi-layer-dichroic-anaglyph, etc), but this makes no difference whatsoever.

Depending on the technology used, it DOES matter though. Why? Because with all the HD image techs you listed, nobody needs special glasses to see the image.

With most existing 3D techs, you need the glasses. What happens when you get friends over? When you break a set, or they just fail? Right now you can't just order generic glasses, your friends, assuming they have 3D, would likely have different 3D and would thus have different glasses.

They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Stupid McStupidson]

I can't look at the numbers. I'm at a friends house, and he only has one pair of glasses. He refused to buy a set for his family, since it would have cost him more than a new BluRay player and a half dozen movies.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Scrameustache]

They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.

Everyone wants THEIR patent portfolio to be the standard, so it's a fight.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[hairyfeet]

You jest but I'd say those stupid glasses are part of the reason stereovision TV (real 3D you can walk around, this is stereovision) will bomb hard. The glasses ARE expensive, which means to have enough so friends and family can all watch will be $$$, they just aren't comfortable or easy to deal with if you wear glasses, and even though my vision is good I've found wearing those things more than an hour gives me a headaches, and from talking to friends I'm FAR from alone on that. Then you add to that the fact that even though we have had Stereovision since the 50s most directors just can't figure out what to do with it so you end up with movies on par with "Dr Tongue's 3D house of Pancakes" (Man I miss John Candy, he would have cranked up the funny with this crap) and you end up with an expensive solution to a problem nobody really has.

The problem is the TV industry hasn't accepted what the PC manufacturers are finding out the hard way: We passed "good enough" a long time back and many folks just ain't interested in the latest whizz bang. Hell we have had dual core for...what? 6 years or so now? yet the majority of machines I see cross my desk or are in people's homes are late P4 era, why? Because paired up with a 19-22in flat panel the stuff folks are doing with their PCs, watching videos, going on FB, surfing the web, etc, just ain't taxing even these 7+ year old machines. Hell I have a damned nice AMD Quad for gaming but I'm typing this on a circa 2003 AMD Sempron I use for a Nettop. For the above uses it is whisper quiet and ultra low power and even though I like the toys there just isn't anything I do with it that even needs dual cores. Most of the homes I go into doing service calls have a nice 32-46in TV and you know what? They are happy with it. They see NO reason to change it, it works, they can plug all their consoles and gadgets into it, and everyone can pile around WITHOUT needing a bunch of expensive glasses just to watch a movie or the game.

I think Stereovision TV is gonna bomb and bomb hard, simply because it is too expensive and too much hassle for too little. I've asked customers thinking about getting a new set about Stereovision and down almost to the last one they'd rather have a bigger cheap screen than a Stereovision smaller one. Hell even the gamer customers I talked to just didn't seem that fired up by Stereovision, and gamers are usually first adopters. I'd say it'll probably bombs hard.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[fizzup]

All good points for why stereovision sucks, but you missed one. You can't lie down on your side and watch television. Even if you lean to one side a bit, that's bound to give you a headache.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[yuna49]

I doubt most buyers even understand the different formats, they probably just think 3D TV is all the same. No, it's more likely higher cost plus lack of a real need just yet that's behind this - sales of HDTV were similarly low when sets first started appearing on the consumer market, due to both the high cost and the lack of content.

I don't think the two are comparable at all. HDTV provided larger screens with better resolution without any change in how viewers relate to the television. 3D offers nothing like that.

3D makes some sense in theaters where a large screen makes the experience more "immersive." 3D in my living room would mean silly things like Brett Favre standing on my carpet to throw a pass to Randy Moss somewhere in the nether reaches of my TV.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[WuphonsReach]

We passed "good enough" a long time back and many folks just ain't interested in the latest whizz bang. Hell we have had dual core for...what? 6 years or so now?

While multi-core was available back in '05 and '06 - it wasn't affordable until about mid-year in 2007. That's when the first AMD Athlon X2 CPUs dropped below $200. Once that happened, Intel was forced to hurry up their multi-core offerings and get the price below $200.

I remember it fairly well, because that was the kick-off point for a major round of PC upgrades at the office. We specifically delayed roll-out until we could get inexpensive dual-core machines with 2GB RAM.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Idiomatick]

Circular polarization, Anaglyph(Red-Green), Interference, and shutter glasses allow you to lie down. Only linear polarization and parallax/lenticular barrier types fail there.

For the uninitiated:

Polarization: Good image. Cheap Glasses Required. Expensive Screen.
Anaglyph (Red-Green): Shitty image. Cheap Glasses Required. No special screen.
Interference: Good image. Really expensive glasses required. Good screen reqd (nothing special though).
Shutter: Good image. If improperly done it makes people sick. Expensive Glasses. Medium price screen required.
Parralax: Medium priced screen. No glasses. Small viewing angle. Face tracking can auto adjust the viewing angle to your head so you get free range. One person only.
Lenticular: Expensive screen. No glasses. Small viewing angle(s) (up to 50 or so available positions). Face tracking can auto adjust the viewing angle to your head so you get free range. One person works best, i believe they have systems supporting up to 8 with tracking (no idea how).
Crossing your eyes: Gives headaches. People find it hard to do.

Disclaimer: I didn't fact check anything I typed out. So I'm probably wrong on at least one thing.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Namarrgon]

You're wrong in that you can't lie down and get a stereo effect, regardless of the method used. This is because the left & right viewpoints are created assuming the eyes are horizontally aligned. You'd have to shoot (or render) with over/under camera lenses to get footage suitable for sideways viewing (and then it wouldn't work for sitting up).

Your method summary is about right, except that I'd say that in my experience, Polarization often gives a blurrier image (more ghosting) than e.g. Shutter glasses, and that all methods equally can make people sick, when misused. Oh, and Lenticular doesn't work with tracking, though Parallax potentially can, and neither of the two tend to scale up well.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[jesset77]

the issue is that LCD manufacturing companies are having a hard time selling 75MHz 30" cinema displays at 2500+ resolution.

The other major issue is the content side of the equation. Studios want control over content, and they are losing it. On one face this means stopping "piracy" and "copyright infringement" because they don't want people to view their content without first paying the right (set of) toll(s). They're a bit hamstrung on this point because they have to pay their tolls for music, footage and clearance within their own content so they need us to pay ours.

The other face of this is stopping all competing content. Studios can't make payroll if you watch their stuff without paying, but turned on it's head that really means they can't make payroll unless you pay to watch their stuff. Watch pirated content or watch independent content or public domain or creative commons content, and it's all the same blow to big media. So it's not even about making you pay to watch *their* stuff, it's about making you pay to watch *anything* at all.

They look at 3D as the next battleground which may help to plug the analog hole. If everyone is magically hooked on 3D content (that's the step 3 ??? part) then independent creators have a harder time crafting said content to compete with them, rippers have a harder time pirating the content, etc etc.

Yes, it will bomb. While this this rendition of Stereovision is marginally superior to the Anaglyph offerings of the 20th century, they are still messy and complicated for the end user. This is nothing like the radio to video, black and white to color, or analog to digital transitions. Color never gave anyone a headache or forced you to keep your head still at an uncomfortable angle nor required expensive glasses which interfere with your prescription ones, took batteries or had to be tethered to the set. Also, color offers a much richer addition to a black and white image than stereovision does to monovision.

Even if you compare stereovision to a mounted set of binoculars, the binoculars at least come with a "focus" knob that let you alter the depth of field, like the human eye does naturally when encountering an actually 3d scene. Stereovision media puts you at the director's mercy for depth of field, which in turn gives you a headache whenever your eyes try to focus on the blurry foreground or background objects (cued by having to cross or uncross to see them without doublevision) and naturally fail. I first noticed this watching Bolt in 3D at the theater, when the camera was looking down a tall wall. Depth of field was first at the dog, at the bottom of the wall, and then refocused to the top of the wall. In Monovision my eyes don't care, as they're not being prompted to cross and uncross at someone else's whim. in Stereovision, I just about barfed.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[jesset77]

Its 3d! What kind of nerd hates new tech.

It's really not that hard to grok, "new tech" is not always "good tech". "Expensive and complex" does not always mean "worthwhile or interesting". 3D (but I'm on board with the more accurate term Stereovision) as it is sold today is really just the tech industry selectively forgetting the lessons learned from Virtual Boy/VR32, and really the whole VR hype train from the 90's.

We want our TV's to have good brightness at an angle because we're not always sitting right in front of them. We want our game controllers wireless and our laptops and tablets to have wireless internet and good battery life because we want to pick them up and take them places. We want to lay down or sit or sprawl in odd positions.

We want our electronics to accommodate how we feel comfortable using them.

The current generation of Stereovision fails on that point. It makes us strap shit to our heads. Many geeks already wear glasses, and those almost never stack comfortably. It makes us sit at a certain angle from the screen, and we cannot tilt our head more than a few degrees. Our eyes are forced to refocus on the binocular (cross, uncross) while remaining at a fixed focus on the monocular (depth of field) which induces the same headaches as stereograms do.

So as far as "new tech" goes, it's barely even a novelty. The basics of Stereovision are nearly a hundred years old, and we've all ridden this train before. It's expensive and inconvenient. And probably the worst bit for geek involvement is, it's not really hackable or malleable in any way.

Part of the goal for media's stereovision push it to create a content walled garden. 3d is expensive to produce, more difficult to pirate, and gives them an excuse to charge for another premium. Independents can't compete. Geeks have no easy way to generate or record their own 3d content to display on these devices.

But if tech only has to be complex or new to turn you on, then there is this great inmate ankle band you've got to hear about. Delivers shocks on par with a tazer when the inmate leaves their itinerary. It's all proprietary so I can't really tell you how it works this magic, and it costs a mint, but I can certainly put one on you and charge it to your nerd card! :D

Price and glasses, most likely

[Pojut]

I'd imagine that the price of entry (not to mention expensive and PITA glasses) are likely what's holding back a faster adoption. I've checked out a couple of 3DTVs on display at my local Bad Buy, and I gotta say the effect is extremely impressive. Were it not for a lack of content and finances, I would probably buy one.

The fact that first-gen consumer flatscreen 3DTVs work as well as they do is promising for the technology.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[Maxo-Texas]

If they want this feature to catch on, they need to include a pair of glasses and a couple popular 3d movies.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[arivanov]

Flat panel was hugely expensive for many years. Its transition from early adoption to consumer technology took nearly 5 years. Once the prices dropped under a certain threshold the CRTs disappeared off the shelves virtually overnight.

The replacement of BW by Colour took even longer. We are talking decades here. Once again, once the price difference dropped under a certain level BW disappeared overnight.

HD TV crawled to HD through "HD Ready" for more than 4 years.

12 months are not indicative of an adoption rate. The first 12 months in consumer electronics are often the same for tech that eventually dies and for tech that becomes the de-facto standard. Will the 3D TV live or die is yet undecided. It will become clear in 3-4 years (earliest).

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[peragrin]

That the trick you can't show it off. The field of view and range of 3D TVs is very poor you have to sit in a certian area that is smaller than the average couch and they lose effectiveness if your too far away or too close.

Anyone outside the bounds get distortions.

On top of the fact some 10-20% of population will get headaches/sick/etc from viewing such things.or if you don't have enough glasses youhave to watch the movie in 2D anyways. 3D TV with glasses is just stupid. 3D TV without glasses is about a decade out of realistic use. Current tech can only show images to 2,3 people at a time and in a smaller area than with glasses.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[sznupi]

How often do you use "3D" photos? Have you ever made even one such photograph? It's quite easy and quite inexpensive for a long time, has experienced many short fascinations from time to time during the last ~150 years. But ultimately - ignored.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[BoogeyOfTheMan]

You have the technologies mixed up a bit. The TV's that need the active shutter glasses have a very wide viewing angle, whereas the ones such as the new Toshibas and the screen on the 3DS have the small viewing angle.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[Moryath]

Once the prices dropped under a certain threshold the CRTs disappeared off the shelves virtually overnight.

Actually, CRT's dropped off the shelves for three reasons:
#1 - Collusion by the "beige box" computer manufacturers (Dell, Gateway, etc) to only offer LCD monitors.
#2 - Collusion by the "Big Box" retailers (Worst Buy, Circuit Scammy, etc) to no longer sell CRT's because they got better margin on higher-priced, but same sized, LCD TV's.
#3 - Bought-and-Paid-For legislation in states like California creating regulatory nightmares that basically ensured only LCD/"flat panel" monitors could be sold. Remember the uproar over crap like this last year? What you forget is that a number of states passed earlier legislation that made nightmares for CRT's in relation to disposal and components.

LCD TV's are not being pushed for any other reason other than that they are what the retailers want to sell - higher margin, more prone to breaking down (average life of LCDTV: 5 years, average life of CRT: 15+).

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[Defenestrar]

The disappearance of CRTs is a real shame because there's nothing else out there (that I'm aware of) which offered really high resolution options. I do some imaging in one of my labs where I'd love to see the whole picture (>2500 pixels wide) at once (so I can observe patterns) without having to reduce image size (which might cause me to miss some of the artifacts I'm looking for). While I know current LCD is heading toward the 2500 pixel width mark, I don't want to have to use a 35" display to do so.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[Maxo-Texas]

both a big screen, a large room, and ....

damnit...

I meant to say.. our THREE, three requirements for watching a movie are a big screen, a large room, and glasses, and a comfy chair...

damnit...

Among the elements required for watching a movie are, a big screen, a large room, and glasses, a comfy chair, good lighting, ...

Why Get one?

[mattwrock]

It's not like there's a lot of 3D choices. Most of the movies I saw in 3D still work in 2D. Until there is something really compelling *cough* porn *cough*, it's not going to fly off the sheleves.

Re:Why Get one?

[delinear]

And to think, they always said if you watched too much you'd end up wearing glasses. Who knew they'd be 3D!

Cumbersome

[olsmeister]

Who wants to wear some clunky glasses while they watch a movie? Who wants to purchase a pair for every member of their family? Who wants to walk into a room where someone is watching 3DTV with their glasses on and not be able to look over without seeing garbled pictures on the TV? Who wants to replace the $2,000 TV they purchased a two years ago? Seriously, the only reason I would jump on the bandwagon would be for video games. I think they should be pushing that market more. (or porn, of course...)

Re:Cumbersome

[eldepeche]

Some of us have to wear clunky glasses all the time, you insensitive clod!

Re:Cumbersome

[elrous0]

Yeah, which makes it even WORSE for us because we have to wear those annoying glasses uncomfortably over the glasses we already have. DOUBLE ANNOYANCE!

content

[snookerhog]

as soon as they can come up with more content that is not just more monster chiller horror theater they might have a chance. I think the real win for this will be with video games. even just making the most basic platforming game in 3D would be pretty cool.

Maybe because of this kind of warning?

[rsborg]

WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health:

... You Cannot Give This To Kids! Pesce says that Sega took the test results and buried them. Fearing lawsuits and consumer backlash over health risks, the VR Headset never made it to market and neither did the truth about the dangers of prolonged exposure to 3D virtual environments - until now. The results of SRI's research have been published and there is an unclassified document from the defense department of Australia that says there are a variety of "...unintended psychophysiological side effects of participation in (3D) virtual environments."

All that took was one google search for "3d tv danger". I'm sure experience with the actual devices would yield more "headaches" and other disorientation, which a parent takes as serious coming from the kiddos.

2 problems

[pandore]

I don't think the price of the TV is the problem.
The first problem is probably the price of the glasses. Imagine you are are 4 or 5 persons family and have to buy 4 or 5 pair of glasses at 150$-200$ each pair, you will have to spent a lot.
The second problem is the market penetration of the standard HDTV was too high. If a family bought a 52" HDTV 2 years ago and just finished to pay for it, will they buy a 3DTV today ?

I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[eldavojohn]

Were it not for a lack of content and finances, I would probably buy one.

I am so happy we have blu-ray discs today. I don't own any blu-ray movies nor do I own a blu-ray player. But what I do own is lots of DVDs that I purchased after blu-ray came out. Found a complete X-Files box set for under $100 brand new (over 40 discs!) from some 'deep discount' retailer online. Same with a bunch of other movies I liked but never had the cash to blow $20-$30 to get on DVD. Dr. Strangelove looks pretty much the same to me on DVD -- again, found it on the cheap given the advent of blu-ray. Handbrake allows me to rip the discs to an m4v file so I can stream them to my player on my TV and then put the discs away in safe storage to increase their shelf life. I'm happy. Obviously if I'm compressing them to m4v and enjoying that with no problem, DVDs are more than satisfactory. Could I even still do this with blu-ray and 3D, let alone afford them? Probably not.

Now with the 3D, I was hoping that publishers would be forced to put out three tiers of purchasing: DVD, blu-ray and 3D. And the ceiling would be on 3D while DVDs might shift even lower. I know I'm the minority when I say that I am satisfied with current DVD resolution and am okay with buying into DVDs but the price difference is unreal -- especially used discs.

Of course, this backfires if they 1) stop making DVDs of movies or 2) stop supporting DVD playing in major electronics and players. Since the discs are the same size, I don't ever thing #2 will happen but #1 is a possibility. Until then, my wallet and I are really enjoying these transition periods!

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I know I'm the minority when I say that I am satisfied with current DVD resolution and am okay with buying into DVDs but the price difference is unreal -- especially used discs.

I don't think you're the minority at all. I think a lot of people feel this way, myself included.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Maxo-Texas]

Exactly. I did the math once and at 15', the difference between DVD and HD is meaningless on a 46" screen. Pretty meaningless on a 55" screen.

I have gone a step further and stopped buying things like the X-Files (tho I did buy that before I stopped).

I only buy a movie on DVD now if I know I will be watching it at least 5 times or at least once a year. If I know I'm going to watch the movie once or twice, I rent it.

I can't keep up with the new entertainment as it is. Still haven't seen Dr. Horrible, How I met your mom, and numerous other shows. Even missing some movie's I'd like to see but don't have time for.
Same for books.

Since they are mostly equally "good", the main determining factor is price. I can watch something on netflix for $8.95 for all you can watch? I watch that first. You want me to pay $5.99 to rent one movie from Vudu? Are you crazy? Guess I'm not in your target market.

I especially like the better iPhone video games for this. I must have spent 80 hours on "Angry Birds". The same for "Finger Physics". Now I'm starting Doodle Jump. Each cost 99 cents.
I'm excited about this new space war/flight simulator game too- have a free copy- it looks super deep and if I can make it through the learning curve (it's a full fledge starship combat / star colony simulator) I'll buy the full version for ... 99 cents.

Each time I do that, I skip a few 19.99 movies and almost all $50 games.

As for movies at the theater- I go to the $4 saturday / sunday movies most- and everyone else has shifted around and we go as a group then. It's $7 for "3d" and most of the time I skip the 3d unless everyone else is crazy about it. 3d rarely matters for more than 2 minutes out of a 2 hour movie.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[slyrat]

Exactly. I did the math once and at 15', the difference between DVD and HD is meaningless on a 46" screen. Pretty meaningless on a 55" screen.

15 feet? Well no wonder. Most every time I've seen tv set ups it is at most 10 feet, and even then everyone I know has distances closer to 6 feet. If you have that kind of distance you should look into projection hd. You can make it a bunch bigger for just moving it back a bit farther.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[dogsbreath]

I have gone a step further and stopped buying things like the X-Files (tho I did buy that before I stopped).

I only buy a movie on DVD now if I know I will be watching it at least 5 times or at least once a year. If I know I'm going to watch the movie once or twice, I rent it.

Yup... we stopped buying video content a long time ago. We just use the PVR, watch a show a couple of times and then let it disappear into the bit bucket. I have almost no interest in owning/permanently keeping video content. My experience is that most discs are played once or twice and then just take up space on the shelf that would be better used for books, pictures or photo albums.

OTOH, I am very much into a permanent collection of audio. Music has more meaning and permanent value for us than videos/movies. Go figure.

I still buy CDs because of the flexibility and control: I can convert it to any format with ease, but if (legal) downloadable content was DRM free then I would not buy CDs either. I would rather maintain a reliable NAS vault of music than manage a collection of fragile plastic discs.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[pak9rabid]

...the differencebetween DVD and HD is meaningless on a 46" screen. Pretty meaningless on a 55" screen.

What, are you fucking blind?

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Maxo-Texas]

No but apparently the people sitting 6.5' from a 52" screen must be.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-btv1k8ewsdn/learn/learningcenter/home/TV_placement.html
52" 6.5-10.8 feet

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Maxo-Texas]

Or the math is correct... since Crutchfield recommends sitting 6.5 feet from a 52" screen if you have a high quality signal and no more than 10.8 feet even with a terrible analogue signal.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[adisakp]

Exactly. I did the math once and at 15', the difference between DVD and HD is meaningless on a 46" screen. Pretty meaningless on a 55" screen.

Either your math is wrong or your TV is crappy or your eyesight is really bad. With the higher resolution, you do get a lot more image. There are BluRay discs of Nature shows where you can see individual blades of grass or individual hairs and whiskers on an animal's face during close ups. On the DVD versions, everything looks a lot muddier.

In addition to just resolution, there is also a much higher bitrate. BluRay can hold 25GB per layer - DVD can only hold just over 4GB per layer. Having 5-6 higher data-rate influences video quality. Finally, BluRay uses a more advanced codec than DVD, even at similar BitRates and resolution to DVD, the codec should generate a higher quality video.

So we have better codec, higher quality bitrate, and higher resolution -- and you can't tell the difference between an older 640x480 video and a high quality 1920x1080 modern one on a display that takes up half your wall? I call bullshit.

Gaming, gaming, gaming, gaming,...

[WikiChris]

Doesn't really surprise me too much. 3D is a bit of fun and the whole glasses thing... But I am absolutely convinced it's going to be absolutely massive in gaming. PS3 owners are all going to want one and enough will buy to make it the next big thing but not for average Joe. That extra bit of immersion will go down VERY well. Xbox will get very interested soon.

Too many barriers for mainstream adoption.

[popoutman]

The 'active' screens with the requirement for very expensive glasses is definitely a barrier to adoption. Pretty much only the true early adopters / gadget freaks / over-rich will get these, and even then mostly for bragging rights. Active screens are not suitable for those with kids, or those people with friends.

The 'passive' screens are so much more expensive than the 'active' screens, that's another barrier to consumer takeup, at least these sets have cheap near-disposable glasses as a requirement to get the 3d effect. This is a better option for those that actually have a more than a few friends that might come over to watch the screen.

Now when the screens that have the micro-lens array in front of the pixel matrix, that will allow a better 3d effect, if only in certain places around the set. That'll be an improvement for sure.

My pie-in-the-sky idea is a micromirror array, fed by three-colour lasers, that'll illuminate the eye's pupil with the correct pattern for each eye, with tracking of the pupil locations. This would ensure that no matter where one stood in front of the display, the correct image would be seen at all times. Anyone know if this is a realistic possibility?
And all of the 3d diaplays will do absolutely nothing for those of us that have e.g. a lazy eye or other problems with binocular vision. My girlfriend has poor vision in one eye, and doesn't have true binocular vision available, so 3d tv is not a priority.

Can't wait for this fad to die...

[MetalliQaZ]

I hate 3D. It looks awful, adds unnecessary cost to everything, and gives me eye-strain headaches faster than "Battling seizure robots". Lets not forget the fact that even Justin Timberlake can't make those glasses look cool in their super-budget commercial.

It is just a fad pushed by a panicked industry who is seeing their strangle hold on the home-cinema market evaporating to iPads and other disruptive technologies. The fad will die, just like it did in the 50's, but it will gobble up a few orders of magnitude more money this time.

Re:Can't wait for this fad to die...

[glwtta]

But they also said color was gimmickry. So were moving pictures. And sound.

Did they actually? Or is that just something people like to say to seem clever?

Paying for the headache privelage

[onyxruby]

Executive's view of why 3D TV's aren't selling:
Hey, why don't people want to pay for something with the latest technology? Avatar was awesome..

Consumers view of why 3D TV's aren't selling:
Hey, I can pay a huge premium for something that will give me a headache, requires glasses and that almost no content can use. Besides most 3D movies were done after the fact and aren't avatar.

Tip to electronics executives, your market for 3D TV's wont be ready for another 5-10 years.

Re:Paying for the headache privelage

[iamhassi]

"Hey, I can pay a huge premium for something that will give me a headache, requires glasses and that almost no content can use. "

Or pay for a feature I'll only use maybe 4 hours a month, assuming you watch a 3D movie twice a month. Sorry, that 4 hours of fun a month is not worth an extra $2,000, I could buy a lot of Avatar 3D tickets for that.

Besides, if we all had 3D HDTVs doesn't that mean pirates would download 3D movies and the MPAA would be mad again? Can't make everyone happy.

Its a UX problem.

[AndersBrownworth]

As long as you have to have glasses, 3D TV will remain a niche market.

Google TV will kill 3d TV

[alen]

i've watched 3d shows on TV for almost 30 years as they played every so often. wearing the glasses is PITA and adding 3D is not something i'm going to pay the extra $300 or so for.

LED TV's are cool mostly for the nice CPU's inside them. i've seen HD shows on them and they look almost as good as seeing something with your own eyes. much better than watching HD on the original HD sets from years ago. but the real value is in internet access. netflix and youtube on TV's is nice. and with Google TV promising to organize all the video on the internet it will make it a lot easier to view shows straight from the network's website rather than pay for DVR. and it makes it so much easier to watch porn on your TV with flash built in. there is a return on investment in buying a TV with Google TV in it. people aren't stupid. they look to buy stuff to save money in the long run, not some gee whiz tech being hyped as the next cool thing

Apple

[Krneki]

In 2 years Apple will make a 3D TV and everyone will want one.

The key to this success?
1. Increase price
2. Fancy design.
3. Marketing
4. ????
5. Profit!

3D is not for everyone...

[cpghost]

Having widely different diopters on both eyes (-7 and -1), and unable to wear contact lenses, I can't enjoy 3D even in real life. So 3D-TV is not my cup of tea. I only hope that if and once 3D-TV gets mainstream, monovision will sill remain an option, because looking at the blurred 3D-image is horrible, and looking at it with colored glasses would make it appear with a green, blue or red tint, which is also bad.

It's just not that compelling

[shadowrat]

Most people want higher resolution. HD was a compelling shift in tv technology. One look and people saw it was better. Wide aspect ratios were compelling as they take advantage of our natural FOV. 3D is just kind of MEH
.
I think people generally think of what they see in the day to day world as a 2D scene. Sure you rely on depth perception, but it's sort of at a lower level of thought. You know when to catch a ball that someone throws you, but you don't marvel at the depth of field. You appreciate rich landscapes, but are mostly focused at infinity. Kids don't really struggle with projecting a 3D scene onto a 2D plane. They just start drawing what they see on paper. They don't even think about vanishing points and projections. That interpretation is natural as our vision is really based on 2D sensors.

When we watch tv or movies, 2D is good enough because we are used to thinking about the world this way. We appreciate a good 3D scene, but it doesn't really ever add anything that was missing from the 2D scene as we are very adept at reconstituting depth.

Re:It's just not that compelling

[StikyPad]

Wide aspect ratios were compelling as they take advantage of our natural FOV. 3D is just kind of MEH

By that logic, 3D should be compelling because it takes advantage of our natural depth perception.

IMO, the reason 3D it's *not* is because depth information usually fades into the background (metaphorically speaking) unless we're actively using it. Since we're not trying to interact with objects in movies and, for the most part, objects in movies aren't being thrown toward the viewer, there's very little relevant content or context where depth information is relevant. Motion is the other factor, but most non-action films have very little motion. Avatar was possibly an exception, but that could arguably be classified as an action flick. Even then, I know I had to consciously check to notice whether scenes were still in 3D, and I suspect most people forgot they were watching 3D at those points as well.

Re:It's just not that compelling

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Kids don't really struggle with projecting a 3D scene onto a 2D plane. They just start drawing what they see on paper. They don't even think about vanishing points and projections. That interpretation is natural as our vision is really based on 2D sensors.

Actually, that's not true. The naive/untrained method is to draw everything from a flat 2D perspective. You can see this both in art by children (or people with no formal art training) as well as in pretty much all art from the Middle Ages and prior. The development of perspective, which is an application of mathematics/geometry to art, is why paintings from the Renaissance Era on simply look so much better and more lifelike than paintings from any earlier era. The rules of perspective (that is, mapping a 3D world to a 2D surface) are not obvious, are not simple, and learning how to draw perspective well is a skill that is hard to master.

Re:It's just not that compelling

[FoolishOwl]

I think people generally think of what they see in the day to day world as a 2D scene. Sure you rely on depth perception, but it's sort of at a lower level of thought.

I think that's quite accurate.

I enjoyed Avatar. As I watched it, I was struggling to understand what the point was of using 3D in Avatar. Before long, it dawned on me that in the scenes which genuinely had depth effects (many didn't), my eyes were drawn to the specific focal point of that scene. 3D effects were a tool for the filmmakers to control where the audience is looking.

I have mixed feelings about that: sure, it's another tool for filmmakers, but it comes at a cost. In addition to the discomfort of the apparatus, I felt for much of the movie as if I was being coerced, by being forced to look at what the filmmaker wanted me to look at, not what I wanted to look at.

I'd been puzzled at some of the negative response to Avatar -- reviews often complain how manipulative and conventional the plot is, but that's hardly unusual in an action movie. I wonder now if some of the negative response is from the physical experience of watching the movie, being attributed to the narrative form of the movie.

Anyway, I think the utility of this technique is limited.

Bought my own 3DTV and have little to do but wait.

[Fixer40000]

I picked up a decent Samsung 46" 3DTV the other day since I'm moving into a new place. Amazon was doing a special offer for one week and it turned out about the same price as a regular TV of the same spec with a 3D Blu ray player thrown in for free. So not bad at all. Would have I bought it if it had been just for the 3D and using it right now? Nope. There's basically 2 movies that you can actually buy for it. Cloudy with a chance of meatballs, and Monster house. Two movies I have absolutely no intention of buying or seeing. One that I wouldn't mind seeing 'Monsters Vs. Aliens' is bundled in with a £100 3D glasses kit I don't need, and one that I would like to see 'How to train your dragon' is going to be done likewise. For the foreseeable future that leaves just one Blu ray coming out soon worth seeing that I can actually get my hands on... Avatar. What has been fun though has been hooking up the PC to the big screen and playing around with some custom 3D drivers, it's not perfect and it's as buggy as hell on anything but a handful of games however playing Left 4 dead 2 where zombie tongues stick out of the screen and hit you in the face has been crazy awesome (guessing where the mouse [pointer is supposed to be on the screen to start the game, less so). nVidia is coming out with some proper 3D driver tools for hooking up to a big screen 3DTVs in the near future making that far less painful and I figure that gaming is where 3D stuff is going to sell and in the near future while so little video content is available that will be the main reason for buying these screens.

Get 3D contact lenses

[RapmasterT]

Yeah, which makes it even WORSE for us because we have to wear those annoying glasses uncomfortably over the glasses we already have. DOUBLE ANNOYANCE!

You need some 3D contact lenses. Then you can wear them ALL the time and experience 3D all day long without looking like an idiot wearing the 3D glasses in public.

I've always wondered what the real world would look like in 3D, just never had the nerve to wear those goofy glasses outside.