Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Living With a Nerd
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...)
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.
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!
My work here is dung.
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.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
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.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Actually, it's just how you look at the sales numbers. If you're wearing your 3-D glasses they look much better.
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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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!
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
And to think, they always said if you watched too much you'd end up wearing glasses. Who knew they'd be 3D!
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.
And have been fed up with since the mid 80's
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.