Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging

A Wired article (as carried by CNN) attempts to answer the question of why 3D television hasn't caught on. The reasons listed there (high price, paltry content, the need for 3D glasses for typical sets, headaches and strain) all seem to be on the money, in themselves, but I think don't go far enough. 3D on a set small enough for home use outside a high-end home-theater rig seems to me like a clever novelty that I can't even enjoy unless I've given it my full attention. It's nothing like the jump from black-and-white to color, or even the jump from my old (circa 1993) 19" Trinitron to a flat-panel display. On the big screen, it's another story — there, 3D can be arresting and involving, even when it's exaggerated (and it is). On home sets, even quite large ones, to my eye 3D usually looks phony and out of place. Never mind that the content is limited and often expensive, or that there are competing standards for expensive glasses to wear — I just don't like that the commitment is greater than that required for casual, conventional TV; I can't readily scan email, skim through a magazine, or keep watching out the corner of my eye from another room. (I'm hoping to find some actually watchable no-glasses 3D sets at CES next week, but I'm skeptical.)

Comments

I will never adopt 3D

[metalgamer84]

I hate having to wear glasses just to watch something. More so, it looks and feels like a gimmick.

Re:It's the old catch-22

[Baloroth]

Consumers will flock to 3DTVs when there is basically nothing else on the market: otherwise, it just doesn't provide enough benefit to justify the added cost. This happened with HD too; did the TV makers really expect it to be different this time?

I think they might have. HD TVs sold in droves, for a while anyways, as people upgraded. They were a significant upgrade, and prices dropped while quality increased rapidly, causing a huge bubble for TV makers. It wasn't even that nothing else was available: HD TV's are simply far better than old CRT TVs, in nearly every possible way. 3D TVs are almost worse, in 3D mode, than regular HD TVs (although usually slightly better in non-3D mode), which means they simply will not sell. But based on the bubble, TV makers expected them to. Basically, they expected (or hoped, anyways) sales to continue at what they were, using 3D TVs to push that, not realizing they were in the middle of an upgrade bubble. Similar story with Blu-ray: DVDs were far (far far far) superior to VHS, so they sold well, whereas most people can't tell the difference between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-ray disc.

Re:Not much better than it was before

[Beardo the Bearded]

At the end of the day I guess it's just like at the cinema, Avatar was phenomenal in 3D but little else has been, likewise, it appears games are suited to 3D too.

Pop quiz, hotshot:
1. Who was Luke's mentor in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?
2. Who was the character in The Lord of the Rings that chased "his precious"?
3. Name the blue girl in Avatar.

3D doesn't make for good, memorable characters. It makes for gimmicky crap. Avatar was a terrible movie with a 3D effect, 2D characters, and a 1D plot.

Re:Err

[Lord Apathy]

It is not catching on because makers haven't figure it out yet. Here is the deal. Most people that watch tv donâ(TM)t' want a interactive experience. They don't want to strap on crappy do-dads or watch complex things where they have to pick and choose a path or answer questions.

People sit down in front of a tv to be mindlessly entertained. Something a standard 2d tv does just fine.

You want a interactive video experience play your Xbox. Want to be educated, read a book.

Re:scam

[pixelpusher220]

I saw Avatar in 3D and literally didn't see anything useful in using that medium over regular 2D. I would assume they pulled out most of the stops on something that big to make 3D work.

Perhaps when it evolves into something that is 'actually' 3D and not 'simulated' 3D they will have something, but until then it is not and never has been '3D'. You can't change your perspective to look at an object from a different direction like you can in actual 3D life.

Sports worst feature of 3D Re:scam

[AJ Mexico]

Actually,sports is the worst programming for 3D. For previous technology advances, sports was obviously better. Sports looked great in color, and sports looked great in Hi-Def and that helped those technologies gain acceptance. Not so for sports in 3D. 3D works best when the "director" can carefully control the strength of the 3d effect, and keep it consistent throughout, as is done in (well-made) movies, and in video games, where everything can be calculated in advance. I watched one of the first (US) football games broadcast to theaters in 3D. It was a painful experience.

While watching 3D, you can gradually get accustomed to the infra-ocular distance used to film the scene, which may differ from your view of the natural world. When adjacent scenes use different camera configurations, your mind takes time to make the adjustment to the new 3D perspective. This is one of the contributors to the headache effect.

In sports, the action is unpredictable, and may move towards or away from the camera(s) unexpectedly. Cuts from one view to another are frequent. This causes the viewer to continually readjust to new 3d perspectives. IMHO, this problem is the unavoidable Achilles heel of 3d sports. Remember, this is technology-independent. It doesn't matter what kind of glasses are being used, or whether no glasses are used -- this problem still exists.