Slashdot Mirror
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.)
I hate having to wear glasses just to watch something. More so, it looks and feels like a gimmick.
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I'm going to skip the whole 3D TV craze and hold out for a 4D one. One extra D has to be better, right?
Add another 4 and another D and then we'll be in business!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3D tv is just a scam. tried every 20-30 years and they just don't learn...
No, AFAIK this is the third time they've tried it with movies ('50s, early '80s, present day), but only the first they've tried it seriously with television.
:-).
(Not counting sporadic special events and gimmick fests that require special glasses and have limitations, but work with an ordinary TV, and hence would not be much use for getting people to buy a new one!)
Coincidentally, I just overhead my boss this afternoon telling a customer that he doesn't have much use for the expensive 3D television he bought last year, and even admitting that it was a "gimmick". No big surprise, he was never even into TV that much in the first place, but likes his boys toys until he gets bored of them... which is pretty much as soon as he gets them
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Just look at what MTV did to music.
OK, just what the heck does MTV have to do with music?
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
you can't seem to buy a new quality tv today that doesn't have 3d capabilities in it.
Because it is an easy feature to add. It's just software and one component (the emitter).
Anyway, I've found it works wonders with racing games -- they are both more exciting and it is easier to make the tricky corners when your brain actually sees them in 3D.
Someone had to do it.
I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with it.
Last year, I got a little Nintendo 3DS and hated it. Got headaches. Gave it to my daughter who says she's not bothered by it. Didn't really love 3D movies or the one experience I had with a 3D television at a friend's house.
But in November, I was at a card game at another friend's house and he had just gotten a big-screen 3D TV and we sat down to watch the movie Drive Angry. It was just spectacular. The movie was basic grindhouse fare, done pretty well and certainly with gusto. But the 3D was terrific. It didn't try to make anything subtle about it, just blasted the 3D into your face with every dumb 3D trick that's been around since the 50's. And it all worked. The well-designed and manufactured 3D glasses fit nicely over my regular glasses.4 No headache.
Now understand, it's still way too expensive. If I went out and bought a big 3D TV and 4 sets of glasses at the current prices, my wife would cut my throat in my sleep and I couldn't blame her. I don't know how that 3D technology would look on content that didn't already have an unreal feel about it. Maybe there's something that's so cheesy about the 3D that it would look stupid on a film that wasn't already cheesy, I'm not sure.
I doubt very much that the current 3D technology will last more than a few more years before it's passe again, just like the way it's gone every time the entertainment industry has tried 3D in the past. I'm sure that better 3D technology will supplant it before long, probably within the next couple of years.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Skype found the killer app for videophones: grandmothers. My mother literally got broadband just for Skype, to talk to her kids and grandkids.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
Computers obey me.