Huge Shocker — 3D TVs Not Selling 535
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.'"
Price and glasses, most likely (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
2 problems (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Gaming, gaming, gaming, gaming,... (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many barriers for mainstream adoption. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Paying for the headache privelage (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Why Get one? (Score:1, Interesting)
Until there is something really compelling *cough* porn *cough*, it's not going to fly off the sheleves.
Check out This Ain't Avatar XXX 3D [youtube.com]
There's some other's out there I'm too lazy to link to, like "Octopossy 3D" and "Whorrie Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls"
Google TV will kill 3d TV (Score:4, Interesting)
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
3D is not for everyone... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling (Score:3, Interesting)
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. ... 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
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:Price and glasses, most likely (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Bought my own 3DTV and have little to do but wait. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Price and glasses, most likely (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I disagree (Score:1, Interesting)
I also saw some demos in Best Buy. I was reminded of those old view-finder toys, only moving. The 3D was obviously post-production as it looked like flat cut-outs positioned in 3D.
Really, I thought, my mind does better with converting truly flat projections to 3D. This is just distracting.
Re:Can't wait for this fad to die... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did they actually? Or is that just something people like to say to seem clever?
Re:Price and glasses, most likely (Score:3, Interesting)
How much extra does it cost to make a 3D HDTV? (Score:1, Interesting)
1. Infrared transmitter for frame syncing glasses
2. A display panel with a refresh rate of at least 120Hz
3. An HDMI 1.4 input for receiving 120Hz signals
4. Capability of processing 120Hz content
Let's break these items down and see what it's costing the set manufacturers.
1. The only real added (as opposed to incremented) hardware to the TV, but it's a 50 cent part, at most.
2. Good luck buying a larger HDTV which doesn't already do 120Hz or 240Hz or 6000Hz or whatever. Free.
3. I'll be generous and say the HDMI 1.4 chips are $5 more than the older HDMI 1.3 chips.
4. This is the real wildcard, since even 240Hz TVs up until now haven't had to deal with anything over 60Hz on the input side, and generating 120Hz and higher signals is done with simple field duplication. Still, if you're handling 120Hz and higher signals later in the path, you can do it earlier with not a lot more effort. Let's say this costs whatever it costs to handle 1080P 60Hz signals 18 months ago. Let's call it $25-50 extra.
Of course you also need to include LCD shutter glasses with batteries and IR receivers. Pack in 2 pairs at, maybe $25 each manufacturing costs, though $5-$10 is more likely. Add another buck or two to pay off the standards body to ensure interoperability of the glasses with all TVs. Wait, scratch that, instead throw in a buck for security measures to ensure other sets glasses don't work with your sets. Why? Because f*** 'em, that's why!
So a 3D HDTV with a couple of pair of glasses should cost somewhere between $41.50 and $106.50 more to manufacture. I'd guess it is probably closer to the low end than the high. Double it for profits, and there's a fair markeup to go to 3D. A $1000 markup and $200 glasses is severe price gouging and everyone knows it. When the premium to go to 3D gets down to a reasonable level, it will be embraced. I'd look for a lower end manufacturer like VIZIO to realize they can bundle in 3D for practically nothing and sell a ton of sets to drive the 3D markup down.
Re:It's just not that compelling (Score:3, Interesting)
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:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Can't wait for this fad to die... (Score:1, Interesting)
I work in the motion picture industry, with studio execs who have been in the business many many decades.
And yes, all of those were genuinely considered gimmicks by the majority of the population and industry.
Of the three, sound was the one that was almost universally called a gimmick. Of the dozens of very profitable movie theater chains that existed at the time, only 1 studio and exhibitor invested heavily in sound. The entire industry thought the talking picture was a gimmick and joke, and felt the company had dug its own grave. That company is Warner Brothers, and most of the others are gone.
Re:It's just not that compelling (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I know why.. lack of standardization (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.