Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging 457
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.)
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Easily 30% of people can't view 3d tv for one reason or another. Headaches. Doesn't work. Ect.
Most of the 3d shit needs glasses of some sort. And alot of people already wear glasses. Doesn't work. Plus you have to have enough of them for everyone who wants to view 3dtv.
We JUST got done upgrading to hdtv, digital and flatscreens all over the freakin country. And most of us feel that was stupid anyway. But it was all we could buy when our old tvs finally died.
And we found out all our tvs don't work with the cable/sat systems directly and we need another stupid little box sitting there. So we all spent all this money on what is pretty much a damm monitor. And paid a premium to do it.
3d all seems to come down to 'ooo look! object comming right at you!' It's not natural. They use it instead of a good story. And not in addition to.
Who the hell wants 3d tv. Not me.
no guarantee you use the 3D feature . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
i recently bought a new 55" Samsung LED. I didn't see a lot of products at this size and price class that didn't have 3D capabilities.
So count me in with the 3D TV purchaser statistic.
Have I ever used it? Hell no. Would I have paid less for the same TV w/o 3D if it were available? Absolutely. So even as the 3D-TVs in the home percentage rises as manufacturers stuff it down our throats, the real indicator is who uses the feature? My guess is very few, but I'd love to see a survey on that little tidbit.
Because not everyone likes 3D ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen two movies in 3D (well, the same one twice) ... both times it gave me a splitting headache that lasted for hours.
I don't like 3D. I don't want 3D. I'm not willing to pay for 3D. To me, 3D is a pointless failed technology I don't want.
Granted, everyone else is free to choose to have it, and I may actually be in the minority. But I'm not willing to spend a single penny on it. Not now, not ever.
I just view it as yet another reason why new TVs are a moving target. The HD spec has changed half a dozen times since about 99 when I bought my DVD player ... HDMI, HDCP, and now 3D. Do they really think people are going to buy a fresh new TV for another moving target spec every 2-3 years?
Used to be that you could buy a TV and have it last a decade or more ... now it's just baubles and doo-dads they try to change every year,
I finally just replaced my ten year old rear-projection TV with an LCD TV ... and I have no intention of replacing this for at least another 5+ years. As always, 3D is a gimmick that will attract some people, but the rest will simply watch it pass by and fade away.
Re:scam (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Some of us... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us paid thousands of dollars on LASIK surgery specifically for the purpose of not having to wear glasses. I'm not about to pay thousands more so that I can again.
Re:Passive glasses (Score:5, Interesting)
The current passive 3d tvs use half the vertical resolution. If you are close enough, that shows. If you use the motion enhancing features, that shows too. Shutter glasses aren't perfect either. Even though my TV is a 3D one (for the very small price difference between non-3d and 3d, I decided to get it), I'm not using it much. Perhaps with more usage you can forget about the artifact, but so far I'm not running after 3d movies.
Gaming? (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it surprising that all the comments above are focused on 3D movies, and none mention gaming. Hello people? Gaming in 3D is freaking amazing. It really adds to the immersion, and looks pretty fantastic. That's the only reason to get a 3D-capable TV in my opinion. 3D movies suck even in theaters, and "converted" content is just plain wrong. Gaming in 3D, on the other hand... If you haven't tried it yet, you should.
Re:scam (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:scam (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Skype found the killer app for videophones: grandmothers. My mother literally got broadband just for Skype, to talk to her kids and grandkids.
Re:Gaming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you played games in 3D? I find they appear to be nothing more then flat planes at various depths moving over the surface of the TV with some shadows to give the impression of distance. If I am playing CoD I should be able to peer around a corner or over ground cover, but you can't. I will agree that 3D brings more novelty to gaming, but I find it as ineffective for games as it is for movies mostly because I would tend to play a game > 90 minutes and 3D TV gives me a headache after about 15 minutes.
Re:scam (Score:4, Interesting)
Avatar seemed very well done in 3D, at least with better effects than anything before or since. The problems with Avatar were two:
1. As a film, Avatar just wasn't very good.
2. It's all CGI anyway. A live action film with 3D use so effective would be much more impressive.