Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Movies Build Hardware

Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging 457

Posted by timothy from the but-it's-got-three-dee! dept.
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.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging More

Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging

Comments Filter:

  • scam (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arnodf ( 1310501 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:03PM (#38600508)

    3D tv is just a scam. tried every 20-30 years and they just don't learn...

    • Re:scam (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ferzerp ( 83619 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:28PM (#38600980)

      It does make football marginally more enjoyable, but that's the only thing I've seen it be an improvement with. So, not totally a scam, but not worth much value at this time.

      note: I have one, not for that feature, but for the other features it has.

      • Re:scam (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:57PM (#38601496)

        I have been thinking this was the main issue. How will an expensive 3D TV set improve most of my TV watching? It won't really enhance news, informational, sitcom kinds of shows. Some dramas and movies, perhaps. Sports and action-type programming, sure.

        I think most people shrug at 3DTV because, who needs it?

        Especially as expensive as it currently is, and since most cable operators are probably going to charge extra for it (and most are already paying extra for HD capability). This isn't a boom time, economically speaking, to be asking people to upgrade all their equipment.

        I don't think most people see the benefits as being worth the expense.

        • Re:scam (Score:5, Insightful)

          by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:06PM (#38601652)
          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.

        • Porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by witherstaff ( 713820 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @05:57PM (#38603474) Homepage
          Some tv manufacturer needs to get the porn industry behind them - it helped VHS win the format war with Betamax.

      • Sports worst feature of 3D Re:scam (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AJ Mexico ( 732501 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @05:22PM (#38602940) Homepage
        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.

    • Re:scam (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:30PM (#38601012) Homepage

      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 :-).

      • > No, AFAIK this is the third time they've tried it with movies

        Try FIVE (5) times. We already had this discussion two years ago on /. with "The Joke Known As 3D TV"

        http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777404&cid=33478946 [slashdot.org]

        Sorry to break it to you, but 3D was THE dominant form of visual home entertainment from the 1860s until about 1915. The Holmes stereoscope was found in almost every middle-class household, and the production of stereo cards was big business. Visit the Library of Congr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )

      3D tv is just a scam. tried every 20-30 years and they just don't learn...

      Are we to understand you did not see the extravaganza, which was Avatar?

      The current means of performing 3D is far and above previous technology and produced a rich viewing experience - granted this is largely due to director and technical crew having a clear idea of what they were about. Being able to view a movie at home with such results would be wonderful, but there are two main pitfalls...

      Technology of the displays at an available price-point to consumers - the big screens I've seen so far aren't as go

      • Re:scam (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @05:34PM (#38603106) Homepage

        > Are we to understand you did not see the extravaganza, which was Avatar?

        One movie? Is that all. There have been tons of movies recently released in 3D. The fact that people find it necessary to fixate on a particular movie doesn't say anything positive for the format.

        So am I supposed to replace all of my equipment and deal with those stupid glasses over ONE movie?

        Sounds pretty stupid.

        No wonder 3D uptake is not so hot.

        3D is more often than not annoying or irrelevant.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Belial6 ( 794905 )
          No, you are not supposed to replace all of your equipment and deal with those stupid glasses over one movie. What your supposed to do is replace your TV when you would be replacing it anyway, and when you look at two TVs that fit your need, you decide that you will take the one with 3D just in case you ever want to use that feature.

    • I'd be far more interested in HDR. Why don't they pursue that route?

  • Err (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:05PM (#38600546)

    3D TV didnt catch on because its pathetic bling. Its flashy crap to hide the fact they didn't bother to hire writers or decent actors.
    Making things louder & flashier is NOT better.

    • Re:Err (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Apathy ( 584315 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:42PM (#38601192)

      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:Err (Score:4, Funny)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:57PM (#38601478)

      3D is the attempt to add depth to characters that are at best two dimensional.

  • I will never adopt 3D (Score:5, Insightful)

    by metalgamer84 ( 1916754 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:05PM (#38600552)
    I hate having to wear glasses just to watch something. More so, it looks and feels like a gimmick.

  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:06PM (#38600566)

    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.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wisty ( 1335733 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:12PM (#38600694)

      I like 3D for some stuff. Crowd scenes and other chaotic stuff can look great on it. Big cars exploding out of the screen is just trashy, though. There's some beautiful underwater documentary I saw - swarms of hammerheads swimming past in 3D is very very cool.

      The thing is, people know that the price will drop, the glasses will become lighter (and probably incompatible with old 3D TVs), and the new ones won't give you headaches. There's only a few good 3D movies every year, and you can see them in cinemas.

      When I was young, my parents only had a black and white set (because they were tight, and hated TV). I used to think color TV looked crap. Suddenly, there were color clashes everywhere. But I got used to it after a while.

      3D is nothing to be excited about now, though.

    • Same here, I'm just not interested. Same with HDTV. Sure, HD looks nice and all, but I don't have any urge to go spend money on it. I hardly watch TV anyway.

      This reminds me of the videophone. The technology has been around for decades but it never caught on. Even today with skype and webcams, I don't know anyone who actually uses video for phone calls.

      Sometimes, what we have is good enough.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <slashdot.davidgerard@co@uk> on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:18PM (#38601890) Homepage

        Skype found the killer app for videophones: grandmothers. My mother literally got broadband just for Skype, to talk to her kids and grandkids.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Dahamma ( 304068 )

        I don't know anyone who actually uses video for phone calls.

        Just because you don't know anyone, doesn't mean it's not hugely popular outside your social circle. Skype or Facetime is great for relatives, families with kids, etc, who travel a lot or are spread out around the world and don't get to see each other in person more than once a year or so. It has definitely caught on now.

        Same with HD. Not even considering television or movie content, between the Xbox 360 and PS3 there are 40M+ game consoles in t

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dahamma ( 304068 )

      And most of us feel that was stupid anyway. But it was all we could buy when our old tvs finally died.

      *Most* of us? Speak for yourself. Unless you are surveying in a retirement home the majority of people you ask will much prefer HD (and flat screens) over big bulky SD CRTs.

  • It's the old catch-22 (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:07PM (#38600578)

    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?

    • Re:It's the old catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:20PM (#38600820)

      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:It's the old catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:36PM (#38601118)

        I don't think that's really it, though. From a simple "quality" point of view, there's no reason not to have a 3D TV - you can watch 2D with just as much quality and still have the option for an occasional 3D experience... it's choice, and it's win-win.

        The problem for me is that finally going from SD to HD cost a lot of money. I had to upgrade the TV, I had to upgrade the disc player to BluRay, I had to upgrade the DVR, I had to upgrade the service I was getting.... now I'm supposed to upgrade all those devices to 3D? I don't think so... the cost isn't worth the benefit. I suppose if I was still at SD and decided to upgrade now, I'd go straight to 3D, but that's not the case for me nor the vast majority of people, IMO.

        I expect when I spend that much money on a television that it last more than 2 or 3 years... more like 10 (at least) or more. Both televisions I replaced were over 12 years old. I need a REALLY compelling reason to upgrade, and there just isn't one.

        • What I meant was now that everyone, or nearly everyone, is at the HD TV level, the improvement of going to a 3D TV is extremely minor, whereas the improvement of going from SD to HD was huge (screen size, resolution, thinner screens, etc). As you said, if people were at the SD level 3D might see widespread adoption, precisely because 3D TVs are just slightly better HD TVs. But most people aren't using SD TVs anymore, and certainly not the people who might even consider getting a 3D TV. So while the quality

    • In many cases if you want to buy a quality home theater TV for 2D viewing you may have to buy a 3D TV. In this case I'm defining quality by the general performance aspects of image quality, color accuracy, black levels, etc. The bottom line is that in many cases manufacturers are simply holding back the better quality TVs for those that come with an (often unused) 3D feature. You can see this repeatedly in home theater review websites and forums like avsforum.com. This is not to say that all 3D TVs are

    • Re:It's the old catch-22 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:53PM (#38601410) Journal

      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 agree that 3DTV uptake will basically be increasing only as people's current sets wear out and they buy new ones, I really don't see it being a driver of sales. That said, at least for the active-shutter type of 3D it really doesn't add any cost to include it in the TV - it is basically just a timing signal to tell the (over-priced) glasses when to switch.

      That said, I don't think the manufacturers really expected it to push sales. They hoped it would help, and they didn't really have much else to advertise to try to attract new buyers (new! now 0.01 inches thinner than last year! Now including streaming app w in addition to x, y, and z!), so they have been talking it up as the big new feature. Tech/consumer electronics sites have been playing along, for pretty much the same reason - something to talk about and drive views. Not too much fun to only be able to say, "well, this year's models continue the trend of sacrificing picture quality for tiny and meaningless reductions in thickness as manufacturers abandon full-array LED backlighting in favor of more cost-effective edge lighting."

    • Consumers will do what they always did: Buy what they would have bought anyway.

      There's, in my experience, just two kinds of consumers.

      First, the "must have it, must show off" crowd. They will buy the latest and greatest gadget just to show that they're on the edge. They will buy any crap you pitch at them. Given that today money is tight with most people, or at least not as plentiful as it used to be, this crowd is rather small by now. Hence, you would sell to them... they're just not very numerous.

      The rest

  • no guarantee you use the 3D feature . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:09PM (#38600624)

    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.

  • No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:10PM (#38600652) Homepage Journal

    Pay a premium for a TV that requires special glasses, which as mine are prescription, means not settling for what's on the market, but waiting for someone to produce prescription lens 3D glasses for that particular model and paying an arm and a leg for them.

    After waiting for those non-existent glasses to be developed, paying hundreds or thousands of dollars extra, what will I have?

    A TV that gives me a migraine.

    No thanks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msobkow ( 48369 )

      Hell, I haven't even owned a REGULAR TV for years. My computer is my TV.

      • True. Of the little TV I do watch, about 99% of it is done on a window in the corner of my computer monitor thanks to my Hauppage TV card. For the bedroom, there's a 13" CRT.

    • A premium? It doesn't take much to add 3D to a modern (high refresh rate) panel, and these days 3D is a feature that comes for free on a lot of sets. Mine even came with 2 glasses. I expect that 3D will be an affordable, amusing option for anyone with a reasonably new TV; no need to go and buy a special TV set, just pick up the $25 glasses if you want 3D.

  • 3D TV (Score:2)

    by JWW ( 79176 )

    Please make it stop!! We're not interested in overly expensive, glasses requiring, headache inducing televisions!

  • Tried it (Score:4, Informative)

    by SJHillman ( 1966756 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:11PM (#38600662)

    My girlfriend and I tried a couple of 3D TVs at Best Buy. They all appeared blurry and none had a 3D effect, so either the displays were set up wrong or they just plain suck. However, we did go to a 3D viewing of some movie (there was no 2D showing of it at the time) a while back and that impressed me. Not enough that I'd pay to have the 3D effect at home, but enough to pay a couple extra bucks for the odd movie in theaters.

  • 3D on TV does work, but not for casual viewing (Score:5, Informative)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:11PM (#38600668) Journal
    I find that 3D on larger television sets (55" and up) does work. It is not as good as viewing the same movie in the cinema, but sometimes it's good enough, and I usually pick up the 3D version of a movie instead of the regular one, if available.

    But just as in the cinema, you need to settle down to watch the movie in order to get "sucked in" by the 3D. Same as in the cinema, were you generally won't "scan email, skim through a magazine, or keep watching out the corner of my eye from another room.". If you let yourself be distracted every minute, 3D is going to suck, whether you're in your home theater or a proper one.

    By the way, I too am curious about no-glasses 3D but I'm not holding my breath. LG is already selling sets with passive 3D glasses, but the viewing experience is decidedly poorer than with good shutter glasses.
  • I only know a couple people who enjoy 3D movies, out of a couple dozen I've talked to about it. My kids didn't even want to see 3D version of Transformers, their favorite entertainment subject. They said it "bothers their eyes after a while."

  • Distance from the screen (Score:5, Informative)

    by GreatDrok ( 684119 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:17PM (#38600780) Journal

    I experimented with a 50" 3D set on display and found that if I was any further away from it than about 6 feet the scale on screen was all wrong. Basically, for stereoscopic TV to work, you have to fill your field of view such that the images hitting your eyes are the right distance apart. Change that distance and the scale changes so people start to look like marionettes rather than real people. This is especially bad in a typical home setting where you wouldn't sit so close or so face on. I can see 3D for home cinema and I might consider replacing my current 100" HD front projector with a 3D rig but for regular TV use it doesn't work.

  • 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?

  • Because not everyone likes 3D ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:19PM (#38600804) Homepage

    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.

  • There's a Significant Stereoblind Population (Score:4, Informative)

    by dringess ( 552168 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:19PM (#38600810)
    About two to 12 percent [mediacollege.com] of the population can't see 3D, and I'm one of them. That's why we will probably never spend the extra money for a 3D TV.

  • 3d is not important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:21PM (#38600834) Journal

    HDTV was a reasonable improvement on NTSC and PAL. 3D really isn't. Compare to: DVD was a huge improvement over VHS. Blu-ray isn't enough of an improvement over DVD to be interesting.

    • It's either that, or that consumers are more interested in getting a bigger TV than a smaller 3D TV for the same money. We'll see what happens when TVs hit a size wall.

      Also, a lot of what people watch is TV series. We'll see what happens when they start making series in 3D.

      If 3D doesn't take of when a 80" TV is $1000 and all the most popular series are available in 3D, then it would be time to declare 3D dead. For now we just can't say.

  • I was one of the first purchasers and the only issue I find with it is the fact that they aren't releasing enough and what they are releasing is sometimes as much as twice the price of the regular blu-ray if you don't pick it with the release day sales.

    Are there some downsides? Yes, you have to wear the glasses, not a big deal to me or my wife or my kid, two of us already wear glasses 24/7 anyhow. Millions of people do everyday, and for some reason it's some massive inconvenience. I'll bet everyone who wh

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )

      Lack of good content is the real problem. I'm an absolutely 3d fanatic, and even I admit there just isn't anything out there. A few cartoons, 1 heavy cg movie about blue people, and a bunch of schlock that looks like garbage because the 3d was faked in.

      It's just like HD content that was upscaled from SD content... It's not actually any better.

  • Integrated 3D glasses are where it should go (Score:3)

    by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:27PM (#38600950)

    TV sets should be no more than UV/IR "blue" screen hung on a wall.

    Give me comfortable glasses that can overlay reality. Then I can use those glasses for all my general purpose viewing needs, be they 2D or 3D.

    It's more than credible that you can turn off the lights in your bedroom or TV room and have the equivalent resolution experience of a movie theater, be it 2D or 3D.

    They just need a short range transmitter with enough bandwidth that can match the resolution of both eyes for up to ten people in a room. Have an aux input that can plug into an external receiver for a specialized receiver for occasions where your in a larger crowd such as a theater. Everyone they can have the quality glasses they can afford. It opens up a world of augmented reality. Just like cell phones they will be big at first and then they will get smaller and more fashionable.

    Then much further in the future we will have implants that plug directly into the optical nerve and augment what you see more directly.

  • It's not 3D (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:33PM (#38601060)

    I think the problem is that 3D movies and TV are not really "3D", they are 2D movies using a stereoscopic effect that can fool the brain into thinking that the picture has depth. But it's not really 3D, which results in headaches and other effects that make it uncomfortable for many people.

    If they could come out with a holoscopic projection mechanism that shows true 3D, maybe then people will be more interested, but high quality full-color holoscopic projection is probably decades away, if ever.

    Even in a galaxy far, far away, the holographic projections created by R2-series droids have flickering low-quality images.

  • I honestly can't tell you if my current TV even has picture-in-picture, because AFAIK, I've never once actually used it on any TV I've owned. But I can remember when it was touted as this "must have" feature by the industry. So it got added to the new TV's. The general public was at first kind of interested. Then after the hype died down and users actually got to try it out a few times and realize that it wasn't really all that useful, it quickly became a "Who gives a shit?" feature.

    • Oh, it was useful if you liked sports - but things got complicated when we moved to satellite TV and digital cable. You needed two tuners to get all your channels, and that just started getting silly.

      If your point is that 3D is a niche product and many people won't want it, then I agree. Colour TV is something everybody wants; HD television is something almost everybody will want once they see the improvement in picture quality; 3D just isn't that much more interesting.

  • Even if it worked perfectly, no headaches, glasses, extra cost, etc. I still wouldn't want it. Not on the big screen either. It doesn't offer anything to me, and that "whoa, dude!" feeling you get when they chuck crap at the camera just fails to impress...

    This is an artificial, useless parlor trick that has no purpose...

  • 3D is all the makers had to get you to upgrade your set. Once you're on 1080P/Blu-Ray it's pretty much good enough for any kind of viewing you want to do.

    I'm looking forward to the new super thin OLED sets: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/lgs-55-inch-oled-tv-at-ces-to-have-almost-no-bezel.html [latimes.com]

  • Gaming? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @03:46PM (#38601270)

    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:Gaming? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheSkepticalOptimist ( 898384 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @04:29PM (#38602072)

      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.

  • The next big thing is still 2D (Score:3)

    by Requiem18th ( 742389 ) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @05:42PM (#38603264)

    Actually it sounds facetious since it is already a thing but the "next big thing" is user generated content, and that is 2D.

    Already we geeks and some definitively non geeks have hooked our TVs to the net but that's still not a reality for the vast majority of people. Most people still watch regular TV, either via cable or air waves. Even Netflix is in many ways "Old Media".

    But as HTPC become the norm more and more people will start watching user generated content predominantly. It is already the case that I can be entertained for weeks just by watching and reading stuff that's not only completely free but desperate to get any attention at all. And as technology improves, the quality of content will only improve. And the content that doesn't improve in production quality will improve in other ways. As wifi access becomes more ubiquos and SSD become cheaper more people will start making recording on the spot, Meaning that there won't be a public event small enough to not be filmed.

    And on top of that there is the rise of public domain content. Yes there is a market for old movies, and old movies are getting newer each year, and it's not only old movies, public domain content includes government funded productions too, including educational and artistic stuff that doesn't sell well but is popular enough when free.

    Big Media will always exist but their market-share can only shrink. I see the insistence on 3D as an attempt at making themselves seem irreplaceable. If they convince people that content must be 3D, then they are the only ones making content. But I don't see that happening.

    Bonus point: Last year scientist made a humble first step into reconstructing images from the visual cortex activity (link) [gizmodo.com], a previously though impossible feat. If that technology only doubles each year we might be watching dream movies in less than a decade.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close