3D Televisions are everywhere in 2010, but we doubt the TV viewing world’s willingness to quickly take the plunge.
Also check out 3D TV: What You Need to Start Watching in 3D.
Call us practical, jaded or simply a good, old-fashioned stick in the mud, but when it comes to consumers upgrading to 3D television anytime soon, we just don’t see the point. Much ado has been made about this new technology at CES 2010 by manufacturers such as LG, Sony, Samsung, Toshiba and Panasonic, with one in four consumers surveyed by the CEA saying they plan to buy a 3D TV within the next three years. However, while ESPN plans to roll the first official 3D sports network on June 11, and consumers are predicted to spend $17 billion on 3D TVs in 2018, per research firm DisplaySearch’s forecasts, we’re just not sold on the concept’s potential rapid consumer uptake.
Why? Among other issues:
Lack of Current Demand
Let’s try a simple exercise: Prior to the debut of these announcements, name one person (save perhaps the odd rabid fanboy or futurist) you know of who recently said, “Boy these shows are great – I sure wish they could make it look like Oprah was in my living room, however.” It wasn’t even until Avatar put the concept of 3D on most consumers’ map that there was any real mainstream excitement surrounding the category. Similarly, it’s one thing to experience 3D technology while sitting in front of a three-story screen versus one’s living room, where it’s more of an event, and your everyday living room, where the activity becomes more mundane, making it hard to justify the cost of an immediate upgrade. Besides, since when was 2D storytelling and filmmaking broken to begin with?
Practicality
It’s bad enough having to hunt for the remote in your couch cushions. Now imagine having to do the same for 3D glasses that not only make you look goofy once located, but could also prove quite uncomfortable to wear in long-term sittings. Is this really the glorious future sci-fi novels once promised? Maybe, if you’re into migraine headaches, occasional screen flicker and, well, you know, looking a complete toolbox. Somehow it just doesn’t seem worth the trouble to watch Monsters vs. Aliens ooze forth out of your screen.
3D TV Pricing
Though manufacturers are aiming to keep costs just slightly above high-end LED/LCD models, keep in mind that this would still put them at a fair premium above other sets. This will slow overall adoption rates, and be hard to swallow for countless consumers who’ve just purchased a new set within the last 12-18 months. To get true 3D content, you’ll also need access to 3D broadcast programming and/or a 3D Blu-ray player and 3D movies, plus 3D glasses, which won’t come cheap. While some models, such as Toshiba’s Cell TV, promise 2D to 3D upscaling, which converts traditional images into three-dimensional ones, that technology is expected to cost a pretty penny. Coupled with current economic conditions, it’s sure to keep the sets out of most consumers’ comfortable buying range, which may lead to smaller prospective audiences and content providers being unwilling to quickly produce compatible premium content as a result. And fewer must-see programs means less titles that can help push more 3D TVs into the market.
Given that the consumer electronics industry is coming out of a rough year or so, we understand why there’s been so much buzz – both the media and business insiders need a noteworthy innovation to rally behind. However, it’s going to take time until we really see compelling reasons for everyday shoppers to take the plunge (e.g. killer apps, 24-hour programming, ergonomic interfaces that make it simple and pleasant to watch 3D programs, etc.). As such, we can’t help but feel that current expectations for the rapid rise to prominence of this curious new television category are overly aggressive.
Will there be an eventual market for 3D HDTV technology? Undoubtedly. However, we expect it to take longer to reach the point of true mainstream saturation, transitioning over a period of time (the same as we did from black and white sets to color). And, for that matter, predict that the category needs to evolve considerably before it becomes the retail juggernaut and technological revolution that television manufacturers hope.
Showing 77 comments
RSSMy only concern is that this is still a very gimmicky form of 3D... at least that's how I feel after witnessing demos at department stores.
If it was the kind of 3D that you experience in theaters... then I'd be taking out my wallet right about now. I don't know how much longer we have to wait until THAT kind of 3D technology is available to bring home.
Trust me on this.....This article will be embarrassing (for lack of vision) 10 years from now!!!
for watching the news or a gameshow... have to see it before i believe it
how many people have recently bought a hd-lcd? countless !
do they really expect that all those people will upgrade? Just to put up some glasses and see 3D?
just give us a firmware-update, and let us enjoy our brand new hd-lcd's!!!
I think there can be no question 3D television would be a smash hit and that if it were here now, inexpensive and non intrusive (no glasses), everyone would choose a 3D set. Can you really say that if these conditions were met, it wouldn't be a smash hit? Really?
No, the question isn't one of demand. That observation is just inane. The question is solely whether the solutions are sufficiently mature. Quadrophonic sound was a complete miss. Dolby surround a hit. Which one is this?
Read http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/01/4-really-good...
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/140-...
Catalin
Professional Streaming Consultant
I don't watch much tv but when I do, I Definitely only watch 1080p. Non HD networks could be cancelled and I would never miss them.
i salute you comrade.
3DTV is made for the adult entertainment industry, but I can also see sports, nature, movies creating more 3D content.
They're already building navigation apps for the iphone, utilizing AR tech. It's only a matter of time before they start working on entertainment applications as well.
But come on, 3D effects even back in the 90's weren't nearly as impressive as its effect on Avatar.
Maybe you're right and it's pretty useless with regular TV, but it's an interesting branch of technology to expand on just because of what it could become.
But with 3d glasses it sounds like a big money-grab by the companies.. they'll try to push it really hard, just to get people to dump LCD and buy 3DHD, i mean get real, we all just unloaded our CRT's to get our LCD's like in the last 3-4 years, why didn't you just add this in back then? Oh wait i think iknow, you want us all to buy those 3DHD tv's with the glasses, because you're really ready to roll out 3DTV without the glasses, but before you do that, we all have to unload our LCDs and go to 3DTV that requires glasses... aah! But the bottom line is if you need glasses to watch 3d its not going to work for mainstream folks, however i'm sure the home theater buffs will be hopping and raving as usual.
The only way 3D is going to work for me is if filmmakers change the way they plan their shots. I won't be able to handle swift changes between panoramic scene visuals & close-ups. For the format to work, it will have to appear realistic. I don't need a 2-foot high Oprah head in the middle of my livingroom.
Someone with almost no exposure (other than seeing Avatar) can google up a few pages and come up with some paragraphs of poo to fling. Not saying that is or isn't the case here, but most of the people who speak about the downfalls of 3D really haven't had a lot of exposure and experience in the subject. And they easily dismiss anyone who HAS such experience to be a "rabid fanboy or futurist."
Myself, I purchased a Fujifilm Real 3D point-and-shoot camera a few months ago (expensive - $600). I also got a 3D computer monitor to go with it (very reasonable - $300). So what did $900 get me?
* The ability to take photographs in 3D (which you can also view in 3D)
* The ability to record my own movies in 3D
* The ability to play both of those back in 3D on my computer monitor
* The ability to play many of my pre-existing PC games (and most first person games) in 3D.
Let me go ahead and take on your points directly...
LACK OF CURRENT DEMAND: If I take what you said, and just replace "2D" with black and white, and "3D" with color, you'd be giving the same argument that was given decades ago. Why do we need color TVs in our home? It will become mundane! At this point, the question appears to be the chicken and the egg, but that point is going to pass quickly, due to something I touched on earlier: games. It is extremely easy to adopt existing 2D games in 3D. Major PC titles can already be played in 3D. Sony is moving their game console to support 3D. TV isn't going to be the primary vector that moves 3D into the home (or 3D cameras, for that matter), it is going to be gaming and game consoles that pulls people in.
PRACTICALITY: You really don't say much here except for "glasses, headaches, and flicker." It looks like you're actually referencing one particular 3D display technology, which would be the active LCD shutter glasses. If your argument boils down to picking on a single method of implementing stereoscopic vision, then I'd say this is an easier barrier to cross.
But let me give you one real argument: maturity and standards. As things are today (with a PC based 3D solution), it is a very tough technical bridge to cross. It isn't going to be mainstream until they make the process smoother. Fortunately, that is something that game consoles excel at.
Another real argument, in terms of 3D video, is that the rules for shooting/editing 3D video are quite a bit different from the rules of 2D. It isn't an easy barrier to cross. This is why you're seeing feature films and sporting events as some of the first 3D content. Feature films, obviously, because they can dedicate the resources to concentrate on the 3D aspects of the production. You're seeing live sports because a sporting events have a slightly lower barrier to entry into the 3D world.
PRICING: You only touch on pricing here before going back to practicality. But here's a counter example:
Samsung 3D kit $129:
http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/tv-video/tel...
Samsung PN42B450 42-Inch 720p Plasma HDTV $675:
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Bw71XPZYXfD/p_305P...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001ULBP...
The problem then goes back to technical standards, maturity, and content.
In closing, you say...
"Will there be an eventual market for 3D HDTV technology? Undoubtedly. However, we expect it to take longer to reach the point of true mainstream saturation..."
In the end, I guess I have to agree with you. Today, you have to be an enthusiast to put up with not so much the pricing, but the maturity problems and technical hurdles you have to jump over to do 3D at home. But I'm looking for 3D gaming at home to be the killer app that gives this technology a big adoption boost in the near future.
And sports in 3D? Of course I want that. And now. If watching in HD made Planet Earth AMAZING (and no, I'm not stoned), I can only imagine how much better all kinds of programming could be if the technology could be the equal of that in Avatar. No question that it'll be expensive and for the fancy people first, but I remember crowding at my rich stockbroker buddies place to watch his HD tv for the Super Bowl. Did it make me want to quit on the idea of HDTV because I couldn't afford it? Hell no- it made me want to rob a liquor store, get a new job or jerk off guys in the bathroom for the money to get one. Whatever it took, I wasn't going to watch sucker TV any more.
There is no need for glasses, Sony, Samsung et. al. have agreed on standards for implementing a technology by 3M which produces 3D images on the TV WITHOUT any sort of glasses. It remains to be seen how good this looks, but it eliminates one of the biggest hassles of 3D.
As far as practicality, when has anyone needed their entertainment to be practical? What will matter is whether enough content can be created to drive and maintain demand, and with the announcement of a fully 3D TV station (between Sony, Discovery and IMAX) it's possible this can be created.
With the development of the camera technology used to film Avatar, which will become more common and cheaper over time, it's likely to reduce the cost of producing high-quality 3D content, making it more common and more practical.
I think the biggest obstacle is that people have just been getting comfortable with their new 1080p HD TVs, so how soon will they be ready to replace them?
Did you really need to add that last word?
Without it your comment would carry more weight and have sounded more intelligent.
Instead you sound like a twelve year old. Or maybe you are twelve in which case there is still hope for you.
Wait until you see it, it's not all pretty like Avatar. Some of the samples I see at CES remind me of pop-up books. Not something I'd want to watch all the time, especially wearing classes.
Lack of Current Demand - how many people even know about 3d TVs ??
Practicality - don't people take the extreme pain of going to a movie theatre , paying money , just to watch a movie . Think of how practivle that is.
3D TV Pricing - Ofcourse it would be expensive. new technology is expensive, dumbass.
"At first people refuse to believe that a strange new thing can be done. Then they begin to hope it can be done. Then they see it can be done. Then it is done and all the world wonders why it was not done centuries ago."
Obviously the quote is meant to apply to a much more morality-based dilemma, but it still has its use here.
3D television is something we're unfamiliar with, and because of that, we aren't sure we're even going to use it.
But come on, everything from airplanes to the color televisions we enjoy today were created amidst the grand reluctance of the people, amidst the same nay-saying and comments of "Yeah right, we'll never use that shit.". The fact is, 3D television is the next step. More a leap, really. Personally, I really didn't care for the whole transfer to HD television because of how little it actually affects our lives, and how crazy people went for it.
At least 3D television is actually a new way of watching TV. Not just enhancing the picture, but creating a more realistic and in-depth world to glue your eyes to for even longer!
I fully support the integration of 3D programming and televisions.r