3D TV: Is the World Really Ready to Upgrade?
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.
Related Posts
Trackback URL: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/3d-tv-is-the-world-really-ready-to-upgrade/trackback/
By: reactorr
January 7, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
I look forward to having my own holodeck
By: age273disawasteoftime
January 7, 2010 @ 10:44 PM
Not interested in 3D TV at all. I might like a computer screen to play computer games, but for TV I don't care. Most of what I watch doesn't need 3D to enjoy. They ought to be improve HD and lowering the price and having slimmer sets than bet the bank of 3D. Sure the movie Avatar is a success in 3D, but how many people want to watch that kind of stuff on a 36 inch TV or wear glasses everyday to enjoy TV.
By: sathingtonwilloughby
January 7, 2010 @ 11:24 PM
Haha, I'm reminded of a quote from Frances Burnett every time I see nay-saying articles like this.
“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
By: Bozo
January 7, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
You're wrong in about every sentence.
By: sadasd
January 8, 2010 @ 12:02 AM
This article is plain stupid.
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.
By: dang
January 8, 2010 @ 2:32 AM
3d has been around since the 1920s. I wouldn't say it's brand new and we are scared of it. The consumer just hasn't liked it.
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.
By: Elsie
January 8, 2010 @ 6:39 AM
'3D TV Pricing – Ofcourse it would be expensive. new technology is expensive, dumbass'
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.
By: BDN
January 8, 2010 @ 8:06 AM
This whole article needs to be researched and rewritten.
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?
By: Slightlyoffensivebutheartfelt
January 8, 2010 @ 8:59 AM
Wow, I really disagree wholeheartedly. I saw Coraline in 3D, wasn't impressed, but then was blown away with the 3D effects in Avatar. Imagine if the entire script of that movie didn't sound like it was written by a 7th grader.
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.
By: naggy
June 19, 2010 @ 6:52 PM
I basically disagree with you, but great post, man. F@#king hilarious. I laughed my ass off.
By: Mantari Damacy
January 8, 2010 @ 9:38 AM
It doesn't take too much effort to hate on 3D anything.
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 $675:
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Bw71XPZYXfD/p_305P...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001ULBP...
The problem then goes back to technical standards, maturity, and content.
In closing, you say…
“Will there be an eventual market for 3D HDTV technology? Undoubtedly. However, we expect it to take longer to reach the point of true mainstream saturation…”
In the end, I guess I have to agree with you. Today, you have to be an enthusiast to put up with not so much the pricing, but the maturity problems and technical hurdles you have to jump over to do 3D at home. But I'm looking for 3D gaming at home to be the killer app that gives this technology a big adoption boost in the near future.
By: Joe
January 8, 2010 @ 6:58 AM
Your article hits the nail on the head. I did not care for glasses in the ’50s when 3D first came out, and not now either.
By: dang
January 8, 2010 @ 11:07 AM
They had demos of the tvs that don't need glasses last year and this year, and it's just not there yet. Viewing angles are horrible and it just doesn't look nearly as good.
By: Blammer345
January 8, 2010 @ 11:41 AM
Are you kidding me 3D television? I just bought a freakin' HDTV LCD and now they're throwing this onto everyone … just f@#$ing great. Now I have to find an expensive adapter that will cost an arm and a leg … ugh forget this I'm cancelling my cable subscription this is ridiculous.
By: bodiebrown
January 9, 2010 @ 6:21 AM
Will their be 3-D Porn? If there was? Then that would be worth watching – I think. As long as nothing cums out of the screen at me.
By: wbmxx
January 9, 2010 @ 5:51 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I haven't upgraded to 5.1 surround sound, because when the point-of-view of the camera changes, the side the audio comes from changes. Waaay too distracting for me when characters are talking. (if that technique of sound design has changed since I endured 'whatever film' several years ago, please let me know)
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.
By: leeshialong
January 10, 2010 @ 12:50 AM
sadasd is BEING Fecetious! No problem with what he said–The article he is referring to doesnt use “those words”, but it is also elementary!
By: Teek
January 10, 2010 @ 8:26 AM
3D is definately going to take off, although not if you have to wear glasses. If you can come up with a holo-deck, or something where you look at the screen (without glasses) and there is a 3d world in it, then yeah it'll work fantastically!
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.
By: sathingtonwilloughby
January 10, 2010 @ 4:59 PM
How helpful!
By: sathingtonwilloughby
January 10, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
I agree that the technology isn't quite at the level it needs to be for it to be really be a hit.
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.
By: AR enthusiast
January 11, 2010 @ 7:12 PM
I'm of the mind that 3D technologies will quickly be overshadowed by the colossal possibilities of Augmented Reality. I mean, if you're going to have to wear dorky goggles either way, skip the screen all together and watch the images appear right in front of you, wherever you are.
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.
By: Lisa
January 11, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
Wow. I was laughing so hard, I think I peed my pants. :)
By: speedcamera
January 12, 2010 @ 11:12 AM
I think domestic 3D TV will take off over the next couple of years. Yes people will need to upgrade their TVs and maybe buy other equipment but people love new technology like this. The 3D quality has improved so much since the old days, it's amazing. The growth in the video was fuelled by the porn industry, so maybe the same will happen with 3DTV?
3DTV is made for the adult entertainment industry, but I can also see sports, nature, movies creating more 3D content.
By: oldrussiangeezer
January 12, 2010 @ 6:33 PM
you, my friend, have one of the most insightful, and relatable stories and ideas on this page.
i salute you comrade.
By: megan12392
January 13, 2010 @ 8:28 AM
I agree. I feel like the idea of 3d tv is pretty neat, but they really need to sort out these problems. especially the glasses and the lack of content… http://www.3dtvinformation.com/ has some cool info on it too.
By: tommywarpspeed
January 13, 2010 @ 3:02 PM
try nvida 3d glasses it s really kool and for REAL!
By: Bri
January 14, 2010 @ 9:20 PM
Similar ideas were all over the place when HD and plasma sets first hit the market. Too expensive, who will want to pay extra for it, no content available, etc. Same thing was probably said when color and stereo sound first came to television. Point is new tech is initially always hard to justify and expensive. There will always be enthusiasts to lead the way followed by the masses when it becomes affordable and widespread. Don't be too fast to write dismissive articles about 3D, unless you want to give us quotes to laugh at 10 years from now.
By: Fredog
January 16, 2010 @ 2:35 PM
When working out the number of people who might buy 3DTV you have to take into account the percentage of the population that don't see equally out of each eye and/or wear glasses, for them it's a waste of money. Then how many people watch TV while doing something else like preparing food or eating (how are you going to do that wearing 3D glasses?). How soon before people just get sick of wearing the glasses? How many of the above fans of 3D will still be fans in six months, a year or two years?
By: Bri
January 17, 2010 @ 1:02 AM
I guess you could make a similar argument about Dolby pro logic, Dolby digital, Dolby digital EX, DTS, and so on. These surround sound technologies have done very well and continue to undergo updating and refinement.
By: robm001
January 17, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
“I really didn't care for the whole transfer to HD television because of how little it actually affects our lives”
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.
By: Ian Bell
January 17, 2010 @ 5:01 PM
You only watch Blu-ray then right? Most HD on TV is either 720P or 1080i from what I can tell.
By: Catalin
January 20, 2010 @ 7:33 AM
3D television brings video content to a higher level but it's all about the infrastructure. People is not really familiar with the technology that's why many may feel unconfortable thinking to buy a new 3D TV set. It cuts a bit from interactivity because each person watching a 3D movie has to wear special 3D glasses. Think about a weekend when you want to see a movie with all of your friends. You won't see their reactions, won't be able to see them. Avatar was really a big hit but that's something else when you watch a movie in theaters. You can read more about how this technology works in this article: http://www.thehdstandard.com/streaming-technolo...
Catalin
Professional Streaming Consultant
By: Chris MacKinnon
January 20, 2010 @ 1:03 PM
Here's a cool 3DTV article…very informative for the consumer:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/140-...
By: clydeD
January 20, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
I've tried to address many of these concerns in an article of how Ad Agencies and marketing companies of 3DTVs can go about influencing people to upgrade.
Read http://realvision.ae/blog/2010/01/4-really-good...
By: Rick
January 23, 2010 @ 5:57 PM
Unless the technology advances to the point of not requiring special glasses to view the content, 3D TV will remain just a curiosity.
By: Eaamon Fields
February 1, 2010 @ 2:35 PM
I have one working eye, my brain can not produce the sense of depth and speed, that a person with a norrmal pair of eyes can. I truly hope this dosent take off and replace HD T.V.
By: Scott Thomas
February 1, 2010 @ 5:07 PM
Cant wait to get my 3D television , that would be amazing watching football in 3D, thing is they’re bloody hard to find in stores and bloody expensive www. free3dtvs.net searched here for one found one on sale . Next thing you know you will be able to smell and feel the football games cheers
By: sam1991111
February 3, 2010 @ 11:38 AM
What I don't understand is, why do we need the HD 3D TV….Can we not watch 3D on any TV with the glasses?
By: boisterousbob
February 15, 2010 @ 5:44 AM
You could, but those technologies you cite are 'non intrusive”. Once you have bought them and set them up, they don't interfere with the way you watch television. 3D glasses and narrow viewing angles do.
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?
By: boisterousbob
February 15, 2010 @ 5:54 AM
Need? Why on earth do we have to need it in order to buy it? People don't “need” television, let alone 3D television. But people sure do want it.
By: rogge
February 22, 2010 @ 4:48 AM
hd-lcd tv is just a few years on the market
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!!!
By: David
March 4, 2010 @ 5:22 PM
Can not wait to get my hands on a 3d hdtv :D Going to be pretty awesome!
By: philippe
March 4, 2010 @ 11:17 PM
Doesn't 3D usually come from a computer animated world (or CGI in some normal films). I yet have to see a live soccer game they're filming and watching it in 3D… where it would be a cool feature, imho, gaming… i've been a fan of games since 1990 with a 80386DX processor (yes, clockspeeds of 33Mhz!! so fast!) and there's been a lot of eveolution since… 3D has been around for as long as I know… i've had these funky glasses connnected to a pc in the mid 90's as well. If this could become available on big 46″ screens with HD and then playing some games like Uncharted2 of Modern Warfare 2 in complete 3D… bring it on..
for watching the news or a gameshow… have to see it before i believe it
By: dang
March 4, 2010 @ 11:55 PM
They will have 3D for live sports. ESPN has already announced a 3D sports channel to be available this year. See http://www.digitaltrends.com/trade-shows/espn-3...
By: Greg Mombert
March 19, 2010 @ 11:08 AM
I only see 3D as an added bonus to a TV. Something you'll use once in a while for the right movie or show but not for the majority of your television viewing.
By: project free tv
March 19, 2010 @ 11:07 PM
Those only work if you are directly in front of the TV which is why they will be used for slot machines and kiosks. In your home people look at the TV from all different angles and the two images needed to create 3D won't line up correctly. Which is why you need glasses.
By: mike
March 28, 2010 @ 9:35 AM
ya really who would want to sell there new HD tvs they just got. Hey if the 3D does ok maybe regualar HD will get even cheaper. wouldnt that be nice
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 3:45 AM
I'll call you “not understanding” the situation. TV producers don't expect most people to ditch their good sets for 3d. Manufacturers are doing what they always have. Just putting out new TV's. When someone's TV goes bad and they go shopping, it's then that they pick up a new TV and likely a 3d one since most are either the same price or only slightly more. Then they can choose to buy the glasses etc at a later date if they feel like it.
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 3:49 AM
Headphones are also “intrusive”. People still use them. As for no glasses you can forget it. They will use glasses. The sets don't need glasses don't work very well and you have to stand in exact locations in the room.
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 3:53 AM
Sounds like you live in fantasy land and no nothing about current technology, lol. But no one has a gun to your head forcing you to buy a 3d set.
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 3:56 AM
And it totally sucks. You have to stand in one of a few exact locations in the room for it to work. I'd rather have wireless glasses on. Much nicer since I can walk around. and people will replace their sets usually when they break. That's what I'm doing. Mine is going bed. So I'm getting a 72 inch 3D Vizio this summer.
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 4:02 AM
So? You aren't really saying anything new or surprising. It's obvious that 3d isn't needed. It's an extra for those who want it. Also what “YOU” watch isn't what someone else watches. Also who would buy a 36 inch, cheapo bathroom or dormatory tv? I'm getting a 72 inch 3d TV. Why is it 3d? Because it's included for free. I'll probably get the glasses for it it will probably look pretty realistic. What I”m looking for isn't stupid pop out of the screen crap. I just want to see a realistic scene of the outside in high def. Imagine seing some super high resolution video in 3d on a screen that size. It would probably look amazing. And THAT is why people get this stuff. SO no. You are right. No one is going to like 3d on a 36 inch one.. Those are more for watching news etc..
By: kfedisamoocher
March 30, 2010 @ 4:11 AM
I think most people in the market for a new tv will get them and will have fun with them. The trick is that getting a small set is fun, but getting a really big 3d set actually can make all the difference. If you are looking at a 72 inch screen in 3d and it's fully HD, it can be a huge difference in comparison to 2d. We are in the infancy stage where all people want is little clowns to pop out of their screen. But instead of that a very realistic 3d scene could be just as amazing. Someone wrote an article on watching a sporting event. Not that I care much for sports. But they said it was eerie in the sense that they, at times, felt like they were standing there in real life. Good 3D would look like what you see when you walk outside. Nothing scary, or weird popinig out. But as you look down a street you see the depth and it looks real. To get it to look that real, it almost needs a big screen. But smaller ones aren't bad either.
By: teek
March 30, 2010 @ 4:13 AM
If 3d requires glasses, why not skip over the whole 3DHDTV thing and just sell glasses with 3D in them? Certainly thats within the grasp of current technology, which would yield a better 3d experience. The current ideas of 3d – a screen where you have to be directly in front of, or requiring glasses to see 3D while everyone else sees a fuzzy image, is really not innovative enough for the general population. They really need to come up with a whole new approach to 3D, but still, all the home theater buffs will go all ape for the 3D tv's.
By: tbcass
March 30, 2010 @ 4:55 AM
Why is a special TV needed for 3D? It seems that any large HD TV combined with those special glasses would work. In fact it does. There are 3D movies available now for standard TV's and they work as well as 3D in theaters. I've seen it myself. The only draw back is to get a convincing effect you either have to have a very large TV or sit very close to a small one. Sitting 15 feet away from a 50″ TV simply looks like things are popping out of your TV, not like you're really there.
By: Ian Bell
March 30, 2010 @ 10:16 AM
I disagree with you here. Manufacturers ARE expecting people to ditch their TV's for the new 3D TVs. They are not waiting for them to go bad. Most TV's have a 5-8 year lifespan, if manufacturers waited for them to go bad so they could sell new 3DTV's, they would be out of business.
By: Awesome-o
April 8, 2010 @ 2:31 PM
I got my 3D HDTV so I could watch porn….
By: plcc07777
April 15, 2010 @ 10:27 AM
Okay…I just bought a new Samsung 52″ LCD last November. Is there an adapter or some kind of box that will allow me to watch 3D on this set? I'm not ready to buy another TV yet.
By: John
April 22, 2010 @ 8:54 PM
You are a FOOL if you don't think 3D is going to be the next big thing. Mark my words: 5-10 years from now people will not even want to watch movies in 2D…then will be THAT boring!! It will be like switching from color TV to radio broadcast!!
Trust me on this…..This article will be embarrassing (for lack of vision) 10 years from now!!!
By: abc
July 25, 2010 @ 6:14 AM
I agree
By: Alice
April 25, 2010 @ 7:53 AM
Yeah mate and what you want isn't what EVERYONE ELSE wants! If you think it's FREE then you're a bigger idiot than I took ytou for. NO ONE wants f**king 3-D TV crap!
By: forcedalias
June 16, 2010 @ 6:34 AM
Demand, Practicality and Pricing are not a problem for me.
My 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.
By: forcedalias
June 16, 2010 @ 6:38 AM
I do want to stress that this is just my experience from watching demos… maybe they were crappy demos or the glasses were low on battery… who knows.
By: Rainy
July 12, 2010 @ 1:23 AM
I just bought a HDTV. HD isn't that great. I don't see it and I'm not paying 10 dollars extra for HD channels. It's stupid. I told my sister that if it doesn't seem like they're standing in my living room, what's the big deal and she told me about 3d. Prolly not a big deal either. *shrugs* Fight scenes it better seem like they are gonna beat me up. I imagine you'll have to pay extra for 3d channels too. Crazy! I just upgraded. That's it for me for a few years unless it's AMAZING!
By: Boing
July 25, 2010 @ 6:11 AM
Is the world ready to UPGRADE? You totally miss the point. Most people getting 3D sets are not going to dump a good HD to get 3D. Some will, but most won't. Why does everyone think the manufacturers are expecting this of us? They don't. But TV's still sell. Go to any best buy or walmart and people are shopping for tv's. So some of those people might buy a 3D set. My 10 year old big screen TV is dying. When I buy a new TV, it WILL be a 3D set. Only because it would be stupid not to get one. But if I had a great HD, I wouldn't worry about getting another. So there is no upgrade to do here. If people just keep buying TV's at the rate they have been, in a few years most will be 3D anyway.