"3-D or Not 3-D-That is the Question."

[hoytereden]

Have you seen the new sets. If so, what do you think? Buying or selling the whole concept? Our store has the Samsung LEDs and the Monsters vs Aliens demo. I'll say that the results are fairly impressive but, as a whole, I don't think this is going to fly. Why?-Quite a few folks are very interested until you tell them "Ya gotta wear the glasses." Then the enthusiasm goes down quite a bit. I knew the prices of the sets would be higher and that's a fact of life with all new technology but the fact that the Samsungs aren't shipped with a couple of sets of the specs is a bummer. We're running a promotion that if you buy the set and the Blu-ray player together you get 2 glasses and Monsters vs Aliens free. So far so good but what if you got kids or family members that total more than two. Well you gotta buy more of the glasses at a retail cost of about $150 apiece. Ouch! And finally what are we gonna watch? Unlike Blu-ray, where just about any film could be coverted to the format the number of 3-D films are fairly limited. I'm not sure that I want a lot of films redone in some quasi-3D anymore than I want b&w films colorized. I realize I'm sounding very negative about this but it seems (to me) that it's a novelty rather than an exciting new technology that I'm eager to purchase. Anybody on the other side of the fence on this?

[molly1216]

[mavrach]

Nothing good here:

- The glasses: $200ish each? You need one for every family member. Then you need more for guests. Not feasible.

- Are these TV's usable for non-3D viewing?

- 3D still isn't perfected and has a lot of problems. I just see it as a bunch of 2D planes overlaying each other. So you have a 2D person in the foreground, with another 2D set in the background, maybe some interim 2D objects in between.

- Not to mention that everything is in focus which completely messes with your eyes. Look at some of the Pixar movies, which intentionally de-focus the background to give a better effect.



I don't think we'll have 3D TV for a good long time, and it will have to be the point of holographic displays or multiple-layer projections or something.

[mkiker2089]

Amen to the layering effect.

3D has never survived because people really don't want it. We want to play with it and see it as a tech demo, but we don't want to watch it full time.

The only good 3d that I've seen was for video games and requires supercomputers to do it. It uses forced perspective to alter the video every time your heard moves so you can literally look around objects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SDGG9HhbgQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUC5JJCxx5k

[HGervais]

We need a couple of more true 3D movies like Avatar before I think it makes any kind of dent, although this weekend's big numbers for Clash of the Titans probably helps making the format a little sexier for the home consumer. Granted I have heard the 3D is pretty horrible for it since the movie was in no way, shape or form concieved or shot for 3D but as in most businesses, money talks.

[hoytereden]

Nothing good here:

- The glasses: $200ish each? You need one for every family member. Then you need more for guests. Not feasible.

- Are these TV's usable for non-3D viewing?

- 3D still isn't perfected and has a lot of problems. I just see it as a bunch of 2D planes overlaying each other. So you have a 2D person in the foreground, with another 2D set in the background, maybe some interim 2D objects in between.

- Not to mention that everything is in focus which completely messes with your eyes. Look at some of the Pixar movies, which intentionally de-focus the background to give a better effect.



I don't think we'll have 3D TV for a good long time, and it will have to be the point of holographic displays or multiple-layer projections or something.

The TVs themselves are perfectly fine to watch regular content on. The 3-D mode has to be activated in the menu for that type of viewing. Otherwise, they look like any other Samsung LED set. As one of my co-workers said-For this technology to suceed you need a certain industry to get behind it.

[mkiker2089]

If by "certain" you mean porn I think that's a misnomer that lingers on for no real reason. See with VHS versus Beta it was less of getting to the consumer directly but more of getting the equipment and tapes replicated in scale. The porn industry used enough tapes to help bring the cost down for VHS tapes and replicating equipment. Lower cost tapes filtered down to lower cost pre-recorded content etc. You also have to realize they were making a market. The home video market didn't exist so it wasn't just a transition from one thing to another, it was convincing people they need something new. Like the first computers, first house phones (cell phones are just an extension and don't fully count), electricity, indoor plumbing etc. they had to convince people that they needed something extra in their lives. 3d like the cell phone and blu-ray are just extensions of an existing market.

Besides, porn is a niche at best now. We don't live in the repressed world we used to and repression always fuels secret consumerism.

Not to totally spoil the joke but in reality porn didn't even win the VHS war. Running time did. People refused to watch movies strung out across multiple tapes. The same thing held laserdisc back as well. I also suspect that TV's in the day didn't do justice to the quality difference.

[hoytereden]

If porn is a niche it's a mighty big niche. It, in itself, doesn't win format wars but it's a sizeable industry with a lot of $$$$s and it thrives on new technology. I'm just curious to see if indeed they do embrace (awkward term) 3-D.

[Steve T Power]

From what i understand, Samsung's tech with the proprietary 250 dollar shades and such is not the standard Bluray 3D format being rolled out later this year, which supposedly uses much more manageable shades and will work on any TV with a Refresh over 120hz.

meanwhile, I don't think it's gonna add much to home viewing. I'm going to take a pass. I prefer the color and feel of my rear-projection anyway.

[mkiker2089]

That's another part of the problem, they haven't locked the standard in. They wanted to leave wiggle room for the manufacturers but I think that's going to confuse consumers. "What do you mean these shutter glasses I got at Costco won't work on my TV, Why not?"

In general though they all seem to be going with shutter glasses though, right? I wish there was a way to use polarized lenses at home. Shades are cheaper and lighter than shutter glasses by far and would almost negate the problem people have with 3d right now.

Sharps plan of glassless 3d is interesting also but I don't see it working for families. The viewing angle is very slim, as in a few degrees.

[hoytereden]

I prefer the color and feel of my rear-projection anyway.

Amen to that.

[Boba Fett]

We need a couple of more true 3D movies like Avatar before I think it makes any kind of dent, although this weekend's big numbers for Clash of the Titans probably helps making the format a little sexier for the home consumer. Granted I have heard the 3D is pretty horrible for it since the movie was in no way, shape or form concieved or shot for 3D but as in most businesses, money talks.

Exactly. I'm still stunned at how amazing "Avatar" was and how seamless the "gimmick" was utilized. "My Bloody Valentine 3D" was the same situation; it was true 3D and really made a C-rate horror remake standout.