You know the story: an unscrupulous robe maker tells the king how wonderful his new, expensive, invisible robe is, king believes it, and king shows his butt to the world. A timeless tale that gets repeated over and over. And maybe a new version has just surfaced.
A recent news story reported on a study showing that a majority of US consumers prefer 3D TV over standard HDTV. And if a survey says 3D TV is wonderful and popular, it must be true. Right? But considering the lack of content and any agreed upon standard, this seems a little suspicious. Sure, anyone can see that 3D TV is different than 2D, but is there any real interest behind the hype? Let’s consider just what was discovered in this latest survey.
More than half of the people surveyed wished they had 3D TV in their homes. According to the survey, “99% of those surveyed who have seen 3D TV perceive it to be at least “somewhat better” than standard HDTV or 2D TV. Nearly threequarters (71%) said that 3D TV is “much better” or “dramatically better” than 2D TV.” Sounds pretty convincing. But, the survey was given to 500 attendees of Disney’s version of ComicCon, D23 — not exactly a true sampling of the American public. These are the same folks who lined up time and time again to see Captain Eo. Moreover, the survey, sponsored by Panasonic, didn’t ask how many people are going to actually run out and purchase a 3D TV. Or [Conspiracy Theory Alert!] maybe the survey asked that, and they just don’t want us to know what the response was.
Sales of 3D TVs are growing — slowly — as is the amount of content. However, it seems that media providers and manufacturers are caught in a familiar feedback loop of stagnation: the entertainment industry isn’t going to invest in producing 3D content when there aren’t enough viewers to warrant the extra expense. And manufacturers aren’t going to push the 3D TV sets until there’s enough content to bring out the consumers with open wallets. And in this economy, who’s rushing out to buy the latest fad in electronics? (Unless, of course, it has a picture of an apple on it.)
It’s relatively inexpensive to create a 3D display, but the same can’t be said for producing content. 3D requires a whole new production chain, or at least more dollars to convert 2D to 3D. Until there is strong demand from consumers, neither manufacturers nor content providers will start scrambling. They can all scream all they want about how great it is, but until people start buying 3D, who really cares?
Okay. Truth or dare. You undoubtedly already have a relatively new, terrific HDTV. Let us know: Are you willing to gamble on 3D TV and buy a brand new TV any time soon? What’s keeping you from jumping to the next dimension? It’s the dorky glasses, right? If you have a 3D TV, did you intentionally look for that feature? Or, like most of us, are you waiting to see if 3D TV is really going to take off? With an expensive purchase like that, you sure don’t want to be caught with your pants down. Or not wearing any pants at all.
I may be in the minority, but I truly enjoy the new 3D technology. I enjoy seeing movies in the theater in 3D (if and only if, it was originally filmed in 3D or a computer animated feature...no 2D to 3D conversions, PLEASE!). I really enjoy 3D video games, especially racing games. The complaints I generally hear from dealers (and their customers) is that they dont like the glasses (they dont bother me, and I generally feel that the people who say this are WHINERS!), and that 3D doesnt lend itself to casual viewing. Well, "casual viewing" means that you arent really paying attention to whatever you are supposed to be watching! It means you are talking, dinking around with your iPad, or doing something else other than WATCHING TV! I feel that this effect, while described by some as a negative, really is a positive! It means that the content you watch in 3D DEMANDS your attention! It means that the content is MORE IMMERSIVE! No, we are NOT going to start watching the evening news in 3D, nor are we going to be watching "Antiques Road Show"...but when a good movie, like, say, Toy Story 3 comes on...it means we will be paying attention.
Yeah, 'cause sound and vision readers REALLY represent the general public :)
I already have a 3d tv. Then again I plan on buying a new display device every 2-4 years as the new technology comes out.
I had been wondering about that survey. The numbers seemed offly, offly high based on other surveys as well as general 3D hate found in blogs and comments.
I've been looking to upgrade my 6 year old plasma and 3D is a must. Personally, I don't see the big deal about wearing glasses. It's only for occasional content and the only option for the foreseable future. I do prefer the passive glasses over active.
I really like the LG LW5600 series as a cheap alternative with a great 2D picture (for an edge-lit) and a good passive 3D implementation to boot. I'll likely pick one up for the short term and then upgrade to something bigger/better sometime in the next year or two as the tech hopefully improves (see Samsung/RealD RDZ).
I haven't taken the plunge into 3D TV yet, even though I intend to, because I know that as time goes by, one of two things will happen: either the number of TV offerings with passive glasses will increase to the point where they will make the active ones obsolete, or someone will perfect the "no-glasses" technology (my personal pipe dream) and make it all really worth while.
I'm fairly certain that the content will eventually increase to the point where it will be worthwhile, just like HDTV content did, that's a no brainer. I also know that manufacturers and content providers still don't have enough faith in each other to do that in a timely fashion. You'd think they would have caught on by now (sort of makes you wish Apple was big into TV's). Until then, I will continue reading the Sound & Vision site waiting for the holy grail to appear, just as I have been doing since the mag was delivered to my doorstep as Stereo Review!
I'm ready, I'm budgeted, I just need this exact issue to get resolved: sufficient content + which/whose-technology.
New technologies are being offered to the television broadcast industry, among them a system that will imbed the 2nd eye of a 3D image (either left or right) so that only a 3D TV will pull out that 2nd image. Otherwise, viewing as usual. As a result, at least theoretically, more broadcasters will gradually take the plunge with more and more content being offered. Interestingly enough, when 3D content is photographed and presented properly, there is a likelihood that those images will be remembered at least twice as long, or twice as much, as the 2D counterpart. For advertisers, that will most likely be a no brainer. In fact, there are already some commericals being produced in 3D.
I would not be surprised to see some of the terrestrial and cable networks starting to pick up rights to 3D films of the 50's and 80's (and some sandwhiched in titles over the years) since there are only post production expenses involved to restore them to current digital formats.
On top of all of this, the most current 3DTV's are starting to show signs of technically maturing and gradually even the higher end models will drop in price. This may well then be an evolutionary period for the way we view content at home.
3D is the biggest rip off in my life time. It is a total money grab by the companys making it and as far as i am concerned it could be banned from the face of the earth and that would be fine. People are buying 3D tv's because that is all they make right now, Blu ray players too. So not a surprise there.
I've been looking to upgrade my 6 year old plasma and 3D is a must. Personally, I don't see the big deal about wearing glasses. It's only for occasional content and the only option for the foreseable future. I do prefer the passive glasses over active.
porn | porno day | kelebek