Need 3D TV now? Take it easy

UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA:Redwood City, CA Icrontian
edited March 2010 in Science & Tech

Comments

  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    What's faster than a skipping Super Audio CD, more powerful than a laser-disk, and able to leap tall stacks of beta-max cassettes in a single bound - Look, its a bird, no, its a plane, no, its that expensive headache inducer 3D TV!!

    Coming to fine electronics retailers everywhere 2010, the bargain bin of your favorite thrift stores 2011...
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Oh man, Super Audio. I had almost forgotten about that one.

    But do you really think 3D will go by the wayside in the home theater, Cliff? I'm very skeptical about it at this point in time, but I have no doubts that before long 3D will become a near standard in almost every home.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I will never support 3D until the visual quality matches what I have now, and does not require glasses.
  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Thrax wrote:
    I will never support 3D until the visual quality matches what I have now, and does not require glasses.
    Agreed. Glasses are a plank in the

    Failboat.jpg
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I can deal with the glasses, but I want them wireless and not to be a hindrance with batteries being changed regularly.

    But I will agree with you on quality. Texture detail is lost, and the notorious image darkening really hurts the deal.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    UPSLynx wrote:
    Oh man, Super Audio. I had almost forgotten about that one.

    But do you really think 3D will go by the wayside in the home theater, Cliff? I'm very skeptical about it at this point in time, but I have no doubts that before long 3D will become a near standard in almost every home.

    3D is not optimal for an in home viewing experience, at least not in the foreseeable future. Its a wonderful differentiation technology to get people to spend for that first pass viewing in the theater, but for home viewing its just not going to be something that many people will want.

    Look at Blu Ray, its taken what, half a decade to catch on, and all that is is just a better version of something that gained nearly universal adoption (DVD). I know people with a blu ray that have no clue what HDMI vs. component video is. The home electronics consumer wants good enough performance delivered in a simple way. The added complexity of the new components, switching to the stereoscopic presentation then finding the glasses would be enough to turn people off even if its reasonably priced. Given the market premiums and the fact that many folks have just gotten their first HDTV's inside the past couple of years, trust me, 3D TV is going to crash and burn. Plus TV is a largely communal experience in many homes. So my wife likes 3D but it gives me a splitting headache, what do we do? The constant bickering about what to watch is bad enough, I want to add how to that? I would go so far as to say when we do the decade in review come late 2019, 3D TV will be atop the decade's biggest failures. I think the electronics company's forgot the lesson learned from Jurassic Park, just because you can, does not necessarily mean you should. Sure, its cool that its possible, but is 3D TV a consumer friendly tech? Not at all, not in its current form.

    As far as 3D at the movie theaters, I believe it will continue to do well and get even better. People will look at that first pass viewing in 3D as a sort of treat, something thats worth paying for rather than just waiting for a film to hit the disk. 3D fits in the theater, all you need to do is wear the glasses for two hours then chuck em in a bin when you leave the theater. For the average home consumer its completely impractical.
  • BasilBasil Nubcaek England Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    What's so terrible about SACDs?
  • mas0nmas0n howdy Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I've been keeping quiet about this round of 3D because I hadn't experienced it personally, but this weekend we went to see Alice in IMAX 3D and I can agree with all the complaints.

    There is a distinct loss of clarity, wearing glasses sucks, and to put a nail in the coffin of home viewing pleasure: you have to keep your eyes level with the screen or the image blurs even more. No lounging on the couch or cuddling with the wife and kids = No go.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Basil wrote:
    What's so terrible about SACDs?

    That its a dead tech that Sony suckered a bunch of knuckleheads into investing on. Anyone that had any sense knew that the broad consumer was not going to adopt that tech. First off, the tech that makes that presentation possible already lived in the DVD format, no reason for Sony to create a proprietary disk, except to further its own agenda. SACD was never any good for consumers. And seriously, CD's in surround sound? When was the last time you sat stationary and listened to a CD from cover to cover? People move around and do stuff while they listen to music, once again, it was tech for the sake of tech, they were so in love with the idea that they could do this cool thing they never asked if it had a real practical application for consumers. Still, anyone that drank that kool aid, I feel sorry for them, and that will be the same thing I say about people that run out and buy 3D TV's.
  • BasilBasil Nubcaek England Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    And seriously, CD's in surround sound? When was the last time you sat stationary and listened to a CD from cover to cover?
    Dark Side of the Moon about a week ago.

    I have a hybrid SACD copy I got for less than the of the vanilla CD version which is supported by the Onkyo universal player I already had so I've never really considered myself a knucklehead. :p

    I agree completely that the benefits existed mostly in the heads of Sony's marketing dept and never had a hope of catching on with average consumers but it does work (and I may as well make use of my 5.1 setup).
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    While marketing for 3D TV is pushing it, I do agree with Houston that tech sites should talk about the tech - but only if they do it properly and level-headedly as a counteraction to the marketing. It will be important for people to know when the technology has progressed sufficiently to buy. We need somebody to voice clarity against the marketing blitz.

    I think we do need to talk about it - just not rah-rah it until it deserves it.
  • edited March 2010
    Well, I would have taken this challenge to my 3D piece as a good sport-and even with the sophomoric picture of someone flipping the bird accompanying it.

    Except for one thing: It's obvious you didn't read my post. Either that, or you purposely misconstrued it.

    Tsk. Tsk. The first principle is good writing is to get it right. So where in the piece did I ever say that publishers need to "blitz" people with information about 3D? And where did I quote Sony as saying 2010 was a "breakout year for home theater 3D?"

    The very first two sentences directly disclaimed any such assertion by Sony, let alone me. Since you obviously missed them, I'll recount them for you: "By their own admission, 2010 won't be a gangbuster year for 3D, and never mind Avatar or all the 3D hoopla we heard at CES. In fact, Sony Electronics president Stan Glasgow says 3D adoption this year will be `weak.'"

    Dewd, if you can read "breakout year" from that then take off the 3D glasses.

    But, look, you're forgiven. And the reason is that you made my very point by writing what you did. Yep, manufacturers are going to be touting 3D as the next new thing. You are rightfully yelling out, "caveat emptor."

    I was too.

    I wrote in the conclusion to my post to publishers like your own Brian Ambrozy:

    ". start looking at ways you can start educating your communities about 3D--the good, the bad, the ugly. The hype is about to go into overdrive. People will be hearing about `3D-ready' this or `3D-capable' that."

    Then again, if you didn't read it at the very beginning why would we possibly think you'd read it to the very end.

    I not usually this snarky but I'm not usually misconstrued either.
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited March 2010
    I think 3D Glasses for tv/movies is stupid. What are we supposed to be Kid Vid from the Burger King Kids Club?
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Hi Patrick, thanks for stopping by!

    I did read your post in its entireity. I read it many times, actually. I know what you were saying in the piece, and my intent was not to deconstruct you. I did, however, say everything I meant to say.

    I know you said that 2010 won't be the gangbuster year, and I obviously agree. And if you'll notice, the piece was about why the manufacturers are wrong about still rallying behind the tech.

    Regardless if Sony told you it will be weak in 2010 or not, that is hardly the face they are showing to the consumers. Manufacturers are going nuts marketing this stuff, trying to convince the public that they absolutely need it. Panasonic and NVIDIA are touring the country demoing the technology, showing consumers why it is OMG THE FUTURE!!!1.

    What people need to be informed of is why NOT to upgrade, and why to wait. They need to know what is really in the pipelines for now, so people that ARE excited about it don't dish out major cash and end up being disappointed in the content. It would be a disservice to our readers if we were to focus on informing our readers about 3D televisions when, more importantly, we should be telling them about why the really should wait to upgrade. You pretty much said this yourself, but then again, the point was to point out how wrong manufacturers are, and stress the REAL importance for premiere tech sites like Icrontic.

    So don't get bent out of shape over it dewd, you're not the one in my crosshairs. Your piece mearly inticed me to think harder on it and to write about the need for patience. In essence, I'm doing exactly what you told us to do.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I wish I had a fast forward button just so I could just skip all the marketing BS and say I told ya so right now.

    When I first saw laserdisc, I told a friend of mine, thats a dead format in a couple years when they shrink the form factor to match that of a CD, he laughed at me, I tell him so later.

    Like I said, SACD, I never spent a penny on it, I knew the format was dead in the water the day it was introduced.

    3D TV will do about as well as Nintendo's Virtual Boy, trust me, by this time next year when absolutely nobody is spending on them, electronics manufacturers will not be able to pull out fast enough. Even Sony who was still producing Beta Players until a couple years ago, will allow common sense to prevail.

    Patrick, the first principle in getting it right, is being right. Anyone that watches House MD knows that in the end, being right is the only thing that really matters. Whats right for a tech journalist in this case? To advise consumers not to drink the Sony marketing Kool Aid. Sony, the company that gave us Betamax, SACD, Minidisc, UMD, ATRAC / OpenMG, and Memory Stick, I mean, Sony never bets on a loosing horse, right?
  • DuniganDunigan Norfolk, VA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    When I first saw laserdisc, I told a friend of mine, thats a dead format in a couple years when they shrink the form factor to match that of a CD, he laughed at me, I tell him so later.

    My Dad works in the printing industry, and in the early 90's when Sony was working on shrinking full length movies to fit them on a 5" disk, they told the printing companies, "This is not looking good...in fact we think it might be impossible." And well...you know the rest of the story...

    It is possibly one of my Dad's favorite stories to tell...besides the fact that he has a hand in printing the label.
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited March 2010
    Patrick, the first principle in getting it right, is being right. Anyone that watches House MD knows that in the end, being right is the only thing that really matters. Whats right for a tech journalist in this case? To advise consumers not to drink the Sony marketing Kool Aid. Sony, the company that gave us Betamax, SACD, Minidisc, UMD, ATRAC / OpenMG, and Memory Stick, I mean, Sony never bets on a loosing horse, right?

    Thats an interesting view point but i think Every Horse is a Losing Horse Until it passes the Finish Line and wins. And what i mean by that is yes, sony has had a lot of dead formats but it has also had a lot of winners. I dont think sony could have made lets say... the CD for example without some sort of trial and error with formats before it.

    Lets see here are sonys format standards: Umatic (~1968), Betamax (1975), Betacam (81), Compact Disc (82), 3.5 inch Floppy Disk (82), Video8 (85), DAT (87), Hi8 (88), Minidisc (~90), Digital Betacam (~90), miniDV (92), Memory Stick (98), Digital8 (99), PSP Universal Media Disc (~2003), HDV (~2004), Blu-ray Disc (2006).

    Obviously, these formats were not all successful as the cd or 3.5 inch floppy disk but they all served a purpose and they were all in their own way useful to sony. I mean do you know of any other company that released this many media formats, let alone this many successful ones? But in a way You are right, sony bets on losing horses, because without even betting at all, there is no way to be a winner.

    The only way to really tell if something is going to fail or not is to let the consumers decide. And they do that with their wallets. Its all just a big gamble in the end cause no matter how pretty something looks on paper its the people with the money that make the difference. If 3D is going to fail then its going to fail, it appears though that this just may be another losing horse.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Quite a few of those Sony formats played a decently large roll in electronics. Hi8 and MiniDV were huge in the consumer camcorder markets.

    The TV studio I work at still uses Betacam and Beta SP/SX VTR decks and tapes for all of our shooting and video needs, and we have been for years. In fact, quite a few stations used Betacam for a long time, and have been recently phased out in favor of digital formats.

    We're ditching betacam in a month when we go HD.

    Sony made a killing in the broadcast industry, at least.
  • edited March 2010
    3D tv should only be an adaptor attachment that can be plugged into your existing LCD,LED or plasma tv, it's to gimiki and not high res enough right now to cost over $4000 as a whole TV SET. With that said since they are going the way of a full fledged TV set then I would wait 3-5 years for the tech to be almost flawless on not only TVs but also on home theatre projectors.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited March 2010
    In its defense, it does look really, really good. I've tested it out at work. Avatar should be the first release and I'm sure it will look stunning in 3D plasma.

    Not that I would ever want or need it.

    What I want to know is, why can't they make the glasses look somewhat stylish? Instead of completely ridiculous?
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I would like to see Oakley design a pair. Minus, of course, the additional Oakley cost.

    The NVIDIA 3D Vision glasses were pretty comfortable and look halfway decent. I can't speak for Panasonic and Samsung's glasses yet.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited March 2010
    UPSLynx wrote:
    I would like to see Oakley design a pair. Minus, of course, the additional Oakley cost.

    That's exactly what I said when I put the Panasonic glasses on. ;D
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    Walking through a Sears over the weekend I got my first taste of 3D TV, I was not impressed.

    Monsters Vs. Aliens, Samsung set. I will say, color saturation and brightness was better than I expected at first, but the 3D effect, and the discomfort I felt after just a few minutes of viewing (eye strain, headache), just does not have me sold.

    I hold by my previous statements, I predict a consumer electronics failure of epic proportions.
  • T3h_WafflemanT3h_Waffleman Kernersville NC
    edited March 2010
    I don't see why the industry is so eager to push 3D into our homes when there are plenty of people in the country who haven't even made the jump to HD.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited March 2010
    I just finally bought my first HDTV last month. I'm surely in no rush to buy 3D. Heck, I can barely stand 3D in a movie theater (especially since it's a good 4$ more expensive per ticket)
Sign In or Register to comment.