3D: The Future or Fad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Northstar
  • 19 comments
  • 1,646 views

3D: Future or Fad?

  • Total voters
    30
Northstar

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
Messages
24,719
United States
Anoka, MN
With all the recent talk about TV companies going into the 3D business it makes me wonder if it will actually catch on.

I personally think it will be a bigger flop than HD-DVD and here'e why:
- Cost, currently HDTV's are just getting to the point where a large portion of the population can afford them. You also have to consider most people probably just plopped $1000 on an HDTV, I doubt they would be willing to put a few thousand dollars into another new TV. Not to mention the fact you have to buy special glasses for every person.

- As I said, every person has to be wearing glasses or the image just looks blurry. This of course means if you have company over and not enough glasses your TV will be nothing but a talking piece (unless you're rude of course).

- Lack of programing, currently only ESPN and Discovery are going to launch 3D channels, and those will only have limited programs. Nobody will spend that much money on technology they can't use.

- Size, basically in order for the effect to work the screen has to be big, most people don't have room for a screen that would be big enough.

I don't think 3D will die entirely, it should just stay in theaters where it currently works great.
 
I completely agree. When you look at the idea itself, it's pretty good...

Add reality, and 3-D is about as dumb and impractical as buying a Hummer for the sole purpose of driving around L.A. But like what I just said, people are probably bound to go the 3-D route despite it's impracticability.
 
I think it's just going to be a niche market for a very few since it is to much trouble watching it with glasses. They should just make glasses with built in monitors in them to reduce size and cost. It would work great for SIM racing with built in headphones, mic and head tracking. They would probably sell more 3D units this way.
 
Personally I would like to see 3D to become the future. I do know that my HDTV is not capable of 3D but if I had the extra money and time I would invest into a new TV and glasses.
 
Justin
With all the recent talk about TV companies going into the 3D business it makes me wonder if it will actually catch on.

I personally think it will be a bigger flop than HD-DVD and here'e why:
- Cost, currently HDTV's are just getting to the point where a large portion of the population can afford them. You also have to consider most people probably just plopped $1000 on an HDTV, I doubt they would be willing to put a few thousand dollars into another new TV. Not to mention the fact you have to buy special glasses for every person.

- Lack of programing, currently only ESPN and Discovery are going to launch 3D channels, and those will only have limited programs. Nobody will spend that much money on technology they can't use.

- Size, basically in order for the effect to work the screen has to be big, most people don't have room for a screen that would be big enough.

I don't think 3D will die entirely, it should just stay in theaters where it currently works great.
Click to expand...

These arguments were used against HDTVs and they certainly caught on.
 
"Future"

I think it's unavoidable. We keep pushing, mostly for higher definition. Next big step in TV + other video media, I think, has to be 3D. How far in the future, I have no idea. I just started hearing little bit about 3D TVs, but I have no idea what's involved there, except you know, the 3D. :dopey:
 
Justin
Yes, but with HDTV you don't need glasses to see the effects of it.
Click to expand...
Ah, but depending on how far in the future, 3D won't require the glasses.

Then again, they all start somewhere. I guess they could still succeed with the glasses.
 
a6m5
Ah, but depending on how far in the future, 3D won't require the glasses.

Then again, they all start somewhere. I guess they could still succeed with the glasses.
Click to expand...

They already have the technology to do it without glasses, you just need to basically be at a precise location to see it.

The problem with glasses is that you have to have one for every person. If you have company they will either have to bring their own or you will have to buy extra ones for the "just in case" scenario.
 
Justin
Yes, but with HDTV you don't need glasses to see the effects of it.
Click to expand...

And HDTV hasn't been tarnished with the reputation of things like this:

spykids3pubd.jpg



Thing is, 3D is still seen as one of those futuristic cliches - so much so that it's not taken that seriously anymore IMO. I mean you put on a pair of Roy Orbison style glasses and are kept amused for a few minutes by the stuff floating 'magically' in front of you. It's all very quaint, and a little tacky to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if it was all JML's idea.
 
To be honest, I had no idea how long 3D had come along until I saw the film Avatar at IMAX 3D, earlier this week. Before that show, you could have definitely counted me in as a skeptic.

Avatar 3D was fine & dandy, but it was the trailers. Especially the NASA Hubble 3D trailer was just incredible. There was definitely an issue with the lower resolution, but astronaut working on the Hubble, in my face!, was an pretty awesome experience. I'm not gonna lie, I was pretty impressed. 👍
 
a6m5
To be honest, I had no idea how long 3D had come along until I saw the film Avatar at IMAX 3D, earlier this week. Before that show, you could have definitely counted me in as a skeptic.

Avatar 3D was fine & dandy, but it was the trailers. Especially the NASA Hubble 3D trailer was just incredible. There was definitely an issue with the lower resolution, but astronaut working on the Hubble, in my face!, was an pretty awesome experience. I'm not gonna lie, I was pretty impressed. 👍
Click to expand...

Like I said, it works great in theaters because you get more from the experience than you would at home.
 
It won't catch on until they can make 3D systems that don't require glasses economical and practical.

Channels that broadcast in 3D will have to be formatted so that you can still watch them on a regular screen... it'll just be like the audio... you have a mono channel and a stereo channel (although it pains me no end that some movie channels transmit in 5.1 without considering stereo TVs, giving you terrible sound if you don't have the prerequisite number of speakers and a TV set that doesn't support 5.1 sound (even if your home theater does)).
 
Yeah, I personally have no guess as to how far in the future the transition to 3D might take place.
Justin
Like I said, it works great in theaters because you get more from the experience than you would at home.
Click to expand...
I understand that, I also agree. That is the situation we have today. I just think the 3D is an inevitable evolution.
 
Any TV that can do more than 100Hz can physically display 3D signals, providing that they can recode the 24fps x2 movie signal. i.e. running double refresh on each "side" at 96Hz. This would mean displaying 1L,1R,1L,1R,2L,2R,2L,2R etc. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, since many upper-end TVs (50" @ £2,000) are able to do 24fps @ 200Hz (which I guess is actually 192Hz).

I'm going to replace my Pioneer plasma this year, so hopefully the market will swing one way or the other around the Summer.
 
I have seen a few films in regular cinemas with 3D glasses and they were good but not outstanding. I find the problem to be the width of the screen. If I can see the edges of the screen the 3D effects aren't as good. However when I go Imax the screen is so big that you can't actually see anything else which helps to immerse you in the experience.

I also read recently that 3M are producing 3D screens which do not require glasses for handheld sets. Link here.

I'm hoping 3D will become more popular especially with films like Avatar setting a new standard.
 
Radracing
They should just make glasses with built in monitors in them to reduce size and cost.
Click to expand...

I think this is what we'll start to see in the near future, a more personal immersive experience. If the resolution in the glasses is high enough your brain can be "tricked" into thinking you are watching an IMAX type screen when in reality you could just be sitting on the National Express.
 
I also think Holograms without glasses would probably be a better way to go than a monitor that requires glasses.
 
I think 3D wont be in every house.. It wont FAIL as well, It will have a steady rate.

Its something like playing GT5 with a steering wheel. Only 25 Percent will play GT5 with steering wheel while most people will play with the PAD.. So that means the WHEEL is FAIL? NO it means its more for the hardcore audience.. Same thing will be with 3D (but maybe with higher audience)
 
3D currently has too many limitations to be "practical" in a home environment.
That said:

Mr. Data you have the bridge! I'll be in the Holo-deck nearest 10-forward.

*removes tongue from corner of cheek, exits geek mode*
 

Latest Posts

Back