Why 3D will fail in 2010

Goofy

You seem too negative. You are conflating your own oppinion with what you *think* is the mainstream oppinion.

To watch Avatar, you could watch it either with or without the specs (no funnty blurry pic); it uses Polarization tech, and the specs are not made from some cheap cardboard. Sounds to me is if you've not even been to see Avatar, and your basing your oppinion on the 1950s, really there's no blurry pic without the specs.

For my next TV which I *also use to play games* it seems idiotic not to get a 3D TV. I also wear specs in real life, as do a great many people, it's not a big deal. You use the word "goofy" more than 4 times in your article...we get it maybe you don't like specs.

I would like to mention that on seeing 3 3d shows at fun parks on the gold coast my eyes adjusted & flattenned the 3d so on the 3rd watch I did not get the same 3d depth as the 1st & 2 goes - NB movie 1 & 3 were the same at the same place & the difference happened for me my sister my neice & nephew. The human brain is an amazing thing. I have also been able to create 3 d effects in the bush after using strong binoculars with my naked eye in that after using the binoculars which created depth of field my eyes created the same depth of field without the binoculars for a small period of time

Goofy cardboard glasses ? Oh really ? Stop

I stopped reading at "goofy cardboard glasses" : you sir really have no clue what you're talking about. You have, or had and still have, a predetermined mindset about 3D since your experience of the 50s and won't adapt : you're someone from the past and none of any of your predictions will happen. You're just like that Perez Hilton idiot who was predicting Avatar to fail at the box office...

Why 3D will fail in 2010... How quaint... And this site is called techworld ? Hmmm...

Well it's 2010 now...

How do you see through that egg on your face?

epic phail

Be it that the new 3D is improved. HDTV is just starting to get good numbers. Content is still very limited. You early adopters might want to believe in this will be a new era of greatness but overall it will fail to get the numbers the promoters are hoping for. Money isn't there for most people who bought HDTVs lately. It will eventually get mainstream but not in 2010.

The tittle works, 3D will fail in 2010

And you obviously have a predetermined view that 3D will succeed. Have you not rented a Blu-Ray 3D movie recently ? If you had, you would see that they still come with those "1950's glasses" Mr. Know-It-All. Are you by some chance somebody that lives 20 years in the future where everybody has a Blu-Ray player and a HDTV and they are ready to leap to the next technology ?.... Or do you live here in the year 2010 where people are just starting to buy HDTV Technology. 3D will fail, I'm not saying this year but it will fail. The people who don't have HD yet will not jump straight to 3D, and do you really think people who have just invested in a HDTV and an archive of Blu-Ray movies will want to start over with a 3DTV and movies to go with it ? That's just not logical thinking Sir....please let me know if the Canucks win the Stanly Cup in the future !

It doesn't mater what you think (cont)...

To clarify a couple of points, because some people don't seem to be getting it:

Point 1. A minimum of 90% of the TVs purchased globally in the past 10 years were color. Maybe all those purchasers didn't need or care about color. However, manufacturers need to focus on the majority, so like it or not color functionality is built-in and generally what is offered. 100% of the people that have a new color TV set do not dial it down to black and white

Point 2. Historically, once the technology exists to produce more advance computer chips, a company would be suicidal to deliberately revert to a more primitive format. (I could be wrong but I honestly can't think of a company that still exists that previously successfully tried this).

Point 3. Things like teletext were built into TVs many years ago because after the initial investment it cost nothing to include this functionality. 3D is the same. Use it or don't. Manufacturers are not going to make two versions of the same TV and distributors/retailers are not going to supply two versions of the same TV unit.

Point 4. Both a 3D and a 2D blu-ray player will cost the same in 2011. Ditto for the Blu-Ray discs and TVs. Why would you buy a 2D unit for the same price. You can always play a 3D disk on a 3D Blu-ray Player on a 2D screen, so you ultimately you pay nothing for the option.

Point 5. Personal 2D Blu-Ray libraries are relatively small and rare. 3D launch works at current 2010 timing.

In summary: If you want to completely shun 3D you'd better buy your '2D only' gear quickly. 2010 is the last year you will have that option, unless you want to buy a ‘no brand’ unit in the future.

Too early to make the jump

With several competing standards it would be foolish for anyone to make the jump - yet..

If they ever settle on one 3d standard it is going to take years. There will always be new ways developed to produce 3d images on your TV. Will a clear winner emerge?

Remember the 'HDTV ready' scam - where 720p was not full HD - is the same thing going to happen with '3D ready' TV's? Are we getting a cut down version?

If you buy a TV that has 2 pairs of 3d goggles you're going to need extra pairs (at £100 a pair) for your kids or friends. Even if your friends have their own pair of 3d glasses - are they going to be for the same make of TV?

A recent survey of 3d for football matches - like pretty much everything - is that after a while, you forget about the 3d component and just watch the game..

For films; I dont really care whether it was 720p, 1080p or 3d if its an engrossing film. Are the companies dumbing down films and just produsing eye candy? Would you watch The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption in 3d?? I dont think so..

Keep 3d to the cinemas where its an occasional treat and works on a BIG screen..
3d on a 40" screen? Hmmmmmm..

blind fools?

...says the jerkoff who's probably working for one of the companies set to lose big money on 3d. no-one wants to wear glasses, nancy. not only are they unnatural and annoying; people feel uncomfortable with them because the technology violates fundamental rules about how the eyes see 3d. y'know... natively. in the short term, it's not a big deal. in the long term, you're gonna feel those hours and hours of viewing - and that's why it'll fail. you can sputter all you want, but if it doesn't feel right, it isn't.

here's an article which might explain the concept a little better, if the shit you call brains can comprehend it:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2215265%2F&h=6b276

suck it,

t

3D - more tech gimmickery

I saw Superman Returns in IMAX years ago and was stunned by the 3D for about 5 seconds, then forgot about as I realized how bad the movie was and how much the 3D does NOT contribute to the experience of watching the film. It can be argued that after you've forgotten about the effect, the only noticeable difference is subtle eyestrain and the discomfort of wearing hardware on your head, esp if you do not normally wear glasses.

I'm curious as to how the industry expects the public to embrace 3D when 2D tech is still iffy. I've got 120Hz and 240Hz displays with frame creation modes that unnaturally smooth out action and makes anything shown feel like live video. I never use these modes because it makes the material look extremely unnatural and this is true even with sports.

Maybe I'll try looking at some porn one day like this and revise my opinion about 3D.

-J

3D is much more viable in 2010 than it was in 1970.

Mike, I think you've greatly misunderstood what 3d in the future will be about. Comparing past experiences from the 50's, 70's doesn't predict future outcome. It's like predicting the stock market. You can't predict the future based on the past with incredible certainty. Most 3d experiences from the past was a pretty big let down. And while it's true that producers try to get a "cheap" rise out of the audience to perhaps make up for a horrible 3d experience, again, the past doesn't equal the future. At least not 100%. For one the 3d of today is far more advanced. Yes, I know there was good 3d in the past on occasion, but let's face it, most things were crap. Also any attempts to bring 3d into the home usually failed on lousy mediums like VHS, or a less than crisp old crt set.

Today's technology is digital and uses computers to produce images. High quality LCD panels can be produced along with good quality glasses, at high refresh rates never heard of until 2009/2010. I'll agree it's still going to be a slow start , but for once it all seems possible now. A one time, somewhat pricey investment and the customer now has 3D in their homes. Tell me about how that was possible in 1970, or 1990, or even in 2005. It wasn't, or at least not in a form that was easily accessible.

Also you totally misunderstand that some people want to see a 3d movie because it has actual depth to it. Especially those with home theater setups like this sort of thing to be on their big screen TV's. It's more of a personal family affair rather than random people running into see a flick. It's easy to put 3D down based on the past. And in doing so it's easy to bring up all the most negative experiences one can imagine like red/blue glasses, pop corn stuck to the shoes and horrible slime monsters screaming out of the scream (actually I liked that last one, lol). But someone with say a nice 55 inch to 72 inch set 3D IN THEIR HOME will likely be thrilled with the result.

And if you are against 3d, then it's easy to say you don't want to wear the "silly" glasses as if it were meant to be a fashion statement. They are really no more of a hassle than sunglasses. So what?
Does that mean people will sit there and watch all their programs with glasses on? No, but any program where they want to see the depth available then yes. In other words, 3d will be seen more of a choice and a viewing treat rather than something they must do in order to watch TV. It's not like everyone goes from regular TV to wearing glasses as you've suggested in your blog. And then you list that as one of the reason's why it would fail. It's again a choice. And have you seen truly good 3d? I don't mean effects, but true stereoscopic video. It's amazing. Plus many people who see an outside scene containing rolling hills or drop offs say that it's totally different than 2D TV. They can suddenly make out how deep things are do to the DEPTH they see. 3D is NOT all about effects. As 3D progresses it's exactly what you'd think it's for. For seeing realistic scenes with your eyes as you would if YOU WERE THERE.

As for people refusing to wear the glasses at that event, it sounds like they are idiots. Why? A smart person would have at least tried it. But if they didn't want to then they would politely not wear them. What kind of person BOO's? Were they 12? Also I'm sure it was advertised as having a 3d segment. And when they handed out the 3d glasses, those people should have gotten the hint it was in 3d, DUH! Again, idiots. But really, that makes your "story" a little less convincing since most people again would recognize that handing out 3d glasses meant it would be in 3d. And while some people might get nauseated, most people don't. So again, your attempt to hint that this represents most peoples sentiments falls apart.

Another thing your failing to understand is that it's a fairly individual preference even though most people are interested. That means that people choose these 3D TV's for their homes because they like the idea. It's not the same as someone handing out glasses at some random event. And those people are typically more patient. Also what you don't seem to get is that a TV with a 3D option isn't that much more than a regular set when you are looking at higher end big screen TV's. People who need to buy a new set because their old set is dying usually consider that getting the 3d option is a smart move even if they don't get the glasses right away. And in the near future the price of these 3D sets will just even closer. In fact I suspect that ALL TV's will be 3D pretty soon since it will just be a menu option anyway. Then it's up to them whether or not to purchase 3d glasses. THAT is why all TV's are going 3D. And yet you don't seem to get it..

But as I read more you keep going on about "no glasses", blah blah. It sounds like that is your reason to write about this. But no glasses 3d is a long shot and they don't look very good. And this idea of Apple to track your movement just gets back into geeky gear which many could object to. Also this is for small applications. It's just another way for apple to convince their followers that they've done something new when actually they haven't. Even their ispec idea is as old as the sun since the invention existed in the 90's. --- But back to todays LCD shutter glasses. I have no problem wearing something no more intrusive than sunglasses if I'm going to get good 3d. Have you ever seen really good 3d? I don't mean gimmicks, but REAL depth with great 3d. It looks just like you are walking outside or around with your own two eyes. And that's pretty neat if the movie you watch takes you to a place you've never been to. On a really big set with good glasses, it can look fantastic. But I've seen good 3D on 55 inch sets too.

For me, having seen really good 3D on home sets I'd HATE to have a lousy TV that doesn't use glasses. I'd shift my head and the image would fade. People would have to be tied to certain spots in the room for it to look good. It would be vastly more expensive than current sets and far more limited. It is however very cool for small handhelds though. But give me these wireless 3D glasses that are again no worse than wearing sunglasses to use in the comfort of my home. I'd take that ANY DAY. Now I don't know what the sets of 10 years will be like. They may be great. But if you want to talk about an EPIC FAIL, it would be glassless home TV's. At least for a number of years to come. I say, let the super picky skip 3D. At the same time, it's now May of 2010 and I think 3D is catching on a lot better than you anticipated.. I suspect most that boo this are typically people that couldn't afford over a 40 inch set anyway. But I think most people are not all as stupid as the crowd that simply Boos everything in site like a bunch of 12 year old kids. Watch and see. 3D will slowly pick up now that it's all digital. Either way, 3D is here to stay and will only get clearer, better and cheaper in the next few years.

that was directed at the person below that said no one wanted to watch 3d or wear 3d glasses.. Not true.

3d Sucks and will fail as long as you must wear glasses

Look, of course there will be some geeks that are willing to wear stupid uncomfortable glasses to watch 3d but for the mainstream it will not happen. When HD came out it became popular because people were going out and seeing it in sports bars and watching with their friends. It made them want to buy a tv with that sort of picture at home. Now, can you picture guys at a sports bar watching football with those stupid glasses on???????? and guess what........they are the ones that buy new types of tv's>>>>>>get it??????? that's why it will fail until they can figure out a way to show 3d without glasses.

I watched a demo at best buy and it's a joke!!! even with the $70 pair of stupid glasses on.

3D

Do you recall that jackie gleason episode in which Ralph tells Alice the reason they dont have a TV set is that Ralph is waiting for 3D TV ..

Seriously when it comes to HDlogix you better wait longer than Ralph.

The HDlogix technology may be a scam. They are no doubt trying to hype the technology again to sucker a sale ..They used to be known as CliqueCommunications and when HDlogix fails they will likely rename the company try again.

3D TV cannot fall - no way! Why?

If you really understand how the latest 3D glasses work (not the old red/blue glasses), you can still see 3D even color blind or "one eye stronger than the other".

A lot of people have missing the most important points:

1. If all your friends, relatives, neighbours are having a COLOR TV set at 70's, do you still using your old BLACK & WHITE TV set even they are in perfect good condition?

2. If everyone are using a LCD monitor for their computer at 90's, will you still using the old CRT monitor even they are in perfect good condition?

3. If everyone is watching Movies using a Blue-Ray player now, do you still using a VCR player or CD player or even DVD player even they are in good condition when the Blue-Ray Movies is as cheap as $10 each? Yes, $10 only, cheaper than a DVD version - The most recently sale price in a big video shop!

4. Now, if everyone's home have a 3D capability TV at 2010's, all your friends are watching 3D movies, 3D TV channels, 3D video chips that created by themselves etc., - Without 3D glasses or with 3D glasses does not matter - Do you still using your good old non-3D TV setting? Without being laughing by everyone else??

3d tv

I WILL BE GETTING A 3D TV, but im goin to hangfire for a while as ive only just got a hd tv last year
38 inch, thing is when i get the new 3d tv were is my hd goin in the bedroom?

Immersion.

The two colourblinds in our family can't see the 3D , so I am not sure that the new style "works for everyone" as mentioned by one of the posters here.
3D won't have my money until they actually make it work for everyone, without annoying glasses, and without having to sit directly in front of the tv, Obviously too many of us live here, because I am always stuck watching tv on an angle, and 3 D doesn't work for me that way. Or I end up feeling sick from it.No thanks.