World+Dog says 'no thanks' to 3D TV It doesn't matter where in the world you go, one thing is certain: we don't want 3D TV. That's the only conclusion we can draw from 3D TV demand stats posted by North American nabob of numbers, Nielsen. In September, it conducted a survey of approximately 27,000 online consumers in 53 countries. As you can see from the …
Crucially you left out the timescale: 12 months.
Over that timescale I'd have been a no to buying a 3D tele. But the answer is the same if you're asking about a 2D plasma, a 2D oled or a 4:3 black and white CRT. I have a working tele (well 3 in a household of 2 people), its unlikely to break in the next 12 months, so no I won't be buying a tele of any description. Now, will my next tele be a 3D one? Almost certainly, but that purchase is just further in the future than they were asking about. I suspect similar reasoning holds for a lot of people.
One thing to consider with 3D TVs is that because they need to have top class displays in order to produce 3D images their 2D performance is some of the best out there. So even if you're not looking for a 3D TV, they might be worth looking at if you're in the market for a new TV.
@ Vehlin
Yeah, I heard that too I think it was either on the Gadget Show, or BBC Click. But I can't see people paying much extra for it, as the 2D quality is already at a high standard.
As others have mentioned, 3D porn could make a difference to stimulate the market (pun intended). :)
That would explain why the stats for Western Europe show fewer pairs of glasses then 3D TVs have been sold [source: hdtvtest.co.uk]
ISTM the indifference shown to 3D TV is simply a failure of marketing. People just haven't been told in sufficiently convincingly terms that they NEED one of these new tellies. Even if they have only recently upgraded to a super-stonkin-massive HD set. I'm sure that when the campaigns are fully ramped up, we'll all do what we're told and buy them - even if all that's showing is Dad's Army (again)
in my demographic who will buy one. people that wear specs. I hate contact lenses with a grisly passion, and wearing another set of lenses over the top of my regular ones? please. the only way I can see this tech listing off is if next-gen consoles put out a helluva good tech demo for it.
as for HDTV, yes. Im sure its a great technology. its a shame my little pc monitor can cope with QXGA output but a three grand TV still cant.
The better sets that have high refresh rates and support film mode can be made 3D ready for almost nothing. A lot of the sets being counted as 3D may never be used for 3D because of the need to buy expensive glasses, and other costs (expensive cable service, new blu ray player) and not much worth watching.
If I buy a new TV it might be 3D ready (and might have other useless features like playing MP3s from a USB stick) but I'll be buying it because it's a good 2D TV.
Interesting that you used the Grammar Nazi icon...
Alternately means (roughly) to switch between two states or actions.
Alternatively means "in place of" - or in this context, "on the other hand"
Not that I don't agree with you - I wear glasses and those 3D goggles are a pain in the arse unless you wear contacts, and I just end up with a bloody headache watching it anyway.
3D TV for the time being = FAIL as far as I'm concerned.
I get it. The industry is running out of things to "innovate", we're hitting a TV platue. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Let's focus on improved LCD production techniques, or dare I say it? OLED sets.
Stop pushing 3D crap on everyone though. You've already lost me as a theater goer after the tron debacle ( movie was great, but forced to see it in 3D even though most of it wasn't ), I'm on the fence about a new TV ( whether to get one, or cancel cable ). Force 3d down my throat, I'm out.
I'm not alone in this.
TVs use a different delivery method for the 3D effect than at the cinema. Most all TVs use shuttered LCD glasses which will definitely work on your eyes, and will almost certainly not give you a headache. At the cinema, it's completely different with two simultaneously projected images at different light polarisations, with glasses that imperfectly filter one polarisation out for each eye.
Go to a "proper" TV shop (I'm not talking Dixons) if you have one, and take a look at the 3D TVs, it's really good these days.
That's not to say that I disagree with the survey findings - I suspect that they're accurate, and people in thie economic climate aren't thinking to replace their new HDTVs in the next 12 months. I do think people will probably buy a 3DTV next time they buy an HDTV though.
"TVs use a different delivery method for the 3D effect than at the cinema. Most all TVs use shuttered LCD glasses which will definitely work on your eyes, and will almost certainly not give you a headach"
I have a 3D telly with active glasses and I can confirm that the above statement is incorrect.
Whether it's just the act of following 3D pictures (which aren't 3D in the "real" sense) or whether it's the glasses themselves, watching 3D on a TV is tiring, and tired eyes lead to headaches. I know from experience, and not just mine.
@Sean Kennedy: We've been at a TV plateau for 40 years, from the time color TV was introduced in the 1950s/1960s until digital television and HDTV came into the picture (pun-intended) around the early-to-mid 2000s. The difference is that TV makers have had a taste of what computer and electronics makers have had for years: a never-ending cycle of new technology to make consumers' purchases obsolete from the moment they leave the store. And now with HDTVs saturating the market there's no more reason for people to buy new TVs except for the traditional reasons: a TV stops working or the consumer wants a bigger TV, or new TV for a bedroom, kitchen, basement, etc. This is just a ploy to make consumers think they need something they don't. 3D technology is still just about as primitive as it was 10 years ago, and aside from the fact that they're changing TV from something you can have on while you're doing something else into an "experience" where you have to sit down, put on $100 goggles, and stare at the screen for the entire length of the program. I don't watch TV like that, and aside from rare occasions when my friends and I get together to watch a movie at home I don't know anybody who does. 3D is a waste of bandwidth. Instead of developing standards and protocols that can move enough data to provide 3DTV at 720p or 1080i we should be working toward moving everyone up (both content providers/producers and consumers) from 720p and 1080i to 1080p and beyond. HDTV is worthwhile, because it has greatly enhanced television viewing from its low-resolution, interlaced past. 3DTV does nothing to move the technology forward since it will simply sidetrack our progress in making better resolution video (beyond 1080p) mainstream.
Agreed, TV tech didn't improve after color TV. Most of the "improvements" were on the devices themselves, like remote control or display tech; most of the latter thanks to stuff used on embedded devices or computers (LCD?) at least until HDTV came out. 3DTV isn't hot, and is useless for most stuff except for videogames. I hate watching sports so that use isn't in my list, and consoles can probably manage 3D wothout the need of a 3D TV.
One thing that annoys me is the bunch of people that turn on the TV but don't actually *watch* TV. There's a device that works for you, it's called "radio". Thanks to these guys, some Latin American channels have dropped original language audio for crappy Spanish dubs. Want to listen stuff, use a radio! What's the use of an HDTV if you aren't going to watch it?
The recent glut of 3D movies and the pushing of 3DTV in stores seems to be a desperate bid to get people to buy the "old" technology again. I've yet to see a film that was made better by 3D other than as a gimmick. I can't think of any films that would've been impossible to watch if they were "only" in 2D (other than Avatar as the actual plot and script was so poor that it was only worth watching for the 3D effects).
Picture quality or 3D isn't the main thing when watching films. If it is, then the film is sadly lacking in some aspect (plot, script, acting, etc). The main reason people went from VHS to DVD was not because of the superior picture quality, but instead because of the extra features it gave - not needing to rewind, being able to jump directly to scenes, fast forward and rewind quickly and easily, won't stretch and break (easily), etc. The jump from DVD to Bluray was much smaller mainly due to the fact that adding more definition to the picture isn't important to most people.
When will the movie companies learn and start making good films with good plots and good scripts rather than trying to pump out hour after hour of gimmicky effects?
"The recent glut of Colour movies and the pushing of ColourTV in stores seems to be a desperate bid to get people to buy the "old" technology again. I've yet to see a film that was made better by Colour other than as a gimmick. I can't think of any films that would've been impossible to watch if they were "only" in 2D (other than [movie] as the actual plot and script was so poor that it was only worth watching for the "Colour" effects).
Picture or colour quality isn't the main thing when watching films. If it is, then the film is sadly lacking in some aspect (plot, script, acting, etc).
When will the movie companies learn and start making good films with good plots and good scripts rather than trying to pump out hour after hour of gimmicky effects?"
Wow - hope you didn't sprain your brain working out that response, Anonymous Coward...
Anyway, without wasting any more time on that useless wanker, it does actually make the point of the original poster in this thread even stronger. A good film (TV show, documentary etc) stands on its merits regardless of the technology. Technology can help, but if the story is strong enough, it isn't really needed. How many people were impressed by the Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" trilogy? How many have also heard the radio adaptation of "Lord of the Rings"? That stood up on its own merits, and didn't have any picture at all.
Too much stuff seems to be about special effects rather than story-telling. Bring a strong story of interesting people delivered well, and you have no need to worry about the technology.
Bring tired old rehashed stuff, endless remakes with little to no refresh of the story or characters, and you can see why the studios are desparate for the "Ooh, shiny!"
Every single advance in Cinema is tightly linked to a recession:
Sound - the great depression
Colour - the post WW2 recession
Dolby surround and the super wide screens - the dip at the end of the 70-es
By its nature the media industry is _ULTRA_ conservative. It will "innovate" only if there are two bailiffs with baseball bats knocking on the front porch. The "innovation" of this recession is called "3D".
The quotes around "innovate" are intended because the corresponding tech is usually decades old when it was "innovated" into the theatre.
Every single time people grumbled about it. Every time the grumbling was spot on because the directors did not know how to use the new technology and the first sound, colour, surround, etc movies were laughable. Every single time we ended up accepting it because there was no choice.
That however is not the case any more because there is a gazillion of ways of watching a movie nowdays. We definitely do not live in a world where the media corp owns everything from content to the sole way to view it the way it did prior to the 1960-es case which broke the cinema ownership cartels in the US. Prior to that the "innovations" caught on because there was _NO_ choice whatsoever regarding them.
Now... Well do not think so. I for one refuse to watch 3D cinema. I watched how to train your dragon and it was clearly not worth it. I am going to wait for the DVD (and I am not the only one).
Problem with your theory: 3D movies aren't a 2009/10 thing, they've been done as far back as the 50's, and they've failed over and over and over. The last 3D craze came in the 80's with Jaws 3D, Elm Street 3D & co. It has crashed and burned even without our current choices.
Also, those improvements are actually good: would you really prefer soundless, black & white movies? Though Color had been available for quite some time before WW2. There's a critically panned movie back in its time that used it to great effect, maybe you've even heard of it. It's called "Wizard of Oz".
Hell, even Chaplin monkeyed around with sound: Some small parts of Modern Times had sound bits in a couple of scenes.
3D will probably be worth it, but currently few directors are actually good at that. 3D doesn't have to suck, but I don't think its a need-to-have thing yet. The few good 3D movies out there usually come with the red/blue glasses, no need for 3DTVs yet.
...whether people would have one if it was cheaper?
Me, for example - I can take 3D or leave it, but if I were buying a new TV and the choices were one with 3D and one without, and there was say £50 in in, I'd get the 3D one. Else not.
I don't understand why anyone would want to pay more for it.
The effect doesn't really work that well on porn because of the closeness of the...actors. To fully appreciate stereoscopy, you need distance between the parts of the scene. Unfortunately, since porn involves being "up close and personal" and since the human body does not itself provide a lot of distance cues, the effect kinda washes out, especially in close-ups.
Once upon a time, even before the advent of 3D TVs was an erotic 3D movie called Erotek. I believe it relied on the interlaced nature of CRT TVs then along with special shutter glasses (timed to the video signal) to pull off the effect. The whole production was rather forced with one scene, a rotating platform, and weird camera angles that remind me of those 3D sportscasts where the camera travels very low along the ground. As I recall, the idea was never replicated.
Though maybe that's why the "natuire/animal" category did so well. I've read that sort of thing is legal in many states still.
Also, I can't help wondering if anyone on here (ACs no doubt) has seen a 3d grumbleflick yet? Perhaps they would like to treat us to a festive review of the technology too.
+1
I'll get one when I replace my current 1080p HD TV if 3D is already on every half-decent TV anyway by that time at no extra cost. It wouldn't be a reason for me to buy a new set on its own. That whole fake movie 3D thing annoys the shit out of me. I deliberately AVOID 3D versions of films in the cinema.
I am vastly amused that this article comes out less than a week after I purchased a 3D television. What made the difference? Being able to buy the thing for a semi-reasonable price *with all the necessary accessories thrown into the package*, instead of having to pay X for television, plus 15% of X each for two sets of glasses, plus 5% of X each for two 3D movies, plus 10% of X for a 3D video game. The only missing piece was something I already had: a clunky 1st-gen PS3.
The moral of the tale? Sales Lesson #3: make it easy to for people to buy stuff.
actually make much of the dross thats out there actually worth watching though? Rubbish is rubbish regardless of how many dimensions its in and having it repeated every 3 hours (yes, History Channel) does not get better in 3D only.
I'll move to 3D when they start producing stuff compelling enough to persuade me to go to the cinema or bother with a TV licence.
Might be different if I was a gamer.
Nice to see the 3D hypewagon is starting to run out of steam. It gives me eyestrain extremely quickly, I can't ever see this becoming the broadcast standard. It's not 3D, it's just an illusion - fix that and you fix all the other associated problems with strain, nausea, glasses, etc. That means holographic TV and I doubt we'll be seeing that anytime soon.
Of course it won't stop all the "researchers" and "specialists" which have been mentioned in a lot of the tech press from telling us how popular it will be. They're absolutely desperate for something new to shovel, which is a shame when we haven't really exploited all HD has to offer yet.
Paris, because nobody feels sorry for her either.
I saw an interview with David Attenbourgh the other day regarding the new 3DTV dinosaur doc thats coming out on sky. He mentioned that 3D was good for CGI docs like the ones with dinos but as yet not so good for ones with actual animals in the wild as apparently the professional 3D cameras are too big and bulky and require too much power, and too many engineers to get them to work to realistically be set up in the wild and capture nature as its happening.
I would have thought games would have been top of the list myself as the can be designed with making the most of the 3d aspect. where as TV always seems they just put in extra unecessary scenes to show off the 3D technology which are of little or no reference to the rest of it.
3D tv is never going to be mainstream, your not going to want to watch coronation street, question time or the news at 10 in 3D even if it were broadcast in that format.
Having a 3D tv is a bit like having a 4 wheel drive car, useful to have now and again like when it snows but most of the time it will just be as good as any other
"3D tv is never going to be mainstream, your not going to want to watch coronation street, question time or the news at 10 in 3D even if it were broadcast in that format."
When people say "never" you know they're talking downhill.
Games are actually worse in 3D because you're so focused on one center point. WipeoutHD for instance, looks great to observers but you don't realise it's 3D at all when playing it (unless you're prone to nausea).
The problem at the moment is the mistaken assumption that people will pay good money for 3D. Some might but most people recognize that it's still largely a gimmick and there isn't much content either.
However 3D is going to be a standard feature of midrange TVs before long. Just like features such as 1080p, 24fps, 100-200Hz etc. it'll end up on the list of supported modes. 3D is a largely incremental feature that most modern SoCs used by TVs would support anyway.
At some point things will tip where 3D is a demanded feature but I think it will be largely driven by games consoles.
It's not been that long since a crapton of people were persuaded that ditching their old CRT for a flat thing with a vastly inferior picture quality was a good idea. It took years before flat screen technology even started to approach the level of a CRT without costing a gigashitload of money. Even now, when it comes to computer monitors, no flat screen beats my crusty old AOC 5C 19" monitor for picture quality and viewing angle at any resolution you care to think of (and not just one native resolution). You'd think manufacturers would have put some kind of filtering in their flat screens to remove the native rez requirement by now...
We've also had the rise and rise of awful, MPEG-artifacts-everywhere digital television, be it via terrestrial, satellite or cable-based delivery. Seriously, does anybody remember how good the old broadcast-quality standard-def analogue signals used to be? It took until HDTV was released to return to the old level of quality, let alone "improve" things - and that's yet another expense that people have shelled out for.
And now we have manufacturers wanting us to buy 200hz-refresh flat screens under the moniker of "3D TV", spending yet more money to throw out perfectly working kit?
Maybe we've just reached the point where a lot of people are saying "fuck this - maybe when the old one breaks"?
And if you can see the pixels on a 4:3 19" screen with that resolution, you have microscopes for eyes. That or you have your nose up against the glass, and you're going to be going blind real soon.
Now try playing an old game with a maximum resolution of less than your native resolution, and tell me your picture doesn't look like it's being viewed through net curtains. Maybe you want to play a modern game without chewing your GPU up? Even better, try using your operating system without having to tweak everything so that the icons and text aren't eye-strainingly small. Those of us who still have CRTs can just, you know, change resolution. We get this lovely full-screen anti-aliasing effect for free as well, meaning even less GPU chewed up while displaying high-resolution graphics.
Flat screens? Not so much. Not without the net curtain effect, anyway. Plus I can look at a CRT screen from any angle I like, without the picture turning purple or green. Flat screens have the smaller/lighter advantage, I'll give you that. If you want picture quality though? CRT all the way, baby.
I'd love to be able to buy a modern CRT monitor. Silly high resolutions, with all the CRT advantages. They're kind of specialist these days though, yaknow?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
