Why No One Is Buying 3D TVs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Every five years (for at least the last five decades) 3D is touted as the "hot" new tech. Every five years it flops. Every five years people act surprised. Don't look at me either, I'm still upset that 3D never took off after Jaws 3D, Amityville Horror 3D and Friday the 13th 3D. :D

In 2010, consumers purchased a paltry 1.1 million 3D TV units, and although sales have grown in the two years since, the widespread 3D fervor that TV manufacturers were anticipating never took root. According to a January Display Search report, just more than 23 million 3D TVs were shipped in 2011 worldwide, with only 3.6 million shipped in the U.S. Display Search analyst Paul Gagnon says that U.S. household penetration for 3D TVs is at about 3 percent.
Click to expand...
 
I have a Toshiba 55" 3D TV. I've only watched some of Comcast's free OnDemand 3D demos. This TV uses passive 3D so the glasses are like theatre glasses but they don't fit well over my regular glasses.

The 3D stuff is cool but my living room isn't really designed for it and even 55" is too small when sitting several feet away.
 
I am not surprised. The content just isn't there. People are more than happy with their HDTVs. There is still recession after-shocks. Credit lenders are tightening down. I could also assume that the recent price drop in the plasma/LCD market a couple years ago caught a lot of people and they just don't need a new TV.

It's a perfect storm of reasons not to place your bets on the 3DTV camp.
 
friedchicken said:
I am not surprised. The content just isn't there. People are more than happy with their HDTVs. There is still recession after-shocks. Credit lenders are tightening down. I could also assume that the recent price drop in the plasma/LCD market a couple years ago caught a lot of people and they just don't need a new TV.

It's a perfect storm of reasons not to place your bets on the 3DTV camp.
Click to expand...

Agreed, much as I'd love a newer TV, It's just not the right time and what I have does work.
 
for some reason 3d tvs dont work for me. theater seems to work just fine but i've tried on those crappy tv glasses in stores a couple times already. i just get double vision. rather drink to get that.
 
If you build it, they will come.

They never built it (content). 3D TVs are premature.
 
I had an Eleazar erazor 3 that did a great job way way back when Hardocp did the review. Thought it would take off then.
 
I'll definitely get a 3D capable set when I replace my current TV. But I won't run out replace my current TV just to get 3D.

3D is really not a compelling feature... and IMHO much less so than the improvement between HD and SD. For example, all sports, yes even curling, became more enjoyable to watch when it was broadcast in HD vs. SD, but the same can't be said about 3D vs 2D. Honestly I think what really drove the HD conversion was that the new fangled < 3" thick LCD TV's that came in huge sizes that cost less than a 36" CRT ever did... but once people already got one of those sets, they're just not going to dump it just the get 3D.
 
FYI to the manufactures of 3d tv's. This technology is old as shit and from the 50's.

I remember watching freddy's dead in 3D years ago.
FreddyComic3.jpg


3d tv is stupid, gimmicky, and adds little value for the extra effort......and on top of that it give me motion sickness so go die you corporate bastards.
 
Not a feature I would pay extra for . . .and if it came with the set, not entirely sure I would even use it.
 
FPS games on 3D monitors is the bomb diggity. Really gives a deeling of depth, and in my opinion makes it a much better experience.
 
stevedave said:
FYI to the manufactures of 3d tv's. This technology is old as shit and from the 50's.

I remember watching freddy's dead in 3D years ago.
FreddyComic3.jpg


3d tv is stupid, gimmicky, and adds little value for the extra effort......and on top of that it give me motion sickness so go die you corporate bastards.
Click to expand...

+1 and a hell yeah. No compelling content, and many people have relatively new LCD/LED TVs now.
 
Because there is no content

Releasing all the 3d movies as exclusives was such a horrible idea for the technology. People don't like having to pay $100 for a 3d copy of Avatar long after it stops showing in the theaters.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
The problem with 3D is that filming is expensive, requiring 2 synchronized cameras.
So for the vast majority of non-3D viewers, you are left with a single stream from either the left or right camera, which is a real problem for close-ups, for instance.
To be perfectly compatible with both 3D and non-3D viewing, 3D filming should use 3 cameras, the center one being used for non-3D viewing. This would push 3D costs even more, so I say, forget the whole 3D idea.

Not even mentioning the problem with the 3D glasses, which I am OK to wear in a theater, but never will wear in the comfort of my own home, however light and stylish they may be. And the few attempts of 3D without glasses currently mean lower resolution. I'd rather have a crisp and sharp 2D image, thank you.
 
No content, requiring glasses is annoying(who has 10 sets of glasses for when they invite friends over?), limited viewing angles, increased cost, lack of compatibility between different brands of glasses and TVs, the economy is in the toilet...

There are probably at least a half dozen other reasons, none of which should be a surprise to anyone.
 
SuperSubZero said:
I have a Toshiba 55" 3D TV. I've only watched some of Comcast's free OnDemand 3D demos. This TV uses passive 3D so the glasses are like theatre glasses but they don't fit well over my regular glasses.
Click to expand...

This is my main problem with the whole 3D TV situation. I messed around with some active and passive 3D systems in various stores and nothing worked well with my glasses, which are fairly small frames. Multiple sales people were even like "Just wear the 3D glasses and sit closer." :confused:
 
Gooch3008 said:
FPS games on 3D monitors is the bomb diggity. Really gives a deeling of depth, and in my opinion makes it a much better experience.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of games that came out last year with very good 3D support, Batman Arkham City, Skyrim and Deus Ex: HR. I think that 3D works better with games than movies but still some good 3D movies, Kung Fu Panda 2 was great. 3D works well when used properly. Batman AA & AC are simply incredible.

Plus I don't think 3D TVs I've tried work as well as nVidia's proprietary implementation. Not all 3D content and technology.is created equal.
 
Chimel said:
Not even mentioning the problem with the 3D glasses, which I am OK to wear in a theater, but never will wear in the comfort of my own home, however light and stylish they may be. And the few attempts of 3D without glasses currently mean lower resolution. I'd rather have a crisp and sharp 2D image, thank you.
Click to expand...

I were my 3D glasses in the comfort of my own home quite comfortably. nVidia's new glasses an very good.
 
My parents got a 3D TV and enough glasses for the family and we watched a few movies with it so far. It's cool, but I don't see it as something I'd want to spend extra money over. Even with eye glasses it's not that bad, but I can't picture 3D being the new "normal TV" because of the need for glasses. People just want to sit down turn it on and start watching.

News in 3D, the weather channel in 3D? That would probably be going too far, mind you some of those anchors have some pretty nice boobs and it would be cool to see in 3D. :D
 
I don't care about 3d TV. Skip it and get to force field backed holograms and I'll buy myself a holodeck on release day.
 
I don't believe you pay more for 3D capability. I would imagine the masses simply buy the cheapest TV and know little about the specifications.
I didn't buy my TV for the 3D capability, I bought it for the picture quality.
 
3D gives me a headache. Some movies are cool in 3D but I just hope it never becomes the norm for television.
 
stevedave said:
3d tv is stupid, gimmicky, and adds little value for the extra effort......and on top of that it give me motion sickness so go die you corporate bastards.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and yes, 3D motion sickness is horrible!
 
3D was never cool. Not in the theaters decades ago, and still not in TVs of today.

Please... let's worry about higher resolution and/or larger screen size.
 
I would much rather watch a movie on a crisp and clear screen than put glasses on and watch a blurry mess.
 
Chimel said:
Not even mentioning the problem with the 3D glasses, which I am OK to wear in a theater, but never will wear in the comfort of my own home.QUOTE]

lmao that's the worst thing i've ever read in my life
Click to expand...
 
I used to say that 3D was a passing fad, and it would be gone shortly. Then we got a 65" Mitsubishi last year that was 3D. We didn't get it because it was 3D; got it because it was a very good price for the size. But I definitely think it is pretty cool. However with only 2 glasses we have never watched a full movie. I think it will eventually become a standard feature at least on midrange to high end sets. 3D TVs have started to come down quite a bit. And more and more movies are coming to bluray in the 4 disc sets that include the 3D bluray.

The problem is people don't know what they need. I go to the Mitsubishi 738/838 forum over at avsforum to see what people's talking about with the TV that I got, and there are so many people that ask the same thing, "Hey what kind of glasses do I need; DLP Link or IR? And do I need an emitter? Which is best?". I'm sure the average person doesn't know that they need a bluray player capable of playing 3D. Things really are getting a lot more complicated for the average consumer, and that is the market that you have to hit in order for something to be successful. I don't think people have adjusted to the HDTV boom yet...1080p, 720p, HDMI cables, component cables. I cringe to think there's still a lot of people out there with a composite cable connected to their HDTV thinking they are getting HD. My sister's boyfriend bought a 60" top of the line 7000 series Samsung before Christmas and he only has SD satellite; then he was disappointed that it didn't look as good as my Mitsubishi. He spent $3000 to watch SD satellite.
 
Maybe it's the headaches it causes. I can't make it through 30 min. before I can't take it anymore.
 
I find that the exaggerated 3D effect they use to make those guns pop out of the screen into your face like in Resident Evil hurt my eyes. Yet in Transformers 3 I feel that 3D was used just right. This forced 3D is ruining the experience, but how else are you going to get mileage from the effect when in real life 3D is so 'normal'
 
I bought a 3D Samsung TV last year. I however did not intend to buy a 3D TV, it was the only Samsung Plasma that met my needs on size / specs. It happened to have 3D, we got a bluray player and two sets of glasses. I think I have watched a whopping one movie in 3d. (Shrek w/ came w/ TV also).
 
Would rather have the option to purchase a 4k 70" thin LED tv at around $2k ~ $2,500 in 2013 or 2014. Hoping they are smart enough to start shooting everything in 4k now or soon.
 
until they can do 3d without the glasses they can forget about it. Hell I don't even particularly like watching movies in the theater in 3d. Sure Avatar was pretty neat in 3d, but it's more of a novelty.
 
heatlesssun said:
I were my 3D glasses in the comfort of my own home quite comfortably. nVidia's new glasses an very good.
Click to expand...
I just don't like the feeling, visual restriction, and the stupid look even if I am alone watching TV.
It looks like bad science-fiction (and costs quite a bit) when there are several people watching it, this is not the future I expect.
I doubt the new nVidia glasses would change that, but I admit I only tried the ones that came with my 8800GTX years ago.
 
I still hope that 3D is a cyclic fad. It seems every few years since the fifties it comes around, falls flat on it's face then a few years later it comes around again. Some ABC exec, a fuzzy brained director or someone else decides the time has finally come and 3Ds pops back up.
If you are afflicted with vision problems (like I am) the tricks simply don't work. The best thing I have every discovered from a 3D TV show was naproxen sodium and the remote's off button.
The bottom line; give me real 3D. Not some slight of hand trick that a little less than half the population can actually fall for.
 
3D is best reserved for occasional use, like once a month at most in the theater for movies you really want to see. It has no real use in the home on a daily basis. Junk, distracting, glasses, hardware dependencies, small screen, different media......it's just all junk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top