Why No One Is Buying 3D TVs

jiminator said:
lol, anyone recall the articles where the movie industry was crowing about how much $$$MONEY$$$ they were going to make from 3D films? Turned out to be a bust??
Click to expand...

a Bust? from most things I've read, 3D films are doing really well for them, $$$ wise.
 
After just recently buying a Sharp 70" 3DTV, I'll give my thoughts here. If you're only mostly about watching movies and content, it is not worth it. But if you're like me and want to game in 3D, then it's worth the money. Unfortunately I have to game in 1280x720p mode, but the games look FANTASTIC. It may remain a niche, but I'm hooked now. My jaw dropped when I tried it out on BF3.
 
I just upgraded my TV but not because of 3D. It's a Samsung 55" D8000 that happens to come with 3D and so we tried out some Blu-Ray content. It's hit and miss but when it gets it right it's very impressive. The stuff that's actually filmed with 3D cameras (i.e. some films, concerts and porn.. yes well someone had to say it) looks amazing and I would definitely buy that content in 3D over 2D. The stuff that seems to have had 3D worked in afterwards is less impressive.

Enjoying it on the new telly has made me rethink my PC displays and I might go for a 120Hz centre display when I upgrade next.
 
Steve said:
Ahhh, my bad....I thought you said you didn't have a 3D TV, so I was poking fun at your postitive testimonials of a product you don't own.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. However I do have extensive experience with 3D content and many of the criticisms in this thread were talking about content, not 3D TVs. So I feel the same way in terms of "poking fun" at comments of stuff that people don't own and have barely used. As I've said plenty of times, if you don't like 3D, more power to you. But if you make that judgment after one movie I'm not sure how that makes one on an expert on 3D content. There's a lot of variance in 3D content quality which you can only know if you've actually tried it more than once.
 
I'm glad I saw this Article. I've been saying for a long time that 3D TV is stupid and a waste of money.


Aside from the fact that Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" has 3D but the fact that he's recording the movies in 5k format. 1080P has been around for, what, a decade now? Time to up the resolutions on TV now.
 
wgm3446 said:
I'm glad I saw this Article. I've been saying for a long time that 3D TV is stupid and a waste of money.


Aside from the fact that Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" has 3D but the fact that he's recording the movies in 5k format. 1080P has been around for, what, a decade now? Time to up the resolutions on TV now.
Click to expand...

You'll see the first 4k and 8k barely past prototypes at CES 2012. I'm more excited about those by far vs any of this "3D" garbage.
 
I want better frame rates. TV and movies should be at 60fps, or at least 45.

I thought the 3d cycle was 30 years. Started in the 20's, then got popular in the 50's, 80's, and recently again.
 
BladeVenom said:
I want better frame rates. TV and movies should be at 60fps, or at least 45.
Click to expand...

I'd love 60.


I thought the 3d cycle was 30 years. Started in the 20's, then got popular in the 50's, 80's, and recently again.
Click to expand...


On average, they dust it off about once per decade. We were due for it.
 
Uncle said:
"stupid glasses which are not cheap" What do you call not cheap", 1 pair from Amazon for 60$ or 2 pair from samsung in korea including shipping, for the same price.I guess if you jump in your car and go to your local retailer they might be expensive.
Click to expand...

Try living on $12 an hour. Having 6 or 7 pair laying around so friends can come over and hang out and watch movies ain't cheap.
 
I bought a 3D tv back in 2010 (Sep. 2010 I wanna say) and I have only used feature maybe once or twice. I only got it b/c it came with the tv and was nicely priced with the bundle i bought. Love the tv, but don't care for the 3D.
 
madmat said:
Try living on $12 an hour. Having 6 or 7 pair laying around so friends can come over and hang out and watch movies ain't cheap.
Click to expand...

Awww, the $12/hour person is mad because they can't afford every available consumer luxury?
 
Q-BZ said:
You'll see the first 4k and 8k barely past prototypes at CES 2012. I'm more excited about those by far vs any of this "3D" garbage.
Click to expand...

Ultra HD TVs are a tougher sell to me than 3DTV. I see an industrial and scientific need for 4K & 8K monitors- but not a consumer need. No one wants the headache of upgrading their broadcast & cable infrastructure, monitors, and media collections again.
 
heatlesssun said:
So I feel the same way in terms of "poking fun" at comments of stuff that people don't own and have barely used.
Click to expand...

That is the problem in general, 98% of the planet doesn't care about the techology enough to buy a 3D TV. Hence the article explaining why no one is buying the TVs.

Whether the are right, wrong, smart stupid, watched one movie or hundreds....no one is buying 3D TVs. The technology has had decades to be fine tuned and still, no one (aside from us tech-nerds) is interested.
 
Steve said:
That is the problem in general, 98% of the planet doesn't care about the techology enough to buy a 3D TV. Hence the article explaining why no one is buying the TVs.

Whether the are right, wrong, smart stupid, watched one movie or hundreds....no one is buying 3D TVs. The technology has had decades to be fine tuned and still, no one (aside from us tech-nerds) is interested.
Click to expand...

that's a misleading statement...I think the fact is that people are not buying TV's in general now and 3D sets just happen to fall into that group...the people that are buying new TV's are seriously looking at 3D sets...even lower end models have 3D capabilities these days...people are not buying because of the economy etc...plus most people I know don't buy a new TV every 2-3 years...they buy one and keep it for 10 years
 
I bought a 3DTV this year. I don't use the 3D all the time but it's nice to use once in a while for movies or my PS3. The 3DTV cost $200 more than a similar non 3D tv so for me it was a no brainer.
 
madmat said:
Try living on $12 an hour. Having 6 or 7 pair laying around so friends can come over and hang out and watch movies ain't cheap.
Click to expand...

I got two with the tv and ordered two more for my daughters so if something comes along we can all sit and watch together oh forgot to mention the Misses(smacks me in the side of the head):D
 
Have 3D TV and love it. Would watch more if there was content, but for the past bowl games, it was a lot of fun. Price premium arguments are so 2010. I like a world that allows people to make a choice.
 
I recently bought a new 55'' Samsung LED (Dec 2010), and I spent a lot of time debating between 3D or non-3D. Ultimately, it came down to the fact that I couldn't think of any uses for 3D. While it might be "nifty" to watch some movies or game in 3D, there were always reasons I didn't.

For gaming, especially in FPS games, I found that the extra visual data coming from 3D mode was affecting my performance.

For movies/TV, there just isn't enough content, and not enough movies that I would enjoy more in 3D. Honestly the only two movies to date that I've enjoyed in 3D are Tron and Avatar, though I would love to see LOTR reshot in true 3D (not post effects 3D).

But the biggest problem is a) form factor and b) vertigo.

So far, all 3D systems short of the Nintendo DS require glasses, either passive flat ones or active giant bulking hulks. Personally, I hate having to wear more than I need. I already wear corrective glasses, and I always make sure to get the lightest frames I can. 3D glasses have never felt comfortable for me.

The second issue is nausea, any and all 3DTVs i've tried in stores or at friends houses have given me headaches/eyestrain/nausea within less than an hour. The only time I can comfortably watch 3D is in an IMAX, where I can sit like 100 feet away from the screen.
 
evilsofa said:
"All the pressure for the 3D "revolution" is coming from content producers that have convinced themselves that 3D will save Hollywood (instead of better story writing). Accordingly, they've engaged in magical thinking by assuming that if they film it, the technologies to display it will magically perfect themselves in the market. As a result, they have driven full speed over the cliff of "nobody wants to wear goofy looking glasses that give them headaches".
Click to expand...

I said that over a year ago, here.
 
heatlesssun said:
Maybe the couple of things that you have seen in 3D with the technology that you used looked terrible. I watched two 3D movies over the holidays, The Smurfs and Kung Fu Panda 2 using my sig rig and completely enjoyed them, 3D added a lot to the enjoyment, my wife and I particularly liked Panada 2, and I wouldn't have wanted to watch them the first time any other way. I don't have a 3D TV because honestly even though the screen is small I think my setup works better than any 3D TV I've seen in a store.
Click to expand...
To each their own bu I have yet to see anything in 3D that is clear and crisp and the 3D effects look fake and the vast majority of people I know feel the same way. If given the choice I always watch in 2D. If it were something more than a hokey gimmick 3D would have taken off by now.
 
until they have 3D holographic surround vision in high fidelity color, I will never give a shit about 3D.

I don't know why people are amazed by that overlaid 2D they call "3D".
 
Blown 89 said:
To each their own bu I have yet to see anything in 3D that is clear and crisp and the 3D effects look fake and the vast majority of people I know feel the same way. If given the choice I always watch in 2D. If it were something more than a hokey gimmick 3D would have taken off by now.
Click to expand...

And again my point is that not all 3D content and technology are created equal.
 
heatlesssun said:
And again my point is that not all 3D content and technology are created equal.
Click to expand...
I've seen a ton of 3D and have yet to see anything worth while. Avatar, Monsters vs. Aliens, Tron, Green Hornet, Jackass....feel free to suggest something to change my mind
 
Blown 89 said:
I've seen a ton of 3D and have yet to see anything worth while. Avatar, Monsters vs. Aliens, Tron, Green Hornet, Jackass....feel free to suggest something to change my mind
Click to expand...

I've seen Avatar and Green Lantern in theaters in 3D, everything else I've seen on 3D Blu Ray with 3D Vision and that technology works better for me than 3D TVs and the two 3D movies I've seen in theaters. As you say to each his own and I certainly am not trying to tell anyone they should think 3D is cool, there far too many variables and individuals are probably the greatest one.
 
I bought a VT25 last year and immediately sold the glasses to make my TV cheaper :p

There just wasn't (still isn't) enough content to justify the like $80 price tag per person.
 
3D needs to be glasses free, all imaging viewed concurrently, and at appropriate frame rates, which must be at least that of the original broadcast in non-3D.

When this occurs, we will then see market adoption, not before really.
 
I just don't see why they keep recycling this. I haven't cared for 3D since my View Master back in the 70's. Like Steve said, this flops every time they come out with it yet they keep coming out with it.
 
3D hurts. Literally. Between people whose eyes hurt while watching a 3D movie (like me) and people who just don't care, very few people are actually eligible to buy a 3D TV. When glasses-less 3D becomes cheaper, the technology might finally go mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top