Sony Intros 3D Blu-ray Player

[Smokey]

Sony today launched the new BDP-S470 stand-alone Blu-ray 3D™-ready player. The model can be upgraded to play Blu-ray 3D content with a firmware update available this summer.

The company also announced that the previously introduced BDP-S570 Blu-ray Disc™ model and the BDV-E770W and BDV-E570 Blu-ray Disc home theater systems will be Blu-ray 3D capable with firmware updates available this summer.

In addition to Blu-ray 3D playback, when connected to a broadband Internet network, all of the new models instantly stream movies, videos, music, and more from Netflix®, Amazon Video On Demand, YouTube™, Slacker® Internet Radio, Pandora® (Coming Spring 2010), NPR, Sony Pictures, Sony Music.

Unique to the new models, users with an iPhone® or iPod® touch device can control the players using a free app called “BD Remote” that can be downloaded from the Apple App store. The app allows an iPhone or iPod touch device to function as a remote control that includes the ability to access a Blu-ray Disc’s details such as jacket artwork, actor, and production information as well as search for additional video clips online.

The models also offer improved start up and disc loading performance. The stand-alone Blu-ray Disc players can start-up from power off in about three seconds.

Available in February/March for about $200.

[atomicAdam]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

[Smokey]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

Given that 3D have been around for decades and it is still a niche concept for movie theater meduim, 3D might also go the same route for TV medium.

[bobsticks]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

If you buzz around the AV sites, folks are really looking forward to 3D in the home. Remember, it is us guys that convince other grown adults to buy into Blu ray, and then 3D Blu ray.

I don't really think it will be that hard to get adults to wear them goofy-azz glasses. They had no problem getting them to wear them watching Avatar in 3D.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Given that 3D have been around for decades and it is still a niche concept for movie theater meduim, 3D might also go the same route for TV medium.

This is not the same 3D as the past, you have to remember that. For movies, I think it is a boon, for TV, that I don't know about.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

No, the theater still has a trump card that will probably never reach the home. It is called Ionsonic 3D sound.

[nightflier]

What will be required on the hardware side to get 3D sound to match the 3D video? I imagine it would be pretty irritating to hear an arrow/plane/helicopter wizzing behind, but to see the thing in front of you or off in a different direction.

[pixelthis]

If you buzz around the AV sites, folks are really looking forward to 3D in the home. Remember, it is us guys that convince other grown adults to buy into Blu ray, and then 3D Blu ray.

I don't really think it will be that hard to get adults to wear them goofy-azz glasses. They had no problem getting them to wear them watching Avatar in 3D.

The headaches will not be so easy a sell, however.
Its a push to run 3D in a two hour+ movie, for the marathon TV watching most Americans
do (eight hours a day, on average) something will have to give, most likely.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What will be required on the hardware side to get 3D sound to match the 3D video? I imagine it would be pretty irritating to hear an arrow/plane/helicopter wizzing behind, but to see the thing in front of you or off in a different direction.

Meh, we have gotten pretty good at mixing audio for 3D. However, Sony, Warner, Universal, and Paramount will probably have to give up the practice of dumping theater mixes directly on to disc. These mixes are not optimized for the home environment, and you will occasionally find a panning mistakes, and a soundstage that is too wide for hometheater size screens. .

At Disney, we do not use theater mixes for our home movies. The soundtracks for our DVD's and Blu rays have been optimized for smaller rooms, and are re-mixed in a hometheater size studio(mine).

I just instituded a new workflow practice for our 3D mixes. Instead of doing re-recording(soundtrack creations and finalization) in a large dubbing stage, we are going to start mixing 3D movie soundtracks in smaller studios FIRST, and then go to the dubbing stage to tweak that mix for theatrical presentation. It makes it easier to create a single mix that just needs to be tweak for each environment instead of going back to the original stems to create a hometheater mix optimized for the home.

[pixelthis]

Tried it in the fifties.
DUD.
The eighties, with "shutter" glasses and polarized glassed.
DUD.
And now, with tech that looks suspicously like the shutter glasses of the eighties.
I have seen 3D crash and burn more than a third world airline.
Excuse me iffen I am skeptical.
Brain damage is a hard sell.:1:

[pixelthis]

AND TALKY will say "this is different".
YEAH...RIGHT.
Been there, done that, GOT THE TEE SHIRT.
I have enough "3D " from the slight effect you get from HD.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The headaches will not be so easy a sell, however.
Its a push to run 3D in a two hour+ movie, for the marathon TV watching most Americans
do (eight hours a day, on average) something will have to give, most likely.:1:

Over time I am sure some Manufacturer will come up with a way to do 3D sans the glasses that works within the spec of Blu ray 3D. The earliest attempts at doing this may free you of the glasses, but it requires your head to remain in a vice like single position, or the effect just turns into a blur.

Funny, the folks that reported they got headaches from the red/blue system, are now saying the new system does NOT give them head aches.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Tried it in the fifties.
DUD.
The eighties, with "shutter" glasses and polarized glassed.
DUD.
And now, with tech that looks suspicously like the shutter glasses of the eighties.
I have seen 3D crash and burn more than a third world airline.
Excuse me iffen I am skeptical.
Brain damage is a hard sell.:1:

Pix, don't be such a simpleton. All of the examples you stated come from film based projection systems complete with film judder. This new system uses digital files stored on a disc drive, and it is not subject to judder, which is the primary reason why folks got head aches. Another issue with the film based system was the lack of frame lock to keep the system in sync at all times. Digital projection and meta data have taken care of this issue as well. Another reason for the failure of previous 3D attemps lies solely with how directors of the time used the technology. Too many "in your face" effects, and the whole presentation just gets gimmicky. Now they are using the technology to create "deeper" more emmersive images that pull us in, not jut out at us.

Sometimes a situation requires some critical thinking and analysis. I know these are F graded subjects for you, so I guess I should consider the source.

[E-Stat]

Tried it in the fifties.
DUD.
The eighties, with "shutter" glasses and polarized glassed.
DUD.
And now, with tech that looks suspicously like the shutter glasses of the eighties.
For me, Avatar changed all of that. Yes, there will still be some gimicky stuff-flying-in-your-face films, but the ideal realized can be very good indeed. The previews to the upcoming Pirahna 3D create a very artificial you-know-you're-watching-3D as opposed to simply adding realism capability as evidenced by Avatar. I think it definitely has merit.

rw

[E-Stat]

It makes it easier to create a single mix that just needs to be tweak for each environment instead of going back to the original stems to create a hometheater mix optimized for the home.
Kewl. Less unnecessary fiddling usually results in a better product.

rw

[Smokey]

Over time I am sure some Manufacturer will come up with a way to do 3D sans the glasses that works within the spec of Blu ray 3D. The earliest attempts at doing this may free you of the glasses, but it requires your head to remain in a vice like single position, or the effect just turns into a blur.

Thanks for comments, but one question though...

For home 3D with glasses, can one wear glasses and do other choir like reading magazine or look at computer monitor (without distortion) while looking at 3D movie?

As oppose to theater enviroment, there are alot of distraction in home viewing habits. Me for example, like to watch Tv while while surfing the net (multitasking :D).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for comments, but one question though...

For home 3D with glasses, can one wear glasses and do other choir like reading magazine or look at computer monitor (without distortion) while looking at 3D movie?

As oppose to theater enviroment, there are alot of distraction in home viewing habits. Me for example, like to watch Tv while while surfing the net (multitasking :D).

Damn it Smoke, you should be paying attention to the ding dang movie!!!! If you split the brain in this fashion, it will not have enough processing power to do both things effectively.(just kidding)

You probably could wear them while surfing the net, but it will make things a little darker because of the film over the lenses. I put my glasses on at the movies before the 3D usually starts, and the only effect it has is to darken the picture a bit.

[bobsticks]

I would be interested to see the demo breakdowns on preferences of those who wear traditional or reading glasses versus those who don't.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I would be interested to see the demo breakdowns on preferences of those who wear traditional or reading glasses versus those who don't.

When we did testing on the technology at Disney, we chose a wide variety of glasses and non glasses wearing folks. Folks who wore reading glasses could remove them because reading glasses are mostly magnification glasses(like I wear). Those wearing them to correct something like near or far sightedness or other sight challenges were kind of a mixed result. Those that didn't wear glasses found no problems with 3D.

Most near and far sighted folks found no problems. But those who had problems focusing because of unnatural movements of the eye. had tremendous problems with 3D. If your eyes had trouble locking in on centrally focused objects, you are going to have problems with 3D.

This is what we found in our demo's.

[bobsticks]

Well chit, we're already behind yet again in the tech wars...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/11/avatar-available-to-watch-in-4d-but-only-in-korea/?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl8|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engadget.com%2F2 010%2F02%2F11%2Favatar-available-to-watch-in-4d-but-only-in-korea%2F

I bet that little sock-puppet dictator has something to do with this...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well chit, we're already behind yet again in the tech wars...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/11/avatar-available-to-watch-in-4d-but-only-in-korea/?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl8|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engadget.com%2F2 010%2F02%2F11%2Favatar-available-to-watch-in-4d-but-only-in-korea%2F

I bet that little sock-puppet dictator has something to do with this...

Sticks,
It is in SOUTH Korea, the North couldn't afford a bag of M&M's

This sounds cool though. I would love to experience Avatar this way!

[Woochifer]

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

Over 75% of the tickets sold for Avatar have been for the 3D screenings. The box office returns over the last few years prove that 3D has evolved beyond niche status. It's not a hard sell if moviegoers are already choosing the 3D screenings when given a choice. If anything, the move to 3D TV simply follows where the market demand has gone.

[pixelthis]

Grimmick.
NOT ready for prime time.
There is something that screams unnatural to the human (and talkys) brain.
Got a looonnng way to go before you can fool the most advanced thinking machine on the planet.:1:

[Feanor]

Grimmick.
NOT ready for prime time.
There is something that screams unnatural to the human (and talkys) brain.
Got a looonnng way to go before you can fool the most advanced thinking machine on the planet.:1:
May not a gimmick given the new technology; I enjoyed it during Avatar in the big screen, (and I wear glasses all the times so having to put on the 3Ds wasn't such a big imposition).

But I don't see it coming to the small screen near me anytime soon. Afterall, I'm still working to get an HDTV, then a BRP, nevermind the 3D versions. When the latter will hit the streets they will be price to skim the affluent (or stupid) first adopters. Speaking for poor people everywhere, I'm weary being made to constantly feel deprived and inferior because I can't afford the latest/greatest.

[bobsticks]

When we did testing on the technology at Disney, we chose a wide variety of glasses and non glasses wearing folks. Folks who wore reading glasses could remove them because reading glasses are mostly magnification glasses(like I wear). Those wearing them to correct something like near or far sightedness or other sight challenges were kind of a mixed result. Those that didn't wear glasses found no problems with 3D.

Most near and far sighted folks found no problems. But those who had problems focusing because of unnatural movements of the eye. had tremendous problems with 3D. If your eyes had trouble locking in on centrally focused objects, you are going to have problems with 3D.

This is what we found in our demo's.

Thanks for the info big daddy. I was curious as a non-wearer in that even sunglasses annoy me...the ol' bridge of the nose dealio.

...and I don't care if it's South Korea. That lil' pot o' poison has his grubby little hands in everything.


Over 75% of the tickets sold for Avatar have been for the 3D screenings. The box office returns over the last few years prove that 3D has evolved beyond niche status. It's not a hard sell if moviegoers are already choosing the 3D screenings when given a choice. If anything, the move to 3D TV simply follows where the market demand has gone.

I'm readin' yer mail good sir, but I would still contend that for consistent home viewership the glasses may be an issue. Avatar was a phenomenon, a happening, and has universally been recognized as the movie to see in the genre and was designed as such. I don't know how excited folks will be to see Righteous Kill or Push with the goofy glasses on...we'll see, I could well be wrong.

[kexodusc]

I visited mom and dad's the other day and sat through the abortion that was Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D...ugh. Terrible movie, not great 3D effects..but that's not what my comment is...

On their 51" screen while watching the odd 3D effect, I thought back to Avatar and what it would be like on this TV in 3D. I couldn't help but feel the value of 3D would be pretty insignificant. I think 3D works great in the theater on the big screen...It would probably work well for those of us with projectors and where the screen occupies more of your field of view....but on screens smaller than 60" inches...meh...nice to have, but diminished effect, i suspect.

If 3D will be confined largely to a small sphere around the screen itself, this could severely limit the coolness factor. On 40" or 30" screen, why bother?

Can't help but feel 3D is something that will distinguish theater from home theater and really enhance the movie going experience, restore some of that much needed magic to the moovees, but until display sizes get sufficiently big for everyone, I'm doubtful 3D will be a home theater staple any time soon.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I visited mom and dad's the other day and sat through the abortion that was Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D...ugh. Terrible movie, not great 3D effects..but that's not what my comment is...

On their 51" screen while watching the odd 3D effect, I thought back to Avatar and what it would be like on this TV in 3D. I couldn't help but feel the value of 3D would be pretty insignificant. I think 3D works great in the theater on the big screen...It would probably work well for those of us with projectors and where the screen occupies more of your field of view....but on screens smaller than 60" inches...meh...nice to have, but diminished effect, i suspect.

Actually almost all of the demo's I have seen have been on 50" or 52" screens, and I found the effect not diminished at all on those sizes. I have also seen demo's of 3D games done on a 40", and as long as you sit close enough, the effect is the same as you would get with a 50" and above. It is more about your viewing distance than it is about the screen size.


If 3D will be confined largely to a small sphere around the screen itself, this could severely limit the coolness factor. On 40" or 30" screen, why bother?

It is not really about the screen size Kex, it is about viewing distance, because the reality is that no matter what size the screen is, the 3D effect is scaled to the glasses anyway.


Can't help but feel 3D is something that will distinguish theater from home theater and really enhance the movie going experience, restore some of that much needed magic to the moovees, but until display sizes get sufficiently big for everyone, I'm doubtful 3D will be a home theater staple any time soon.

Actually I think the ONLY thing that will distinguish the theater these days is Iosonic 3D audio, as that is the only technology that cannot be scaled to a home theater mostly because of the price(a dedicated room can easily handle a scaled down version of the technology).

Most of the folks I have spoken to on the 3D issue say that 3D in the home will probably be MORE consistent than in the theater because theaters have bulbs in their projector that are in various shapes of decay. Many theater owners(because of price) are using bulbs long past the time they no longer meet SMPTE spec for light output, which means the 3D effect can sometimes be inconsistent from theater to theater. That will not happen in the home where the decay time of most bulbs is a lot longer and more gradual than in theaters.

[pixelthis]

May not a gimmick given the new technology; I enjoyed it during Avatar in the big screen, (and I wear glasses all the times so having to put on the 3Ds wasn't such a big imposition).

But I don't see it coming to the small screen near me anytime soon. Afterall, I'm still working to get an HDTV, then a BRP, nevermind the 3D versions. When the latter will hit the streets they will be price to skim the affluent (or stupid) first adopters. Speaking for poor people everywhere, I'm weary being made to constantly feel deprived and inferior because I can't afford the latest/greatest.

I have to look for bargains, but I SAW A BLU player (sharp) at hhgreg for 129 bucks.
Start saving your pennies.
HD? How about a 720p 32" at kmart for 299?
And the technology?
Meet the new tech, same as the old tech(to paraphrase the who).
ALL BOILS DOWN to showing the two different sides of the brain two different images.
Funny how "videophiles" cling to old crap like the CRT (talky) but glome onto the
latest gimmick to come down the pike.
Really?
How many times is HOLLYWOOD GOING to wheel out the same tired old tech?
I have said for a few years that the theater is doomed.
Sure, there was an upsurge during the last unpleasantness, as the homeless were looking for places to take a nap..
But the fact that they are pitching this tired old crap just goes to show how desperate they are, to keep the money train running.
BUT ITS LIKE paying ten bucks to a loan shark you owe ten grand to.
Think I WILL WAIT FOR VR pods, or the holodeck.:1:

[Feanor]

I have to look for bargains, but I SAW A BLU player (sharp) at hhgreg for 129 bucks.
Start saving your pennies.
HD? How about a 720p 32" at kmart for 299?
...
Prices are easing down. But I'll only buy a 1080p to better support computer input. And in my view space a 50" would be highly desirable.

[nightflier]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

2. It's great for action films, but less so for your Michael Clayton or Young Elizabeth type dramas.

3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

4. It will be added to BR, but that's also just a portion of the movie-watching public.

5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

6. Unless I understood this wrong, there isn't yet a standard for sound to accompany 3D video, and when it arrives, it will also require the purchase of new receivers/processors.

7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

8. Another market factor is that there are fewer B&M stores where 3D can be marketed and showcased. This will be a much harder product to sell online, where much of the gear will be sold.

9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, it may very well become the "SACD" of this decade.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

It helps if you come loaded with the proper information before you come to conclusions.


1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

If you sit the proper distance to realize all of the pixels in your 1080p picture, then you are at the right distance for 3D. If you are not sitting the proper distance from the television, then even your 1080p televsion is a waste of money.


2. It's great for action films, but less so for your Michael Clayton or Young Elizabeth type dramas.

I do not think anyone is talking about encoding every movie in 3D


3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

I wear glasses, it hasn't decreased my enjoyment of 3D. What is fine in the theater is perfectly fine at home. The theater has 5.1, is that bad for the home? I don't think so. The theater has a large screen scaled for the auditorium, is that bad for the home, I don't think it is. The theater is dark when we watch movies, is that bad for the home as well? I don't think so.

If you are talking, you are not watching anything. And if you decide to pause the movie, just remove the glasses, do what you are going to do, put the glasses back on, and watch the movie. We are not talking about a straight jacket here, they are just glasses. You are making a mountain out of a molehill AGAIN!


4. It will be added to BR, but that's also just a portion of the movie-watching public.

Did you know that there will be a couple of 3D television channels on air before then end of the year?


5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

It does not require new player if you have a PS3, and let's face it, there are far more PS3 out there being used as blu ray players than standalones. So this is not correct. The new players cost only $200 dollars, which put them in the same ballpark as a regular profile 2.0 player.


6. Unless I understood this wrong, there isn't yet a standard for sound to accompany 3D video, and when it arrives, it will also require the purchase of new receivers/processors.

You don't need a different audio codec for 3D, they don't use proprietary codecs in the theater to accompany 3D. It is lossless PCM audio, which is essentially the same as Dts HD Master audio or Dolby TrueHD. Where do you get your information? Why would you think you need another audio codec?(slaps head)


7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

This is a pile of BS and you know it. It is nothing more than putting on a pair of glasses, pushing the disc in the player, and enjoying the movie. Good gracious, you sure know how to make blowing your nose as complex as sending a man to the moon.


8. Another market factor is that there are fewer B&M stores where 3D can be marketed and showcased. This will be a much harder product to sell online, where much of the gear will be sold.

Are you out of your empty tree? Your demo is the movie theater, as you are using EXACTLY the same technology as they use in the theater. Every time a movie comes out to the theater in 3D, that is your demo. The theaters sell the technology for you. Then there are going to be several traveling demo's, just like there was when Blu ray was introduced. This is not a new product hitting the market, this is already in theater, and it is coming to the home.


9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

This is the case for every new AV product to hit the market, and every computer product as well. I think the Ipad is a gimmick, and it certainly has turned people off, but I just do not see that in AV circles concerning 3D. AV enthusiasts want the same thing they see in the theater in their homes.


10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

The reason not many agree with you is because it is not true. This is just someting invented in your head. Like I am going to trade in my 60" Kuros for a 2.5 phone or portable display device. This is beyond idiotic. Once again, where is your proof that smaller screens are supplanting larger screens? No proof, no belief, bottom line.


IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, the "SACD" of this decade.

I guess 3D is going to be a huge success because you "O"(as in opinion) is oh for two so far.

I think when somebody comes to conclusions, they need to be educated on all sides of the issue.(not making $hit up from thin air) You haven't even gotten the basics right, which make your conclusions wrong from the start. Of course, this is par for the course for you.

[Woochifer]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

How many different ways can you possibly be wrong? Same thing was said about HDTV and Blu-ray. HDTV already dominates sales, and some analysts are already projecting that the major manufacturers will discontinue DVD players in favor of Blu-ray within two years.


1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

Weren't you predicting that 3D would hit portable devices? Now you're saying that it only works with large screens? Make up your mind, or at least keep things straight.


3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

Like T, I also wear glasses to the movies ... no issues whatsoever with 3D screenings.


5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

I use a PS3, just a simple firmware update is all that's needed to add the 3D capability. The hard sell will be the new TVs. But, as with all upgraded technologies, it's only a matter of time before prices tumble and the new feature becomes standard issue. This has happened with every major home theater advance over the past 20 years.


7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

Repeating BS doesn't make it so. As I stated before, in a shrinking economy, people still want more, but are only willing to pay less. HDTV sales have continued to increase even in this shrinking economy. Average TV screen sizes are getting larger, not smaller. TVs in people's homes now come with more features, not less.

For the same price that someone pays for an unlocked Nexus One smartphone, they can buy a 42" HDTV. In that kind of comparison, which buy is the more extravagant one?


9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

How's it a gimmick when movie theater returns have shown a consistent trend where audiences are choosing the 3D screenings? How would it be a turn-off for consumers? Marketing is all about creating buzz ... much like those fancy smartphones that you're so fond of.


10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

"Not many" share your views on this issue because they are flat out wrong.

How can smaller screens be growing "at the expense" of larger screens, when those larger screens continue to gain in sales and get larger, and the viewing time for those larger screens continues to increase? The gain in TV viewing time alone last year was greater than the TOTAL COMBINED viewing time for online and mobile video. Every single study done of viewing habits points to online and mobile video as the "niche."

As I've stated repeatedly, people will watch mobile and online video for short bursts at a time. That has been proven in the viewing data. What most people won't do is sit there for hours at a time watching a movie on a 2.5" screen or even at a desk on a computer monitor.


IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, it may very well become the "SACD" of this decade.

Wrong. The MPEG-4 MVC extension that allows for 3D viewing is already a standard on Blu-ray and with the upcoming 3D broadcast channels. Studios have already announced release dates for the first batch of titles. More 3D movies are in the pipeline because audiences demand it. Those same movies will start coming out in 3D on the day and date Blu-ray releases. This level of adoption with new releases was never achieved with SACD (think hard, aside from a few classical titles how many day and date SACD new releases did you ever see?). The adoption of Blu-ray with day and date releases is the reason why that format has grown as quickly as it has.

[nightflier]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but your contentions are as usual short-sided. And the pathetic insults don't help your case either. Let's review:

Regarding screen size:

Lil't brought up the gaming factor and said that it was just a matter of adjusting where one sits. This is nonsense. Not only is the gaming part a bit off-topic, here, but people are not going to move their couches each time they want to watch a 3D title. They'll more likely just put up with the less than ideal small size and not get anywhere near the enjoyment they had at the theater.

On what movies will be 3D:

Cute how Wooch decided to ignore that point entirely. Yes, lil't I'm fully aware that not all films will be 3D, and as usual, you're making my point: less reasons to buy into it; limited use = limited interest in 3D = niche.

On the use of the goggles:

Cute how you both only address the concern for people who wear glasses and dismiss it as insignificant. Let's address that point first, then, since it's so "unimportant" to you both. What I'm reading online is that people who wear glasses don't like wearing these - it's like having to wear those goofy tourist sunglasses over your own glasses.

But more to the point, in the theater, people will put up with it, because the environment doesn't encourage moving from one's seat, talking, looking at anything else, and of course, certainly not pausing the movie to go to the bathroom or fill up on another bag of chips. This is completely different from the environment at home. In addition, in the home, this becomes another accessory that collects dust, sits on coffee tables, drops on the floor, gets lost in the couch, the dog chews up, or that someone inadvertently steps on. Since you two both wear glasses, surely you can appreciate how irritating that is when these things happen to your glasses. I'm not saying this is a death-nail in the coffin of 3D, but it's another in a long list of impediments.

On this being really targeted at the BR market:

Funny, how lil't completely avoids the point and goes off on a tangent about TV channels. As someone who rants and raves when someone deviates from the topic in his own posts, I find this quite hypocritical. Wooch, being the selective careful type, didn't even address the point at all - how convenient. We'll just presume you two have the exact same view on this.

In any case, this point is another impediment to 3D adaption. BR is only a portion of the movie-buying public, and 3D will be a portion of that. These facts would tend to point to a niche product, no? Well if not, then tell us why. Don't just hide behind petty insults or bringing up esoteric factoids.

On 3D requiring new players:

Another cute deflection with the whole "it won't affect me, because my player won't need more than a firmware upgrade" line. Hey, you two hypocrites: this isn't just about you. How many times haven't you slammed someone for making just that kind of argument? If it doesn't affect you, that isn't representative of everyone else, right? How many times do I have to paraphrase your own tired criticisms back to you? I have news for you two: we're half-way through my 10 points, and you haven't even made a dent in one of them. So much for making a case.

I'm glad the PS3 will only need a firmware upgrade. I was talking about BR players. Most of them will require more. That will be a fun little reality check for all those who have upgraded all their gear to BR recently.

But that's OK, because it's only for a few movies, anyhow, right? How exactly does this not point to a niche product? Are you even reading what I'm writing? 'Cause you sure aren't doing a good job of addressing the points.

On requiring new audio gear:

So on the one hand lil't says it will require gear that supports new codecs, but it will not require new gear? I didn't say I understood this clearly anyhow, so maybe on of you two geniuses can enlighten us.

About people wanting simpler gear:

This is actually true, whether you want to believe it or not. Last time lil't tried to convince us that just as people want everything bigger (like bigger cars & TVs), they also want things that are more complex. Absolutely false. People can't afford big and complex, they want small and simple. back to basics, if you will. New home sizes are smaller, new cars are smaller, and yes, I believe this will trickle down to new TV sales figures too. So let's stop looking at last year's industry-published figures and step into the present shall we? In a down economy, people want smaller and simpler, that's simply a fact of economics. Just because you have found a small shred of evidence that would appear to point in a different direction with TVs, the fact that the rest of the economy points in the other direction, would seem to me a pretty important factor too.

3D ads complexity, cost, and tedium. In a down economy, people don't want that. Sure marketers will push in the other direction, but they're not the ones buying the gear. Marketers will tell you the exact opposite, and that is where you're getting your "facts" from, I'm afraid. If you're so confident about this not being the case, why not start a new thread with a simple survey: who here will buy into 3D and who considers it a gimmick? I'm pretty sure you won't like the results - and this population isn't quite representative of the general public, but I think the results will speak for themselves.

On showcasing 3D:

The theaters are not the right environment for showcasing 3D, and you both know this - you just don't want to admit it. People see the theater as a place where they pay for a service, not as a place that compares in any way with their home systems: different scale, different environment, different gear, and different sound. The idea that this will be the same in the home is laughable, and people will not believe it anyhow. With fewer B&M stores, there just will be less places where people will see how 3D will be something else they need to buy for their homes.

And if you're thinking that Best Buy is going to make up for that, let's remember how long their demo equipment lasts in the hands of the zillions of customers who handle the gear. How long do you think those pesky 3D glasses will last? And even when brand new, how many people will be able to watch the 3D showcase at a time? If people can't demo it, they will be less likely to buy it; simple as that.

On 3D being a marketing gimmick:

Yes, that is what I'm reading online - no not from the commercial reviewers, of course, but that's what the comments at the bottom of the webpages pretty much boil down to. Of course, you two only read the official (read: industry-sanctioned) drivel, so you wouldn't know that. Whether you two want to admit it or not, in a shrinking economy, people don't just become more tight with their wallets, they also become more suspicious of just this kind of marketing. That's simply the way it is. Again, on it's own, this won't affect sales dramatically, but combined with the other points above, this is another factor, whether you want to admit it or not (probably not, but we know that already - after all, lil't' depends on it succeeding, right?).

On smaller screens growing in popularity:

Yes, you can dismiss it all you want, but it won't make it go away. The latest report from IDC says that smart phones alone will grow from over $125 billion this year to almost $200 billion in 2011. Now are you really going to tell me that TV sales are going to grow by some 60% in the next couple of years? More importantly, are you going to tell us that the largest screens will account for a majority of that? I don't think so.

And I'm just talking about smart-phones, here. There's also computer screens to include in that: the growth of laptops as compared to desktop computers is even greater than 60%. Screens are shrinking, and you hate that because it goes against everything you've been saying, and in lil't's case, it will eat into his livelihood (I don't know what Wooch does for a living, but he sure is taking this pretty hard as well).

Should I also remind you that those pesky little $200 smart phones get replaced on average every 2 years? Or will that be too painful? And how does that compare to $1500 TVs? My guess is that they get replaced every 10 years or so - totally different market. Now I do see 3D being intriguing on smaller screens because the goggles lend themselves to personal-viewing in the same way that headphones do, but only as a niche - and that's my point there, Wooch.

So if 3D is really geared to the large-TV owning, BR watching, upper-class, movie collectors out there, who just happen to be itching for another expensive upgrade in their homes, then I seriously doubt it's going to be the ubiquitous, universal, every-day technology found in every other home. As I said, it will get there for some, but certainly not in the numbers lil't and Wooch would like us to believe.

The only point I would concede, is the one about audio gear, which I frankly do not understand very well. Of course, lil't has done his best to obscure even that explanation. What's the point of having him explain something when he only confuses everyone more in the process? Unfortunately, I'm sure we're in for more of that.

[pixelthis]

Prices are easing down. But I'll only buy a 1080p to better support computer input. And in my view space a 50" would be highly desirable.

I USE my 1080p for a computer display(my video card has HDMI) AND IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE MISSING you would run right out and start selling blood plasma.
Nice to have this much desktop real estate.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am not going to spend my time debating the stupidity of a certain poster again. But that certain poster BS just stinks up the room, and really does not make any damn sense at all.


Not only is the gaming part a bit off-topic, here, but people are not going to move their couches each time they want to watch a 3D title. They'll more likely just put up with the less than ideal small size and not get anywhere near the enjoyment they had at the theater.

The people that 3D will appeal to are not idiots like a certain poster. They will already have their viewing displays at the proper distance to enjoy every pixel of their sets, which makes it perfect for 3D. Will the average consumer buy into 3D? Perhaps not, but every product that hits the market is not going to attract everybody. People who settle for substandard viewing habits will probably not enjoy or even buy into 3D. Everything does not have to have mass market appeal to be successful. But then a certain idiotic poster predicted that Blu ray disc would be a niche product - but time has proven him wrong AGAIN!


Cute how Wooch decided to ignore that point entirely. Yes, lil't I'm fully aware that not all films will be 3D, and as usual, you're making my point: less reasons to buy into it; limited use = limited interest in 3D = niche.

This is where a certain poster stupidity rears its ugly head. NIghtidiot, did you know there was going to be a sports channel in 3D?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-01-05-espn-3d-network_N.htm

Did you know that DirectTV is going to be offering a 3D channel? Maybe you didn't(coming half cocked as usual)

http://www.devicemag.com/2009/12/29/directtv-to-launch-the-first-3d-hdtv-channel/

Did you know that Sony, IMAX and Discovery are launching a 3D network?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10425553-17.html

So, to school this rather ignorant individual, it is not just movies that will be driving this product. So the "niche" comment based on a movie only application is just plain bunk.


Cute how you both only address the concern for people who wear glasses and dismiss it as insignificant. Let's address that point first, then, since it's so "unimportant" to you both. What I'm reading online is that people who wear glasses don't like wearing these - it's like having to wear those goofy tourist sunglasses over your own glasses.

Obviously a certain poster is once again reading exactly what you want to read.(as usual). There have been millions of folks who wear glasses who have watched Avatar in 3D. Those who get headaches won't buy into it, but the glasses argument is lame(but typical), because you can find shutter glasses that comfortably fit over regular glasses, and even the ones at the theater can fit over your own glasses.

Now this ignorant idiot is saying that people want different things in a theater than they want at home. Well ignorant poster, who says that I cannot talk, or turn around with my glasses on? Did you know ignorant poster that the glasses do not blur any non 3D image, it just makes it darker? Ignorant poster, if you need to move around, remove the glasses, move, and put them back on. Oh wait, I don't even have to do that. I can just move around, talk, eat, use the bathroom with my glasses on, no harm there. If you are so irresponsible that you cannot take care of your glasses, then perhaps you shouldn't have remotes either. Only a idiot(that may be this certain poster) would put their glasses in a place that a dog or kid can get a hold of it. Has anyone every heard of teaching your kids what they can handle, and what they can't, or training your dogs to not chew on things that are not theirs?


Funny, how lil't completely avoids the point and goes off on a tangent about TV channels.

Funny how nightliar does not seem to know how to connect the dots. Nightliar contends that 3D is for Blu ray disc which equals niche, and A)Blu ray is no longer a niche product and B) 3D is not just for Blu ray disc, if is for broadcast as well. Picking and choosing your angle in an attempt to marginalize is a weak point of view to attempt a debate on. Your argument gets weak when it is only based on BR, which by the way is no longer a niche product.

Here is where stupidity is actually validated

Another cute deflection with the whole "it won't affect me, because my player won't need more than a firmware upgrade" line. Hey, you two hypocrites: this isn't just about you. How many times haven't you slammed someone for making just that kind of argument? If it doesn't affect you, that isn't representative of everyone else, right? How many times do I have to paraphrase your own tired criticisms back to you? I have news for you two: we're half-way through my 10 points, and you haven't even made a dent in one of them. So much for making a case.

There is no need to dent what is pointless. There are fifteen million PS3's in the field. In one fell swoop there will be 15 million 3D players. If you don't own a PS3, and you are thinking about getting into Blu ray, you have a choice. You can buy a new non 3D profile 2.0 player from anywhere from $150 to $250 bucks depeding on manufacturer. Or, you can purchase a new Blu ray player that is profile 2.0 AND 3D capable for $200 bucks. More features, about the same price. Even in this economy folks are snapping up $100-200 dollar players like crazy, so wouldn't it make a little sense(more than a certain poster has) to get more value for your money in these hard times by getting a player that cost about the same as the non 3D players but does more than they can?(I know this is too much common sense for a certain ignorant poster.

Initially the televisions will be expensive. But just like HDTV they will come down in price, and to some folks who want 3D now, the price will not make a difference to them. Folks will buy it if they want it, when they want it, nobody is putting a gun to their heads.


So on the one hand lil't says it will require gear that supports new codecs, but it will not require new gear? I didn't say I understood this clearly anyhow, so maybe on of you two geniuses can enlighten us.

I never said any such thing liar. I never said that 3D was EVER going to require a new audio codecs, can you point me to where it was said? If not, admit you lied or cannot see.


This is actually true, whether you want to believe it or not. Last time lil't tried to convince us that just as people want everything bigger (like bigger cars & TVs), they also want things that are more complex.

Where did I say that people want things that are more complex? I do not have to convince anyone here that people want bigger televisions. The sales charts bear this out without me even saying a word. Nobody is buying 720p televisions, and the televisions that are currently moving the fastest are televisions 40" to 58".(it used to be between 27"-32") Nightliar tried to convince us that folks are ditching their new large LCD and Plasma televisions for a 2.5" screen without any proof, and now he is doing it again. Proof please or STFU(I think I have said this to you before).


The theaters are not the right environment for showcasing 3D, and you both know this - you just don't want to admit it. People see the theater as a place where they pay for a service, not as a place that compares in any way with their home systems: different scale, different environment, different gear, and different sound.

What a patently ignorant and stupid statement. You ever heard of pay per view? That happens in the home and it is a service. Where did folks get the idea of getting into Dolby Surround in the home? It came from theater. Where did folks get the idea of getting into 5.1 soundtracks? Hmmmn, oh it came from the theater. Where did folks get the idea of constant height and width screen setups? Could it be THE THEATER? Where did folks get the idea of putting in theatrical seating in their home theaters. I think that was the theater as well. How about projection systems and big screens? I think that was the theater as well. Television calibration? Oh that is from SMPTE standards derived from film exibition IN THE THEATER! Sound system calibration....THE THEATER. The sound is different because most folks do not have horn loaded systems in their home theaters.(duh), but the channel assignments, and the mix is essentially the same.


Yes, that is what I'm reading online - no not from the commercial reviewers, of course, but that's what the comments at the bottom of the webpages pretty much boil down to. Of course, you two only read the official (read: industry-sanctioned) drivel, so you wouldn't know that.

Yeah right, more invisible unverifyable information. The webpages are probably from the computer industry. Again the king of assumption strikes again. Blu ray.com, AVS, HTF, and other forums are not industry sanctioned, they are owned by individuals. Participation in a demo is individual sanctioned, and you get individual responses some positive some, some not. I have found that the Disney demos get far more positive than negative responses, and online from the AV community you get the same vibe. So I smell BS big time here.


Yes, you can dismiss it all you want, but it won't make it go away. The latest report from IDC says that smart phones alone will grow from over $125 billion this year to almost $200 billion in 2011. Now are you really going to tell me that TV sales are going to grow by some 60% in the next couple of years? More importantly, are you going to tell us that the largest screens will account for a majority of that? I don't think so.

The growth of smartphones is not a indication of a certain type of usage on that phone. For you to use this arguement, you will have to provide proof that A) it will be used to replace the television as the primary viewing device and B) stats would show that usage for film and television watching is increasing while watching television at home is decreasing. Since neither is true based on statistics, then your point is mud in clear water. Phones are easily disposable devices, Blu ray players are not. People replace their phones every couple of years(or when the next big gimmick comes out), they do not replace their players that frequently. So red herring meet BS.

More stupidity at work


And I'm just talking about smart-phones, here. There's also computer screens to include in that: the growth of laptops as compared to desktop computers is even greater than 60%. Screens are shrinking, and you hate that because it goes against everything you've been saying, and in lil't's case, it will eat into his livelihood

So, your proof that computer screens are replacing television screens as primary viewing devices? Once again, because the capability is there, does not mean people are using it.

Since movies, commercials, and television shows REQUIRE sound, your stupid comments are just what they are....stupid. Comments without proof is like an empty wagon.


So if 3D is really geared to the large-TV owning, BR watching, upper-class, movie collectors out there, who just happen to be itching for another expensive upgrade in their homes, then I seriously doubt it's going to be the ubiquitous, universal, every-day technology found in every other home. As I said, it will get there for some, but certainly not in the numbers lil't and Wooch would like us to believe.

Sir T and Wooch have posted statistics to support their points, Nightliar supports his with whimsical non facts and gut feelings. Nighidiot seems to love to side step the point that broadcast television will have 3D networks, and ESPN is not exactly for the upper class, or for BR watching movie collectors.

Over and over again we have to be assaulted by stupid ignorant comments from an individual who comes to us half cocked full of mis information or non information. Nobody says that 3D will be cheap in the beginning just like nobody said that Blu ray would be cheap in the beginning. The televisions just like Blu ray players, DVD, players, HDTV, VHS players and every other consumer electronic device will come down in price. There are going to be people like myself who will jump in early, some folks will wait a while, and some folks might never buy a 3D television. That is they way it has been for years with each new bit of technology enters the market.

What I would like to see is some legitimate concerns about the technology, not some wimpy ill conceived drivel coming from a person who makes tying his shoes equal to sending a person to pluto. I don't want to hear from somebody who on one side of his mouth says that 3D is for big screens, and then turns around and says that people will be watching 3D on 2.5" screens. Which is it nightlyingidiot?

[pixelthis]

I am not going to spend my time debating the stupidity of a certain poster again. But that certain poster BS just stinks up the room, and really does not make any damn sense at all.



The people that 3D will appeal to are not idiots like a certain poster. They will already have their viewing displays at the proper distance to enjoy every pixel of their sets, which makes it perfect for 3D. Will the average consumer buy into 3D? Perhaps not, but every product that hits the market is not going to attract everybody. People who settle for substandard viewing habits will probably not enjoy or even buy into 3D. Everything does not have to have mass market appeal to be successful. But then a certain idiotic poster predicted that Blu ray disc would be a niche product - but time has proven him wrong AGAIN!



This is where a certain poster stupidity rears its ugly head. NIghtidiot, did you know there was going to be a sports channel in 3D?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-01-05-espn-3d-network_N.htm

Did you know that DirectTV is going to be offering a 3D channel? Maybe you didn't(coming half cocked as usual)

http://www.devicemag.com/2009/12/29/directtv-to-launch-the-first-3d-hdtv-channel/

Did you know that Sony, IMAX and Discovery are launching a 3D network?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10425553-17.html

So, to school this rather ignorant individual, it is not just movies that will be driving this product. So the "niche" comment based on a movie only application is just plain bunk.



Obviously a certain poster is once again reading exactly what you want to read.(as usual). There have been millions of folks who wear glasses who have watched Avatar in 3D. Those who get headaches won't buy into it, but the glasses argument is lame(but typical), because you can find shutter glasses that comfortably fit over regular glasses, and even the ones at the theater can fit over your own glasses.

Now this ignorant idiot is saying that people want different things in a theater than they want at home. Well ignorant poster, who says that I cannot talk, or turn around with my glasses on? Did you know ignorant poster that the glasses do not blur any non 3D image, it just makes it darker? Ignorant poster, if you need to move around, remove the glasses, move, and put them back on. Oh wait, I don't even have to do that. I can just move around, talk, eat, use the bathroom with my glasses on, no harm there. If you are so irresponsible that you cannot take care of your glasses, then perhaps you shouldn't have remotes either. Only a idiot(that may be this certain poster) would put their glasses in a place that a dog or kid can get a hold of it. Has anyone every heard of teaching your kids what they can handle, and what they can't, or training your dogs to not chew on things that are not theirs?



Funny how nightliar does not seem to know how to connect the dots. Nightliar contends that 3D is for Blu ray disc which equals niche, and A)Blu ray is no longer a niche product and B) 3D is not just for Blu ray disc, if is for broadcast as well. Picking and choosing your angle in an attempt to marginalize is a weak point of view to attempt a debate on. Your argument gets weak when it is only based on BR, which by the way is no longer a niche product.

Here is where stupidity is actually validated


There is no need to dent what is pointless. There are fifteen million PS3's in the field. In one fell swoop there will be 15 million 3D players. If you don't own a PS3, and you are thinking about getting into Blu ray, you have a choice. You can buy a new non 3D profile 2.0 player from anywhere from $150 to $250 bucks depeding on manufacturer. Or, you can purchase a new Blu ray player that is profile 2.0 AND 3D capable for $200 bucks. More features, about the same price. Even in this economy folks are snapping up $100-200 dollar players like crazy, so wouldn't it make a little sense(more than a certain poster has) to get more value for your money in these hard times by getting a player that cost about the same as the non 3D players but does more than they can?(I know this is too much common sense for a certain ignorant poster.

Initially the televisions will be expensive. But just like HDTV they will come down in price, and to some folks who want 3D now, the price will not make a difference to them. Folks will buy it if they want it, when they want it, nobody is putting a gun to their heads.



I never said any such thing liar. I never said that 3D was EVER going to require a new audio codecs, can you point me to where it was said? If not, admit you lied or cannot see.



Where did I say that people want things that are more complex? I do not have to convince anyone here that people want bigger televisions. The sales charts bear this out without me even saying a word. Nobody is buying 720p televisions, and the televisions that are currently moving the fastest are televisions 40" to 58".(it used to be between 27"-32") Nightliar tried to convince us that folks are ditching their new large LCD and Plasma televisions for a 2.5" screen without any proof, and now he is doing it again. Proof please or STFU(I think I have said this to you before).



What a patently ignorant and stupid statement. You ever heard of pay per view? That happens in the home and it is a service. Where did folks get the idea of getting into Dolby Surround in the home? It came from theater. Where did folks get the idea of getting into 5.1 soundtracks? Hmmmn, oh it came from the theater. Where did folks get the idea of constant height and width screen setups? Could it be THE THEATER? Where did folks get the idea of putting in theatrical seating in their home theaters. I think that was the theater as well. How about projection systems and big screens? I think that was the theater as well. Television calibration? Oh that is from SMPTE standards derived from film exibition IN THE THEATER! Sound system calibration....THE THEATER. The sound is different because most folks do not have horn loaded systems in their home theaters.(duh), but the channel assignments, and the mix is essentially the same.



Yeah right, more invisible unverifyable information. The webpages are probably from the computer industry. Again the king of assumption strikes again. Blu ray.com, AVS, HTF, and other forums are not industry sanctioned, they are owned by individuals. Participation in a demo is individual sanctioned, and you get individual responses some positive some, some not. I have found that the Disney demos get far more positive than negative responses, and online from the AV community you get the same vibe. So I smell BS big time here.



The growth of smartphones is not a indication of a certain type of usage on that phone. For you to use this arguement, you will have to provide proof that A) it will be used to replace the television as the primary viewing device and B) stats would show that usage for film and television watching is increasing while watching television at home is decreasing. Since neither is true based on statistics, then your point is mud in clear water. Phones are easily disposable devices, Blu ray players are not. People replace their phones every couple of years(or when the next big gimmick comes out), they do not replace their players that frequently. So red herring meet BS.

More stupidity at work



So, your proof that computer screens are replacing television screens as primary viewing devices? Once again, because the capability is there, does not mean people are using it.

Since movies, commercials, and television shows REQUIRE sound, your stupid comments are just what they are....stupid. Comments without proof is like an empty wagon.



Sir T and Wooch have posted statistics to support their points, Nightliar supports his with whimsical non facts and gut feelings. Nighidiot seems to love to side step the point that broadcast television will have 3D networks, and ESPN is not exactly for the upper class, or for BR watching movie collectors.

Over and over again we have to be assaulted by stupid ignorant comments from an individual who comes to us half cocked full of mis information or non information. Nobody says that 3D will be cheap in the beginning just like nobody said that Blu ray would be cheap in the beginning. The televisions just like Blu ray players, DVD, players, HDTV, VHS players and every other consumer electronic device will come down in price. There are going to be people like myself who will jump in early, some folks will wait a while, and some folks might never buy a 3D television. That is they way it has been for years with each new bit of technology enters the market.

What I would like to see is some legitimate concerns about the technology, not some wimpy ill conceived drivel coming from a person who makes tying his shoes equal to sending a person to pluto. I don't want to hear from somebody who on one side of his mouth says that 3D is for big screens, and then turns around and says that people will be watching 3D on 2.5" screens. Which is it nightlyingidiot?

In other words this poster works for a company that is pushing 3D, therefore
anybody against 3D chapter god knows how many is an idiot.
JUST FOR not going along with the fantasies of Sony, et al?
Even in good times this would be a hard sell.
Nobody is going to be rushing out to get these.
Govt cheese maybe.
BUT 3D is mainly going to devolve into a last ditch effort to save the movie theater.
It may find a niche there.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In other words this poster works for a company that is pushing 3D, therefore
anybody against 3D chapter god knows how many is an idiot.
JUST FOR not going along with the fantasies of Sony, et al?
Even in good times this would be a hard sell.
Nobody is going to be rushing out to get these.
Govt cheese maybe.
BUT 3D is mainly going to devolve into a last ditch effort to save the movie theater.
It may find a niche there.:1:

Once again stupid, I don't work for Sony. I have said time and time again which studio I work for, are you too stupid to figure this out by now? I am not pushing anything, you can get into 3D or not as far as I am concerned, but I am not going to let misinformation and uneducated gut feeling dominate the conversation. Facts are better than guts, and knowledge is better than stupidity. Maybe it is time you get a little knowledge to counter the stupidity.

[nightflier]

Will the average consumer buy into 3D? Perhaps not, but every product that hits the market is not going to attract everybody. People who settle for substandard viewing habits will probably not enjoy or even buy into 3D. Everything does not have to have mass market appeal to be successful.

So you agree, then, it will be a niche product. Or are you just trying to minimize your claims a tad so that you don't come out sounding like a complete idiot?

:out:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you agree, then, it will be a niche product. Or are you just trying to minimize your claims a tad so that you don't come out sounding like a complete idiot?

:out:

You wish nighliar. Where is your proof of your statements.....we are waiting.......or is this just another imaginary trip into your air filled head, complete with unproven statements, hidden emails that support you, paranoia, or more uneducated gut feelings?

I think we have seen enough of that, so where the proof nightliar?

And by the way, who taught you how to read English? They need to go back to school and take you with them.

[E-Stat]

What I would like to see is some legitimate concerns about the technology...
I was struck with the contrast in 3D presentation between what Avatar did and that of watching a preview for Piranha 3D! While the latter was decidedly lower budget and had an amusing "lets-watch-girls-jump-on-a-trampoline" scene, it looked 3D. No, it screamed 3D. The "effect" with Avatar disappeared into the story. Does that difference depend upon the quality of the cameras or is that more of a directorial statement?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was struck with the contrast in 3D presentation between what Avatar did and that of watching a preview for Piranha 3D! While the latter was decidedly lower budget and had an amusing "lets-watch-girls-jump-on-a-trampoline" scene, it looked 3D. No, it screamed 3D. The "effect" with Avatar disappeared into the story. Does that difference depend upon the quality of the cameras or is that more of a directorial statement?

rw

E-Stat, it is a different artistic expression of the same technology. Remember, this is a horror movie design to shock you. Avatar was designed to lure you into the story, not push you in like Piranha 3D will. The only 3D camera rigs out there right now are the ones designed by Panasonic for Avatar, so it is likely Piranha 3D is using the same cameras as Avatar did. Sony and Panavision should have 3D cameras coming online in just a couple of months the last time I heard.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, it is a different artistic expression of the same technology.
Thanks. My guess is that as with early ping-pong stereo, some directors will be employing the technology in a gratuitous fashion. I'm looking forward to the day not too far in the future when 3D film in conjunction with that zillion channel audio format will provide a near holodeck sort of presentation. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks. My guess is that as with early ping-pong stereo, some directors will be employing the technology in a gratuitous fashion. I'm looking forward to the day not too far in the future when 3D film in conjunction with that zillion channel audio format will provide a near holodeck sort of presentation. :)

rw

I am too! Then perhaps you could beam over and raise a glass in person....well sort of:smilewinkgrin:

[nightflier]

How convenient, if it becomes a niche, like I think it will, then you can just say: "weeeellll I never claimed it would be everywhere...blah blah blah..." Are you trying to manufacture another plausible deniability clause for yourself? Where do you draw the line between a niche and a "market success," exactly? Or are you just going to assume that any profit, however shallow = market success? Talk about back peddling! Is there anything else in your playbook, lil't?

[GMichael]

Maybe a little off topic, but not too far off....

Back in 1987 I was working at the TJ Watson Research Center in Yorktown NY. One of the projects I got to see first hand was a type of holodeck room. We had to put on special gloves that let us play handball with a ball that wasn't really there. The glove would give you feedback and make it feel like you were really hitting a ball. You could put a spin on the ball and it would react accordingly.
It was very simple compared to a whole movie but I would have thought that they would have made a ton of progress by now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

How convenient, if it becomes a niche, like I think it will, then you can just say: "weeeellll I never claimed it would be everywhere...blah blah blah..." Are you trying to manufacture another plausible deniability clause for yourself? Where do you draw the line between a niche and a "market success," exactly? Or are you just going to assume that any profit, however shallow = market success? Talk about back peddling! Is there anything else in your playbook, lil't?

You know nightstupid, I do not want to read any of this drag. I want proof to back up your assertions. You have managed to wiggle and manipulate your way out of providing any proof or fact to your arguments by just trying to pass the buck back. Wooch and I have both laid our points out with facts and figures, you so far not so much as a fart.

Where is your proof that small screens are overtaking large screens as the preferred display device?

Is 3D for large screens of smaller screens. Your arguments point towards large screens, but you keep mating 3D to small screens. Which is it?

Where is your proof that 3D will be just a niche product?

How do you make this statement before the technology is released?

I believe you said that Blu ray was going to be a niche product, and also stated that HD DVD was going to win because it was cheaper. You turned out to be very wrong on both accounts. What makes you think you are right this time?

You say that folks are watching movies on their smartphones and portable devices, do you have any proof that this is true aside from you anecdotal BS?

In this last week, I went to school(learned a ton of information about 3D technology) on 3D technology, and have gleaned enough information to know you are dead wrong about 3D on small screens.

So cut the BS, and provide proof of your assertions, or STFU and go back to your fake invisible PM supporters and Chinese co-workers.

[pixelthis]

Once again stupid, I don't work for Sony. I have said time and time again which studio I work for, are you too stupid to figure this out by now? I am not pushing anything, you can get into 3D or not as far as I am concerned, but I am not going to let misinformation and uneducated gut feeling dominate the conversation. Facts are better than guts, and knowledge is better than stupidity. Maybe it is time you get a little knowledge to counter the stupidity.

THE "misinfo" is coming from you.
Anybody with half a brain would be leery of 3D anything, considering its somewhat lackluster track record.:1:
And that "studio" you sweep floors for, wouldnt be owned by Sony now, would it?:1:

[E-Stat]

Anybody with half a brain would be leery of 3D anything, considering its somewhat lackluster track record
Lackluster track record? Those possessing a full brain, however, are aware of what this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704722304575037432498546618.html) movie has done. You might have heard of it. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lackluster track record? Those possessing a full brain, however, are aware of what this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704722304575037432498546618.html) movie has done. You might have heard of it. :)

rw

Yeah, just a horrible track record

Up - $727 million dollars 54% from 3D
Journey to the Center of the Earth(awful movie) $127 million for 3D only
Meet the Robinsons - $169 million with 3D representing 67% of that total
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs $223 million 55% from 3D
A Christmas Carol - $323 million 58% from 3D
Ice Age 3 - $848 million 57% from 3D
Monster vs Aliens $383 million 64% from 3D

It is no accident that 3D releases almost always outperform its 2D releases in the theaters. So 3D has been an unmitigated disaster. (rolls eyes)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THE "misinfo" is coming from you.
Anybody with half a brain would be leery of 3D anything, considering its somewhat lackluster track record.:1:
And that "studio" you sweep floors for, wouldnt be owned by Sony now, would it?:1:

You are giving away your age fossil fuel Freddy. You are constantly using film based 3D from the 50-70's as your point of reference. Sorry, but this is not that 3D.

[pixelthis]

Lackluster track record? Those possessing a full brain, however, are aware of what this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704722304575037432498546618.html) movie has done. You might have heard of it. :)

rw


YEP, you hear about all of those mediocre movies that didnt make it.
I REALLY DON'T THINK James "top of the world" Cameron will be making every 3D movie,
nor will they all be coming outta PIXAIRE.
Give me a break:1:

[pixelthis]

You are giving away your age fossil fuel Freddy. You are constantly using film based 3D from the 50-70's as your point of reference. Sorry, but this is not that 3D.

AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:

[GMichael]

AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:

When you go to the zoo, I bet you like to jab sticks at the bear through the bars.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

AND THAT BRIEF foray into 3D TV in the eighties with polarized "shutter" glasses.
How quickly they forget.
Funny how you mention the fifties to the seventies, then your memory drops off
the planet like a rock.
CANT QUITE RECALL all of the massive failures of 3D since then, emmm?
3D is like a letter sent snailmail, it never quite gets there.:1:

Once again some more of your profound words of stupidity. All previous attempts at 3D where based on film, which was problematic with 3D. In case your rather aged memory has failed you, here is a list of issues that plagued the film version of 3D

Two prints had to be projected simultaneously. This is no longer needed because of several new techniques that make only one projector necessary.

The prints had to remain exactly alike after repair, or synchronization would be lost. This is no longer an issue because there are no film prints, it is a digital file.

It sometimes required two projectionists to keep sync working properly. Since everything is digital, you don't need dedicated projectionist, a kid could start the projectors these days.

When either prints or shutters became out of sync, the picture became virtually unwatchable and accounted for headaches and eyestrain. With the precision of digital synchonisation, this is no longer an issue. Also shooting techniques have also changed so this leads to less eyestrain.

The necessary silver projection screen was very directional and caused sideline seating to be unusable with both 3-D and regular films, due to the angular darkening of these screens. Later films that opened in wider-seated venues often premiered flat for that reason. Now all screens are flat, and some projection techniques no longer require a silver screen. Also theaters are no longer designed with a fan shape seating area which puts viewers off axis of the screen. The screens are now as wide as the theater itself.

Another point your aged mind tends to forget is that IMAX, Disney, and Universal all had extreme success with 3D from 1985-2003 in theaters and theme parks.

I mixed a soundtrack for a 3D movie entitled Borg Invasion 4-D, that was enormously popular, and was shown in the Las Vegas Hilton.

3D has dramatically changed since you dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything about the process is cheaper, more streamlined, more precise(less headaches), and you need to face it, it is making money.

Using your old antiquated perspective of 3D shows that you have not seen it recently, so excuse me if I just blow your stupid comments off.

[pixelthis]

When you go to the zoo, I bet you like to jab sticks at the bear through the bars.:1:

I'm from BAMA, only bear around here is Bear Bryant.:1:

[pixelthis]

Once again some more of your profound words of stupidity. All previous attempts at 3D where based on film, which was problematic with 3D. In case your rather aged memory has failed you, here is a list of issues that plagued the film version of 3D

Two prints had to be projected simultaneously. This is no longer needed because of several new techniques that make only one projector necessary.

The prints had to remain exactly alike after repair, or synchronization would be lost. This is no longer an issue because there are no film prints, it is a digital file.

It sometimes required two projectionists to keep sync working properly. Since everything is digital, you don't need dedicated projectionist, a kid could start the projectors these days.

When either prints or shutters became out of sync, the picture became virtually unwatchable and accounted for headaches and eyestrain. With the precision of digital synchonisation, this is no longer an issue. Also shooting techniques have also changed so this leads to less eyestrain.

The necessary silver projection screen was very directional and caused sideline seating to be unusable with both 3-D and regular films, due to the angular darkening of these screens. Later films that opened in wider-seated venues often premiered flat for that reason. Now all screens are flat, and some projection techniques no longer require a silver screen. Also theaters are no longer designed with a fan shape seating area which puts viewers off axis of the screen. The screens are now as wide as the theater itself.

Another point your aged mind tends to forget is that IMAX, Disney, and Universal all had extreme success with 3D from 1985-2003 in theaters and theme parks.

I mixed a soundtrack for a 3D movie entitled Borg Invasion 4-D, that was enormously popular, and was shown in the Las Vegas Hilton.

3D has dramatically changed since you dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything about the process is cheaper, more streamlined, more precise(less headaches), and you need to face it, it is making money.

Using your old antiquated perspective of 3D shows that you have not seen it recently, so excuse me if I just blow your stupid comments off.

The 3D system I AM REFFERRING TO is a system that was quite popular in Japan.
Came with a pair of "shutter" glasses and allowed you to watch 3D on your TV, had
nothing to do with film.
Not that it matters, film or video the principle hasnt changed in decades , two dissimilar images producing a 3D image, just like a cheap veiwmaster from the five and dime.
A long way to go before true 3D is possible, if ever.
GETTING A PICTURE SO SHARP AND ACCURATE that it appears "3D" may be all we can manage for awhile.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The 3D system I AM REFFERRING TO is a system that was quite popular in Japan.
Came with a pair of "shutter" glasses and allowed you to watch 3D on your TV, had
nothing to do with film.
Not that it matters, film or video the principle hasnt changed in decades , two dissimilar images producing a 3D image, just like a cheap veiwmaster from the five and dime.
A long way to go before true 3D is possible, if ever.
GETTING A PICTURE SO SHARP AND ACCURATE that it appears "3D" may be all we can manage for awhile.:1:

We are not talking about the same 3D, so move on. You still don't have it right as usual. Old references not applicable to today.

[pixelthis]

:19:
We are not talking about the same 3D, so move on. You still don't have it right as usual. Old references not applicable to today.

If thats the case you surely are not "applicable".
Basic facts dont change, our knowledge of them(or in your case lack of it) can.
3D has never been ready for being more than a short term gimmick, the fact that the powers that be are dusting off thius tired old crap shows just how desperate they are
during this downturn.
As for me poking a stick at a bear, GM, are you kidding?
POODLE WOULD BE MORE LIKE IT.:1:

[E-Stat]

3D has never been ready for being more than a short term gimmick, the fact that the powers that be are dusting off thius tired old crap shows just how desperate they are during this downturn.
I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.

At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.

May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.

At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.

May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)

rw

Amen to this my brotha!

While Pix has mentioned the failure of past 3D, he fails to mention that Disney and Universal theme parks have used 3D to attract millions and millions to their theme exhibitions. Great example, Captain Eo, (Michael Jackson's first 3D short). Then he forgets the great success of Imax 3D from 1985 to 2003.

He also forgets that theaters are designed today to take full advantage of 3D, with their more symmetrical shapes and wider screen sizes. You have better equipment for production and reproduction. A better understanding of our natural visions operation to minimize eye strain and headaches. The list goes on. Everyone from Directors to Cinematographers are learning how to use 3D in the most effective ways to assist in the story telling enhancement side of things.

This is not the 3D of yesteryear.

[E-Stat]

This is not the 3D of yesteryear.
I think we've only seen the beginning of what will become a far more prevalent trend. As I've stated before, I have no interest in the overt in your face "this-is-3D" sort of approach taken by some recent films. On the other hand I'm convinced that you'll find increasingly more use of what I call the "you're not aware it's 3D" effect in a wider range of films - with the objective being simply to replicate the environment as you watch the story unfold by the characters. It is simply the ultimate extension of the human experience - story telling - that can now be realized in a manner so convincing that the full breadth of emotion and depth can be conveyed. While today I purchased the second $100 bulb for my DLP monitor in five years' time, I look forward to the ongoing evolution of video presentation. My next monitor/player WILL be 3D capable.

rw

[pixelthis]

I'm convinced your view is shared by many who really have little concern with film quality. Other folks, however, have a different perspective. The original three projector Cinerama format was simply incredible in its day, but appreciated by relatively few. I remember watching Grand Prix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Ice Station Zebra at a few large Martin theatres in Atlanta in the 60s. They were incredible in their realism in the day. The original 15/70 IMAX format continued the march towards greater reality with its large format film, spectacular screen size and better-than-average sound quality. The scene from The Dream is Alive filmed by NASA on the shuttle when the bay doors are opened and the beautiful sight of our planet and the absolute blackness of space still brings tears to my eyes. Years ago, I watched an IMAX 3D film of the California kelp forests. This underwater film was positively spooky in its realism. Kids in front of me were reaching out in the air trying to touch the fish that were suspended in space in front of your eyes. The capability of today's digital 3D has enabled that kind of realism to be found in a far wider range of theaters. Having said that, I find there is still nothing like the realism of attending a full sized IMAX venue.

At the expense of repetition, I've now seen Avatar at three different IMAX venues and have been amazed every time at the you-are-there level of realism delivered. I want to be able to experience as much of that realism at home as possible.

May you enjoy your 2D small screens as much as I do the full 3D IMAX experience. :)

rw

How unfair, but I GUESS its to be expected from some on this site.
GET THIS STRAIGHT, this has nothing to do with "quality".
It does have to do with a marketing gimmick that has never gone anywhere.
On antiques roadshow yesterday they had some old stereoscope prints from
the 1890's, thats how long this concept has been around.
And it has never caught on.
And "quality "?
3D has mostly been genre pictures and somedtimes the 3D reduces quality
and never increases it.
THIS is a typical 3D flap, after the "3D" monitors die on the vine it will quickly go away, just like every other time, taking quite a few careers with it.
NOBODY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN A YEAR,
TWO AT THE MOST.
And I would rather watch a "quality" 2D movie than a crappy 3D one.:1:

[pixelthis]

AND we are not talking about IMAX.
Good luck building one of those in your home.:1:

[GMichael]

AND we are not talking about IMAX.
Good luck building one of those in your home.:1:
I do have a great set of tools.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You can tell a certain poster here has not seen 3D recently:rolleyes: No clue whatsoever.

[E-Stat]

On antiques roadshow yesterday they had some old stereoscope prints from the 1890's, thats how long this concept has been around. And it has never caught on.
Nah, such a product would never take hold. Oh wait. What about the GAF Viewmaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master) made since 1939? Hmmm. How many discs did they make? 1.5 BILLION!

Feel free to stay away from 3D broadcast offerings in 2011 from The Discovery Channel, ESPN, and Disney.

rw

[pixelthis]

Nah, such a product would never take hold. Oh wait. What about the GAF Viewmaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master) made since 1939? Hmmm. How many discs did they make? 1.5 BILLION!

Feel free to stay away from 3D broadcast offerings in 2011 from The Discovery Channel, ESPN, and Disney.

rw

Gonna go nowhere.
Regardless, dont talk about a lack of concern for "quality", leave the cheap shots to
talky, thats all hes' got.
I would rather see quality 2D than gimmick , poorly done 3D.
And all of these peeps watching those 3D channels?
HOW MANY hdtvs with 3D out there?
How many in a year? A few years?
RIGHT:1:

[pixelthis]

You can tell a certain poster here has not seen 3D recently:rolleyes: No clue whatsoever.

So what?
MEET THE new 3d, SAME AS THE OLD 3D.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.

An expert fool is what we have here.

[pixelthis]

This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.

An expert fool is what we have here.

and WHERE DID YOU GO to school to be such an "expert"?
There is NO such thing as "new" 3D", just the same old crack ho gussied up with new makeup.
There is no new magical new tech that will save this upteenth effort to foist this turkey
off on an unsuspecting public.
Theres' already reports of headaches, depression, etc.
People didnt go to Avatar because it was 3D, they went because it was JAMES CAMERON.
Same reason they went to TITANIC.
Titanic being a great comparsion to this newest effort to sell something (anything) to a broke and out of work public.
Except 3D will beat it to the bottom of the ocean.
34D , now thats something that will sell.:1:

[E-Stat]

This is exactly what I thought.
;)

rw

[pixelthis]

This is exactly what I thought. He does not know about THIS 3D, and has never been to even one current 3D movie, yet he is the foremost expert on the subject.

An expert fool is what we have here.

THIS "3D".
Well, when you can explain (which you have so far failed to do) the magical difference between this 3D and the old 3D(something you cant do) then you might have something there.
Of course there is no difference.
3D hasnt changed since the days of the old stereoscopes in the 19th century.
Every once in awhile its dredged up, a little makeup is applied to the pig, and its pushed
out the door, to be shot down in short order.
In good times it would be a hard sell, good luck in this econony.
OF course when it sinks faster than an American idol winner on his own, everybody will
forget that you heard it here first.
Not a difficult prediction to make.:1:

[E-Stat]

Well, when you can explain (which you have so far failed to do) the magical difference between this 3D and the old 3D(something you cant do) then you might have something there.
He did in post #55. You weren't paying attention.


Every once in awhile its dredged up, a little makeup is applied to the pig, and its pushed
out the door, to be shot down in short order.
In good times it would be a hard sell, good luck in this econony.
OF course when it sinks faster than an American idol winner on his own, everybody will
forget that you heard it here first.
Not a difficult prediction to make.
This *commentary* is indicative of the level of maturity to which I refer elsewhere. And randomly hitting enter after "pushed" and "will".

rw

[pixelthis]

He did in post #55. You weren't paying attention.


This *commentary* is indicative of the level of maturity to which I refer elsewhere. And randomly hitting enter after "pushed" and "will".

rw

Nothing to pay attention to.
So its a digital medium, big deal.
At its core its still the same basic tech, and peeps are still complaining about headachs, etc.
just a gimmick to sell new sets, and I beleive most will give it a pass, or just decide they can do without it at home.:1:

[Woochifer]

Yeah, just a horrible track record

Up - $727 million dollars 54% from 3D
Journey to the Center of the Earth(awful movie) $127 million for 3D only
Meet the Robinsons - $169 million with 3D representing 67% of that total
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs $223 million 55% from 3D
A Christmas Carol - $323 million 58% from 3D
Ice Age 3 - $848 million 57% from 3D
Monster vs Aliens $383 million 64% from 3D

It is no accident that 3D releases almost always outperform its 2D releases in the theaters. So 3D has been an unmitigated disaster. (rolls eyes)

And those box office numbers don't even account for the limited number of digital projection screens currently capable of showing the newer 3D processes. The main impediment right now is the ever increasing numbers of 3D releases not keeping up with the number of available 3D screens. The box office numbers for those movies on your list would actually be even more tilted in favor of 3D if not for the limited number of available screens in past years.

I read that the number of 3D theater installations is expected to top 5,000 in North America alone by the end of the year. The upgrade cost is about $70,000 per screen, so obviously the theater owners see the investment as worthwhile.

The current release slate includes 19 wide release 3D movies this year (3 in the month of March), with many more in the pipeline for next year. Also, the box office numbers for the current round of 3D movies far eclipses the previous 3D movie fads during the mid-50s and mid-80s. During those previous fads, the 3D effect for those movies in the 50s and 80s was the focus of the content and the marketing. In the previous 3D fads, you only had a handful of films that would have fared well without the use of 3D (e.g., House of Wax and Dial M for Murder, and nothing worth mentioning from the 1980s 3D revival).

With few exceptions (like Journey to the Center of the Earth), in the current round of 3D movies, the 3D effect is not the primary reason for people seeing those movies. Avatar would have broken box office records with or without 3D. Up is still a marvelous movie and still would have generated huge box office returns just in 2D. Even though these movies have tremendous appeal on their own merits, audiences have chosen to go with the 3D screenings. And the audience share for 3D screenings is increasing, not decreasing. If it were a novelty or curiosity, as with the 50s and 80s 3D fads, the 3D box office numbers should have faded out by now. They haven't.

The current 3D revival is in its 5th year. Aside from the technology, audience acceptance, and movie quality, there is no comparison with previous 3D fads simply because the previous fads were short-lived and interest waned almost immediately after the first wave of movies came and went. Most of the 3D movies from the 50s cycle came out in 1953 and 1954, and died out shortly thereafter. The 80s 3D revival never got out of 1983, when some initial moderate box office returns (Jaws 3D) soon faded into outright flops (Amityville 3D).

Anyone who thinks 3D is a fad that will die out quickly this time around simply isn't paying attention.

[Woochifer]

and WHERE DID YOU GO to school to be such an "expert"?

Uh, that school is no further than your local theater.


There is NO such thing as "new" 3D", just the same old crack ho gussied up with new makeup.

Looks like somebody cut class and didn't crack open a book newer than three decades old, but still thinks they can ace the test. :out:

[nightflier]

Just read in another thread that Sony is putting the brakes on OLED. Gee I guess price does mater in this economy. So much for 3D on OLED.

[Woochifer]

Just read in another thread that Sony is putting the brakes on OLED. Gee I guess price does mater in this economy. So much for 3D on OLED.

Try reading the article rather than just scanning the headline.

Sony's discontinuing an overpriced 11" model that has been on the market for two years and has well known durability and color fading issues. And it has only been discontinued in Japan. If they were "putting the brakes on OLED" and this is "so much for 3D on OLED" why did Sony and Samsung have 3D demos with their prototype OLED TVs at this year's CES?

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/sony-and-samsung-in-3d-oled-face-off-662181

[nightflier]

That was CES. The problem with OLED is still that it is too expensive. My point being that cost and this economy figured high on my reasons why I expect 3D to be a niche technology - fun for impressing the neighbors and the occasional wow-factor, but hardly something people are going to use regularly or that will be commonplace in most households.

You both disagree with me on that, and we'll just have to wait and see. But I do recall that one of you was talking about OLED being one platform for 3D that was getting some interest (like at CES). Now it does seem like that won't happen because OLED technology is too expensive.

CES is nice & fun, but ultimately it's just like an auto show, lots of excitement over proof-of-concept ideas being made into tangible products, but few of those survive all the way to market viability. If 3D can hold on until the economy's few growing sectors can trickle down to most consumers, it might fly. Right now, the average consumer can't buy into it at the rates that you two suggest. From an economic perspective, the success of 3D in a few movie theaters is a totally different thing than having it in most people's homes.

Anyhow, I've said my piece on this, and since it will take a few years for this to become obvious, there's little more to argue about here.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That was CES. The problem with OLED is still that it is too expensive. My point being that cost and this economy figured high on my reasons why I expect 3D to be a niche technology - fun for impressing the neighbors and the occasional wow-factor, but hardly something people are going to use regularly or that will be commonplace in most households.

Funny, Blu ray disc got its start at CES, so did HD DVD, DVD, LCD and Plasma, DLP and various other video devices. The japanese electronic companies do not treat the products they show at CES like showcars at a car show. They usually intend on releasing them as useable products in the near future.

I believe you said that cost was also an issue with Blu ray, and you were wrong on that account as well. Cost proved to be a non issue, as folks will buy whatever they want(and sacrifice to get it). The rest is just your opinion, you are entitled to it, and I am entitled to dismiss it as well. Your comments on 3D are just more tripe from you, as you were wrong on price before, and are probably wrong again.


You both disagree with me on that, and we'll just have to wait and see. But I do recall that one of you was talking about OLED being one platform for 3D that was getting some interest (like at CES). Now it does seem like that won't happen because OLED technology is too expensive.

You are wrong again. OLED is not as off the table as you think. Sony cannot use the 11" model for any of their upcoming plans, so they are taking the 11" $2,500 OLED off the market IN JAPAN, not the rest of the world. They are continuing R&D on OLED, but until they can get it to sizes more useful for 3D and/or 4K, they are not going to sell it in Japan. It is not that it is too expensive of a technology, it is too expensive to offer a 11" $2500 dollar television set to compete with a $2500 55" LCD.


CES is nice & fun, but ultimately it's just like an auto show, lots of excitement over proof-of-concept ideas being made into tangible products, but few of those survive all the way to market viability. If 3D can hold on until the economy's few growing sectors can trickle down to most consumers, it might fly. Right now, the average consumer can't buy into it at the rates that you two suggest. From an economic perspective, the success of 3D in a few movie theaters is a totally different thing than having it in most people's homes.

I do not believe I mentioned any rates, and neither has Wooch, so I do not know what the hell you are talking about. Nobody knows how much it will cost to get into 3D Blu ray, there has been only one 3D product price that has been announced, and that was a $300 Blu ray player, which has a cost on par with quite a few non 3D Blu ray players. There has been no pricing on televisions or projectors announced, so you are just blindly speculating, something you have made a whole career doing on this forum.


Anyhow, I've said my piece on this, and since it will take a few years for this to become obvious, there's little more to argue about here.

Good, now I hope you will actually educate yourself on this issue before writing another thing. You uniformed comments are getting to be quite a bore.

[pixelthis]

I believe you said that cost was also an issue with Blu ray, and you were wrong on that account as well. Cost proved to be a non issue, as folks will buy whatever they want(and sacrifice to get it). The rest is just your opinion, you are entitled to it, and I am entitled to dismiss it as well. Your comments on 3D are just more tripe from you, as you were wrong on price before, and are probably wrong again.



You are wrong again. OLED is not as off the table as you think. Sony cannot use the 11" model for any of their upcoming plans, so they are taking the 11" $2,500 OLED off the market IN JAPAN, not the rest of the world. They are continuing R&D on OLED, but until they can get it to sizes more useful for 3D and/or 4K, they are not going to sell it in Japan. It is not that it is too expensive of a technology, it is too expensive to offer a 11" $2500 dollar television set to compete with a $2500 55" LCD.



I do not believe I mentioned any rates, and neither has Wooch, so I do not know what the hell you are talking about. Nobody knows how much it will cost to get into 3D Blu ray, there has been only one 3D product price that has been announced, and that was a $300 Blu ray player, which has a cost on par with quite a few non 3D Blu ray players. There has been no pricing on televisions or projectors announced, so you are just blindly speculating, something you have made a whole career doing on this forum.



Good, now I hope you will actually educate yourself on this issue before writing another thing. You uniformed comments are getting to be quite a bore.


As opposed to your uneducated comments.
An expensive new tech in the worst downturn since the great depression?
That is the major reason for OLEDS (hopefully) delay.
And 3D being a DUD.
LCD works, provides great performance, why replace it?
I know some still pine for the days of CRT, but for now LCD is it.
(PLASMA has one foot in the grave, another on the banana peel):1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As opposed to your uneducated comments.
An expensive new tech in the worst downturn since the great depression?
That is the major reason for OLEDS (hopefully) delay.
And 3D being a DUD.
LCD works, provides great performance, why replace it?
I know some still pine for the days of CRT, but for now LCD is it.
(PLASMA has one foot in the grave, another on the banana peel):1:

Pix, I have more AV education in my thumb than you do in your entire empty head, so you are the last person on this board who needs to even mention uneducated to anyone.

Blu ray was an expensive new tech that has prospered in this downturn, have you forgotten so quickly. Even expensive DVD prospered through the economic downturn of 2000-2003. With every new technology there have been idiotic poopbutts like you and nightidiot ready to talk them down for various reasons.

When sound came to films idiots like you said it is just a gimmick. Now we are at 7.1 surround.

When color came, the same idiots said it was just a gimmick. Now black and white television has all but disappeard.

When IMAX came online, naysayers said it would go the way of Cinerama. Now they have thousands of IMAX theaters all over the world.

Then the naysayers on VHS and beta, then DVD, then HD DVD and Blu ray, and now 3D.

Each time the naysayers had to eat cheese - do you prefer sharp cheddar or mild?

[Woochifer]

That was CES. The problem with OLED is still that it is too expensive. My point being that cost and this economy figured high on my reasons why I expect 3D to be a niche technology - fun for impressing the neighbors and the occasional wow-factor, but hardly something people are going to use regularly or that will be commonplace in most households.

Yeah, and the demo at CES proves that Sony hasn't "put on the brakes" on OLED development as you claim.

3D is just now coming onto the market and you're already relegating it to niche status? You obviously haven't been paying attention to what happens in the home theater market when new widely adopted technologies get introduced.

People like you said the exact same thing when Dolby Surround was first introduced (during a recession BTW), when 5.1 DD and DTS hit the market, when the DVD came out, when HDTVs first came out, when flat screen TVs first hit the market, when 1080p first came out, etc. Notice a trend here? All of them were initially marketed to early adopters that are willing to pay more to get the latest and greatest, and eventually made their way into the mass market, and then onwards to commodity status.

3D is on the exactly same trajectory. The format itself is nothing more than an extension to the widely adopted MPEG-4 AVC format. Broadcasters are already prepping 3D feeds. 3D Blu-ray releases have already been announced, and 3D releases do not require a dual inventory because the 2D and 3D versions will be on the same disc. The industry is moving forward, the studios are moving forward. 3D is going to become a standard simply because it's an evolutionary extension of existing technologies. There is no technological dead end since 3D-capable Blu-ray players, set top boxes, and HDTVs will still display 2D content just fine. The only question now is how rapidly the 3D feature will make its way into the mass market price points.

OLED's barely on the market and you're already whining about pricing. If you or anyone else thinks it's too expensive now, or when the practical sized sets begin coming out, you always have the option of sitting things out and waiting for prices to come down. After all, isn't that what you did before buying your HDTV?


You both disagree with me on that, and we'll just have to wait and see. But I do recall that one of you was talking about OLED being one platform for 3D that was getting some interest (like at CES). Now it does seem like that won't happen because OLED technology is too expensive.

ANY TV technology can be a platform for 3D. Why do you think the 3D demos at CES used plasma, LCD, and OLED sets?


CES is nice & fun, but ultimately it's just like an auto show, lots of excitement over proof-of-concept ideas being made into tangible products, but few of those survive all the way to market viability.

Have you actually been to an auto show, or CES for that matter? Doesn't sound like it. Those concept cars you speak of typically make up very little of what's on display at an auto show. Like an auto show, the vast majority of the product demonstrated at CES is either already on sale, or ready or close to ready for production.


If 3D can hold on until the economy's few growing sectors can trickle down to most consumers, it might fly.

Tell me how 3D would go down in flames, given that TV sales have been increasing even during these recessionary conditions? Product development doesn't stop just because of an economic downturn. I mean, are smartphone makers supposed to stop developing new features and new platforms because we're in a recession?


Right now, the average consumer can't buy into it at the rates that you two suggest.

As already mentioned by T, you're now outright lying given that neither of us said anything about "rates" that people would buy them at. New formats are always high margin, low volume products. If average consumers cannot afford it, they will wait things out until they can. 3D is no different than the DVD, CD, VCR, HDTV, 5.1 surround sound, or any other home theater advance that has come onto the market over the last 20 years.


From an economic perspective, the success of 3D in a few movie theaters is a totally different thing than having it in most people's homes.

From an "economic perspective" the success of 3D is exactly what has spurred on the development of 3D for the home market. If 3D had bombed out at the box office, do you really think that we'd be seeing all of this development activity for the home market?

In surveys and actual box office returns, consumers now consistently choose the 3D option when given a choice, even though the 3D ticket usually costs more. I don't know why you continually think there's some disconnect between consumer behavior and market demand (i.e., growing sales for large HDTVs = less demand for large screens; and Blu-ray sales growing at 4X the rate for digital distribution = downloading is taking over). If the new 3D technology was nothing more than a gimmick like the old blue/red glasses, the box office returns on 3D screenings would have faded out a long time ago. Instead, 3D ticket sales have increased at a higher rate than the number of available screens. Audiences have already voted with their wallets, so I don't see why you think 3D demand in theaters does not translate to home use.

In much the same way that color, stereo, HD, and flat panel TV technologies are now in the majority of homes, 3D will make its way into homes by the same process of attrition. The average consumer buys a TV once every five years, and a 3D-capable TV does not preclude its use for 2D viewing.

Consumers all have their price points, and at some juncture the price on 3D sets will hit the point within the budget of the vast majority of the market. That pricing scale and attrition process is why nearly all TVs sold are now HD, and that's why the average screen size for TVs purchased keeps increasing. Given a choice between a 3D capable and a 2D TV within the same budget range, past precedent and current indicators show that most buyers would go with the 3D capability.

[nightflier]

3D is no different than the DVD, CD, VCR, HDTV, 5.1 surround sound, or any other home theater advance that has come onto the market over the last 20 years.

Yes it is. Just as Pixel has been repeating to you ad infinitum: unlike DVD, CD, VCR, HDTV, etc., which were all new technologies, 3D has been around for so long that it has come and gone many times. The "gone" part is what I need you two to focus on, here - it will ebb again. Sure it will be there and it might even stay around a little more, but it will still be a niche - nice to one-up the neighbors for the BMW crowd, but little more than that.

The main problem with 3D is that it's just not as convenient, easy or pleasant as 2D for everyday use. It's an encumbrance and that is something you two just don't seem to get. It's simply not something that will reach the market saturation you think it will, for this reason as well as all the reasons I already mentioned. Just because lil't can afford to upgrade all his viewing rooms to 3D, and he wishes to god that this technology lands in every home, it still won't make it so.

[Woochifer]

Yes it is. Just as Pixel has been repeating to you ad infinitum: unlike DVD, CD, VCR, HDTV, etc., which were all new technologies, 3D has been around for so long that it has come and gone many times. The "gone" part is what I need you two to focus on, here - it will ebb again. Sure it will be there and it might even stay around a little more, but it will still be a niche - nice to one-up the neighbors for the BMW crowd, but little more than that.

And if you actually read my earlier post, you'd know that we're already in the 5th year of the current 3D revival, and the 3D share of ticket sales continues to increase. None of the previous 3D fads lasted past the second year, none of them produced the box office returns we're seeing now, and none of them benefited from the technological and artistic advances that the current 3D approaches have produced. In previous 3D fads, audiences went to a 3D movie out of curiosity, saw a few things jump out of the screen, got a headache, and then never went back. The fact that audiences who now watch 3D movies have continued to choose 3D screenings repeatedly indicates a much more permanent trend this time around.

Your comment about "the BMW crowd" is oh-so typically ignorant of how every advance in the home theater market has progressed. HDTV, Dolby Digital, flat panels, etc. were all once derided by the holier-than-thou crowd as overpriced status symbols. Yet, every one of those technologies are now mass market standards. There's no market impediment to the same level of acceptance for 3D. And we're not even on the subject of 3D broadcasting, where three channels have already been announced even before the first 3D TVs go on sale.

ESPN has been running closed circuit 3D production tests on some of their events (i.e., using 3D cameras for simultaneous 2D and 3D live feeds), and they are convinced that sports will be the killer app for 3D, in much the same way that it was for big screen TVs and HD. They have already committed to producing the World Cup coverage and 85 other events using 3D cameras, and will debut their 3D channel in June. ESPN commands by far the highest carriage fees in the industry (~$4 a month from every cable and satellite subscriber in America) and they're probably the only channel out there that cable companies absolutely must carry or else risk losing most of their subscribers. I don't think ESPN would launch this kind of venture if they didn't see huge audience potential.

On top of this, Directv has already indicated that most of their HD boxes can be upgraded for 3D (presumably via automatic software update). With the first 3D TVs going on sale within the next couple of months, if Directv gets their HD boxes upgraded for 3D MVC decoding, the World Cup on ESPN 3D suddenly has a significant built in audience. If you don't think sports drives TV purchases, consider that the week before the Super Bowl is the single busiest week of the year.


The main problem with 3D is that it's just not as convenient, easy or pleasant as 2D for everyday use. It's an encumbrance and that is something you two just don't seem to get. It's simply not something that will reach the market saturation you think it will, for this reason as well as all the reasons I already mentioned. Just because lil't can afford to upgrade all his viewing rooms to 3D, and he wishes to god that this technology lands in every home, it still won't make it so.

As usual, you're fomenting the false argument that early adopter pricing lasts forever. In much the same way that HD resolution and flat panel form factors eventually reached mass market price points (and wiped out SD TVs, RPTVs and CRTs along the way), the same thing will happen with 3D. And if anything, it will happen faster with 3D because all that's required is a modification of the video processing unit to decode the MPEG-4 MVC extension, and a TV that can natively display at 120 Hz.

If past is prologue, then the 3D MVC extension will be built into most of the new video processing chips by this time next year, since the manufacturers are already MPEG-4 licensees and MPEG-4 does not require royalty payments for end users. And given that HDTVs were already heading in the direction of 120 Hz display rates, all that's needed is the updated processing unit and a pair of glasses. Not exactly a high hurdle.

Once the 3D TVs get close to price parity with non-3D TVs, consumers will choose the 3D sets. It's that simple. That's why you can no longer find new HT receivers without DTS, why you don't see new DVD players without HDMI outputs, why you no longer see SD flat panel TVs -- because once the more fully featured/higher resolution options went below a certain price point, those other options became noncompetitive, especially if those products are backwards compatible (which 3D TVs will be) and have the support of the industry (which 3D has). The only question is not if but when this will happen.

And just because YOU think 3D isn't pleasant or convenient doesn't mean that others will go along with you. The box office numbers clearly demonstrate a demand and a market trend that you'd rather ignore, since it short circuits all of your biased presumptions.

[pixelthis]

Yes it is. Just as Pixel has been repeating to you ad infinitum: unlike DVD, CD, VCR, HDTV, etc., which were all new technologies, 3D has been around for so long that it has come and gone many times. The "gone" part is what I need you two to focus on, here - it will ebb again. Sure it will be there and it might even stay around a little more, but it will still be a niche - nice to one-up the neighbors for the BMW crowd, but little more than that.

The main problem with 3D is that it's just not as convenient, easy or pleasant as 2D for everyday use. It's an encumbrance and that is something you two just don't seem to get. It's simply not something that will reach the market saturation you think it will, for this reason as well as all the reasons I already mentioned. Just because lil't can afford to upgrade all his viewing rooms to 3D, and he wishes to god that this technology lands in every home, it still won't make it so.

Thats what gets me about this whole 3D effort.
There is a form of 3D that doesnt require glasses, but the effect is more slight.
Of course it would be better for everyday TV watching, so of course they are going
with the kind that requires glasses.
Cameron should have made TITANIC in 3D instead of Avatar.
Would have been a better fit.:1: