Is 3-D TV Doomed?

[Smokey]

Sorry, but this is just a dumb click trolling type of topic.

PCworld used the same topic headline

Is 3D TV Doomed? | PCWorld

I really think the article was about the current state of 3D on the market. As you also mentioned in your post, as to whether cosumers are willing to pay ~$100-$300 extra for the 3D feature--so far the answer has been no.

Looking at future and not withstanding the glasses issue, IMO two main things about nature of 3D will prevent it ffrom being a main attraction feature on new a TV. The first majore issue will be the viewer need to concentrade on screen to see effect of 3d, and that will cause eye strain whether wearing glasses or not.

The second issue is that home viewers tend to drift in and out of watching a program on TV, or watching TV laying on the couch, or with large grioup of family members or friends which tend to be off viewing axis. So 3D will be more of gagdet than reguraly used TV feature.

[Woochifer]

PCworld used the same topic headline

Is 3D TV Doomed? | PCWorld

And all to the same ends -- click trolling. As I stated already, this is an idiotic topic because how can something be "doomed" when it's already well on its way to becoming a standard feature? I understand that rationality and logic don't attract page views, but the stuff being written up about 3D is ill informed even by the already low standards of the tech press.

IMO, 3D is analogous to how the industry adopted DTS. It's a new feature that gets added onto an existing standard. At first, it was considered a premium feature that only came with high end Laserdisc and DVD players, and audio processors. The initial DTS DVDs were separate releases. Eventually, DTS was added onto all of the new audio processor chips, despite less than 20% of all DVD releases including DTS tracks. Ubiquitous hardware and niche programming -- pretty much the same place that 3D is headed.

I really think the article was about the current state of 3D on the market. As you also mentioned in your post, as to whether cosumers are willing to pay ~$100-$300 extra for the 3D feature--so far the answer has been no.

The article was also a bunch of sensationalized BS, based on not much more than the mindless speculation of a blogger with a long history of getting things wrong and just plain making stuff up to feed his rants.

Looking at future and not withstanding the glasses issue, IMO two main things about nature of 3D will prevent it ffrom being a main attraction feature on new a TV. The first majore issue will be the viewer need to concentrade on screen to see effect of 3d, and that will cause eye strain whether wearing glasses or not.

The second issue is that home viewers tend to drift in and out of watching a program on TV, or watching TV laying on the couch, or with large grioup of family members or friends which tend to be off viewing axis.

But, again how does this mean that 3D is "doomed"? We're not even in a situation yet where 2D and 3D are at cost parity, and audiences can choose one or the other, without cost as a consideration. When something becomes a standard feature, it becomes virtually mandatory for manufacturers to include it at the risk of losing sales.

Using the logic of these articles, HD was "doomed" because it required the purchase of a new TV and had limited programming choices for many years after its introduction. DTS was "doomed" because less than 20% of all DVD released included a DTS soundtrack. The list goes on.

So 3D will be more of gagdet than reguraly used TV feature.

But, you're just speculating here, not knowing the effect that glasses-free 3D TVs will have once they hit the mass market, and not knowing the effect that growth in 3D programs will have on viewing habits.

And by "regularly used," what % of viewing time are you talking about? 3D comprises about 20% of overall movie theater box office revenues. If that translates to TV viewing, does that not qualify as "regularly used"?

A decade ago, plenty of comments said the exact same thing about HD TV -- how it was a gimmick, how it would remain a niche product, how it wouldn't take off due to lack of HD programming, how slow sales were "dooming" HD, etc. A lot of tech writers got it wrong on HD, and the articles being written now about 3D are recycling the same talking points.

[Smokey]

Using the logic of these articles, HD was "doomed" because it required the purchase of a new TV and had limited programming choices for many years after its introduction. DTS was "doomed" because less than 20% of all DVD released included a DTS soundtrack. The list goes on.

That might be comparing apple and oranges. DTS is superiour to Dolby due to higher bit, but one can not say 3D is superiour than 2D in terms of viewing enjoyment. It might look cool the first few minutes, and then the effects will wear off as the home viewer get tired of concentrating on screen to see where the next effect will come from as they have much shorter attention span than theater viewers.

But, you're just speculating here, not knowing the effect that glasses-free 3D TVs will have once they hit the mass market, and not knowing the effect that growth in 3D programs will have on viewing habit.

I really think at this point all us are speculating about 3D

A decade ago, plenty of comments said the exact same thing about HD TV -- how it was a gimmick, how it would remain a niche product, how it wouldn't take off due to lack of HD programming, how slow sales were "dooming" HD, etc. A lot of tech writers got it wrong on HD, and the articles being written now about 3D are recycling the same talking points.

This might be speculating in your part. I don't think I ever read an article that said HD was a gimmick or it will fail. Most seem to indicate that it was way over due.

The photo caption on the NY Post article does refers to HD as a "gimmick.", so we call the editor a dumb ass

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That might be comparing apple and oranges. DTS is superiour to Dolby due to higher bit, but one can not say 3D is superiour than 2D in terms of viewing enjoyment. It might look cool the first few minutes, and then the effects will wear off as the home viewer get tired of concentrating on screen to see where the next effect will come from as they have much shorter attention span than theater viewers.

Well, this is not entirely correct. With 3D today, you are constantly immersed in visuals. It is not a moment by moment event. While some may tire of watching it after a while( those with eye issues), you stop thinking that you are looking at the 3D, and just enjoy the view.

DTS is not superior because of the bit rate. It is the encoders goal that makes it superior. The goal of the Dolby encoder was to throw away as much data as you can without degrading the audio to distortion(efficiency first, sonics second). DTS encoders goal was to keep as much data as you can, and keep the audio quality as high as you can[audio quality first, data reduction second). The higher bitrate helped the encoder achieve that goal.

I really think at this point all us are speculating about 3D

This I agree with.

This might be speculating in your part. I don't think I ever read an article that said HD was a gimmick or it will fail. Most seem to indicate that it was way over due.

The photo caption on the NY Post article does refers to HD as a "gimmick.", so we call the editor a dumb ass

LOLOL!! Wooch is right. When HD was rolled out, everyone said it was a gimmick that would ultimately fail. They also said that HD DVD would win, and streaming would render the physical disc obsolete. None of these panned out to be true, so I think we should just wait until all of this plays out.

[Smokey]

None of these panned out to be true, so I think we should just wait until all of this plays out.

This is probably the best advice as predictions do go wary. But it is always fun to speculate

I only wish manufactures instead of introducing new feature would prioritize to improve their current flat panel technology (especilly Edge LED LCDs), or push for better display technology (such as OLED)

[Woochifer]

That might be comparing apple and oranges. DTS is superiour to Dolby due to higher bit, but one can not say 3D is superiour than 2D in terms of viewing enjoyment. It might look cool the first few minutes, and then the effects will wear off as the home viewer get tired of concentrating on screen to see where the next effect will come from as they have much shorter attention span than theater viewers.

No, what you're talking about is the apples to oranges comparison, since you're simply presuming your personal biases take precedence over historical patterns of format adoption.

I chose the DTS example without saying anything about its presumed superiority -- only that it was introduced as an enhancement to existing standards and became widely adopted as the feature got added at the commodity component level.

You're basically claiming that 3D is "doomed" because you don't like it. Your presumption about how 3D "might look cool the first few minutes" and how "the home view get tired of concentrating on screen" is irrelevant, since (aside from being a broad and unsubstantiated claim) it has no bearing on the fact that the 3D MPEG-4 MVC standard has rapidly become standard issue with the latest video processors. It's only a matter of time before every new video source and display component will have some level of MVC support built in. The only question will be how it gets implemented.

This might be speculating in your part. I don't think I ever read an article that said HD was a gimmick or it will fail. Most seem to indicate that it was way over due.

It's not speculation. There were plenty of articles and posts on this forum that I recall reading about how HD was a gimmick and a failure. All the while, the authors of those articles were every bit as ignorant of what was going on behind the scenes with digital video standards and the component markets.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Smoke,
I have to agree with Wooch on this. The manufacturing infrastructure of 3D is developed, and already improved upon. In every area of 3D from the glasses(passive and active), to the television(and everything in between), from post production to video and broadcast, they are already working on how to improve it in every way.

The studio side is a different story. They need to change their focus from releasing everything in 3D, to making 3D a special event. It is apparent that the consumer is reaching a tipping point. It has now settled into a consistent 60-40 ratio with 2D versus 3D, so 3D is beyond the gimmick stage, and shows no sign of failure. What is certain on the studio side is 3D is not the success they wanted it to be. One thing is for sure, certain studios are doing better with their 3D releases than others, so this may not be an industry wide trend, but just a reflection on how the studio is handling their 3D releases. Bad post production 3D will get panned and not do well on the market. Good 3D, story, and overall experience will make money.

One thing is certain, the studios and the consumer electronics industry really made a goof up on this one. In this economic climate, you cannot charge a hefty premium, and expect folks with little or no money to buy it up. This was the right technology released at the wrong time.

[Woochifer]

Smoke,
I have to agree with Wooch on this. The manufacturing infrastructure of 3D is developed, and already improved upon. In every area of 3D from the glasses(passive and active), to the television(and everything in between), from post production to video and broadcast, they are already working on how to improve it in every way.

The studio side is a different story. They need to change their focus from releasing everything in 3D, to making 3D a special event. It is apparent that the consumer is reaching a tipping point. It has now settled into a consistent 60-40 ratio with 2D versus 3D, so 3D is beyond the gimmick stage, and shows no sign of failure. What is certain on the studio side is 3D is not the success they wanted it to be. One thing is for sure, certain studios are doing better with their 3D releases than others, so this may not be an industry wide trend, but just a reflection on how the studio is handling their 3D releases. Bad post production 3D will get panned and not do well on the market. Good 3D, story, and overall experience will make money.

One thing is certain, the studios and the consumer electronics industry really made a goof up on this one. In this economic climate, you cannot charge a hefty premium, and expect folks with little or no money to buy it up. This was the right technology released at the wrong time.

I think the 60-40 split is more an outcome of the fact that 3D screenings continue to charge higher ticket prices than the 2D screenings. I think that if consumers are given a choice between 3D and 2D, more of them would opt for 3D if the ticket prices were the same or closer than they are right now.

I see this as no different than when 70mm and six-channel "stereophonic" sound were initially pitched as roadshow events, and eventually settled into neighborhood movie theaters. Granted, not every theater equipped for 70mm projection received 70mm prints on a regular basis. But, once 70mm went beyond the roadshow stage with reserved seating and higher ticket prices, it became relatively just another enhancement.

A better example is probably Dolby Stereo, THX, and digital sound. Those enhancements changed how people experienced movies, but theaters did not charge extra for those screenings with the enhanced sound. I see 3D heading in that direction by necessity.