Sony Intros 3D Blu-ray Player

[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.

[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/televi...ace-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)

[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)

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.