ekkieTHUMP Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D is dead in the water.All you posters pontificating on how great it's going to be show me some sales figures to back it up.No i'm not talking about hardware sales for tv's i'm talking about some sales figures for software that prove there is any interest whatsoever for a 3D product that will challenge the sales of it's 2D cousin.What was the rating figures on people who watched the world cup final in 3D verses those that watched it in 2D?I'm pretty sure you will find the 3D audience was so miniscule that the money spent on the broadcast was unrecoverable in revenue.If 3D was a horse i would rate it about a 500/1 chance atm.
Overlytaxed Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D is dead in the water. Consumers have emphatically voted with their wallets. Massive waiting periods across both types of panels and across all sizes. Unprecedented demand! The war is over, 3D has won. Why on earth would you choose to ignore hardware sales, amazing. I don't have access to sales figures but would hazard a guess that the majority if not all 3DTV owners would purchase a 3D bluray movie instead of the 2D version. The scales will eventually tip in favor of 3D, it will take time though. Eg. A friend visited my house the other day, naturally I showed him the 3D capabilities of my set. He was astounded and in awe of it. Interestingly enough, he was under the impression that 3D tv in the household was comprised of the cardboard glasses with the red & blue plastic lenses! This isn't some backwards type of person, he has a double degree and works in a distinguished position. My point being, as soon as the public is better educated about 3d and actually experience it, the ground swell will increase even further. What was the rating figures on people who watched the world cup final in 3D verses those that watched it in 2D?I'm pretty sure you will find the 3D audience was so miniscule Ahhh, that's because the actual owners of 3D tv's is minuscule compared to owners of regular antiquated tv's Fairly self explanatory I would think. .If 3D was a horse i would rate it about a 500/1 chance atm. Get onto it ekkie. Safer than money in a bank Cheers
dcw Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D is dead in the water. Just when I thought the nay-sayers had gone quiet! Welcome back!
Owen Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Most computer users don’t play games let alone ones that need high power video cards but consoles could push the market. With the 3D free to air trial ending in a few days it’s probably going to be years before we see any more content on free to air, and since there is bugger all content I cant see much point in a 3D TV at this point in time.
Overlytaxed Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Which one? The war to win the hearts & minds(& wallets)of consumers.
shags38 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D is dead in the water.All you posters pontificating on how great it's going to be show me some sales figures to back it up.No i'm not talking about hardware sales for tv's i'm talking about some sales figures for software that prove there is any interest whatsoever for a 3D product that will challenge the sales of it's 2D cousin.What was the rating figures on people who watched the world cup final in 3D verses those that watched it in 2D?I'm pretty sure you will find the 3D audience was so miniscule that the money spent on the broadcast was unrecoverable in revenue.If 3D was a horse i would rate it about a 500/1 chance atm. Ekkie - you mention horses - when you take the blinkers off you may see the forest beyond the trees - . I'm not sure how old you are but I remember the very first, very first mobile phone - the Motorola "brick" as it was effectionately named - big, heavy, useless coverage, 23 minute talk time - I was one of many that said mobile phones would not catch on Telstra invested mega millions in developing a mobile network over the years. 3D is new however much, much smarter and better informed people than you and me are investing BILLIONS, MULTI-BILLIONS of dollars in 3D Home entertainment products and indeed things like 3D Computers, 3D Cameras and 3D Mobile Phones - all of which will begin to appear next year. 3D at present is like the Motorola brick was back in about 1982 (or thereabouts) - so I will take your 500-1 odds - how many of the younger set will NOT buy a mobile phone with a 3D Screen? cheers, Mike
shags38 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Consumers have emphatically voted with their wallets. Massive waiting periods across both types of panels and across all sizes. Unprecedented demand! The war is over, 3D has won. Why on earth would you choose to ignore hardware sales, amazing. I don't have access to sales figures but would hazard a guess that the majority if not all 3DTV owners would purchase a 3D bluray movie instead of the 2D version. The scales will eventually tip in favor of 3D, it will take time though. Eg. A friend visited my house the other day, naturally I showed him the 3D capabilities of my set. He was astounded and in awe of it. Interestingly enough, he was under the impression that 3D tv in the household was comprised of the cardboard glasses with the red & blue plastic lenses! This isn't some backwards type of person, he has a double degree and works in a distinguished position. My point being, as soon as the public is better educated about 3d and actually experience it, the ground swell will increase even further.Ahhh, that's because the actual owners of 3D tv's is minuscule compared to owners of regular antiquated tv's Fairly self explanatory I would think. Get onto it ekkie. Safer than money in a bank Cheers I agree with your sentiments overlytaxed - lets scrape together a lazy grand and take ekkies odds - kidding, everyone is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong In terms of technological age, 3D (for home entertainment) has only just exited the womb - give it time to grow. Of course 3D itself, in a pure sense, is far from new - the technology has been around for years and is used in high level scientific equipment etc - it is only of recent years that it has taken a different direction towards consumer products. 3D is really a great subject for discussion. cheers,
shags38 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D is dead in the water.All you posters pontificating on how great it's going to be show me some sales figures to back it up.No i'm not talking about hardware sales for tv's i'm talking about some sales figures for software that prove there is any interest whatsoever for a 3D product that will challenge the sales of it's 2D cousin.What was the rating figures on people who watched the world cup final in 3D verses those that watched it in 2D?I'm pretty sure you will find the 3D audience was so miniscule that the money spent on the broadcast was unrecoverable in revenue.If 3D was a horse i would rate it about a 500/1 chance atm. Ekkie - I am back again Now I do not wish to break the orum rules or get myself into trouble with the moderators however maybe take a look at this site which will give you some insight into the depth of consumer products that 3D has / will spawn. http://www.3dfox3d.com cheers,
shags38 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think 3D gaming is going to be the big winner in the near future either on games consoles for the TV or Computer.Everybody who has tried 3D gaming seems to blown away by it for a much more immersive experience. I agree with you MWD (not that your self esteem needed me to tell you that ) - 3D Gaming will be HUGE!!!! - and for the reason you mentioned, the viewer can become more immersed. Just wait till 3D Computers are readily available and then watch the explosion of 3D PC games. cheers, Mike
ekkieTHUMP Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) Ekkie - you mention horses - when you take the blinkers off you may see the forest beyond the trees - . I'm not sure how old you are but I remember the very first, very first mobile phone - the Motorola "brick" as it was effectionately named - big, heavy, useless coverage, 23 minute talk time - I was one of many that said mobile phones would not catch on Telstra invested mega millions in developing a mobile network over the years. 3D is new however much, much smarter and better informed people than you and me are investing BILLIONS, MULTI-BILLIONS of dollars in 3D Home entertainment products and indeed things like 3D Computers, 3D Cameras and 3D Mobile Phones - all of which will begin to appear next year.3D at present is like the Motorola brick was back in about 1982 (or thereabouts) - so I will take your 500-1 odds - how many of the younger set will NOT buy a mobile phone with a 3D Screen? cheers, Mike Interesting that you compare 3D with the mobile phone.I don't see how the two compare as the mobile phone can be sold to the customer at a loss and they can still make a fortune off you in the content.It doesn't matter how good or bad any hardware is it's the after market dollars where the issue is decided.There is serious lack of anything to sell in content with 3D that right minded people should think about before making silly investments. Edited July 14, 2010 by ekkieTHUMP
Guest Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Interesting that you compare 3D with the mobile phone.I don't see how the two compare as the mobile phone can be sold to the customer at a loss and they can still make a fortune off you in the content.It doesn't matter how good or bad any hardware is it's the after market dollars where the issue is decided.There is serious lack of anything to sell in content with 3D that right minded people should think about before making silly investments. I don't remember back in '94 when I got my first mobile phone, that they had any deals like they do now. But that's the point others are making I think. Anyway, I've got a great 2D tv which happens to do 3D as well - no more needs to be said.
Tweedledum Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I wave my magic wand and send you all back, way back, back to the beginning of time, back before computers for the proletariat,(with massive 4K memory, no hard drives), back to the very first gizmo that got the tech hungry rat race in a tizzy of magnitude nine on the Richter scale, back before mobile phones were dreamed of, back to the 40's when Dick Tracy wore that first wrist radio communicator............but that was just gossip......not even a feasible idea with the then current valve radio technology....but to take you back to the very threshhold of technophobia I give you the pocket calculator....bursting into the retail outlets in 1972, and when I was in UK at that time the very first one to hit the scene was as big as an A4 book, complete with + - / X, no square roots, no memory save and costing then 250 pounds sterling, or 10 weeks wages for a skilled engineering worker. The sum of that fear is that the 3D explosion will create another second hand market stockpile of HD LCD TV sets piled high on the CRT TV sets, piled high on the Video recorders, piled high on the cassette tape decks, piled high on the open reel tape decks, piled high on the record players also piled high on the vinyl record collections of long dead classical music buffs who also piled high their wind up gramophones when the electric ones arrived. The fact is they can make it, whatever it is you can dream of, and when it takes off, the much treasured old tech stuff gets put out to Cash Converters et al for pennies. Five years ago I bought a 32" Teac CRT TV for $1000 and twisted the mans arm to get a DVD player for an extra $100, now the DVD player is rotting in the back of the cupboard and the TV is going down to Savers for whoever will have it. How much can you get for a second hand two year old 42" plasma TV now? It was about $6000 a couple of years ago, my neighbour bought one with a housing asset loan. They say the most gold "mined" in UK is produced from mobile phone scrap. One things for sure, taking the HD/Blu Ray scenario as an example, if you spend megabucks on 3D now, when the industry decides the eventual format many will be piling the current stuff on the nature strips, just hope the software can keep up with the hardware this time. Ian.
Guest Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I wave my magic ...... One things for sure, taking the HD/Blu Ray scenario as an example, if you spend megabucks on 3D now, when the industry decides the eventual format many will be piling the current stuff on the nature strips, just hope the software can keep up with the hardware this time. Ian. I'm not sure if you hate it or just have a lot of junk lying around. For what it's worth I paid half for a 58" 3D tv than what I paid for a 51" SD tv ten years ago... And that old set's still happily being used by someone else now. I've also never owned a DVD player (or anything better) until this week when I got my free bluray gift from Samsung. Perhaps you're waiting for smellovision? Personally, I think I'll stick to just 2D (and all the content available) with the option of also buying 3D when it arrives and interests me. Geez, I remember being genuinely excited about seeing Blah Blah Blah in 3D back in the 80's - why would anyone want to take that excitement away from anyone else?
GSpot Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 The war to win the hearts & minds(& wallets)of consumers. Until they find out about compatibility issues the hard way.
Owen Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 By the time 3D has a significant amount of “good” content the hardware may have changed significantly. The analogy with an old mobile phone seems odd to me. The old mobile was just as useful back in the day as any mobile is now; the only real difference is cost. If you buy a 3D TV now what the hell are you going to view on it for the next year or two? Obviously if you are in the market for a new TV buying 3D model is a viable option but there is not exactly a lot of incentive to dump you current HD TV just to buy a new 3D model. Take up rate will be relatively slow and probably dominated by people who play console games.
Tweedledum Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 By the time 3D has a significant amount of “good” content the hardware may have changed significantly. The analogy with an old mobile phone seems odd to me. The old mobile was just as useful back in the day as any mobile is now; the only real difference is cost. If you buy a 3D TV now what the hell are you going to view on it for the next year or two? Obviously if you are in the market for a new TV buying 3D model is a viable option but there is not exactly a lot of incentive to dump you current HD TV just to buy a new 3D model. Take up rate will be relatively slow and probably dominated by people who play console games. Well, you might be right about NOT tossing out the "old fashioned" 1080p LCD/Plasma 2D TV's now that "they're" raving about 3D TV's, but if the program availability doesn't make the "software selling the hardware" a reality, it's going to take years for the Koreans et al to get their money back just to pay for the research. By that time we'll probably be seeing the latest displays in Hologram TV's......with another pile of old TV technology on the nature strips.....at least with a hologram you wouldn't need to wear special glasses.......the action is right in your lounge room....no display....just a projector of sorts. I can't see the hologram being a reality, all the science fiction/space age movies all show 2D displays on their monitoring devices....so if the future is 2D, by interpretation the 3D display is going to die a natural death....Boo Hoo. Ian.
Guest Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 By the time 3D has a significant amount of “good” content the hardware may have changed significantly. The analogy with an old mobile phone seems odd to me. The old mobile was just as useful back in the day as any mobile is now; the only real difference is cost. If you buy a 3D TV now what the hell are you going to view on it for the next year or two? Obviously if you are in the market for a new TV buying 3D model is a viable option but there is not exactly a lot of incentive to dump you current HD TV just to buy a new 3D model. Take up rate will be relatively slow and probably dominated by people who play console games. Sorry Owen, I can see you're not saying it's a worthless technology that will/should just disappear but I think there's something wrong with one of your comments... The original point, as I understand it, was that mobile phones were not always as useful as they are now. Try and have two 15 minute calls on the phone mentioned, just as I try to watch two different 3D movies at the moment! All I get is one and a few little bits! I'm going to watch plenty of 2D content on my 3D set. Because it's built to a higher spec. than some older (non 3D) HD sets it'll most likely give a better experience too. I've already seen that with the MJC setting - I know that's not unique to 3D tvs but is due to the spec. My new tv is going to be as (more) useful as my last, just like what you said about mobiles. The way some are arguing makes out you can only watch 3D on a 3D tv or that it's the job it'll do most. It's not, and it's not as if it'll sit there for the next two years unused! But I do mostly agree with you. It was cheaper (in my case) given I didn't buy a set in the past 5 years. I think in the $3K I spent, about $600 was the premium I paid over something similar without 3D. But then I got 4 pairs of glasses and a 3D bluray player which I wanted given I didn't have a DVD player. Sure, if you've just bought a HD tv in the past 3~5 years - I'd suggest (as I would do/did myself) you keep it for another 3~5 depending on its quality. People who frequent this forum don't tend to do that though, at least that's the impression I get and I guess that's why so many are commenting negatively given this is a "small thing" they don't have. I think there's a real market out there, of people who are sitting on 8 years and older tvs and who would be quite impressed with what's now available and affordable. I think that's also what movie producers are thinking too, and I really don't know that many people who have a large (>32"!) flat panel tv if one at all. Having this argument about it here is almost pointless though.
Basil1503559642 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 My older Brother has had an interest in 3D since the "Black Lagoon" days in the 1950's and has followed its development closely the last few years and he feels the current technology is just temporary,i may be wrong but i agree,i just can't see it lasting more than a generation or 2 in the TV development cycle.I'm sure 3-D FTA TV is here to stay and i'm also sure they will be able to get depth into a display without glasses and all the associated niggles,its only the time frame that is in doubt.Anyway time will tell.
Guest Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I have my doubts as to if they will be able to dump the glasses within my lifetime. Sure there are screens out now that give 1 person 3D without them, if you have it at just the right distance away and you're centered to it. But I can't see how that will translate to the lounge room. As to how long it'll last in its current form, I don't see why they would (or need to) junk a feature when many of the screens they are using already do what's needed. It's not as if they'll decide the ability to do 200Hz was a big mistake and is not worth the $25 extra it costs them now to add 3D.. but that's the argument if you think about it. The R&D money has alreadly been spent.
Tweedledum Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 My older Brother has had an interest in 3D since the "Black Lagoon" days in the 1950's and has followed its development closely the last few years and he feels the current technology is just temporary,i may be wrong but i agree,i just can't see it lasting more than a generation or 2 in the TV development cycle.I'm sure 3-D FTA TV is here to stay and i'm also sure they will be able to get depth into a display without glasses and all the associated niggles,its only the time frame that is in doubt.Anyway time will tell. I'd like to make a hypothesis here, yeah I know the old joke....my brother made me a homo' etc etc...and if you send him the wood would he'll make you one too......LOL...but if they, whomsoever they may be, made a 46" LCD LED TV 1080P+ retailing for about a grand inc 5 yr in home wrnty, and it displayed 2D normally and just by putting on a pair of synchro glasses you got instant HD 3D ...all channels.....3D coming from the studio transmission signal as opposed to the program origin, I think there would be a definite interest in a pay as you view approach....normal 2D free....3D cost a small monthly subscription by way of a viewing glasses rental, say about $2, 24 month contract etc. Although the studio would be putting out 3D it goes without saying that programs originally in 2D would transmit in 2D with a screen marker to indicate so, like mono records on stereo apparatus. This way if you hate 3D you don't get to watch it...and no special TV screen just to watch 3D, all the present generation of 2D screens would work. This would mean you could also watch 3D on a projector screen without a special screen. I reckon if the display showed 24 frames/second for each screen output that would give you 48 frames/second for normal 2D viewing or 24/second for 3D......is that too simple? The glasses could be synchroed to the screen output by an infrared transmission signals from the TV, much simpler than between frame coding, whatever. That way the whole family gets to watch TV in whatever format they prefer. Foxtel would of course be offering 3D for an extra subscription charge, with 90% of the transmissions (repeats of the repeats and golden oldies) in 2D as normal, only the newest content, the adverts and infomercials, woud be in HD 3D....LOL In the days before stereo sound, mono records and AM radio signals were accepted as normal and with the arrival of FM and stereo and then 5.1 surround sound, the stereo format is now normal, and listenable on mono radios etc, and I expect one day we'll get 5.1 FM transmissions as normal too now that digital radio is gaining ground, slowly but getting there. Ian.
MLXXX Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) This way if you hate 3D you don't get to watch it...and no special TV screen just to watch 3D, all the present generation of 2D screens would work.This would mean you could also watch 3D on a projector screen without a special screen. I reckon if the display showed 24 frames/second for each screen output that would give you 48 frames/second for normal 2D viewing or 24/second for 3D......is that too simple? Nice idea. Unfortunately it is too simple. Too much flicker! And problems for viewing in 2D, if I've correctly understood your idea. 3D TVs for shutter glasses, and 3D projectors at the cinema that rely on alternating polarization, alternate the left and right images at a multiple of the frame rate.* Existing 2D high definition TVs in Australia can receive 50 unique frames a second from a 720p high definition TV broadcast so that would leave one eye blank for 1/50th sec with the shutter system you have outlined. That would be much too flickery for comfort. Although conventional cinema projectors operate at 24fps, each pulled down frame is occluded in the middle of its projection. This has been found desirable for human vision to reduce apparent flicker. A two blade shutter is conventionally used. Light from the projector lamp is blocked by one shutter blade during frame pull down, and the other shutter blade while the frame remains in position.** Also, a 720p TV transmission alternating between Left and Right images would be no good for 2D viewing, as the Left and Right images are from slightly different angles and would create a blurred effect for someone not wearing shutter glasses. Unless you are suggesting a new type of set top box that could be adjusted to ignore every second frame in a 50p transmission for people wishing to view at 25fps in 2D, either all the Left frames, or all the Right frames... Cheers _____________ * RealD cinema uses 144Hz. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema ** A modern mechanical cinema projector may achieve frame pull down in as little as 7.5mS or 1/133th of a second. If a conventional two-blade projector shutter occludes for about a quarter of 1/24th sec per blade, that will be 1/96th sec or 10.4mS. That is a much shorter time than 1/50th sec or 20mS. Edited July 16, 2010 by MLXXX
Owen Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) The original point, as I understand it, was that mobile phones were not always as useful as they are now. Try and have two 15 minute calls on the phone mentioned, just as I try to watch two different 3D movies at the moment! All I get is one and a few little bits! I don't see the relatively short talk time of the old “brick” as the limitation you do. In those days it was common to have extra batteries on hand and a car charger to keep them charged. Call charges where so high you did not want to spend hours on the phone anyway. Previous to the early mobile phones the only mobile communication was via two way radio which had serious limitations. The mobile phones ability to make and receive calls from the normal fixed line phone network and ability to speak and hear simultaneously was a revelation in communication and anyone could see that. The only real drawback was high cost for both hardware and network time, only business and the wealthy could afford a mobile. I fail to see how a 3D TV comes even close to the early mobile phones for usefulness or desirability. Because it's built to a higher spec. than some older (non 3D) HD sets it'll most likely give a better experience too. Good thing you said "some". If 3D did not come for free plus bundled with a BR player and glasses with your Samsung Plasma how much extra would you have been prepared to spend to get 3D over an equivalent 2D model? Samsung's 3D for free marketing strategy is very aggressive and is certainly a change of direction for them, they are obviously desperate for market share and I reckon they will get it. Panasonic must be spewing, they will have to re evaluate their pricing if they want to stay in the Plasma business. Edited July 16, 2010 by Owen
ekkieTHUMP Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) Samsung's 3D for free marketing strategy is very aggressive and is certainly a change of direction for them, they are obviously desperate for market share and I reckon they will get it. Panasonic must be spewing, they will have to re evaluate their pricing if they want to stay in the Plasma business. This gets pretty much to the heart of the issue.3D atm is not about a revolution to the consumer because we don't have a revolution we have Monsters v's Aliens and Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs.It's all about using a marketing tool to gain an advantage over your competition.I had a look at the 3D Samsung plasma and saw no advantage at all over last years Panasonic PQ wise.Throw in the 3D bells and whistles though and they have sold there @rse off. Edited July 16, 2010 by ekkieTHUMP
Guest Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I fail to see how a 3D TV comes even close to the early mobile phones for usefulness or desirability. As you say, not that many "ordinary" people wanted mobiles for the two main reasons you listed... And there were pay phones everywhere. Everywhere! And when you couldn't find one, there was no mobile coverage to be found either. People knew that and they were saying the same things as people are saying here about 3D which is why it was brought up. I think what you're inadvertently doing is using hindsight to argue 3D tv won't become as useful as mobile phones are now / even were 19 years ago, which would be fair to say. It's not really what we were talking about. But I'm happy to go with us just seeing it (limitations) differently with regard to those first curious mobile phones. If 3D did not come for free plus bundled with a BR player and glasses with your Samsung Plasma how much extra would you have been prepared to spend to get 3D over an equivalent 2D model? Hmmm, I may not be the right person to ask. I paid $5K for a top model Panasonic tv 10 years ago, spent ages viewing tvs to see which had the best picture (in my eyes) in my price range, my theory was to buy something that will last while still having a wow factor for as long as possible. I think I did alright, until the last 3 or so years anyway. I may have spent more on 3D than I like to think I would, but I'm not on a short upgrade cycle. Samsung's 3D for free marketing strategy is very aggressive and is certainly a change of direction for them, they are obviously desperate for market share and I reckon they will get it. Panasonic must be spewing, they will have to re evaluate their pricing if they want to stay in the Plasma business. I don't have much experience with Samsung so can't comment on how they were in the past. I do agree with you though, both brands seem to have a quality about them (at least in my sets) and if Panasonic are not competitive, or simply visually superior, they will not sell as many.
Recommended Posts