The great 3D TV race, how soon will you get yours?.

Best Buy should already be getting them in...soon they will be everywhere.

Would you consider buying a 2D TV at this point?

At what price do you jump...let`s say 50' TV (common size)...a 2D one sells for $1200...how much more are you happy to spend on a 3D capable one.

Did you recently buy a 2DTV? If so, will you hold off till it dies? Or find a new place for it...(honey..I`ll put it in the laundry room... just for you)

Myself, I`m just too broke right now. But I saw the Sony one...awesome...can`t wait.

Never, 3DTV is a gimmick that's come and gone a few times in the past, and has only once again surfaced now thanks to the Avatar craze. But it's completely the idea of the manufacturers, there aren't any consumers in the middle of a recession willing to shell out extra for yet another new TV format that is optimized for only a handful of movies.

I'm looking forward to the hype dying and manufacturers moving on to improving the current HD formats and ramping up for 2K/4K.

Right on.! I don't watch much TV as is & most programs are pure garbage. No way would I want 3D.

3D gives me headaches. No thanks. :nana:

Badbeams3 said:

Would you consider buying a 2D TV at this point?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. I sold my TV around 1995 and don't miss it at all. Oh wait, that wasn't the point, sorry.

I will wait a couple years for the price to come down, the bugs to be worked out and the quality increased.

Wow, what an enthusiastic crowd .
Bet you guy`s had a fit when the automobile replaced your donkeys

3D movies were big in the 50's and never stayed in vogue. I don't see it becoming big with TV.

My TV is a 20 year old 20" model. When it dies, I'm not sure I'm getting another TV. There is talk of broadcast TV going away. One thing is for sure, I will NOT pay to watch TV.

Badbeams3 said:

Wow, what an enthusiastic crowd .
Bet you guy`s had a fit when the automobile replaced your donkeys

Click to expand...

WTH, they came up with a donkey replacement?

Since I have to buy some new equipment soon I'll get a 3D TV I think. Fall or winter would be a good estimate, then I can see if there are any movies coming out for it and I can check if the technology might survive.
If it won't work out ... it still works in 2D, so no big loss.

Once I'll be cutting edge

And all that for a film every two or three weeks. THAT is madness.

I have yet to see an affordable 3D display technology that really speaks to me. I have no interest in paying extra for something that doesn't work as well. Besides, what does 3D really get me? Not a whole lot yet.

There are several different versions and techs being designed and produced right now, none of them compatable with each other. As of yet there is no standard and noone knows who will win the best version war.

Also, it's questionable whether some of these will look and function as well as a non 3d viewer with non 3d vid's.

I think it's premature to buy something that is so limited unless you are very wealthy and have a 3d TV only room, or unless your willing to shell out for something that does a few things well, and a few other things ok.

I'm no expert on this, this is just what I have gathered from hearing a few discussions on the radio regarding the new tech's.

Also I expect the first few years will have the highest prices and the lowest performance, and it's questionable whether there will even be further years, since if it doesn't take off, very little media will be produced to use it.

Badbeams3 said:

Wow, what an enthusiastic crowd .
Bet you guy`s had a fit when the automobile replaced your donkeys

Click to expand...

It's never a good idea to adopt something in its infancy. I think consumers learned that with the VHS/Betamax fiasco. Not only that, but how much programming is even available in 3D? Heck, despite the changeover to digital broadcast last year, we still have way too much jumping between 4:3 and 16:9 formats, plus HD still is far from universal. I would personally think a good time to phase in 3DTV might be simultaneously with the next jump in HD resolution, whether it's to 1440p or 2160p. I personally think we're a good decade from that happening, if not more. For most people, 1080p or even 720p is a huge jump over SDTV. The pixelation is barely noticeable at any reasonable distance from the screen. The jump to 2160p, whenever it occurs, should take care of that issue.

I think a much larger market for 3D display devices would be gaming. Games natively do all their processing in 3D. It's relatively simply then to just send this data directly to a display device which displays it as such. The thing is, nobody is going to use a 50" monitor for games, so that leaves out selling a monitor which can eventually double as a 3D TV. Not on topic, but I'd love to see much higher resolution monitors, whether 3D or not. The screen door effect is quite noticeable with today's ~0.25mm pixel pitch. We should go to 0.1mm or less.

Badbeams3 said:

Would you consider buying a 2D TV at this point?

Click to expand...

I would. Most content is still shot and edited for it's appearance in 2D. Even if conversion is phenomenal (and I noticed distracting artifacts and effects in Avatar designed for 3D) it doesn't add much to a lot of the content I actually watch.

Here's a clip from a movie I love, Clerks. It's not my favorite scene but my favorites tend to be family unfriendly. :naughty: I have a hard time seeing a 2D to 3D conversion adding much if anything to that scene or the entire movie. It might even take away from it (the indoor scenes in Avatar seemed the most distracting to me.) I'm almost certain it doesn't add enough to make the eyestrain worth it.

At what price do you jump...let`s say 50' TV (common size)...a 2D one sells for $1200...how much more are you happy to spend on a 3D capable one.

Click to expand...

$1200. Well maybe as high as $1250 as insurance for later as more 3D content becomes available.

Bet you guy`s had a fit when the automobile replaced your donkeys

Click to expand...

I did have a fit when they tried colorizing black and white movies and came out with new Coke. Fortunately, in my opinion, both ideas died a painful death. New doesn't always mean improved.

baterija said:

I did have a fit when they tried colorizing black and white movies and came out with new Coke. Fortunately, in my opinion, both ideas died a painful death. New doesn't always mean improved.

Click to expand...

Something to enjoy with your 3DTV..

Those who refuse to embrace the future are condemned to live in the past (but they might have more $$ in the bank).

I think someone famous said that...if not...I just did

I would have thought that CPF`ers would be thrilled...we chase after the latest, brightest light. I think most will change their opinions after they see them.

One of the issues with 3D in general is that it's more "work" to watch it. When you're viewing a flat surface in 2D, your eyes only have to focus on a single plane and they can stay focused there. This is one of the reawsonss why conventional tv is sort of hypnotizing. When you're viewing somerthing in 3D, your eyes and brain are constantly hunting for the focal point so it's a little less passive in terms of the interpretation of the images. In this sense it seems like it's harder to just sit there and "veg out" on a program.

I can see this as a more or less useful novelty for certain types of sports programs, but I wouldn't be inclined to come home and pop on the 3D glasses as a matter of routine viewing.

I'm not a big TV watcher. There's only a few programs other than news that interest me more than radio, reading, or CPF. When I next need a new set I might consider one, but only if it's in the same price range as any average quality TV.

Geoff

I have read and seen on the news that some 3D movies have caused some people to have severe enough headaches to be hospitalized and some to become psychotic. I want a bit more info on that before I jump on that bandwagon.

Badbeams3 said:

Those who refuse to embrace the future are condemned to live in the past (but they might have more $$ in the bank).

I think someone famous said that...if not...I just did

I would have thought that CPF`ers would be thrilled...we chase after the latest, brightest light. I think most will change their opinions after they see them.

Click to expand...

The thing is 3D TV is still a work in progress. It's sort of like HDTV. Any early adoptors got screwed paying $2000 for those first sets ( and they were only 720p plus didn't even have tuners ). Now you can get a reasonably-sized 1080p set for around $500. I think the public has seen this game played out way too many times to be on a hurry to jump on the bandwagon, especially in the middle of a depression/recession/whatever they call it these days. I hate all these idiotic incremental upgrades. Just wait until something is close to as good as its going to get, and then commercially release it.

Also, at this point it isn't a given that 3D TV is actually going to offer a better viewing experience than, let's say, just an increase in resolution to 2160p. If 3D TV is released in conjuction with 2160p, then at least you're definitely getting something more for your money, even if 3D TV dies an early death. It's sort of like the automobile versus donkey argument you made. The auto may have been better than the donkey, but that wasn't what it was largely replacing. Rather, it mostly replaced trains and trolleys. In that role, I could make a good argument that it was a step down, not a step up. In this case, 720p might be your donkey, 1080p 3D TV your automobile, and the eventual 2160p 2D TV your train. 1080p 3D TV is certainly different than 2160p 2D TV, but not necessarily better. The fact that 3DTV makes some people sick even works well with this analogy. I get car sick, so do lots of others, but never get "train sick".