|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3D TV is "dead?" - Hollywood Reporter
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-19-2011 09:06 PM
Is 3D for the Home Dead?
9:44 PM 2/17/2011 by Carolyn Giardina
A group of experts at a technology conference -- where the subject generated little enthusiasm -- seem to think so.
3D for the home is dead, according to a majority of attendees at the Hollywood Post Alliance Tech Retreat now taking place in Palm Springs.
When the subject of 3D came up at the confab, the audience of about 400 entertainment technology veterans were asked to indicate by a show of hands if they thought 3D for the home was dead -- and roughly 80% of the audience agreed with that proposition.
Jerry Pierce, who served as moderator, said: "The audience saw the trends at the [HPA] consumer electronics sessions, which cast doubt about 3D in the home -- with a follow-up punch by the broadcast panel, which didn't have interest in broadcasting 3D. The HPA attendees, using this and their other knowledge, felt 3D for the home was dead."
The broadcasting panel included representatives from ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox -- all of whom spent little time on the subject of 3D.
"When the industry comes up with a backward compatible system and an approach within ATSC standards [the U.S.' DTV standards], and we can produce content in an efficient manner, then you will hear about 3D from us," said panelist Jim DeFilippis of Fox.
On the consumer electronics side, industry pundit Mark Schubin shared some Nielsen research that suggested that consumer interest in 3D in the home actually decreased after survey participants were shown 3DTV. He reviewed additional research that demonstrated limited consumer interest.
Still, informal conversations proved that there was at least a segment of conference attendees who believes there are multiple opportunities for 3D to serve various niche markets in the home. Games, for instance, are viewed as a key opportunity.
3D-ready TVs began to roll out in 2010. The consumer electronics industry has sold 3.3 million 3D ready TVs worldwide, according to recent figures from Screen Digest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 02-20-2011 12:05 PM
For 3D you do need a big screen.
In 3D, objects appear smaller than they actually are. The largest stand alone flat panel 3D sets top out at 65" which in my opinion is too small for 3D.
Rear projection DLP sets are less expensive, larger (Up to 90"!) and DLP is the only technology that can promise absolutely zero crosstalk. DLPs Achilles heel, however is resolution. Most DLP rear projectors checkerboard the left and right images on adjacent pixels, while most front projectors are limited to 720p frame sequential. Further, the underlying synchronization technology, DLP-Link, cannot distinguish weather a frame is intended for the left or right eye. The viewer has to manually tell the projector what the L/R polarity is.
I've elected to go with a DLP front projector on my set up, and I am anxiously awaiting my 3d adapter and glasses (on backorder).
The average television buyer is understandably confused, and uninterested in 3D TV as a result.
Another huge misstep was making certain titles exclusive to certain tv manufactures. As an example, DreamWorks films are only available by purchasing Samsung hardware.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-21-2011 07:54 PM
At CES (Consumer Electronics Show) 3D was ignored. At your local store, no one bothers to put on the glasses to look a 3DTV. People complaining about having to ware the glasses, is just a symptom of the real problem, 3D does not work very well, and even gives some people head aches. Most 3D movies are nothing more than a bunch of goofy 3D effects strung together, with no real story line, they are nothing more than effects demos.
Right now, the TV manufactures are the ones financing the ESPN 3D games. It is VERY expensive to produce these games. They require 2 EXTRA set-up days (beyound what a 2D game takes). They require extra people, and each camera is actually TWO cameras $$$$$$$$$. You cannot use one eye of a 3D game as a 2D game. A 3D show is cut MUCH slower than a 2D show, so that people aren't throwing up in their living rooms. So ESPN does both a 3D show and a 2D show, that's right TWO TRUCKS with two crews doing the same game. When the TV manufactues figure out that no one is buying 3D, they will stop throwing away their money on 3D production, and no one else will step foward with that kind of money to catch so few eyeballs.
History has shown us that 3D ALWAYS fails, it is just a gimic, and not a very good one. We all know the old saying: those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
And don't forget that right before HD-DVD was abandoned, there were big discunts on the players.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 02-23-2011 11:59 AM
There was a 3D demo set up in Best Buy right around the holidays that was playing Avatar, and the glasses were in a fixed position so all you had to do was lean up to them to see the movie in 3D. I don't recall how big the TV was (maybe in the 50-55" range), but the effect was good, even in a well-lit store environment.
So the demo was good, but what does a potential buyer run into that impedes the sale?
The 3D-capable TV is much more expensive than the non-3D TV of similar size. I think this particular model was around $1300, where the non-3D TV's of that size were going for $900-$1000.
Exclusivity sucks. If you want Avatar in 3D, you have to buy Panasonic equipment. At the very least, a Panasonic Blu-ray player, but the bundles of the TV and the Blu-ray player together were being pushed. If you like Samsung or Sony, too bad for you. If you want a front projection setup, you're out of luck, because Panasonic didn't refresh its very popular AE-4000 LCD projector this year and they have no other 3D front projector (this was a major surprise from the CEDIA show in September).
As far as I know, the glasses are incompatible between systems. That makes it difficult to find glasses at a reasonable price, and it minimizes the chance that friends that have also bought into 3D are going to be able to bring their glasses over for movie night.
3D source material isn't guaranteed to work with your setup. In the front projection realm, the JVC RS40 ended up being a very popular entry-level 3D projector. While reports have been generally positive, there are some complaints about needing more brightness. However, many people were very disappointed to find out that they spent all that money for a projector, glasses, emitter, and new DirecTV box, only to find out that ESPN-3D on DirecTV is done in an optional format and that is not supported by JVC. DirecTV hasn't budged, and JVC says it can't support the optional format.
These and other issues can create quite a barrier to entry for even the most motivated enthusiast.
But the real kicker is, once you navigate those troubled waters, what else beside Avatar 3D are you going to watch? Certainly not the Super Bowl, which this year was the biggest TV event ever. In the history of TV.
I seriously considered whether I should upgrade to a 3D-capable projector when I replaced mine this Winter. Given the costs, the compatibility issues, and the lack of content, it just didn't make sense to me.
I decided that if 3D really hit big-time (which it hasn't so far), then I'll upgrade in three years or so. I'm betting that 3D will flame out before then.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic