![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.136.64.98
...by the mass consumer audience? Reminds me of quad sound of the late 70's and early 80's. Lots of consumers who have just purchased new 2D televisions due to the drop in prices, won't trade them for a more expensive 3D display. Very little content available. And speaking for myself, I'm not wearing those stupid glasses.
Follow Ups:
....holodecks are probably more likely to appear on the market.
Everything works against wide acceptance for 3D in home theater application:1. Timing --- It's difficult marketing a new leisure technology to consumers in a period of economic uncertainty. Also, folks were just getting used to lower priced HD monitors and BD technology; it's just too soon to bring something like this out and expect widespread public acceptance.
2. Competing formats --- If the timing weren't lousy enough, the fact that one has to choose between competing systems requiring different types of eyewear is enough to make anyone's eyes cross.
3. Confusion --- Finding 3D tech savvy folks in discount chains or even A/V boutiques to explain the systems, answer questions and address concerns does little to bolster consumer confidence in the new technologies.
4. Cost --- Even though the prices have come down, 3D isn't a cheap technology and there aren't enough 3D programs available yet to build a viable consumer support base.
5. Eyestrain --- Some folks get eyestrain watching 3D, which limits applications where friends or family groups are gathered to watch programs.
6. Glasses --- This is an issue that defies common sense; it isn't just about how geeky the 3D "shades" look. You'd think that manufacturers would all gravitate towards cheaper polarized glasses to achieve a decent HT picture in 3D, ...but NO! Prospective buyers of the active shutter technology would have to purchase multiple pairs of high-end specs ($$$) for any group gathering, thus limiting the owners ability to show off their 3D set-up to friends and family. This doesn't sound like the best way to increase public awareness & interest in 3D (for HT) via word-of-mouth.
I'm sure that there are many other logical reasons why 3D won't make great inroads into the HT market. Alas, 3D is apparently a not-ready-for-prime-time player in a field where the entertainment industry has already gone back to the well too often.
Edits: 01/25/11
Walter Murch,the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema says 3D does not work.
There's a Samsung 9000 tv set up at the bust boy store, and every time i go in there i stop and watch, either "asofar" or some concert with bad lighting and no color.
What's amazing is how thin the monitor is.
I would buy it in a heartbeat, only the bezel is twice the size of the screen, and it's polished silver -- very reflective and distracting, and the "name" of the manufacturer is the most important thing of all, because it's glowing brighter than the screen???
What I don't know, and can't find out, is: can I actually mount this thing on my wall without the stand, and all the wires seem to come out the back at 90 degrees, which kind of defeats the "thin" screen (if you need a 5" gap behind the thing so the wires don't kink, then I'll just get a plasma, thanks.
But to the point of the thread: the 3d.... is really horrible. First of all ... if a movie is so uninspired as to require 3d ... i'm not going to watch it anyway. Second: the effect subtracts from the experience: "oh look, the nipple-less breasts on the gigantic blue lizzard girl are even more unappealing in 3-d!"
so ... 3d has been around for 6 or 8 generations of "visual arts" ...
... and it's still not worth the effort.
IIRC it's Toshiba. Looks absolutely horrible whatever it is. 2" below the screen a bright blue "TOSHIBA" glaring in your face. Easily enough for me to opt out of buying that TV were I looking for a new TV and it was in the game otherwise.
Edit; unless it was defeatable, then maybe...
Edits: 01/13/11
...
I'm guessing the name lighting is defeatable anyway. If not, obviously there are buyers who are OK with it.
![]()
I've only tried the 3D glasses at a local Costco that had 3D TV on display. Some of the scenes were pretty impressive, but others reminded me of the old 3D Viewmaster that looked like paper-flat cut-out people standing in front of a flat background. Different but not more realistic.
At Disney World, it doesn't impress me. At the theater, it doesn't impress me. At a demo setup on a 50" screen, it doesn't impress me.
According to the great majority of comments that I've read, plasma 3D looks better than LCD 3D. That may be so, but after the store demo I saw, which used a 50" plasma, I would be too ashamed to put out such a product if I were a manufacturer. They should pull it off the market and concentrate on display performance parameters that really mean something (black level, color accuracy, etc). Right now, 3D is definitely at the gimmick level.
I am in no hurry at all. I will probably adopt it after 10-20 years (like I did w/ digital audio). But twice I did look at Costco and clearly, in my opinion, the Samsung is garbage, the Sony good for a gimmick, whereas the Panasonic actually increased my interest in 3D a little - it was pretty great for 1st generation other than the slight flicker (they will have to get a bit faster I expect).
But you forgot one of the best parts - eyestrain and migraines!
Yes, I want to pay a fortune for something that will make me sick.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Greg House
DLP
Do they still used those wheels that make me see rainbows? I haven't checked out TVs in a long time.
Jack
Over the years, they've added colors, increased the speed of the wheels and even changed the "bulbs" to LEDs. These changes have decreased the percentage of people who get ill or experience headaches, but the problem has not been completely resolved. Only the more expensive 3-chip models eliminate the problems because all 3 primaries are shown at the same time (ie, no alternating colors, which caused the "rainbow effect", like the single-chip models).
I saw the rainbows when viewing DLP displays, so I never considered getting one. But even if I hadn't, I wasn't going to get a DLP display because I didn't want to take the chance that my wife or kids would be part of the estimated 10% of the population that experienced headaches, nausea or dizziness from single-chip DLP technology. That and the fact that plasma technology was better in just about every area.
I watched Sony 3D displays and I noticed flicker all the time. Also the ergonomics of the glass is killing me and the inclusion of LED light sources tends to result in brighter blacks that are not as consistently dark across the entire screen. That, of course, is the problem with LED LCD displays – you are currently paying for style (and eco-friendliness!) over image quality.
I think there will probably be some followers for some time, and perhaps this will even evolve into something "better". Or maybe it will fade away.
For me, and any friends I've asked, it's of no interest at all. Is it mainly the younger generation that likes 3D? Dunno. My nieces (13 - 19) are more accepting of it than I am for sure. Yawn, next. :)
![]()
....by mistake. Didn't know it was only at the theater in 3D until we got there. So we went and saw it anyway.
The movie itself was fairly cool (saw the original way back when, and I rocked at that game :)). Some of the 3D effects were, well, three dimensional. But even those that were.... I would have been happier off not wearing the glasses and seeing it in 2D TBH.
![]()
I saw it on a really big 2D screen, was great.Be sure to pick up the Sound track from Daft Punk - it's awesome!
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Greg House
Edits: 01/13/11
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: