3DTV, will it take off?
Discussion
Thudd said:
I don't want to wear glasses to watch telly. And for that reason, i'm out.
I totally agree. Also in my opinion the technology has come too close on the heels of HD and BR for people to shell out. Like me, for example, I shelled out for a Sony LCD and a BR about 4 months ago, so I'm not about to be upgrading the tv for that any time soon, and it isn't as if there is a huge gap in the home market just waiting to be filled, as there was several years ago when the first plasmas hit the market and gave us the jaw dropping clarity of picture we enjoy today.Added to that, you need to wear glasses to watch content. I can't be arsed with that, I just want ot sit and watch a programme. Its bad enough realising its also being broadcast in HD and remembering to switch over.
I believe that it will become the de facto standard in cinemas, and that is what will differentiate going to the cinema as opposed to waiting until it beocmes available on BR/DVD/Sky Premiere. I went and saw Avatar in 3D at the cinema and the depth of the image was beautiful and superbly rendered on a big screen in a dark room. Will West Brom vs Birmingham on a 42" 3D LCD look as good? I just don't think so, sorry.
I still think there is a large percentage of people who still haven't embraced HD or even digital television, and I don't see the swapping the 26" old faithful CRT for a 42" 3DTV.
Just my thoughts.
GregE240 said:
Thudd said:
I don't want to wear glasses to watch telly. And for that reason, i'm out.
I totally agree. Also in my opinion the technology has come too close on the heels of HD and BR for people to shell out. Like me, for example, I shelled out for a Sony LCD and a BR about 4 months ago, so I'm not about to be upgrading the tv for that any time soon, and it isn't as if there is a huge gap in the home market just waiting to be filled, as there was several years ago when the first plasmas hit the market and gave us the jaw dropping clarity of picture we enjoy today.Added to that, you need to wear glasses to watch content. I can't be arsed with that, I just want ot sit and watch a programme. Its bad enough realising its also being broadcast in HD and remembering to switch over.
Being an early adopter when plasmas got really big without 5 figure sums, I relegated the 50 inch to the bedroom and got a Samsung 63 inch for the lounge. That was 4 years ago at a cost of £5000.
Now, I got to friends houses who have £500 plasmas as am wowed as the picture presentation is as good as mine in some respects and in other respects such as the sense of depth and the solidity of objects moving at the front of the depth of view clearly superior.
There is also a noise reduction setting on mine, which really does improve the depth of picture, but the trade off is weird effects and shadowing like image retention on the blacks.
So, in a nutshell, there has been a big difference in processing on image quality over the last few years.
And that got me thinking. The 'new' Samsung 63 inch has just been announced and is on sale with up to date processing and 3D... At £2300.
Compared to £5000 four years ago, to me that seems cheap. It is just how times move on. The early adopters start the trend.
So, for an early adopter who made the psychological fix of value of what a plasma screen costs, they will now find they can get 3D, a much better picture for non-3D, possibly even a bigger screen all for what they paid a few years ago - and even down to half what they paid a few years ago.
In that scenario, if you are into home cinema, and got on the HD bandwagon early too, it is just about the right time to upgrade again.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 27th April 18:11
Most TV is still in SD. And the "HD" stuff is pretty low-def in the main, either upscaled or 720p.
I'm not even getting the best out of my existing kit unless I watch a BluRay.
3D stuff at the cinema seems "soft" to me, and the glasses thing is a real no-no. What about folk with kids? Babies aren't going to wear 3d glasses.
I'm not even getting the best out of my existing kit unless I watch a BluRay.
3D stuff at the cinema seems "soft" to me, and the glasses thing is a real no-no. What about folk with kids? Babies aren't going to wear 3d glasses.
Thudd said:
Babies aren't going to wear 3d glasses.
I'll bet they wont be able to follow the plot either!I've been on the fence about 3D leaning toward the "it's unnecessary" side until today.
While in the PC world/curries uber store today I had a demo of the new 3d tech. I am very impressed, the glasses are very lightweight and you can barely pick up any flicker from the lenses (unless you look at flourescent lighting) and the image is crystal clear even at an angle.
So, now I am sold. I will be looking into having my projector converted or maybe get a new projector in about a year or so. I wont early adopt as I don't have the cash these days to do so, plus I want there to be plenty of content when I get it.
GregE240 said:
I agree, Thudd, its okay for early adopters of technology like Justin, less so for others.
I agree.It is not going to be mainstream yet for most people.
That said, people are buying HD TVs today - in fact it is pretty much impossible NOT to buy an HDTV today, but there are only about 2m UK HD subscribers.
I think 3D will be the same - it is about economies of scale. That is, once you are building something in sufficient quantities a higher quality component or product becomes cheaper to produce than a lesser one.
An example in point - my TV is 'only' 1080i because at the time there was no 1080p 63 inch plasmas. Now there is no point in making X 1080i plasmas because they would cost more per unit and just making a shedload of 1080p ones.
Therefore, over the next few years you will see an integration of 60%, then 80% then 100% of all screens being made being '3D ready' even if they don't supply the glasses.
Then, because they are making them in the same quantities as HD screens now, in a couple of years time you will see 3D screens probably costing less for an equal size as they do today. Then *that* of course will really drive 3D being the de facto standard.
Part of the problem is content production.
Changing cameras from SD to HD isn't a hard job, essentially it's just a better camera. Now the uptake has been slow by broadcasters because of the investment in infrastructure needed to support it but it's getting there.
But filming in 3d is a different game altogether, basically the broadcast cameras can't manually focus they have a fixed focal length and if your outside of that then it's out of focus.
So it's ok for digital movies like digital animation or avatar where they are produced from a computer with perfect 3D imaging but for other applications its a lot of work to get broadcast quality images.
So we're really going to be waiting on the recording technology improving before 3D becomes common.
Changing cameras from SD to HD isn't a hard job, essentially it's just a better camera. Now the uptake has been slow by broadcasters because of the investment in infrastructure needed to support it but it's getting there.
But filming in 3d is a different game altogether, basically the broadcast cameras can't manually focus they have a fixed focal length and if your outside of that then it's out of focus.
So it's ok for digital movies like digital animation or avatar where they are produced from a computer with perfect 3D imaging but for other applications its a lot of work to get broadcast quality images.
So we're really going to be waiting on the recording technology improving before 3D becomes common.
Well, we took the plunge yesterday.
Originally we got LCD when it first came out - a 32inch Sony for £3000. We kept it for years and years, finally replacing it when it broke earlier this year with the 26 inch HD LG which we bought for my dad's study. It was good, but obviously pretty small. We kinda just kept it to bridge the gap for a while. Eventually dad decided he wanted his TV back and so we went to Currys/Comet yesterday to have a look.
First of all we went into Currys. Poor selection with only one 46inch Samsung for 2.2k (IIRC), with two pairs of glasses. With Bluray 3D player, and two more pairs of glasses price was pumped up to 2.6k. Picture quality was okay, but the main thing was that the TV itself was a piece of art. Wafer-thin with loads of chrome and a great stand. Unfortunately, the salesman was a bit of a plum and after attempting to negotiate we decided to have a look at what Comet had on offer.
Immediately the Comet staff were more helpful. They also had a bigger selection with offerings from Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung. I think they may have had an LG too. We looked at them all but the best picture quality (and lack of ghosting) was definitely the Panasonic 50inch. Colours were more vivid, and details much more obvious (sorry don't know the proper TV terms - it just looked better!!). The glasses were also far more comfortable than the other models IMO. I was really most disappointed with the 60" sony - not impressed with the pic quality at all.
Eventually we chose the 50" Panasonic. With 2 DVDs, 4 pairs of glasses (which are expensive BTW - £100+), a Panasonic Bluray 3D DVD player (after the Currys man told us the only one out was Samsung
), one of those Monster power surge protectors, a Monster HDMI cable, screen cleaner, wall mount and full installation for a smidge over 3k. The Monster products+screen cleaner probably weren't necessary but I guess when you're clueless like me, it's better safe than sorry.
Also, one of the things I was curious about was whether the 3D worked from all angles - it does. Any Q's just ask but we don't get delivery till tomorrow afternoon!
HH
Originally we got LCD when it first came out - a 32inch Sony for £3000. We kept it for years and years, finally replacing it when it broke earlier this year with the 26 inch HD LG which we bought for my dad's study. It was good, but obviously pretty small. We kinda just kept it to bridge the gap for a while. Eventually dad decided he wanted his TV back and so we went to Currys/Comet yesterday to have a look.
First of all we went into Currys. Poor selection with only one 46inch Samsung for 2.2k (IIRC), with two pairs of glasses. With Bluray 3D player, and two more pairs of glasses price was pumped up to 2.6k. Picture quality was okay, but the main thing was that the TV itself was a piece of art. Wafer-thin with loads of chrome and a great stand. Unfortunately, the salesman was a bit of a plum and after attempting to negotiate we decided to have a look at what Comet had on offer.
Immediately the Comet staff were more helpful. They also had a bigger selection with offerings from Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung. I think they may have had an LG too. We looked at them all but the best picture quality (and lack of ghosting) was definitely the Panasonic 50inch. Colours were more vivid, and details much more obvious (sorry don't know the proper TV terms - it just looked better!!). The glasses were also far more comfortable than the other models IMO. I was really most disappointed with the 60" sony - not impressed with the pic quality at all.
Eventually we chose the 50" Panasonic. With 2 DVDs, 4 pairs of glasses (which are expensive BTW - £100+), a Panasonic Bluray 3D DVD player (after the Currys man told us the only one out was Samsung
), one of those Monster power surge protectors, a Monster HDMI cable, screen cleaner, wall mount and full installation for a smidge over 3k. The Monster products+screen cleaner probably weren't necessary but I guess when you're clueless like me, it's better safe than sorry. Also, one of the things I was curious about was whether the 3D worked from all angles - it does. Any Q's just ask but we don't get delivery till tomorrow afternoon!
HH
Plotloss said:
I already wear glasses to watch telly, so another pair won't hurt 
So long as wearing the glasses gives you binocular vision, if your still deficient in one eye to the other the effect is not so impressive. Plus anyone felt travel sick using games like doom and the like with brain detecting movement and the body not, 3D TV can trigger this as well.
Couple that with the active glasses, causing a wonderful strobe flickering effect if you look at bright lights or cloudy skies, any windows next to tv's will flicker. Wonder how long before someone suffers with epilepsy while watching a 3D film in the cinema.
Not convinced at the moment from what I have seen so far.
Was at a conference the other week called 3d Masters where they had various speakers on this very topic. The views were very mixed indeed.
Sky of course loved it, but the BBC were holding back as they don't see a real application for it in TV.
Some of the possible sales figures presented for the TVs were, how shall we say, a little optimistic!! They felt it was going to follow, if not better the sales pattern of HD TVs
Sky of course loved it, but the BBC were holding back as they don't see a real application for it in TV.
Some of the possible sales figures presented for the TVs were, how shall we say, a little optimistic!! They felt it was going to follow, if not better the sales pattern of HD TVs
theboyfold said:
Was at a conference the other week called 3d Masters where they had various speakers on this very topic. The views were very mixed indeed.
Sky of course loved it, but the BBC were holding back as they don't see a real application for it in TV.
Some of the possible sales figures presented for the TVs were, how shall we say, a little optimistic!! They felt it was going to follow, if not better the sales pattern of HD TVs
Interesting.Sky of course loved it, but the BBC were holding back as they don't see a real application for it in TV.
Some of the possible sales figures presented for the TVs were, how shall we say, a little optimistic!! They felt it was going to follow, if not better the sales pattern of HD TVs
However, as I have said before, a push toward greater realism in film and TV production and reproduction is just a matter of time, and at every point of introduction there was always some people holding back.
If the BBC do not think that watching football/rugby/cricket in 3D would not be a USP then I worry for them. I am guessing they are holding back confidence as out of all the speakers they are least well placed to be dynamic in the marketplace.
G0ldfysh said:
Plotloss said:
I already wear glasses to watch telly, so another pair won't hurt
So long as wearing the glasses gives you binocular vision, if your still deficient in one eye to the other the effect is not so impressive. I've been to see Toy Story 3 3D today and the effect was fine.
Do you actually think that 3D looks more realistic? It looks like a pop up book to me.
And I think the take up of HD is much over stated. Lot's of people have an HD TV but I would actually say the majority of them don't have an HD feed for it. I've been to people houses and they have shown me their new HD kit and it's been SD only. I'm not sure people will change their TV and disc player and receiver again so soon after HD.
It's a vicious circle, no content = why bother changing = slow take-up. Except for cash rich early adopters a TV is a white good to most people. It only gets changed when it breaks.
If my TV breaks tomorrow would I get 3D? Maybe. I understand because of the nature of 3d the screens are very good. So price being equal yes I would get one. 3D not being the killer app right now.
And I think the take up of HD is much over stated. Lot's of people have an HD TV but I would actually say the majority of them don't have an HD feed for it. I've been to people houses and they have shown me their new HD kit and it's been SD only. I'm not sure people will change their TV and disc player and receiver again so soon after HD.
It's a vicious circle, no content = why bother changing = slow take-up. Except for cash rich early adopters a TV is a white good to most people. It only gets changed when it breaks.
If my TV breaks tomorrow would I get 3D? Maybe. I understand because of the nature of 3d the screens are very good. So price being equal yes I would get one. 3D not being the killer app right now.
Incase no one has answered this directly...
"Won't screens need to be huge?"
IMO at a standard distance your probably going to want one as large or larger than whats already typical , 50inch or bigger.
"What are viewing angles like? "
Dunno!
"Will the increased resolution sacrifice SD and HD picture quality?"
Nope. All its doing is showing twice the number of frames (same HD/1080 resolution) the glasses act like shutters switching off half the frames to each eye.
"Can you get up and walk about with the glasses on without falling down stairs etc? I'm thnking specifically about pubs and football."
I doubt pubs will be showing 3D stuff untill we have decent glasses free tech.
I also dont think it will rocketioff like DVD/plasmas did. Not until theres more content and we have sets that work decently without glasses, this is being worked on a lot right now but still a fair way off.
Probably better off with a 3D projector I assume this will use the polarised methods the cinemas use rather than LCD shutter glasses which are expensive.
"Won't screens need to be huge?"
IMO at a standard distance your probably going to want one as large or larger than whats already typical , 50inch or bigger.
"What are viewing angles like? "
Dunno!
"Will the increased resolution sacrifice SD and HD picture quality?"
Nope. All its doing is showing twice the number of frames (same HD/1080 resolution) the glasses act like shutters switching off half the frames to each eye.
"Can you get up and walk about with the glasses on without falling down stairs etc? I'm thnking specifically about pubs and football."
I doubt pubs will be showing 3D stuff untill we have decent glasses free tech.
I also dont think it will rocketioff like DVD/plasmas did. Not until theres more content and we have sets that work decently without glasses, this is being worked on a lot right now but still a fair way off.
Probably better off with a 3D projector I assume this will use the polarised methods the cinemas use rather than LCD shutter glasses which are expensive.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff