3DTV - Do you care?

[brad1138]

I have seen 3DTV and it is cool, but personally I don't think It will really become main stream unless they can do away with the glasses. For the sake of the poll, assume they don't get ride of the glasses.

Brad

 

[lakebum431]

I think it iwll be a niche but a small one. I've said this before, but I just don't see this catching on until they can do it without glasses and without having to be directly in front of the TV. How many of you want to go to a Super Bowl party where you have to wear glasses and have to fight for the few seats in the room that allow you to see HD?

 

[STEELERSRULE]

+1 for the above statement. It will not be going away, and just be another feature available on ALL tv's in the future. Something you can tyurn on/off at will within a TV menu.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

3D is not important to you until you have it...

 

[boba]

I have 2 HD TV's and VIP 612 receiver I don't really care if it is SD or HD why should 3D be important? I would really like to see an improvement in content.

 

[Pepper]

Well I've been trying them out in the stores. It's great but I end up with a headache every time.

Probably due to the bad lighting and being too close to the screen.

 

[old corps]

3D is not important to you until you have it...

+1!:up

Exactly. OTOH, It IS a niche, and perhaps will remain a relatively small one but for the occasional movie or event it's great! Just hope Dish adds it to my 722 s o o n.Overall I'm pretty satisfied with 'em but I WILL switch to D* because of this, IF I have the LOS I need for their satellites. That's something I'm ignorant of. I have to be on EA with Dish. WA was no good in summer because of trees. JMHO

Ed

 

[wellze]

I myself have no interest in 3D, I have seen it . Its pretty cool. I would really like to see some channels come out in 1080P. I would much rather have a better quality picture. It seems since the 1080P sets came out the talk of high resolution channels faded. Lets work on better quality before a new format comes out. The programming seems to never catch up.

 

[bacchus101]

For me personally, it causes eyestrain and headaches - thus I consider 3D an affliction rather than an entertainment option...

 

[cosmo_kramer]

For me, the issue now is the current lack of 3D content. That is what holds me back from buying a 3D set.

I'm not a gamer, and movies that add 3D action mostly as a gimmick aren't enough to do it right now.

 

[revm1m]

I have 106" screen with Sony HD projector and 2 55" HD tvs, love HD. NOT interested in 3DHD , hate glasses. My theater room seats 8, I have to buy 8 3D glasses, I don't think so

 

[jerryez]

Waste of money and time. Lets spend the money on more HD content first.

 

[dfergie]

HD was the same when it came out... people said there was no content, prices were to high etc... I'm waiting for a decent priced 1080p projector to come out, then I'm in...

 

[Brisak]

3D is no big deal to me.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I think 3 D was a gimmick back in the 50s when they first did it at the movies and it went away. Again thirty years later in the 80s they tried it again and it went away. Now we are in the last year of the first decade of the 21st century , or roughly 30 years from the last time and it is here again. The difference today is the economic conditions are not ripe for upgrading the majority of the country's tv customers, AGAIN. Most people have just got an hd tv in their home ,due to the digital transition that we just went through. They are not going to spend money on another tech gimmick because the industry is pushing this right now.

Look at Blu-rays and customer acceptance. Many people are still not buying blu-ray discs because of COSTS. I am one of them. I have had a blu-ray player going on 3 years now , and I only own about 10 blu-rays. They are to HIGH and I refuse to pay $25.00 - $35.00 for ONE movie on a disc, no matter what the picture quality is. Besides most dvds look just great upconverted to 1080p on my blu-ray player. Dvds are still reasonable in cost ,especially at Walmart.

Now if they could make 3 -D tvs put out a great picture in HD as well as 3-D, WITHOUT GLASSES, you might have some takers. But if they are selling a great Hd tv at a low cost vs the 3-D tv at high end cost, guess how many people are going with the cheaper hd tv? Especially in these hard economic times with 15 million out of a job. That isn't going to change anytime soon in the next couple of years either. Wrong time for new technology, at the Wrong price, for many customers .

 

[Bob_Roberts]

I could care less about 3D. I have enough problems in my life just dealing with 2D.

 

[empiretc]

this is another go around for 3D. remember the 80s? The reference in Bachelor Party is awesome!!

The fad will die down--- again....

 

[dangue]

I just read a post on Slashdot, Apple has been awarded a patent for a 3D projection setup without glasses. This is probably years away from production, but I can see something like that catching on easier than the current glasses required models.

 

[DishSubLA]

3D is not important to you until you have it...

Probably correct! But the fact is that a poll cited by CNET among those who had viewed good quality 3D, most people really like it, but aren't interested in obtaining a 3DTV nor the glasses in the first place. This is quite the opposite attitude when HDTV was introduced. Expensive glasses for the whole family and guests, a very small sweet spot for maybe ONE or TWO people, and not sufficiently compelling to make the switch to 3D by most who have seen the 3D and were impressed. Look at how slow Blu-ray is being accepted by the market compared to the swift love fest that had DVD machines flying off the shelves. Most people settle for "good enough for me."

And, lastly, the phenomenon of a major change in technology that is TOO SOON after far too many people have invested in HD. Now we are supposed to replace the just purchased Blu-ray with a 3D blu-ray and the receiver that won't accept 3D and the HDMI cables to 1.4 and on and on. Consumers aren't looking to spend more money when the current technology most likely hasn't paid for itself yet, so to speak. This is very similar to the superior quadraphonic sound (really NOT technically challenging, but it took THIRTY years for the technology to re-emerge in the form of 5.1, 7.1, etc. because more than enough time had passed) pushed in the 1970's that the market would not accept because they had already invested in stereo and didn't fancy buying the quad machines, media, compatible receivers, oh, and TWO more expensive speakers. "Sorry, no thanks. Stereo is good enough for me," was the thunder of the market.

This forum is filled with affluent people who could afford the acceptance and embrace 3D, but considering the high number of tech and wealth people here who just aren't that compelled by 3D bodes VERY badly for the 3D movement. Perhaps in 8 years we'll be ready .

 

[Claude Greiner]

Until they find a way to get rid of the glasses, and have 3D as a standard feature in all televisions, and have a handfull of 3D channels this will not be widly accecpted.

In order for this to be a success, all TV's will have to have 3D and as older TV's get replaced, 3D will be accecpted like HD is today.