Dish and 3D - missing in action?

[Scott Greczkowski]

I got to be honest, the only way I can see 3DTV being successful is if only 3DTV's are sold. Then they are forcing the way in peoples houses where most people won't use the 3D portion.

While some folks are gung ho about 3D (which is great for them!) most people I have talked to are not so hot on the idea and view it as a fad.

 

[Scherrman]

3D TVs will only be in the homes of people who have to have the latest and greastet stuff. At least it will be this way for a couple years. I see no need for Dish to go crazy with 3D yet. I don't think it's a bad idea for them to have at least 1 or 2 popular 3D channels by Christmas time for the early adopters of 3D.

 

[KAB]

I've already run into people who think...buy a 3DTV and that's it...everything's in 3D. Much the same way people thought about HD in the beginning.

 

[Ken McPherson]

IMO. Several things will keep it from being mainstream.
Wearing glasses while watching tv is the biggest drawback. I cannot see a large group of people watching the Super Bowl while wearing glasses. As I stated before, The sickness I had was real. I have had attacks of vertego in the past and while it was not nearly as bad, it had a similar feeling after viewing. The other is the economy. Even if people can afford 3D, a lot of people have not bought into it unlike HD. Bugs will be needed to get out of 3D and again , I do not think it will last long enough to perfect.

On occasion when driving on long windy mountain roads I have problems with motion sickness. If I had that feeling as a result of watching 3DTV, I would not be interested in 3DTV. I get it!

But what % of people will have side effects with 3DTV? At this point, that answer is unknown. If it's a substantial %, and the industry has trouble finding a solution fast, IMO, 3DTV will fail. But if the % is small, or the fixes come quickly, 3DTV is here to stay.

Does that mean everyone is going to dump their current displays? Of course not. Early adopters will take the lead, just like they did with HDTV. The transition to 3DTV will probably take as long as the transition to HDTV did.

Every bit of evidence out there indicates there is a large group of early adopters ready to take the 3DTV plunge, regardless of the economy. And that's with zero content available.

I can easily imagine 4-6 of my friends gathering around a 73" Vizio to watch compelling content. Just like they gathered around my puny 24" CRT to watch the Discovery Channel loop after I purchased my Dish 6000 over a decade ago.

And again, there's the catch...Why would anyone who doesn't have a 3D TV buy a pair of 3D glasses?

IMO, the answer is compelling content. If I have a great experience at a friend's house watching a football game, but I don't have the cash to pick a 1st gen 3DTV, buying my own pair of 3D glasses to use at my friend's is a doable option. Then when I buy my own 3DTV, I'll already have a set of 3D glasses.

Also, I believe at this time, there are 2 or 3 different versions of 3D glasses out there, and they're not interchangeable. Correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'm sure someone will).

XpanD - XpanD

That's true, but those additional new 3D channels for a handful of subs will be taking bandwidth from full-time HD RSNs, which many, many more subs would benefit from and appreciate...

Two things:
1. Dish's business plan includes adding bandwidth on a regular basis.
2. The same argument was made during the transition from SD to HD. HD uses many times more bandwidth than SD.

I got to be honest, the only way I can see 3DTV being successful is if only 3DTV's are sold. Then they are forcing the way in peoples houses where most people won't use the 3D portion.

Yup. Exactly like what happened with HDTVs. When's the last time anyone saw anything other than HDTVs at Costco even though many(most?) still don't have/use an HD signal. 3DTVs will follow the exact same path.

While some folks are gung ho about 3D (which is great for them!) most people I have talked to are not so hot on the idea and view it as a fad.

By definition fads hit big, then go away, as happened with the previous attempts at mainstreaming 3DTV in the past. While I agree it will take many years for 3DTV to be truly mainstream, are you actually predicting 3DTV will go away as it has in the past?

IMO, once we start to see compelling content become available, a whole bunch of naysayers are going to change their minds.

I'm just glad Dish doesn't have their heads stuck in the sand on this one.

Ken McPherson

 

[Dishlover]

I've already run into people who think...buy a 3DTV and that's it...everything's in 3D. Much the same way people thought about HD in the beginning.

Well at least with the Samsung 3DTVs you can watch everything in converted 2D to 3D. I have one, it is pretty good.

 

[KKlare]

As someone spoke facetiously of smell-o-vision, you could add taste-o-vision and feel-o-vision. These would certainly sell in the porn, er er, sports sectors. Did Al Capp have something about these? These could all use direct-sensory input or (coining an acronym) DSI. Plug us in.
-Ken

 

[Ghpr13]

The list of Pros & Cons for 3D TV are endlessly debatable for now. Only time and technology will tell if 3D can become a practical way to view video in the home environment. In the long run there has to be a substantial reason for the public to want 3D TV. I believe that one day it will, but that day is still a long way off.
CDs & DVDs took off because it greatly improve on the quality and convenience of Vinyl (I know there's still a debate about quality in Vinyl vs CD, but that's another Forum), and on VHS. HD TV is taking a little longer to take over from SD, but I think that's because of the confusion that the so call "Digital Conversion" caused, the cost of the initial LCD or Plasma TV, and the lack of support from local cable companies (few true HD channels and fees tied into getting HD channels for the subscriber).
Blu-ray, on the other hand, is just now starting to show momentum,(mostly because prices for both players and disc have come way down), and the biggest reason that it's taken so long seems to be that 90% of Blu-ray owners and reviewers didn't feel that the benefits of Blu-ray were worth it. There was no real "WOW" factor between an up-converted DVD and a Blu-ray disc.

Ghpr13

 

[tigershere]

who all has a 3d tv ? 1/10000000th of 1 perfect ?

 

[vaylon]

All the tv's I have seen so far, that do 3D, have been blah. Not something I would go and fork over a ton of money to have.

But on the couple of sets that I saw nice 3D, they had drawbacks.

In order to get the best 3D, you have to be in a certain position, a certain distance from the screen and at a certain angle.

maybe it's just me, but even when I did everything the sales person showed me. The image looked a bit fuzzy. Almost like it had a ghost image.

To me this is not much different than the old crap 3D they tried to get off the ground in the 50's.

I think Dish is being pretty wise in regards to the 3D. Until there is a real demand they can do like they have done for years with HD and just say "soon".

 

[jbernardi]

Add me in the not interested column.

Wake me up when we have holographic 3D on every channel (without glasses, if course),

 

[Ghpr13]

All the tv's I have seen so far, that do 3D, have been blah. Not something I would go and fork over a ton of money to have.

But on the couple of sets that I saw nice 3D, they had drawbacks.

In order to get the best 3D, you have to be in a certain position, a certain distance from the screen and at a certain angle.

maybe it's just me, but even when I did everything the sales person showed me. The image looked a bit fuzzy. Almost like it had a ghost image.

To me this is not much different than the old crap 3D they tried to get off the ground in the 50's.

I think Dish is being pretty wise in regards to the 3D. Until there is a real demand they can do like they have done for years with HD and just say "soon".

Last night on AOTS on G4, they reviewed one of the new Samsung 3D LCDs and said the same thing about it...a slight "ghosting" that was noticeable. They did say that as a 2D LCD the picture was fantastic. Maybe some good might come of this.

Ghpr13

 

[mike123abc]

In a few years all TVs will probably be 3D. Not because 3D will be barn burning popular, but because it will be cheap to put in every set, and it gives the marketing check box.

Right now 3D is being pushed because set makers can put in a few dollars of electronics and charge a premium for it. Soon the premium will slowly decline and eventually it will be the same price.

 

[yaz96]

I've already run into people who think...buy a 3DTV and that's it...everything's in 3D. Much the same way people thought about HD in the beginning.

...and still to this day!

 

[TigerpounceTN]

In a few years all TVs will probably be 3D. Not because 3D will be barn burning popular, but because it will be cheap to put in every set, and it gives the marketing check box.

Right now 3D is being pushed because set makers can put in a few dollars of electronics and charge a premium for it. Soon the premium will slowly decline and eventually it will be the same price.

That is the only way I'd buy it. I wouldn't even use it unless they can make it work without glasses.

 

[MikeD-C05]

That is the only way I'd buy it. I wouldn't even use it unless they can make it work without glasses.

DItto! Who wants to pay $199.99 per pair of glasses at Best Buy , just so everyone can see 3-D tv? Yes ,priced them yesterday.

 

[olds403]

3D will be VERY niche for years. Of all the people that I know, I am the early adopter and I am not buying into it. My HDTV is only 2 years old and I just bought a new blu-ray player, and don't even get me started on the glasses, sorry I am not investing in this technology.

 

[ekilgus]

As I posted earlier, 3D TV's without the need for glasses should be available within a couple of years and like Mike123abc posted, 3D technology will eventually be automatically built into the sets of the future. This means when you're watching TV if a program is broadcast in 3D, that's what you'll see.
I suspect those people who purchased the interim technology where glasses are required will be somewhat put off because of the new glassless 3D TV's but this is the price one pays to be on the cutting edge of technology.

 

[NotMe546]

Philips Presents ‘3D TV’ Without Glasses

Till then who cares.

 

[TheKrell]

Philips Presents ‘3D TV’ Without Glasses

I wish just one of these reviewers would tell the whole truth about these demos. Didn't anybody move his head around at all? How difficult was it to find the sweet spot and see 3D? Did the guy standing next to you throw up? These are just 3 of the many questions I have about any "3D without glasses" technology.

I am normally an optimist about the march of progress. But unless this TV set has a camera on each viewer and somehow head-tracks to compensate, small side-to-side movements are going to mess up the 3D presentation. Period. What is "small?" Half the distance between your eyes. Nobody will put their head in a vice in order to get the 3D effect. So small head movements are unavoidable.

OK, glasses definitely work if you're willing to wear them. 3D without glasses might work for handheld games where the geometry is fixed. Holography (among other technologies) definitely works and produces a real 3D image. But the costs for real 3D imagery (both in dollars and bandwidth) is prohibitive. These problems are tough, and I don't expect an acceptable solution in my lifetime.

Perhaps TV manufacturers should go in the other direction. Instead of building bigger and more expensive flat panel 3D TVs, they might instead build some sort of VR headset where each eye is presented with it's own picture. I think the presentation on a VR headset would be compelling enough to encourage significant adoption by normal people.

 

[Pepper]

I think the presentation on a VR headset would be compelling enough to encourage significant adoption by normal people.

So those who vehemently are against wearing glasses are going to cover their head with something even bigger?