Is 3d dead? (1 Viewer)

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,685
5,883
Moscow Russia
Its not mainstream..plus it seems to be very very slow developing..no NFL games..no Baseball games...atleast when HD came out they did the Super Bowl
 

Ghpr13

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 1, 2009
3,212
0
Louisville, KY
I still think a big drawback to 3DTV is having to pay for the 3D media. When HDTV came out, yes you have to pay for the HDTV, but then you could hook it up to basically your old rabbit ears and start receiving HD programing. With 3DTV after you put out the bucks for a 3DTV, the only way to see anything on it in 3D is to lay out more cash for either a Blu-ray 3D player and 3DBDs, or sign up with a provider that offers 3D programing. Which IMO. is why it be a long, long time before 3DTV is mainstream.

Ghpr13:)
 

TheForce

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Oct 13, 2003
31,909
9,432
Jacksonville, FL, Earth
I still think a big drawback to 3DTV is having to pay for the 3D media. When HDTV came out, yes you have to pay for the HDTV, but then you could hook it up to basically your old rabbit ears and start receiving HD programing. With 3DTV after you put out the bucks for a 3DTV, the only way to see anything on it in 3D is to lay out more cash for either a Blu-ray 3D player and 3DBDs, or sign up with a provider that offers 3D programing. Which IMO. is why it be a long, long time before 3DTV is mainstream.

Ghpr13:)

What planet did you come from?

Man, if someone else would pay for everything for us we could all adopt it right away. Fantasyland! If you were into HDTV 12 years ago when it all started you would not be making such silly statements. We had two years with only HBO and a Demo channel where the HBO was only 20% HD content. 4 years until we had our first TV station with the Olympics. It was so new the station engineer felt I was the only one in town who could watch it! We had 5 years playing with DVHS HD recording where the recording hardware was a kludge that worked <30% of the time and hardware cost $3000 or more. Two years of HD playback optical disk only before we had BD-R to record our own HD and then another year before we saw HD camcorders for under $5K.
By contrast, in 1984 we were introduced to 3DTV for home viewing using red /cyan glasses. In 2010 we saw 3DTV's with good quality like in the theater with polarized glasses Price $3000 and up. In 2011 we had plenty of 3DTV's for under $500 and plenty of 3D programming, 3DBD with $100 3DBD players. 3D cameras for under $200 and full editing and Blu Ray 3D burning software for under $100. The only thing we still don't have is everything is free. Here on this planet you have to pay for everything. Having to pay for things you want has never been a detriment to developing new things. It isn't the medium we pay for. It's having it when it is very new that we pay a premium for. But, it is NEVER free, not on this planet.


Vurbano said:
Yes but it was never alive. Glasses? LMFAO and pay extra for content? ROTFLMFAO

Hey Vurbano- Are you still predicting the demise of Blu-Ray and the war between BD and HDDVD will be won by HDDVD? :D Funny how some people always seem to be siding with losers. :D
 
Last edited:

msmith198025

Member of the Year
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Aug 28, 2007
30,520
10,497
mississippi
I still think a big drawback to 3DTV is having to pay for the 3D media. When HDTV came out, yes you have to pay for the HDTV, but then you could hook it up to basically your old rabbit ears and start receiving HD programing. With 3DTV after you put out the bucks for a 3DTV, the only way to see anything on it in 3D is to lay out more cash for either a Blu-ray 3D player and 3DBDs, or sign up with a provider that offers 3D programing. Which IMO. is why it be a long, long time before 3DTV is mainstream.

Ghpr13:)

You basically have/had to pay for both at similar points in their life cycle (I am counting the 3d push now, not years ago).
Yeah, you could use rabbit ears, but early in the cycle of HD, there was little to nothing on there.

With HD, you had to put out the BIG bucks for the set, new cables, and have a source. Same with 3D these days except the TVs are not nearly as expensive in comparison to what HD sets costs when they came out, and well, I guess you dont necessarily need new cables in some cases.
 

diogen

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 16, 2007
4,313
0
... how many HDTV owners are actually watching HD?
That's actually a non-rhetorical question.
If you re-formulate it and ask "How many HDTV owners when playing DVDs know/notice that it is not HD?"
I'd be really surprised if the answer were anywhere close to 50%.

To get a proper 3D setup at home you have to:
- have a 3D TV, i.e. bought one in the last 6-12 months or so;
- have a capable BD player (same time frame);
- have everything properly connected;
- have lots of patience to make this work (HDCP, DRM, etc.)

[Or you can have more money than brains but that is even a smaller cohort of people and therefore can be neglected.]

Considering the annual sale of BD discs is 25% of DVDs if not less, 3D versions are probably less than 10% of that.

Bottom line: for a new standard to succeed a critical mass of users has to be formed.
BD can hardly be called "widely adopted". 3D even less so.

Hopefully it won't be killed. And one day it will be (mostly) done properly and won't cost an arm and a leg to experience.

Diogen.
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
The problem I have is it is now difficult to find a decent 2D only TV. It seems like all TVs (descent ones) are now 3D. If I want to buy a new TV I am pretty much limited to 3D, which will cost me more money for something I will not use.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
862
Lower Alabama
Its really moot, its like 1080p. Just buy one with it and dont use it. In the case of 3D plasma especially, the enhancements required for 3D imaging have resulted in 2D PQ improvements as well.
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
But I do use 1080p. Plus the difference in price between the same quality TV that does 720p and/or 1080i compared to a comparable 1080p is not very great.

I also know 2D PQ has improved, but the same TV would be less if it were 2D only. TV prices jumped drastically with the introduction of 3D panels. One would actually save a lot of money if the same quality TV was 2D only. The issue is, the market is not pushing this as most do not use 3D. In order to get a 2D TV currently, we would have to go down in overall quality or wait until the difference in price is closer to 0.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top