Actually the reason I started this thread was not to bash "E" for being a follower instead of a leader in the progression of 3D. It's been well established that "E" is simply taking a wait and see approach which is a financially safe thing to do. I really wanted/want to get some input as to why the broadcast industry is dragging it's feet in providing 3D programming, since they have all professed their backing of the medium. Yes, they really have. These company's have invested millions already and have given us nothing. Opinions are great and will always be given. It's a fad, I hate wearing glasses, It gives me a headache. That's a personal feeling and I get it. But, why, with all that money already invested, are we seeing no 3D content? Have they changed their minds and are cutting their losses? That's certainly not the case with the TV manufactures. Are they waiting till a better product can be provided, like with the new chip from Intel?
What's Up With The Lack Of 3D Broadcasting
- Thread starter inazsully
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 158
- Views 14K
- Status
They're capitalists. If it makes them money, they'll do it; if not, they won't. This is the only lens through which to view decisions by content providers.
I think that they've realized that 95% of folks are like me; refuse to wear special glasses, don't see 3D as offering anything of worth, really couldn't care less that 3D is not taking off, and will not spend any extra money for it ( I just bought a nice new 42-inch LED/LCD HDTV & saved money by selecting a non-3D version; they still exist). In addition to this, they are seeing the writing on the wall for 1st run movies out at the Movie Theaters - they see that folks are not going to 3D movies and are chosing the non-3D versions were available. It's been a fad, and it is already starting to go the way of Quadrophonic sound.
I think that they've realized that 95% of folks are like me; refuse to wear special glasses, don't see 3D as offering anything of worth, really couldn't care less that 3D is not taking off, and will not spend any extra money for it ( I just bought a nice new 42-inch LED/LCD HDTV & saved money by selecting a non-3D version; they still exist). In addition to this, they are seeing the writing on the wall for 1st run movies out at the Movie Theaters - they see that folks are not going to 3D movies and are chosing the non-3D versions were available. It's been a fad, and it is already starting to go the way of Quadrophonic sound.
I agree that they certainly are capitalists. But keep in mind that they have already invested a tremendous amount of capital in 3D technology and 3D advertising, but it's all hardware right now. Also note that you consider yourself as in a 95% no interest in 3D group. I disagree with that 95% number. I think that 50% are in a wait and see group and many in that group will buy a 3D TV for their next purchase either because the TV they want is only available in 3D or they want to future proof themselves. I also do not think 3D is aimed at the 42" TV crowd but the 55" and above. As more and more HD became available in the 90's more and more people bought HD TV's. Now it's almost impossible to find a SD TV. 3D soon to follow.
There is certainly enough interest to warrant more than two PPV's at a time. That much is for sure.
Somebody posted that HBO offers 3D movies via OnDemand, which some carriers provide. Why doesn't Dish, who recently made an announcement bragging about their HBO OnDemand programming?
Somebody posted that HBO offers 3D movies via OnDemand, which some carriers provide. Why doesn't Dish, who recently made an announcement bragging about their HBO OnDemand programming?
It's funny how so many of the 3D "haters" are also the Dish "lovers" who vigorously defend almost all Dish decisions/policies, and come down on anybody who questions those decisions/policies. Coincidence?
I really don't understand the horror some here see in wearing glasses. Millions of folks wear glasses every day and tens of millions more wear sunglasses not only because they help see in the sun but many wear them because they look cool. Today's newest 3D glasses are very light and should pose no discomfort for those wearing them for hours on end. The prices have come down to where passive 3D glasses are less than $20. The "I refuse to wear glasses" excuse really doesn't hold water anymore. Look around you and you will see at least 3 out 10 adults wearing glasses of some sort.
Me included; and I refuse to wear 3D glasses anyway. I already wear glasses; need them to read, to watch TV & Movies, everything else. Refusing to add 3D glasses still "holds water" for me.
As far as 50% of folks waiting for 3D, I think you're basing this on time on the internet/formums with a lot of tech-oriented people talking about it. Out in the real world, it really is more like 5-10%.
I don't contacts most of the time but I feel the same way. The glasses get annoying. I have tried out so many 3D demos in the stores but I still just don't really see much of a difference. I have been to a few 3D movies and imax documentaries and can see the 3D better there but after 15 minutes I adjust to not seeing it anymore. Guess I am odd but I just don't get all of this 3D nonsense.
IF there was a greater variety of shows and IF the price of a 3d tv set was somewhere close to reasonable and IF I didn't have to wear glasses that would probably scratch the lens of the eyeglasses that are prescribed, then I MIGHT consider a look at 3DTV. Having lived through the very brief period of 3D movies in the local theatres though, I doubt I would get my money's worth before the fad died again.
Obviously not everybody is going to give 3D a chance. Not even a chance. To your first point, I mentioned earlier, content (TV) is the major hurdle to main stream acceptance. You don't think the price of 3D TV's is reasonable? I have today's Fry's Electronics ad in front of me. They have a 60" Sharp LED 3D TV for $1699 and a 55" (glasses included) for $1199. Those two sizes are the sweet spot target for 3D TV's so why would anybody buy that size TV in 2D and pass on the 3D TV? This pricing example is exactly why 3D will win out in the end. 3D glasses are not going to scratch my prescription lenses. That is zero concern for me and I've worn glasses for 50 years. Now, anyone that thinks 3D is a fad will never ever give it a ghost of a chance of succeeding. It's a shame that quite a few movies have been released in very poor quality 3D in order to make a profit off of the beautifully created 3D movie "Avatar". I'm sure a few people did not like "Avatar" but most were in awe of the viewing experience. The review of "Titanic 3D" was terrific. Is it a coincidence that both movies were done by Cameron? They just need to take the time to do it right. One thing about the American public, we HATE to get ripped off. Give us a quality product and we'll embrace it, give us crap and we'll crucify you.
It's pretty obvious who they are. Most members know who they are. The only ones who don't seem to know are the ones who are.
Conversely, there are a few who complain about everything Dish does. Oddly, one of those folks actually sells Dish service, which is odd.
At least most members can take each topic on its own merits, and bash or praise Dish depending on the specific subject. It helps if one views Dish strictly as a vendor of service, an entity, without an emotional attachment or loyalty to it.
I have a 60" 3d tv and I paid $600 and some change for it and $66 for my 3d blu ray tv player on ebay (had been used once) and found a seller who on ebay who speclialises in 3d glasses. I got the whole 3d set up for less then a $900 which to me is a bargain.
I did have Directv but sadly after moving and buying a house I can't get line of site on my property. So I had to Dish. I was gutted. Dish needs to wake up and follow Directv and get some 3d channels on the air.
I don't mind wearing the glasses if they enhance my 3d viewing experience.
I did have Directv but sadly after moving and buying a house I can't get line of site on my property. So I had to Dish. I was gutted. Dish needs to wake up and follow Directv and get some 3d channels on the air.
I don't mind wearing the glasses if they enhance my 3d viewing experience.
these type of threads continually pop up month after month ? Where's the 3D content, etc, etc. If 3DTV was so popular and/or successful, we wouldn't see these, now would we ?
It usually comes down to those who've bought a 3DTV feel the need to justify and/or defend their purchase and the technology vs those who think it's just too risky, i.e. a fad, that will go away soon enough. That said, if I were in the market for a new TV, I wouldn't rule out models that were 3D-capable but I also wouldn't buy one for that capability.
these type of threads continually pop up month after month ? Where's the 3D content, etc, etc. If 3DTV was so popular and/or successful, we wouldn't see these, now would we ?
It usually comes down to those who've bought a 3DTV feel the need to justify and/or defend their purchase and the technology vs those who think it's just too risky, i.e. a fad, that will go away soon enough. That said, if I were in the market for a new TV, I wouldn't rule out models that were 3D-capable but I also wouldn't buy one for that capability.
I think the sentiment expressed in your last sentence pretty much applies to the majority here. The prices on 3D TV's have dropped into the very reasonable range and all top tier models from all manufactures are now 3D. So it seems to me thay this type of thread pops up for really one very good reason. It's the old what came first the bird or the egg. Does Dish jump on the 3D bandwagon or do they wait for more content? Obviously several providers have already jumped on but waiting seems like a reasonable option also. Everybody has an opinion and that's what makes it an logical topic. If content increases then so will demand for access to that content. If 3D hardware ownership increases (TV's) so will demand for content. It's just a matter of time, unless it's a passing fad, which of course is the debate here. Those of us that do not think it's a fad are wondering why the hold up on delivering the product.
This 3D "hater" has a physical reason for "hating" 3D. Approximately 4%-12% people (depending on the source) do not have stereoscopic vision. My guess is the number is on the higher end of the scale. This means that any 3D technology that requires the use of both eyes to see a 3D program or movie is lost on us. We are incapable, medically, of seeing the 3D effect. Not only that, but any program broadcast in 3D is almost unwatchable by us. That is not to say we do not see 3D in reality, because we do. I forgot the medical term which has more syllables than this sentence, but the dominant or seeing eye (depending on the condition) actually moves left and right (sometimes up and down) in the eye socket to get different perspectives on the object along with other visual cues allows us to construct a 3D world. That is why we aren't always bumping into things. (well, in my case, most of the time anyway). Unless a 3D technology can be made that does not require glasses, that percentage of the population is not only not interested, but nothing can be done to make them interested.
The counter-argument I always get is "there are millions of color-blind people and we have color TV." Unfortunately this argument glosses over the fact that most colorblindness is not absolute (i.e. monochromatic vision). There is color perception by the vast majority of those called color blind and it does not require you have two eyes that work together to stitch together an image.
The counter-argument I always get is "there are millions of color-blind people and we have color TV." Unfortunately this argument glosses over the fact that most colorblindness is not absolute (i.e. monochromatic vision). There is color perception by the vast majority of those called color blind and it does not require you have two eyes that work together to stitch together an image.
I'm not sure what % of the population is truly color-blind, but there's a much more common deficiency of "color-deficient". I have that but people think I'm color-blind. Not so.... I can see red, blue, yellow, green, etc, etc just fine. I do have issues with shades of certain color combinations though.
Too often though, people whine and complain that Dish effectively flipped a coin on 3DTV and have decided to wait it out while another provider has decided to go for it and hope it pays off. It's a business decision, nothing more..... More importantly, it's a low-risk decision as well. Let's pretend 3DTV takes off and is a monumental success. Will Dish fail and shutdown because of a mass exodus of subscribers who already left because of the lack of 3DTV ?? I don't need to answer that.....
For us, there are several reasons why we are not interested in 3D. We have a several year old Samsung 52 inch lcd which we have no plans of replacing. I think that is the situation for many people. We can afford the reinvestment of upgrading since we are retired. My 2nd reason is that my wife is nearly blind in 1 eye, so 3D would be wasted on her.
I don't think Dish is wrong to wait. I don't think "D" is wrong not to wait. The question is, "why is Dish waiting"? If they are doubtful about the future of 3D then that's a great reason. If they are just waiting until it reaches a acceptable saturation level for them to consider it profitable enough, then that's short sighted and will cost them new 3D customers as they join the dark side to get their 3D. I personally think that the latter is the case. Since I consider Dish to be my company of choice, that bothers me. I'll get over it. INGTony, Toshiba (I think it's Toshiba) has been selling a glasses free 3D TV in Japan for a few months now. I haven't read any reviews yet.
- Status
