Grumpy Opinion: “3DTV Isn’t Ready”

[spaceinvaderx]

I think 3DTV is a great concept, and I loved Avatar in 3D, but there is no real supervening necessity for it. Additionally, many people (including myself) purchased HDTV's not too long ago and are not willing to make another big investment on unproven technology in a bad economy. Just my 2 cents.

 

[builderbobftw]

In the 70s everyone told me that Large Moniters were a fad, and wold suck.

Now everyone thinks 3D sucks, becuase it does.

But in 40 years, 3D will be good, and mainstream the same way HDTV is now.

 

[pjoyahoo]

I think the reason they launched the whole 3D fad so early was so that they could just upgrade 3D capability the easy way. I mean, they make a lot of money putting 3D movies in the theaters. If they didn't launch it and promote it up the ass (although I personally hardly notice the difference at all between 2D and 3D, but perhaps that's because I usually sit around the front because apparently the vertical alignment with the screen can cause problems) they'd have to wait a long time to improve on it. Our feedback will help them improve in the correct way, too. I say just let business go on as usual in this department and soon 3D will likely become bomb as hell.

 

[reaper21]

This article fails miserably because the author makes so many mistakes about 3d TVs. Firstly, it IS an upgrade to your normal TV, you can still watch 2D content on an 3D TV as 3D is a feature that can be enabled or disabled on 3D TV, so they can make 3D TV now for the early adopters and wait for more content to arrive, kinda like Blu Ray and HD DVD back in the day instead of wireless N, so if one technology wins out, only the early adopters of that particular technology suffers which are not that many people. Secondly, it is not in competition with their own normal TV lines as the 3D TV are priced at the highest end lineup ($4000 for a 50" set instead of $3000 for a non 3d model). And lastly, it's always expensive when new product comes out, HDTV cost an arm and a leg just 3 years ago, now it's about $700 for a 1080p LCD or even 1080p plasma of non brand name manufacturers. Who told you that you have to wear that glass all the time? Its only when you watch 3D content, which only some stuffs are good for 3d anyways: sports, action flick, which don't last more than 3 hours. News would never be 3D because there is no added benefit for 3D in news, romance or comedy movies also has no 3d benefit.

 

[Zingam]

I've just watched Avatar last night in 3D and I'd say it sucked. After 20 minutes I wanted to go out. It was Dolby 3D I think and I'm reading it's the better technology. Most of the time the scenes were out of focus especially during action scenes.
In 2D the movie looks much better - better colors much better perception and does not make my eyesight hurt.
Am I missing something or just 3D is overexaggerated?

A real 3D would be natural it will give a real 3D picture into the infinite space and not just he foreground and will allow the eye to pick which object to focus on. The current tech is more gimmickry than art!

 

[Zingam]

[citation][nom]pjoyahoo[/nom]I think the reason they launched the whole 3D fad so early was so that they could just upgrade 3D capability the easy way. I mean, they make a lot of money putting 3D movies in the theaters. If they didn't launch it and promote it up the ass (although I personally hardly notice the difference at all between 2D and 3D, but perhaps that's because I usually sit around the front because apparently the vertical alignment with the screen can cause problems) they'd have to wait a long time to improve on it. Our feedback will help them improve in the correct way, too. I say just let business go on as usual in this department and soon 3D will likely become bomb as hell.[/citation]

I don't believe they could improve on the current tech. We'll need something like holography to have real 3D and not two displaced images with freaky glasses.

Last night was my first and last visit to a 3D cinema. It was not worth at all. I didn't like the experience at all and that was my first visit to a cinema in 10 years. I'll try after 10 years again.

 

[idisarmu]

[citation][nom]Cushgod[/nom]IF you already where glasses , you kill yourself.[/citation]

Easy there, Hitler. Do you have something against people who are visually impaired?

 

[p05esto]

Hey, 3D movies are very cool. I'm man enough to say I really enjoyed the few 3D movies I saw this summer. They just draw you in a little more, like IMAX. Sure, the buzz and newness will wear off, but that's ok - it's still COOL. I look forward to the day of playing 3D games on my 55" tv.....glasses or not, hook me up!

 

[mjktrash]

Can you say severe headache...

 

[kawatwo]

I agree it's not quite ready for prime time either. I think I will wait for glasses free 3-D TV. I tried the Samsung set at Best Buy for about 5 minutes. You can't really move around while your watching. You pretty much have to be sitting directly in front of the set to get the full effect. Those glasses were a touch too big for my tiny head. I could see getting a massive headache after a couple of hours. I don't know if you could have 5 or 6 people using a 50~55 inch 3d and all getting a good view. Imaging 55 inch being too small? Some site was saying you would need about 100 inch to really have it be immerse. It sounds like the 600hz Panasonic plasma does 3D better but I want LCD. I am ready to buy a new/bigger TV but I think I will stick with 2D for now. A really good 2D looks darn near like 3D without the glasses anyway.

 

[longshotthe1st]

Dear Samsung, please work out the kinks in your 3d technology so that I may see some 3d boobs. Oh wait, I can see real life ones...nevermind, don't need a 3d tv lol.

 

[skit75]

3D in science & medical industries = new technology, sounds great & keep going

3D in entertainment industry = fad that died in the middle of the last century, lets leave it there.

I refuse to even taste this kool-aid in its current form to be honest. I think I am going to tough it out on this meager 2D 42" 1920x1080P LED technology for a minute or two more.

 

[Clintonio]

3DTV is too young I agree. I'm still stuck on a 2004 era LCD for my PC monitor, I don't even own a TV.

[citation][nom]ubergeek[/nom]I really don't need 3D "E"Dysfunction and tampon commercials floating through my family room. Can we also please have all HD content before we try adding yet another format to the mix?[/citation]
I'm glad erectile dysfunction advertisements aren't allows to be aired in the UK. Glad indeed.