If 3-D television is in fact the future of home entertainment, that future may not be so very bright. In a recent Nielsen survey, consumers expressed a variety of concerns about purchasing 3-D TV tech, not least of which are the obvious complaints: there's not enough 3-D programming, and you have to wear silly 3-D glasses to view the content that is presented in three dimensions. What's worse: the numbers suggest that the more experience you have with 3-D TV, the less likely you are to buy one.
The survey asked a sample of prospective consumers how likely they are to purchase a 3-D television set in the next year. That cohort is split into two groups, one that had previous exposure to 3-D television sets and one that had no previous experience with the technology. Of those without previous exposure to 3-D, 25 percent said they are "very likely" to purchase a 3-D TV. Of those who had actually seen the technology previously, a mere 12 percent said they were likely to buy one—a number dropped by half.
Those numbers aren't particularly rosy themselves. But at the other end of the spectrum, things look even worse. Of those saying they are "not at all likely" to purchase a 3-D TV, 13 percent were unfamiliar with the technology. But a full 30 percent of those who had previously seen the technology in action have no interest in buying one.
If seeing the technology at work makes one less likely to purchase it, perhaps that's a sign the tech isn't quite ready for the marketplace. While most people are concerned with the high cost (68 percent), it seems concerns about the scarcity of 3-D content (44 percent) and the fact that current sets require viewers to wear glasses (57 percent) are hurdles the industry is going to have to overcome. Get more programming out there and figure out glasses-free viewing (something Nintendo's already pursuing with its forthcoming 3DS), and that first problem will likely quickly take care of itself.
We need Hologram Decks like on Starship Enterprise!!
On a side note... The warning labels also warn against drinking while watching. Thats a sale killer to me
General TV content isn't so impressive. 3D CGI movies are much better. Probably the best type of 3D that works on these TV's are Playstation 3 games...they are downright impressive and effective! New content is coming out all the time on the system too. Do yourself a favor...go down to your local Best Buy and check out the Playstation 3 3D gaming setup. I wonder how many people in these surveys checked out that content if at all? I'm still holding out a bit for the tech to mature and prices to drop.
You can't have 3D tv without the glasses though because 3D tv works by polarizing light. 1 image gets polarized in the x-z plane and the other gets polarized in the x-y plane (given light from TV to eyes traveling in x-direction) and each side of the glasses cancels one of the images out to create the illusion of depth. There's no way to get a 3D image from a 2D surface without them and if you can you'll probably win a nobel prize because you obviously know more about light than anyone else.
Frankly this is way I see it. I will barely put up with wearing the glasses in a movie theater for a limited amount of time. And even there 3D is no substitute for a good movie. If a person gets into a good move their mind naturally provides the "3D". If it is a bad movie 3D can't save it. And at home my standards are even higher for my comfort, and the 3D TVs are not as good as the movies, and they cost a lot, so they are really a no go.
Yeah, um, Microsoft has a prototype. = ) 3D without glasses *is* possible, it just takes a very, very smart television.
You know what kills me is i own a Mitsubishi and I see these Companys coming out with 4 color this and 3d that and Mitsu has been already doing these techs for years and doing it better than al lthese companys for half the price. I have a 65" DLP that looks 100 times better than most of its competitors in the same field preaching this new tech and i just laugh cuz i paid a grand for it 2 years ago. I mean have you seen their Lazer vue TV's freaking Retarded picture can't beat it man don't care what you say.
Sorry but except for a few scenes 3D doesn't add much to the viewing experience. Besides I just bought a big screen, I'm not going to buy an new one for a while.
TV already gives the perception of 3D, but only in depth of image. When someone is smaller, they are farther away. Clever angling can mess with that somewhat (LOtR hobbits, for example) but the perception is still there. Our minds are good at creating that depth.
3D, then, just takes images and pulls depth forward. You could do the same thing by putting the screen close to your face (at about the same level of discomfort).
As stated before, 3D does not save a bad movie and tends to corrupt good movies, as the temptaion to "throw stuff at the screen" is too great to ignore (and annoying).
If the industry want a more indepth experience, then surround view is a much more satisfying experience (unfortunately, however, more exspensive to impliment in theaters or homes).
In other words, I'll take my F451 talking walls first - then you can 3D it into a holodeck.
So does 3D suck or what? Can someone give me an honest answer? The last time I was exposed to a 3D experience was back in '96 at a terminator 2 ride/movie at Universal Studios. I thought it was awesome! But, I hate going to the movies because I always want to bash all the people in the face who talk, yell and scream the entire time ... hence, it's been a while since I've seen something in 3D. But, I'm intrigued. If it's like I remember ... I'm in. Up the content available and I'll purchase.
I imagine you can go to a store and judge for yourself.
tcol -- I've been meaning to. I guess I'll need to bring my sanitary wipes.
I don't know how it is supposed to work, but allegedly Nintendo's new version of the DS is going to have a 3d screen where all the necessary tech is built into the device itself and no glasses are needed.
As for the current crop of 3d TV junk, I was at a Fry's and I tried out a ps3 demonstration setup and after 10 seconds I was nauseated by the whole thing and took it off. To be honest, it seems like a stupid gimmick that looks bad and requires dumb, uncomfortable, expensive glasses. It also made the game look unplayable to me. Sure, it was 3d, but it had something similar to the ghosting effect that was so problematic with early LCDs back in the late '90s.
I'm a pretty hardcore PC gamer, but I just found the 3d image to be distracting, obnoxious, ugly, headache-inducing, and in no way immersive. TRUST ME.
Ive heard really great things about the 3DS. That looks amazing, and you can turn it off, which is a good thing for the people who get nauseated no matter what quality the 3D is. Ive heard that the PS3's 3D is good, but rather gimmicky. And it is really expensive. For only a few games.
The only movie i have seen in the theatres that was any good in 3-D was the movie My Bloody Valentine in 3-D and the quality was actually really good and it actually improved the movie every movie since then was kind of pathetic to be honst.
Lots of nit pickers in the comments, 3D is coming, complain about ghosting ect. all you want but tech always marches forward, the ghosting will be fixed with time, the glasses will not always be around (too high of an incentive to find alternatives).
The 3DS and the Microsoft proof of concept follow similar no glasses methods. The 3DS projects two images at different angles, put the screen in front of your face each eye sees only one of the images producing 3D. Microsoft used cameras with face recognition to find your eyes and project different images in each allowing up to 2 people to simultaneously watch 3D, which also could be used to show 4 people 4 separate images in 2D.
Seriously some of you guys remind me of reading what people said about trains, things like "The human body will not be able to breath traveling at 20 mph" We went to the moon without computers, we can handle making 3D perfect.
Oh, and also, ive read this a ton of times so i'm going to clear it up for you, NOONE cares that you just bought a hdtv, if it took you 10 years to catch up on that market then you are probably going to take another 10 to buy a 3Dtv.
Finally, go see avatar in 3D or Hubble 3D. Amazing stuff!
I don't care whether or not I wear 3D glasses. I wear glasses already, so it's not that big of an issue. Plus, it's only for two or three hours at a time.
My biggest concern is picture quality and right now ... it's not the same as normal 2D. It's too dark and it has some jitter.
That's not to say I wouldn't get a 3DTV. I would like one for videogames especially. But I recently bought a plasma, so I'm good for awhile. Perhaps in three or four years I'll be ready to buy another TV ... and hopefully 3D will be even better by then.
By the way, anyone who really wants to see really good 3D, go see King Kong 360 3D at Universal Studios in Hollywood if you are able. That was really impressive. Short, but impressive.
09/14/10 at 2:20 pm
"You can't have 3D tv without the glasses though "
Actually you can the technology is already in development and in use. Recheck your facts.
3D without glasses is certainly possible, but 3D broadcast TV without glasses remains to be seen. (at least to my knowledge)
Here is some info on what's developing:
I am a 3D animator and we are currently working with a company on videos using Cinema 4D's Alioscopy camera rig.