You know what the least accurate type of survey is? One where you ask someone what they'd pay for something, because we don't know about anyone else, but the answer is almost always, "as little as possible." So it isn't much of a shocker that when asked, only 43 percent of those interested in
3D at home, said they're willing to spend an extra $200 for a 3D capable HDTV. Of that same group who actually wants 3D, only 33 percent would be willing to spend an extra $50 on a 3D capable Blu-ray player -- no clue why these two numbers aren't the same, guess the respondents didn't think about where the 3D content would come from. Although these numbers aren't encouraging, we wonder if a similar survey was ever conducted for 1080p HDTVs. We say that because at this point most consumers wouldn't think about buying a 720p HDTV and 3D is a much bigger upgrade.
posted Oct 2nd 2009 11:07AM
Unless you can 'retrofit' existing HDTV's and/or BD players I will not buy another TV or BD player 'just' to get 3D benefits.
If your in the market for a new tv though and see a 3d hdtv for $2600 that's 240hz, 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio, 42-52", full color gamut, etc like say what Series 9 of Samsungs LED series might very well be versus the Series 8 out there now that does 240hz, 7,000,000:1 contrast ratio, 42-52", for $200.00 cheaper, I think consumers might be willing to shell out the extra $200.00. I think the 3d is more likely to convince them than the difference from a 7,000,000:1 contrast ratio to 10,000,000:1
I know my friend is shopping for a tv and he couldn't tell the difference even after we adjusted the brightness/contrast settings/color settings to as good as they respective sets could get between a 3,000,000:1 contrast ratio on a led series 7 and a 150,000:1 contrast ratio on a Series 7 lcd. I do think he'd be able to see the difference between 2D and 3D though.
You guys really think people stopped buying 720p sets? During a recession? At what resolution do you think the smaller sets that are still selling are?
I still find it funny that the CE industry thinks normal people are excited about sitting on the couch putting on 3D glasses.
I still can't see a difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50" tv from 12 feet away, and I don't think I ever will. Contrast and color makes all the difference, unless I'm sitting up close or I have a huge screen 1080p just can't be seen.
I'll have to watch a 3D show without glasses to decide how much I want it. As of now there's no way I'm sitting in front of the tv wearing glasses.
Because YOU can't see doesn't mean "it can't be seen." You are sitting at a good distance from your 50''.
On my 73'' 1080i TV, I can absolutely see the difference between 1080i and 720p content at 12'. It's very obvious to me. I have even A/Bed the same content.
Of course, I roll the TV to 9' to get a more enveloping experience, but the wife isn't happy about that, so its normal spot is 12'.
-Pie
@Eating Pie,
"Because YOU can't see doesn't mean 'it can't be seen.' You are sitting at a good distance from your 50."
Nope--can't be done. 50" at 12 feet would require 20/15 vision in both eyes to see a difference based on number of pixels.
You may see a difference in the content, but it's not because of resolution--in fact you're just as likely to get worse results out of 1080i compared to 720p since the bandwidth is almost identical and most deinterlacers (particularly in projectors) aren't that great. There's quite a difference between 50" and 73" in screen size in either case, so your comment is completely unfounded.
A 50" 1080p television showing 1080p content has to be within 10 feet for the human eye to fully resolve all the pixels. A 73" screen can be 14 feet away with the same result.
12 feet from a 50" TV is too far...I sit about 7 feet from my 50" Kuro. I have an apartment so the "home theater" is definitely a closer environment, but it's nice to have the TV fill almost your entire field of vision.
While I have enjoyed a few 3D movies, I find that very few of them deliver a substantially better experience in 3D form, and the most successful applications tend to be Pixar films probably because it's much easier to convert a 100% CG film into 3D -- plus Pixar films are fantastic to begin with.
The other factor that the survey apparently didn't cover and that I'm surprised Engadget didn't mention considering they've been saying that the "killer 3D app" is going to be sports, is what sort of premiums cable companies will likely charge for 3D channels. Most cable providers already charge premiums for their HD lineup (though Time Warner doesn't, but it's evil in every other way). I think that's an intriguing possibility, but of course it will have to be priced reasonably, plus the quality of the 3D experience will have to justify the cost, which I think will be the real problem. Before the content providers can charge a premium, the content CREATORS need to shoot in 3D, which will require them to purchase new and/or more equipment. In the end I think it will be a while before 3D goes anywhere; look at how slow HD was to come to market because people weren't willing to pay much more on their cable bills for HD content and the networks didn't want to make the investment -- especially the networks that would be delivering HD content free over the air.
Go out and see Final Destination in 3D. Not for the story but to see how well 3D can be if a film is actually filmed for 3D.
Yeah I have a house so 12' away is just the way it goes. Obviously I would like a larger screen but just didn't have the budget for a bigger one at the time I purchased it.
Right now, I don't want 3D. It's a neat effect, but the need for glasses makes it more annoying than 2D.
ok let me jump in here, well i for one i am gettn a 3dtv from mitsubishi 73 inch, it will be here on MODERNWARFARE 2 DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!......................ok seriously i dont see nothing wrong putting on some glasses to watch or for that matter play our beloved game system(s) in full 1080p 3d sony ps3 will be the first one starting i dont know if xbox360 is right behind them or what but im assuming they be bluray player should be in full effect and i will be right wit my 3dglasses on watchn or playing in 3d
beside its coming in full effect next year, we will even have 3DTVs that u wont need glasses so it will satisfy both crowds i think yall looking at it a harsh on the new market but we should be talkn about 4d thas the future right there see that in five years
This sounds about right from a consumer stand point. I personally would pay a little more than $200 on the TV, but i also would want gaming in 3D.
Is the PS3 the only BD player that can do 3D with a firmware update?
AFAIK it's the only with announced support. But it was part of Sony's 3D Initiative, or whatever they're calling it. All their TVs will be 3-D capable next year.
As long as 3-D doesn't require excessive processing power, I don't see why other Profile 2.0 BD players can't be upgraded.
-Pie
Hmmm, If I ducted taped a pair of binoculars onto my current camcorder, would my recorded home movie be in 3D?
I think I remember on Attack of the Show, though it may have been from The Screen Savers days talking about building your own 3d camera by duct tapping two of those cvs dispossable camcorders and then hacking them so you don't have to return it to CVS and then using a 3d rendering program on your computer
And I certainly don't want it if its like the headache-inducing first 20 minutes of the latest Harry Potter movie. I was so glad when it switched out of 3D.
First off, any company touting 3D without glasses will deliver a sub-par product. A person has to be directly centered in order to experience the 3D effect. Anyone standing or sitting off axis will not see 3D or it will be terribly blurred. They have not perfected this yet and it will be years off. I am looking forward to seeing Panasonic's product because it will done on a Plasma and we all know they have next to zero motion blur and extremely wide viewing angles which is necessary to get the 3D effect from wherever you sit. Sony will be using Panasonic's standard but it will be done on LCD.
The new TV's and players will process differently therefore you will need upgrade both. They will also be using the HDMI 1.4 standard which will deliver two 1080p streams for each eye. Mitsubishi uses a different stand w/o HDMI 1.4 and is not delivering two streams nor is their 3D system 1080p (it's close but not quite there.)
If you did not attend CES or CEDIA you shouldn't be giving your opinion yet. This is quite a big leap in 3D technology. I was unsure about 3D until I saw the demonstrations.
It isn't like changing out the backlights of an LCD and spinning it as a new technology (LED) and then having consumers pay double for it.
So far, I have not seen a live-action film look good in 3-D. It's always been kind of hokey, or just sort of off in a vaguely strange manner.
However, every animated film I've seen has looked GREAT. Monster's vs. Aliens was the absolute best, where the 3-D really enhanced the experience. Cloudy/Meatballs was good too, but not quite the MvA level -- I think Dreamworks probably has better 3-D generation algorithms.
For live action, the real test will be Avatar, since so much time and money -- and James Cameron's famous meticulous attitude -- has been applied to it.
-Pie
You'll have to pay me to make me watch 3D. That is all.
You know what's amazing? Outside has astoundingly high resolution and CONTINUES to be free!
I just checked outside and not only is in super HD, its in 3D too! Saweet!
Everyone spent so much on the HDTV sets they already have and they (the television manufacturers) can't make an add on for the current sets?
And from what i have seen the Newer 3D sets are going to be very expensive and how can they justify the cost of these 3D sets after just lowering the HDTV's out now.
I'll stick with the red and blue glasses and watch the old fashion way, Thank You very much.
I just can not afford to pick up and buy a new set just for the 3D experience.
An add-on is needed!!!!!!!!!!!!
An add-on just isn't an option. This is like saying you have a 720p HDTV and you want an add-on to make to 1080p. The problem is that current HDTVs can't show 1080p at 120 fps. People just don't understand that that 1080p60 120hz TVs do NOT have the ability to show 120 frames per second, they can only show 60 fps and show each frame twice.
Now even if the HDTV could show 1080p at 120fps it would still have to have a way to emit IR for the shutter glasses. If they'd though of it before they could do this, but they didn't.
Bottom line is that TV manufactures exist to make money, which is the same reason you go to work every day. And lucky for those who are always looking for great new technology, the best way to make money is to make new technology.