Jeash, you guys are funny dissing on the idea of 3D TV at home as worthless, or even worse than worthless. I think that's like someone 50 years ago complaining about color TV being a waste of money and a scam by companies to sell new TVs when everyone already had a perfectly good 20" black and white TV.

3D TV will eventually be a big deal. There are a few technology barriers to it taking over the world but they are not nearly so difficult as the barriers the industry had to overcome to build large flat panel TVs. Remember how painful that was? It took 20 years to crawl our way from terrible streaky monochrome 9" LCDs to the beautiful color 65" LCDs we can buy at Costco for ~$3K today. It's fairly trivial to build a 3D TV that works well with glasses. These sets will not cost more to build once they are in production. All they are doing is interspersing two video streams (right eye, left eye), synchronized with the filters in the glasses. So they needed double the refresh rate, but the TVs are already at 240 Hz so that isn't a problem. And they need double the data input bandwidth which requires a new version of HDMI but is well within the capability of current electronics tech. And they need the sync xmitter to tell the glasses when to flip the filters. No big deal, no real extra manufacturing cost. Yes, the manufacturers will charge an extra premium for a few years to include the feature, but that won't last long.

But people are not going to want to wear annoying glasses except when they are seriously focused on watching a movie or playing video games. The real key tech that needs more work are the screens that through some magic use a slotted lensing system on the front of the screen to produce 3D without glasses. It sounds like that tech is feasible, and if it could be produced, I believe it will eventually make 3D screens a part of our lives everywhere (computers, TVs, phones, everything).

I suspect eventually 2D filmed movies will be "3Dized" just like black and white movies are routinely "colorized". Just as computers enabled rapid, efficient colorization, the same approach could be used to assign depth to various objects on the film and computer generate the left/right eye video streams.

Until then, new movies will increasingly be filmed in 3D HD. And games will adopt 3D immediately since the gameplay will be dramatically more compelling.

This is good technology! And the companies that bring it to us deserve to be rewarded.

Another article on 3D adoption. they predict it will catch on much slower than HDTV did.

LINK

I have never seen a 3D movie that made me feel like, ooh got have 3D. Now I haven't seen Avatar and maybe I'm the only one, even my 80 year old father has seen it. However, I'm not opposed to having it built into the next TV. Fat chance I'll put on those glasses on as they're annoying (I don't even like to wear sunglasses), but I imagine they'll come out with a better solution then those cardboard glasses.

That would make sense if 50 years ago they were trying to sell color TVs without any actual color TV broadcasts and making all buyers have to wear special glasses to see the color when it did finally become available. Eventually, all content was broadcast in color, but there's not a chance of 3D becoming ubiquitous in the foreseeable future - most broadcasters only recently made the capital improvements for HD, and won't be likely to plunk down more anytime soon.


See above, and also, 3D broadcasts can not be provided in HD by current ATSC standards. Hard to convince people to buy into 3D for TV when it's a step below HD resolution. You might convince the enthusiasts who already have BD players, but that's still a small market in the world of HD.



That's all conjecture, as no one has developed marketable tech at this point. The reality is that 3D is being offered as a "wear your glasses" experience right now. As soon as anyone finds out they have to buy extra glasses @ $50-$100/ea, it's going to be a tough sell, especially if they won't necessarily work on another 3D TV. And if you like to host Super Bowl, we're talking the cost of another TV just to have your friends watch.


We may disagree on this, but the public in general will decide that with their wallets. Over the years, the general enthusiasm for new technologies in this forum (ie SACD and DVD-Audio, HD-DVD and Bluray, multiroom audio, etc) has been typically high, so you'd presume that a lack of enthusiasm here might be an indicator that this tech is going to need some work if it's going to make it.

Obviously Color TV and all of the subsequent improvements was an effort (scam?) to sell new equipment.
All of these enhancements have improved picture quality, though I'm not sure how much they have improved the TV viewing experience.
Particulary in dramatic presentations, the content of the production is (IMHO) the key factor. This is why live theater has remained popular even without exotic special effects and realistic sets. When you are emersed in the drama, you accept the suggestion a prop . It's realism doesn't mater.
Unfortunately the content of most TV programing hasn't improved and has by far in large deteriorated , even movies are increasingly featuring special effects and ignoring the quality of the screenplay.
As you might have guessed, the advent of 3D TV doesn't send chills up my spine.

I'm with you. I'll take a rerun episode of Arrested Development over any other new show any day of the week. I just Blue myself!

I think one reason that many of us have reacted negatively to 3DTV is upgrade fatigue (I think someone tossed that term out recently and I really liked it). Less than 12 months ago, HDTV became the standard and analog went away - a process that caused many people to feel almost forced to upgrade otherwise functional analog TV's. In the last decade we have seen HDTV, followed by the addition of DVI or HDMI (which has led to the "obsolescence" of many early, very expensive HDTV's and projectors), Blu-ray, and a total of five different HDMI standards. Now - seven months past the digital change-over and a couple of years into the biggest economic downturn we've seen in a while - they're trying to launch a new standard that has a high likelihood of being obsolete within a few years (when solutions that provide 3D without glasses mature enough to reach the marketplace). And to enjoy that new standard, we need a new TV and a new Blu-ray player. Personally, I'm unimpressed.


I agree. The time will come. I just feel like manufacturers are pushing it on us prematurely, just like they have done with several versions of HDMI and Blu-ray/HD-DVD.


Bingo. From what I read of the CES coverage, several different technologies are well along in the development process that will offer this ability. That's why I worry that these glasses-based system (active shutter, etc) are being pushed out to market to make a quick buck while the options that are more viable in the long term develop.


The old saying about building a better mouse trap still holds true. I just don't feel like getting sold the prototype and getting my finger caught in it while the truly better one gets made...

Can anyone answer the second question in my post here on July 28 last year?:

"Scott, do you need any more beta testers for this? Also how do I get on the pre-order list?

-Hank (early adopter of the 950)"

Thanks.

I can't speak for Scott on the first part, although odds are that they've got a plan in place already for beta testing. As for the second part, there's not a pre-order list yet. Outlaw doesn't like to do pre-orders unless they have a product that has left the factory and will be delivered very soon. More often than not, they don't do pre-orders at all.

Hi Gonk,

I understand your points and agree with your analysis. One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe this 3D tech is going to be forced on anyone anytime soon. It will be a long time before another change of broadcast TV standards occurs, whether it is HDTV to super HDTV or HDTV to 3D. And the movies will continue to be sold in DVD and blu-ray non-3D HD formats for a very long time. Adding 3D capability to a system will be an option for people to purchase if they want it or ignore it if they don't.

The newer hardware will eventually all include the 3D features at basically no added cost, but the old equipment will still work fine. And non-3D versions of equipment will continue to be sold until the 3D features don't add cost.

It's a self-imposed desire to have the latest and greatest and be dissatisfied if our gear is missing some new feature that often drives us to upgrade. But anyone who chooses to be an early adopter should do so knowing that it comes at a price! Expensive, buggy, frequent obsolescence, incompatibilities, etc. etc. Most have us have done it and suffered the consequences. Caveat emptor! Right?

So those of you who wish to wait until 3D tech proves itself as worthwhile or until the tech matures, more power to you. But it isn't a bad thing for the manufacturers to create the technology and make it available on the marketplace. I agree that they are trying to rush 3D to avoid the inevitable collapse in AV sales once the mainstream users have all bought their HDTVs, blurays, and enhanced sound systems, and the market returns to a more normal replacement cycle of ~10 years per device. I'd try the same thing if I were in their situation.

I'll buy 3D once it seems like the glitches are worked out. I used to be first in line but I don't have enough patience anymore for the bugs! So now I try to follow close behind watching for when the prices start to fall and issues are resolved. The sooner they sell the first generation of sketchy equipment to the first round of buyers, the sooner I'll be able to buy the third generation that actually works well!