3D: Fad or The Future?

[blackzarg]

Just wondering what people's prediction about 3D are. I know many were impressed with Avatar (unfortunately I was not able to see it in 3D) - would this be something you'd want for all movies?

For those that think this is going to be a fad - have there been any other fads in the past regarding home theaters (laserdisc?)? I'm relatively new to the home theater/audio world (it's only been a little more than a year now!), so I'm not sure how to see this 3D thing.

[Ajax]

An excellent question and one for which I don't really have an answer. But, in light of something I read just recently at CNET, it won't be on my radar for quite a long while.

"No matter how you look at it, 3D TV is an expensive proposition. You'll need to buy a new Blu-ray player, new TV, and possibly a new receiver. Oh, and don't forget to factor in the cost for extra 3D glasses for family and friends.

Worse yet, after you've made the substantial investment in new hardware there's not a lot of 3D content to buy or see."

By the time it shows up on my radar (if it ever does), the question should be answered.

[Mike_TX]

3D has been around for a long time.
The use of special equipment (software, TV, source, glasses) for the near term future will relegate it to "dedicated" watching -- eg in a movie theater or for special events (eg sports, HT room, etc).
Much of consumer TV/movie watching is more casual such as watching while talking to people, watching the kids etc where a total 3D immersion is undesirable.

Avatar in 3D is great and the development of improved technology is welcomed.
However, we currently have a lot of current problems with available constructs:
- HDMI standards
- BD-live & blu-ray FW updates
- copy protection
- high definition streaming audio / conversions
- expanded color gamut in TV's -- very little if any software for it
- calibration
- 2D sharpness, lumens, LED/laser lamps, black levels, mod-ANSI contrast
- etc

I will definitely sit on the 3D sidelines for quite a while.

Mike

[brh986]

3D is not a big deal to me either. I am waiting for holographic TV, that is, if it can even be called TV anymore at that point.

I haven't even made the jump to HDTV yet. I LOVE my good old digital DLP projector. "thumbsup:

[emac]

May be it's because my HDTV is only a bit over a year old, but I think 3D is going to be a fad. For myself, only a few times a week do I put on the TV and watch something continuously for more than 20 minutes on end (usually one of the excellent shows on USA). More typically, I have sports on while I'm doing something else, and I'm not paying full attention to the game. So, 3D is at worst distracting and inconvenient. Unless I'm missing the boat on something here, 3D TV isn't in my future any time soon.

[engtaz]

Fad

[SomeCiscoGuy]

Until a viable (and cost effective) solution that:

• doesn't require glasses;

• fits the requisite HT screen size (60" or above); and,

• doesn't give everyone a headache...

...it's a fad.

[Mep]

In the Home: a long time before we know. I wouldn't even call it a fad for home use.

In the Theater: here to stay for the foreseeable future. All the top grossers lately have been in 3D. People have spoken with their dollars. Now if a bunch of 3D films flop in a row, hollywood will think it is because of 3D and run away from it. Of course if a bunch of 3D films flop in a row it is because they are all bad movies.

[phipp01]

Heck I hate wearing reading glasses so I rarely do (I just hold what I am reading at a distance) I most certainly will not wear glasses to watch TV, so for me FAD!!!!!

[emac]

So, does anyone like the idea of 3D TV then?

[dguarnaccia]

I like the idea from an immersion standpoint. For the same exact reason I fiddle with my audio gear to get more immersion from the audio, 3D done right is an immersive experience, and I would gladly sign up for it. I'll wait until passive technology is home ready though. I won't forking out money for active shutter glasses. Those are just plain annoying. But lightweight polarized glasses? I don't mind those so much. We all wear sunglasses on sunny days...

[Mike_TX]

So, does anyone like the idea of 3D TV then?

I like the idea from an immersion standpoint. For the same exact reason I fiddle with my audio gear to get more immersion from the audio, 3D done right is an immersive experience, and I would gladly sign up for it. I'll wait until passive technology is home ready though. I won't forking out money for active shutter glasses. Those are just plain annoying. But lightweight polarized glasses? I don't mind those so much. We all wear sunglasses on sunny days...

RE: Immersion

I agree.
I saw a Nvidia display at CES 2009 that was very cool.
Videogaming is an immersive and interactive experience.
That is where 3D will find a foothold initially.

I don't think 3D is a fad, but it will be a minority marketing segment and will not lead to the same sales that flat panel HDTVs or DVD players or BR players did for manufacturers.

Mike

[Cujobob]

3D is cool, but even just think of movie theaters...they're supporting the movie in two different formats currently. That's just stupid. I find 3D cool and annoying at the same time. I also find I have to sit further back to enjoy the movie. Complicated systems are a tough sell.

[Mep]

I needed to buy some tooth paste and while trying to find a plain old tube I saw Crest 3D Whiting. Yeah, it is a fad, but so was reality tv.

[blackzarg]

Thanks for the responses (both humorous and serious (= ). It seems like a cool thing, and all manufacturers and their mothers seem to be pushing it, but I look at the costs and it's still way too expensive for me. I own a Samsung DLP that has the TI 3D technology, and a PS3, so I can technically get non-standardized 3D, but it's still too much for me to invest in glasses and adapters when there are so little dedicated 3D movies out there.