Feeds

back to article Avatar expands 3D TV interest

Hit movie Avatar appears to be persuading punters - in the US, at least - that it might soon be possible to view 3D films on TV at home. Whether it will convince them to buy into the notion is another matter. Electronics price-comparison site Retrevo said yesterday that while a mere 39 per cent of consumers were aware of 3D TV …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

What would have been nice

Is if Avatar had expanded interest in well-told, dramatically engaging, complex storytelling. But 'Dances with Wolves' for the ritalin generation didn't have any.

0
0
Thumb Up

Beat me to it.

Great CGI, great 3d. Fucking appalling cliche-ridden story. IOW, just what we've come to expect from Hollywood.

0
0
Silver badge

So you watch Avatar. Then what?

It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. What is the point of buying a 3D television when there is so little content to watch on it? With no content, 3D TV is pointless. It is also such a fledgling technology you would have to be pretty brave or pretty stupid to buy into it right now. The *really* early adopters always get stung for a lot of money for a half baked implementation that will be superseded by semi-decent models after a generation or two.

Aside from that, the biggest impediment is the glasses. They induce headaches, they look stupid, and they cost a lot of money. You'd be lucky if TV manufacturers toss even one pair in the box and most people are going to need more than that.

I think 3D is an interesting concept and probably it will become a standard feature of midrange TVs over time. Maybe then its worth investigating, especially if more content appears. But I simply do not see the point of it right now except for novelty value. And those glasses have to go. Whichever TV set manufacturer produces a convincing 3D effect without the need for glasses or other absurd restrictions is going to make a lot of money.

0
0
Go

Seen this before

Didn't HD have a similar issue? No programming, so no point buying TV's, until Sky and Sony joined forces (marketing) to make HD plausable.

And that's happening again in a few short weeks when Sony release their 3DTV's - look out for the glasses to be stuck on a Sony Centre's window near you...

0
0
Grenade

This is where....

....PC's and consoles step in. All directx games have been viewable in 3D using stereoscopic glasses for a good 12 years. I think this movement was stalled by the popularity of LCD's with low refresh rates.

All Console and PC games should be made with 3D in mind (crosshairs in the right place with the 3d effect on etc), films will soon follow.

0
0
Silver badge

Still not enough

I'm sure games will play their part but its still not enough. No console is 3D yet, and even if Sony or Microsoft enable some form of 3D it will be patched into games on a per case basis. Some games will get the treatment, some won't, either because their frame rate isn't high enough or other fundamental issues.

I don't consider PC games to make the slightest bit of difference to the situation. I am aware that some solutions claim to 3D-ify older games (e.g. 3D Vision) but PCs are generally speaking not plugged into living room TVs, so the content you may or may not eventually be able to play is irrelevant. Even on the PC some games won't work because they overlay 3D with 2D elements like the HUD, muzzle flash, blood splatters, lens flare, anti-aliasing etc. It leads to some very weird artifacts where the muzzle flash is floating above the gun or the perspective is all screwed, or clipping issues caused rendering from two viewports..

Yes eventually 3D will have content but that time is not now. I think it would be a colossal waste of money to buy a 3D TV for a few years unless its a value add tossed into an otherwise decent 2D TV. Let the early adopters fork out for the half implemented, slow, broken 1st generation of TVs to play a handful of titles. In maybe 2 or 3 years there may even be enough content to justify someone in the mainstream buying a TV for its 3D features.

0
0
Bronze badge
Grenade

My 2D Kuro is lovely, thank you very much

I'd pay £300 for a decent set of 3D specs if it made any improvement on the lousy picture quality that you get with 3D TV/Cinema.

But I somehow don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime.

0
0

@Mike

When I watched Avatar, it was easily the best quality film I have seen in a cinema (though I dont own a Kuro, admitidly), If I could have that quality at home, I would wear the specs, np. I would only whatch blcokbusters though, can't see any point watching mythbusters in 3D!

0
0
Go

It's changed what I'm going to do...

Was toying with the idea of upgrading to an HD TV and BluRay , but will now hold off until the 3D format wars sort themselves out. If the Glassesless tech can be sorted out as well, that'd be just dandy.

0
0

Avatar suicides

Where's the story about people who can't go on living in the real world?

0
0

Skip it

If we're going to wear glasses then lets go the whole hog and resurrect VR goggles with a good FOV and 6 degrees of movement.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Glasses price

3D TV costs 3'000? Sure.

3D glasses cost 30? Too much!

Wonderful how people's mind work...

0
0

not so sure about 3d tv...

I think the idea of 3d tv is pretty neat, but i don't know if it'll catch on because of the required glasses, not to mention the expense and the lack of 3d material (ie movies show channels). http://3dtvinformation.com/ has some cool info on it too though!

0
0
Thumb Down

people dont watch TV

the problem with glasses is that people dont actually watch TV. most of the day they "glance" at it. -They wake up and turn the telly on and listen to the news whilst getting ready for work.

How many people would put a pair of 3d glasses before they get dressed just so the morning news didn't look strange?.

Then people, sorta like, come home in dribs and drabs from school/work/manicurist; now there would have been no reason to wear the 3d glasses on the way home; apart to look like a dick, so you glance over to the tv to see what junior/missus/sir is watching and your eyes go funny cos you've not put the 3d glasses on.

Silly. Until we polarise everyone's eyes at birth, 3D is a stupid fad.

HD isn't/wasn't such an issue - hellfire its just a better quality picture for gods sake. Whether the picture is B/W or colour or HD - all you just need to do to watch is to turn your head and look at it - not "turn your head, turn it back, find a pair of 3d glasses, then turn back and look at telly". Hmm. maybe radio will have a resurgence.

3d glasses at £25+ a pop will be fine(*) until your mates come round to watch the footie and you tell them they wont be able to watch it without forking out for a pair of fluffing stupid glasses.

(*) cough (**)

(**) actually you know that's not how it goes - Once Murdoch puts out a 3D channel we'll get BOGOF vouchers in The Sun and a multitude of competitions that allow us the opportunity to win a 3D telly and pair of matching his and hers glasses(***)

(***) I can picture them now - they'll have a green stripe along the top where you can put your names...

2
0
FAIL

Now watch all the idiots..

That tried to tell us that Blu-Ray was dead, and that Digital Downloads were the future, concede that they were wrong on that (and in most cases, the HD DVD thing), and their new mantra is that 3D is not worth bothering with..

Oh, hang on, Microsoft have already started telling their droids what to think...

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joystiq.com%2F2010%2F01%2F13%2Fxboxs-greenberg-questions-demand-for-at-home-3d%2F

Obviously, anything they can't do sucks (until such a time, that they can do it, then it's the best thing evah...)

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.