Feeds

back to article 3D TVs to drop below £1000 in 2012

World+Dog will buy 4.2m 3D TVs this year as early adopters pay through the nose for the latest telly technology: sets will typically set them back $1768 (£1184), US-based market watcher iSuppli has calculated. The researchers reckons that $600-700 premium over regular LED-backlit LCD TVs will keep 3D out of the mainstream for …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
FAIL

meh

I'm all for progress, but there's still a severe lack of actual HD content out there... not counting upscaled-still-looks-crap stuff.

I think the telly companies are going to have a hard time convincing punters to upgrade their HD ready sets to 3D ready, when they haven't even gotten any HD value yet.

0
1

Re: meh

"a severe lack of actual HD content"

I don't think that's true anymore but you still have to pay a premium for it via Sky HD, Blu-ray or downloadable content. Unfortunately the BBC and ITV are still treating it like a bit of a side-show whereas Channel 4 appear to be taking HD seriously but only putting their HD content on Sky.

1
0
Coat

Is it only me

That misread "iSuppli's near-term forecast is more bullish"?

1
0
Rob
Bronze badge

Nope

I read it also as "iSuppli's near-term forecast is more bullishit".

Highly optimistic or are we the average consumer really that stupid with our money.

0
0
Bronze badge

All very nice ...

But in fact, a lot of the material that's going to be shown in HD (football and so on) isn't the best use of the technology. Sure, you can see depth, but it's still not entirely convincing, thanks to the 'playing card' effect.

And, while you may get two pairs of specs with your TV, if the broadcasts are - initially at least - going to be 'events' then mates will want to come round and watch with you. When the specs cost around £100 a pair, that's pretty expensive when half a dozen friends want to come and watch the match with you. The ones with 3D sets of their own can only bring them if they have the same brand.

Some of the figures quoted at Panasonic's recent event suggested 3D-capable sets would be in 40% of homes by 2015. Personally, I think that's pretty optimistic.

0
0

The good thing about this...

...is that hopefully the introduction of this high-end gear will push the prices of normal HD tellys to a decent level. Still too expensive IMHO.

0
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

I bet...

That world and dog won't buy anywhere near 4.2m 3D TV sets.

0
0
FAIL

Only by restricting available TVs to only 3D

I for one am not interested in 3D content until I don't have to wear those silly glasses.

However if in 5 years time I replace my current TV will I be able to buy a decent set that isn't 3D ready? I highly doubt it. In the same way that you would be hard pushed going into Currys and buying a TV that isn't HD Ready.

0
0
Jobs Halo

Apple

"From that average figure of $1768 today, the price will pass below the $1000 (£670) in 2014 and reach $825 (£553) in 2015."

So from that we can deduce that Apple will release their own 3D TV in 2016 at a price of about $2,000. Internet blogs will spend the entirety of 2015 spunking their tanks empty over how cool it's going to look, then Jobs will reveal it's just an even bigger iPhone. If he's still alive. If not we can safely assume his robot replacement will be a 6 foot tall iPhone with a warning message over his virtual-junk "You need Flash to see this object"

2
0

Polarised 3D Projections

Dual image polarised 3d effects are awful! For one they work on an average pupil to pupil distance. This means that if your pupil to pupil distance is not close to them mean your eye muscles are strained into odd positions for the focus distance. You need to sit at the right distance otherwise the parallax difference in the two images will give you a headache. The other problem is that your eyes/brain get fooled into thinking they can focus on out of focus parts of the image which isn't a problem with a normal TV but a pain in the arse in a cinema or at home.

Until holographic projectors or blocks come along and work properly 3d is not going to be an attractive option.

1
0
Thumb Down

HD and 3D

Content can be high-def, surround sound, 3D and all other kinds of presentation gimmicks, but if it's not interesting content, it's not going to matter.

I would rather watch a crappy bootleg of Lost on my phone's screen than pristine, high-def X-Factor on the world's best TV.

2
0
FAIL

No Thanks...

1. 98% content is rubbish.

2. 50% of the rest is repeats.

3. Glasses.

4. Sales opportunity looking for a reason to exist.

0
0
Gold badge

Don't want

I don't want it. I will not wear 3D glasses all the time just to watch TV. I watched Avatar in 2D and 3D, the 3D was "better" but a) That was something REALLY meant to show off the tech, not just "news and weather.. in 3D!" b) I did get some eyestrain. Oh, c) I already wear glasses, so putting glasses over glasses is inconvenient.

0
0
Thumb Up

Agree..it needs to be modal

There needs to be a button on the remote that switches the 3D TV back to pure 2D for that vast majority of the time when you don't want to wear glasses, even if the source content itself is in 3D. I don't think that is hard - you can even just show the view of one eye (video channel to be precise) and omit the other. Or maybe a three position switch: LEFT EYE / RIGHT EYE / LEFT+RIGHT EYE VIEWS) for those that want to fiddle...

0
0
Thumb Down

agree with most of the comments here...

and only need to add that this will be another great marketing gimmick for anyone vaguely none technical to get confused over.

I look forward to the rash of "3D Ready" tvs that probably aren't that ready and a variety of standards that are non of them actually standard (720i 1080p etc etc... are they HD or aren't they!!!).

Also given the move by the youth of today away from good quality sound systems and speakers, preferring to play their 'music' on a tinny and cr*p sounding phones instead, are early adopters a dying breed?

0
0
Dead Vulture

I'm still on SD CRT TV :)

I am still using a widescreen Standard Definition CRT Television and that seems to be enough for me. Until it dies, then I will upgrade the television. Getting us to chuck away perfectly working television is a waste of money and is filling up rubbish tips.

While I'm at it, I am still using my 19" iiyama CRT monitor. :)

The graveyard to represent the number of perfectly good working television sets being buried to service unnecessary upgrades!

2
0
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

One word

Porn.

0
0
Thumb Down

3D = HD fup handled three times as badly

First HDready (and HD-xxxxxxx for any number of quasi-legal descriptive terms) was used to sell defective incapable tat before they started offering programmes at seriously degraded broadcast resolutions - 3D will be tthe same fiasco again!

FYI When the TV died a year or two ago we decided to wait and see what happened. Broadcast wise before investing in a new goggle box. Originally we planned a year perhaps six months without TV to see how much more we could get done without the distraction of live "must watch" TV.

The abuse and threats from TVL ended up ensuring we never replaced the TV and went further. We gave the TV ariel, cable and booster away to family so we now need a new TV, ariel and wiring to watch anything! Going by the TV listings it is certaily not worth the cost and effort.

Also getting a TV would feel like giving in to the TVL threats. I would rather do without than give in to such legalised extortion.

0
0
Linux

The title is required

>Also getting a TV would feel like giving in to the TVL threats. I would rather do without than give in to such legalised extortion.<

Or do what I did, write them a really snotty letter telling them you no longer watch live TV and you will take them to small claims court if their abusive, threatening letters don't stop forthwith. Got a lovely apologetic letter from them stating that someone would come round to ensure my non TV watching status (over a year ago, still waiting), and no more letters.

Glass wearing 3D TV = Epic Fail! I want 4 wall screen holography.

0
0

Plasma?

Is this just about LCD? I'd have thought Plasma would be more significant for 3D TVs because it is faster and cheaper.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.