Still think 3D TVs are popular? We hate to say it, but only ten per cent of LCD TV panels that shipped in 2011 were 3D capable. So reveals market watcher NPD DisplaySearch, which noted that some 212m LCD TV panels shipped last year. That said, the picture isn't entirely a poor one for 3D. Its share of LCD TV panel shipments …
Are they buying 3D, or just buying "top of the range" models?
If you want a top-of-the-range TV, the chances are that it will have 3D. Many manufacturers don't produce "non-3D" and "with-3D" versions of their top sets, so if you fancy something really good, you will almost invariably end up buying a 3D set.
What Kristian said.
I've just ordered a 3D telly, but not for the 3D. Just that, there isn't a non-3D version of the model I wanted.
I doubt i'll even use the 3D much - my girlfriend gets motion sickness watching 3D movies, and one of my eye's doesn't focus properly, so I only ever get a blurry sense of 3D, rather than the full effect that I assume everyone else gets.
Perhaps the dog will appreciate it, if I can find a way of strapping the glasses to his head.
"girlfriend gets motion sickness"
Well, may'be try doing it a bit slower?
Screen + dog
Don't be cruel. He might think it's a real window and try to jump through it!
@jai RE "Perhaps the dog will appreciate it...."
Nah - he'll probably woof, "nice telly, shame about the content".
The industry is basically bumping prices by forcing people to buy a feature they don't want. Well played.
Given a TV or DLP that can hit 100 or 120Hz, active 3D is virtually free with the addition of an infrared led (and the opportunity to sell 100 quid accessories ad infinitum, only compatible with your product), nearly all TVs are HDMI 1.4 (has option for 3D support, which is just a handful of simple video encodings the TV must understand) compatible now anyway.
Of course when choosing between two TVs which are exactly the same in specs, punters typically by the one with the big "3D ready" logo.
I don't think the industry is pumping prices, just using it as an opportunity to sell brand locked accessories (which isn't much better, but anyway).
"Accessories only compatible with your product"
Just a note on this, but the big producers have been discussing the creation of a universal standard for active 3D glasses. They may want to sell six pairs to everybody with each new set, but they recognise this isn't realistic and so it's better if they have the chance to poach their rival's customers instead of each user being locked into the first manufacturer they bought from.
No FAIL icon for you though, as it hasn't happened yet.
And the % of buyers who actually give a shit about 3D TV?
I'd be surprised if it was 10%, let alone 25%.
correct me if im wrong
but given that manufactures have a vested interest in punting 3D TVs an they reduce their 2D range acordingly, isnt it kind of stating the obvious that 2D sales will decline and 3D will incease?
Maybe im daft an cant see this, but to me, this isnt a sign of 3D popularity, its a sign of lack of choice.
It would be near on impossbile to actually work out how popular 3D content was without asking folk.
Aware but not interested.
"As brands continue to promote 3D, user awareness and interest is growing,"
I've tried 3D. It gives me motion sickness, which I don't otherwise suffer from, *and* a blinding headache on top. Depending on which article you read there are 5-20% of the population who have the same problems. The chances of nobody in a household suffering these problems drops as the number of people increases. If it's 10% who suffer problems a third of 2 parent, 2 kid households are going to have someone vomiting or whimpering when watching 3D TV, and that's before you consider how crap the programme is.
Icon for how I feel after watching 3D.
Re: Aware but not interested.
active or passive?
active gives me a blinding headache, passive doesn't
although as mentioned elsewhere there isn't very much 3D content about yet
lucadatv for duvde
When the missus wanted to double check just how much I was spending on the big telly, explaining that I wanted a high base refresh (200Hz min), more than enough brightness (has to cope with 3D glasses blocking some light), fast pixel refresh (to limit ghosting) was difficult to put in layman's terms.
I found the easiest way to explain it was "I'm getting 3D because it covers almost all the base requirements, even if we never use it for 3D"
I always thought 3D was a way to shift the high refresh panels because Joe Schmoe didn't understand the benefits and they couldn't move the stock...
Joe Schmoe didn't understand the benefits
It might also be that Joe Schmoe can't tell the difference between a normal (100 -200hz) and a high refresh (200hz +) panel even when they're sat next to each other in the showroom.
I'd defy anyone else to either.
3D itself is more popular than 10%. According to the MPAA statistics, 21% of box office sales in 2010 were 3d. That's up 91% from 2009. I couldn't find any statistics for 2011. Still, that doesn't include any adjustments for the number of movies that were released without 3d versions. If you remove sales of 2d only shows from the results I suspect 3d showings would prove to be quite a lot more popular than 21% when a 3d showing is available. What's not popular is high price. There are some 3d TV's available for lower cost but in general 3d televisions do cost a lot more than non-3d televisions. I think that's why they only sold 10% of the market. I.E. The difference between a $7 movie ticket and a $10 3d movie ticket is nothing to most people but the difference between $1500 for an HD television and $2500 for the same model with 3d will make most people balk. Not to mention the $100 price tag for each pair of glasses. I personally do own a 3d Panasonic plasma television and I love it. So do all of my friends and family who have ever sat and watched a 3d movie with me. It's the cost of entry for the tech that's slowing the uptake not the tech itself.
Re: 3D Popularity
"when a 3d showing is available"
I find it's more the other way around. I don't like 3D since I already wear glasses and find trying to put the 3d ones over my normal glasses a pain so I look for 2d versions. For anything with a 3D version I only find 2D in small old (often scuzzy rundown) theatres. For example The Lorax is 100% 3D near where I work, or where I live unless you want to see the one 2D showing at 2:30pm.
Re: 3D Popularity
"3D itself is more popular than 10%. According to the MPAA statistics, 21% of box office sales in 2010 were 3d. That's up 91% from 2009."
It's worth bearing in mind that cinemas charge more for 3D showings, so they're always going to generate more sales revenue than the equivalent number of 2D showings.
Also, while I don't think it was the case in 2010, there's been a recent trend for films to only be shown in 3D - Underworld 4 and Ghostrider 2 were both only available in 3D at all of the local cinemas. It'd be interesting to find out if the additional per-ticket revenue is offsetting the potential drop in cinemagoers - anecdotally, my friends and family have started to actively avoid going to 3D showings thanks to the high prices and lack of benefits!
Another stat would be useful
How much 3D content is being bought or rented? A good number of 3D Blu-Rays are on the market right now, it'd be interesting to know how their sales compare to conventional disks and how the trend is shaping up.
Not many care about 3D
The only reason 3D TV sales are up, because their price are down and the quality is generally better. For average public, 3D sounds better too.
Passive 3D is the way to go, active 3D glasses are too much hassle. And there isn't any quality 3D contents anyway.
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Game Theory Dragon Age Inquisition: Our chief weapons are...
- 'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix