apparently, 32% of statistics are made up...
oh 3d tv? does everything look like jaws 3d on it?
Brits are steering clear of 3D TV, with only one per cent of the population owning such a set already and a further one per cent hoping to acquire one this coming Christmas. And consumers in the rest of Europe aren't much keener on the technology, either. So reveals a survey of European punters conducted online by price …
apparently, 32% of statistics are made up...
oh 3d tv? does everything look like jaws 3d on it?
I thought the joke was 132% of statistics are made up. :)
(The idea being its over 100% ;)
Joking aside, I would love a 3D TV, if someone is going to buy it for me, which is the problem, and one I suspect a lot of people have currently. Unfortunately I can't risk money for new toys at the moment, due to job worries etc...
model a costs you 1500 quid. add / enable 3d kit on exact same tv and throw an extra grand on the price. and try and charge 60 notes for a pair of glasses so you can use it?
of course they're not selling.
Nope, no interest here either, 'specially in a family of four with the glasses costing so damn much.
I'd rather the studios put more money into storylines than gimmicks like 3D which add little or nothing to a film.
> money into storylines than gimmicks
You're right. This gimmick de jour is a poor substitute for decent programmes. However, it's the only substitute they've got so we'd better all get used to it.
I just hoping that someone, somewhere is thinking about the next gimmick, which has got to be due in 3 or 4 years, as this one doesn't look like it's setting the retail world alight.
I can safely say it will be a long while before I even get a new TV.
Having demoed 3D TV's in store when I bought my current TV - it looked great for films but children struggled with glasses - one chose to not wear glasses...
I felt as a purchaser it was a bit of a rip off that you only got 2 glasses in the set and the cost of additional ones was exorbitant for what is effectively a gimmick for a few 3D films. At leas the red/blue 3D glasses were cheap. Even the black ones you get at theme parks (i.e. Shrek 4D at Universal) look like they can be cheaply produced.
My new 1080p TV is fine for films, DVDs, and games consoles. I won't be getting a 3D one and I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking this.
I certainly won't be buying one until my current HD TV needs replacing and they're all there is in the shops. Tried a demo of a pricey Panasonic one the other day and just found it nauseating. Give me a decent picture and accompanying plot over some pointless nausea inducing latest-fad crud anytime.
Same thing over here. Saw the 3D thingy at the store shows, yes they look cool, but it isn't a feature I actually need. OTOH my PS3 screams for 1080p, so that was my primary feature when searching for flatscreens.
Of course, I am glad about this 3D fad, as the 3D-deprived flatscreens have dropped to almost 50% their original price, which is what enabled me to buy an HDTV in the first place. Thanks to 3D, my old 17" tube TV has finally retired.
The glasses in use at cinemas or theme parks (black ones, not red and blue) are just simple polarising filters which are easy to make work if you're using actual projectors. When it comes to TVs and screens the only easy way to do it without losing half the resolution is to have 120hz screens and active glasses which black out each lens in turn at the same rate as the TV is switching frames. That's why the part is so expensive
As the title says. I'm about to order one, by next weekend at the latest.
And I wasn't polled by Twenga, so that puts their stats out.
It's to replace a smaller LCD display which doesn't have freeview
and to play Gran Turismo 5 on.
......by what mathematical method does that put their stats out ?
Do enlighten ......
why not get a cheaper but equally as good 1080p HD telly?
GT5 will look just as good and you won't get crippling motion sickness from the 3D effect
Wow, 8 downvotes for saying you are getting a 3D TV. A new low for Commentardery.
I'll be getting one as soon as they become afordable, at the moment they are not (well, for me anyway). Plus it's not long since I bought my 42" LCD.
The main driver behind this tech is going to be video games and not Eastenders as all these morons seem to think.
I'm not going to buy one, and I wasn't polled either, so I guess that puts their stats back???
Mine was for the shit maths
Being gullible is its own punishment.
that is actually being released?
I thought it was nothing but a rumour started to sell more PS3 consoles.
You know, like the Halo movie
where is the trollface icon?
considering most homes have probably only just bought non-3d tv's in the last couple of years, I'd say 2% by xmas (or up to 6%) was quite an impressive success actually - especially considering the lack of content out there still.
The Reg going for the daily star/NOTW style headlines again then.
Dear Mr TV Manufacturer,
you have just spent the last five years telling us all how CRT's are crap and we simply MUST upgdrade to an LCD/Plasma. A TV is a BIG purchase for a family with (imo) a relativley large amount of income spent on one. You now expect us to throw that all away to get 3d? I don't think so. My LE46 will be staying in my living room for a least a couple more years,
Monty "Couldn't give a toss about 3d" Burns.
...but what were the figures for the same point in HDTV's history? Or maybe DVD?
Prices will come down, and popularity will increase. I doubt it will achieve anything like the mass appeal that HDTV has because it really is just a gimmick, but aren't we still firmly in early-adopter territory anyway?
With the yawnsome variation of 720 and 1080 and pretty poor offering of HD content (alot of UK tv programming is just a bit crap these days) the only point of an HD tele is for gaming.
Add to this that there is no such thing as HD sound,( there's better quality, but no standard..) and the fact that the BBC and Virgin's vary on compression ratios which can give you a pretty poor picture.
3dTV will have mass appeal when it is built into every tv at no extra cost and you don't need glasses.... oh the stuff you watch is like princess laya's help message not water drops floating like avatar.
You, sir, are hereby banned from all Star Wars references until you go back and at last learn how to spell her name properly.
You're definitely not alone, costing issues aside, how much use are you going to get from the TV? both Virgin and Sky have 'paid for' extra content channels and some films are starting to appear specificaklly for 3d but who wants to sit and watch the news in 3d?? The exorbitant costs become even greater when you consider that the usage of a 3d mode would most likely be for a small percentage of time in comparison to normal viewing modes.
As an earlier poster correctly mentioned we are also seeing a glut of films made for 3d where the 3d effect is the selling point of choice rather than storyline. The Last airbender was a great one for this "it's awesome in 3d" the advert said as it waxed lyrical about how good 3d was, at the end the viewwer was left in no doubt that the film was 3d without being told a single solitary thing about the film itself........they could have at least said it was $h!t and save your money ;)
...3D TV is shit.
I have never been impressed, it makes my eyes and brain hurt watching it. The sooner the craze (lol) dies down again the better.
I refuse to wear glasses to watch TV (at least while my normal vision does not require it). I might consider a 3D television if 3D glasses were not required, but it's not a feature I would pay much for (if anything).
I do wear glasses, so am I supposed to wear two pairs at once? Or do they expect me to get contacts so I can wear glasses to watch TV.
But that's a minor point compared to the fact that most of the 3D content available is crap.
3D is only on the higher-end sets, not well supported on Blu-Ray players, has a very poor range of viewing media, and forces the user to adopt glasses that may not be comfortable or convenient for them.
So, it's really not surprising that THIS YEAR, relatively few people are planning a purchase. Especially since (as Anthony Shortland mentions) the collapse of panel prices in the last two years means that many tech-savvy houses have young sets.
I'm ordering a new 3D TV this weekend though. My circumstances are such that a 3D TV purchase makes sense for me at this time.
Twenga didn't poll me.
Same here. My eyes have different diopter and trying out a "3D" (actually a stereoscopic) TV set was an annoying experience for me.
In the past few years we've had upgrades from CRT to LCD & Plasma screens, analogue to digital terrestrial/cable/satellite, Standard Definition to HD Ready TVs that turn out not to be ready thanks to OFCOM's insistence on a new broadcast format for FreeviewHD. Oh and a recession. Perhaps people are just making do and waiting for a significant technological leap, such as holographic TV, before parting with their cash again?
Test-drove one of these the other day. Unimpressive. The 3D isn't overwhelmingly good, I don't want to have to add another bit of kit (specs) to be able to watch TV, the screen wasn't as big as the fab HD I have now, and it did strike me that this was an enhancement looking for a home. If 3D were the denier cri, then painting and photography would have withered and sculpture would have dominated. But some things are fine as they are. Radio was not overtaken by TV, as radio is better for listening. 2D works fine for watching something. When I want 3D, I'll go outside...
Buy that person a beer!
Although maybe a little cruel to the couch potatoes
I found, even on a demo on a bloody expensive TV, that the 3D effect was something akin to watching puppets on one of those Playschool/Blue Peter 3D theatre stages made out of a cereal packet and various pieces of coloured card stuck at varying distances into it.
Given the distinct lack of content and excess of padding on many documentaries these days, I treat a lot of them *as* radio, listening to them whilst I'm working on other stuff since fancy (but pointless) screen-time filling graphics and tedious (and useless) "re-enactments" of historical events are completely unnecessary to actually understand and appreciate the actual facts.
3D? Dull, Dull, Dull!
Is there was a way to save energy by turning the TV screen off but still being able to hear the audio? I might then listen to the digital radio stations on FreeView.
Actually, I'd like a device that strips out the adverts, the initial "here's what's we're going to do" bit at the start of a program, the post-advert repeat of what happened and what's coming up and the hammy acting bit at the end. I suspect an hour long program would squeeze down to 30mins.
To be honest, even then it wouldn't be worth watching so I'll go and read a book instead.
Just a warning for anyone put off by a demo - I was underwhelmed by several 3D TV demos, same sort of puppety type of effect as mentioed here.
It was only on the third demo I got it suddenly seemed a lot LOT better.
I've since realised why. The poeple demoing these things don't have the first idea, and hence the first 2 demos were actually just 2D content with the 2D -> 3D mode (which obviously doesn't really work)
Stick some actual 3D content on there, and the difference is night and day. Just worth bearing in mind.
I bought an hdtv a few years back, I'd been without one for about 10 years. I rarely use it due to the awful programs and constant ad breaks, I've even tried cable. When the TV breaks I won't be replacing it.
Record everything. Skip the adverts.
I've hardly ever watched TV 'live' since I got my Sky+ several years ago. I watch what I want when I want and don't see more than a few seconds of adverts per show.
They are saying "I just bough a new TV, i'm not buying again". There clearly IS a future in 3DTV (anyone that's played the PS3 demos at Sony stores will know that 3D gaming is immense). Just that consumers will adopt when their TV's need upgrading.
I don't think that they are saying that at all. I think they're saying "That sounds like a good idea", until they try it in the store, find out how awful the whole experience is, and how much it costs. Then they start saying things like "What a load of expensive crap".
Nope, not interested either. It's a fad that will be gone in a couple of years. It's only taken off in the cinema as it makes recording off the screen with a camcorder a difficult task. It all seems rather forced and contrived.
I've just measured it.
The broadcasters haven't finished winding down the bandwidth on their HD transmissions yet. Some of them haven't yet reached the point where the quality is what SD would be if they transmitted that properly.
I thought they were just pointless until you pointed out Gran Turismo in 3D. That would rock (assuming it actually does come out on the 24th).
Not sure of which month or year though...
I wonder how long they'll keep my pre-order on order.
Danny Dyer's Hardest Men in 3D. It'll make it feel like I'm actually there!!!
I'm blind in one eye.
Oh well. I only know of one person who plans to buy a 3D TV, and this is the guy that said to me "I know I'm terrible and I probably won't use it, but I'm getting one anyway" when the iPad came out.
as soon as I can get one for no extra financial gouging, without needing geeky looking specs and there's a decent amount of content.
When I watch telly it's mainly iPlayer routed from my PC and it's on while I do something else. I think trying to cook dinner or whatever would be tricky having to put on and take off specs when I glance at the screen. I suppose if I get a blueray player, it would be cool to watch if there was the content, but again, with so many "sony only" and "panasonic only" etc specs, I couldn't have a bunch of mates over to watch with me and bring their own goggles.
Plus, can you imagine the hassle of rooting around to find the telly remote, then the amp/ stereo remote so you can hear it, then the DVD player remote and THEN the glasses?
Anyway, does anyone remember the MAster systems 3d gaming attempt? Very similar tech from what I remember.
Well seeing as most of the acting on telly is one-dimensional, I hadn't actually realised that 2D TV was even available!
Mines the one with a copy of "crap forum comments and jokes for Dummies" in the pocket.
(Not that I was polled.)
I think it's just a gimmick. A stunt from the big film companies to try and combat piracy by making a medium that is harder to copy, and to add an extra couple of quid onto cinema ticket prices.
I've yet to see any 3D film that justified the extra ticket price or the mild annoyance of the glasses. Even the much-vaunted Avatar caused only a slight amusement in this cynical viewer.
And as for the idea of having to don a pair of specs (on top of the corrective pair I sometimes wear anyway) to watch TV in my own living room, and of having to sit in the right place to get the best effect: don't get me started.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017