Brits say 'no, no, no' to 3D TV 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 …
For me 3d TV would irritate the S*&t out of me, I wear glasses, so would either have to have special glasses made, or wear two pairs/clip-ons. I also don't actually watch TV all the time either, I do stuff, check the mail, make a meal, work. So unless I can do that whilst wearing silly specs, why would I want one.
Mind you I do know some couch potato who really do treat the TV like a cinema, so they will probably be the 1%, the other 5% are probably people who just want to say they have one and can't admit it was a crap idea to go out and buy one.
I'll buy 3D when it's holographic, and you don't need special additives. I can see why gamers would want it though, never managed to make coffee whilst playing doom, yes I still do play it now and then.
Why? Because in case they haven't noticed, we're in a middle of a recession, everybody's just bought new TVs for the latest "in thing" (HD) and now they want us to spunk thousands more on new sets that typically don't have anywhere near as good a picture qualtiy as the sets we've just bought and have lots of inconvenient problems with them... i.e. very little content, no real standards in place and the content that there is out there is either the ghastly "throw things at the viewer" type or the hacked up "more 3D than real life" abortion that is Sky Sports 3D.
Our broadcast systems are still suffering with the con whereby the move to Digital gave us lots of channels all with piss poor picture quality (due to the limited bandwidth available to each channel and the cost of it from the suppliers let alone the politics that are involved). Then the broadcasters launched HD where, without adding much extra capacity did the bandwidth come from? By lowering the bit rate of the SD channels and thereby making the difference more marked than it should be - same old trick that was performed with CD and the poor quality plastics that suddenly started being used in vinyl records.
Now we have 3D channels into the mix where something also has to give due to the bandwidth restrictions... either other channels, the refresh rate of the frames, or the quality of the frames/audio. Stiched up? bet we are!
Sky isn't about to launch lots more satellites to provide more broadcast bandwidth right now - due to economic their play is likely to have to be Internet supplied content as it's the only real way they can compete in the long term.
In theory Virgin Media has the infrastructure in place, albeit with costly upgrades to a lot of kit required but good chunks of this can be accounted for in the steady churn of consumer units that only have a few years operational reliability in them anyway (this isn't a dig at VM, it's normal for kit). VM's strength is that they own the deployment infrastructure therefore it can be upgraded to suit their requirements - shame about their weaknesses... the problems still caused by multiple "competing" companies being merged and their still atrocious customer support... and their regular spats with Sky.
Freeview has much cheaper infrastructure upgrade potential however due to the piecemeal way the standards were flung out there and the short sighted initial vision consumers are left with poorly performing kit that's practically obsolete by the time it arrives. Couple this with advert blighted EPGs and it's not a nice environment for the end consumer.
someone mentioned they would buy one if it was without glasses ...
form a distance, it would work if you were a hammerhead shark and your eyes were seriously far apart :D
then the telly would have to track all the other hammerhead sharks in the room and soomewhat emit light at different freq/angle for these ppl too :D
The only way 3D TV will work is by making the glasses seriously cheap, not requiring any power. So for the rainy sunday afternoon, one can get the family aund a good 3D film.
I wish.
It would be nice to think that people would reject 3D TV based on technological criteria (the need for glasses, the infinitesimal amount of 3D programming available).
Unfortunately, once again a tech is accepted/rejected purely on financial considerations.
That said, I always found highly laughable that they launch 3D TV now, when HD TV has just begun to make real traction on the market and Blu-Ray is only just starting to actually sell.
Like so many other techniques available to film makers, 3d is a waste of time if it doesn't contribute something worthwhile to telling a decent story. To date all the movies produced in 3d are little more than glorified ads for 3d itself, and I think it'll take a bit more than a big name director to come up with something that makes it worth wearing a pair of uncomfortable specs for two hours.
These OLED's when they start to sale them to us are suppose to be so thin that the TV will look like a sheet of glass when its switched off; Well there you go just add umpteen sheets in a sandwich and BINGO 3D TV with out the glasses, and you can still watch 2D on the top most layer
Or modify a Dyson and shoot laser light off the dust particles to get the fuzzy Star wars look Hush The Great Leader is about to address his people
Sound good? Nope, thought not. 3d only benefits a certain portion of tv programming such as action movies, pixar movies and maybe wildlife programs. The Hairy bikers 3d, eastenders 3d, the weakest link 3d. None of those genres benefit and thus make the purchase of a 3d tv unnecessary.
I'm somewhat interested in 3D but I hate the flickering of active shutter lenses. When they start making screens capable of outputting a polarised image so I can use passive glasses I might become more interested.
Ideally however I'd want to see screens using technology similar to the Nintendo 3DS where glasses are not necessary. I don't know if that's possible, but that's what I'd probably be willing to spend money on, assuming the support is there in terms of games and films that use it.
When I first saw a 3D movie with the polarised glasses, I was impressed. I wondered how long before you got lots of 3D content. Hell with polarised content you could even get printed content. Just wear some contact lenses, and you could add a whole new depth to your world. I wouldnt mind a 3d desktop Cool...
The tech is there, the content is not...
Only enthusiats will shell out for something, when the content is so poor. Go down to you local shops and see the range on Blueray vs DVD. I've got an awsome blueray setup... 3D yeah, when I finally have to replace what ive got now... But there would need to be content. I guess come back in 10-15 years
Shit presented in 1080p 3-D Super-Whammo-Vision is still shit.
Movies with no plot but lots of effects? Shit.
Most TV content? Shit.
Sequel number 5 or 6 in a well-worn, tried and tested, utterly, utterly safe-as-houses profitable gaming franchise? Expensive, unoriginal, gold-plated shit with a cherry on top.
Make it worth my while to upgrade, and I'll certainly consider it. Keep on producing uninspiring content which needs techno-jazzing just to make it worth a second glance and the old 4:3 glass tube CRT stays right where it is until it finally craps out and I'm forced to replace it.
...........for the simple reason that the producers have only now just _begun_ to bring really good 2D picture quality into price categories that ordinary mortals can afford. My lady and I do not have kids, do not run a car and we are both reasonably well paid "white collar professionals" (and we do not have a particularly big mortgage). All the same when we laid out £2000 for our 55" Sammy it was not exactly an impulse purchase - the old eyes watered a bit I can tell you! My point being that the manufacturers have only really begun bringing decent picture quality and a big screen within reach of "the masses" and now they are trying to punt a very dubious take on 3D imaging, charge a premium for it, assume that content will just materialise AND they are hoping the punters will be enthused! Sorry any memo I sent them would read something like "tell your people to ring my people when you can produce a genuine holographic tv and a price I can at least pretend to afford".
Major downer is lack of content. With the manufacturers all bidding for exclusivity on 3D movies, and the studio's lapping up the cash it means that although those with a nice brand new panasonic TV will get avatar 3D, those with any other manufacturers TV will have to wait.
With only 5 or 6 real 3D movies out there the only other content is spots. Sky do broadcast one 3D channel for 12-18 hrs a day (lotta repeats) unfortunatly you have to pay for every channel they boardcast if you wish to get the 3D chennel, the for good measure they then charge pay per view on top of the monthly cost for certain 3D broadcasts (complete rip off).
You mean TV isn't in 3D already?
Stone the crows, for all these years, I thought the picture I was viewing was 3D all along!
Struth!
For some unknown reason, my brain was fooled into seeing the picture in 3D, managing to construct, through some clever brainy shenanigans, the 2D image into 3D in me old noggin.
You can keep this decades version of 3D - I'm still pissed that VR never made it past the starting post, mainly due to nausea inducing blocky visuals and clunky headsets.
Wake me up when we've got 3D that lives up to the sci-fi tales - maybe something like the "Room of informational illusions", or perhaps something from the city of Diaspar (the city and the stars) - until that time, 3D TV is nothing short of a very expensive gimmick.
but the staggering price and the excruciatingly small amount of non-anaglyph 3D films available is a massive deterrant.
I do have a pair of Zeiss Cinemizer LCD video glasses that do 'true' colour 3D and I've watched a few films in 3D on them but they're not exactly HD resolution or convenient or nice to wear for very long, especially as the optics are sub-par (yes, crap optics on a Zeiss product, who'da thunk it)
I bought myself a lovely 50" 1080p TV a few years ago and it looks great.
Personally I like having my TV on whilst I'm on my PC, or doing whatever I want around my living room. I don't want to have to wear expensive glasses, or buy expensive sets of glasses in case I invite some friends over. I don't have any need for what is a weak gimmick. If I had holographic images in my front room I'd be interested, but I really don't see the value in chucking down a fortune for a new TV that gives me something that I don't want.
I admit I enjoy sometimes switching on the 3D on my PC and playing some games that way, but current consoles aren't capable of rendering top-quality games in 3D whilst smooth (regardless of what any fanbois will tell you).
So 3DTV in it's current incarnation.....no thanks!
1. Cost is stupidly prohibitive, and then you have to buy glasses that aren't compatible with other systems.
2. Most live TV content is crap - imagine watching Retard-Factor in 3D, brrr...and can you see yourself watching that pretentious tit Adam-SkyNews-Boulton rotating his iPad in 3D?
3. Tired of crap gimmicks to sell the same old product - I admit, this time around hearing Star Wars would be revamped actually made me say 'meh' instead of being interested.
4. Abuse - imagine if adverts all started pumping out in 3D, or those silly in-programme adverts starting swirling around whilst you're trying to watch a show.
5. Upgrade Apathy - I have a relatively new 50" plasma 1080p TV...and UK programming doesn't show above 720p as it is...I've been told about alot of 'fantastic HD programming' that still hasn't even reached what I consider to be true HD yet - and now you want me to pay for 3D? HAH!
My god, what an awful and depressing thought! And yet you've probably identified the most likely use of 3D on our TV channels - adverts!
I record the TV shows I like and watch them later so that I can skip the adverts. But those annoying logos and in-programme messages are unstoppable and becoming more and more intrusive.
What's the surprise? A decade ago they were making us buy computers every six to eight months, now they are doing it with mobile phones, and they think they can do it TVs too... not interested.
Secondly... how many times did you write Europe/Europeans in the article? We don't have to compare everything with "the rest of Europe".
Anyway, sick yer 3D, especially the stupid glasses.
I am not interested ever in getting 3D tv or even 3D cimima its useles fuzzy picture even with glases. The shows on tv i dont think have improved much recently in fact mainly gone down hill so more reason not to buy.
maybe the fact I am blind in one eye may also influance the decition.
mines the one wuth the eye patch in the pocket.
I was in Costco yesterday evening and the footy was on in 3d on a big Samsung set. (I think it was live - but as I'm not a footy fan I don't actually know)
I tried the glasses (over the top of my varifocals) and moved back and forth a bit until it formed an image similar to that which I see on my normal LCD TV - I say similar because I couldn't get it as sharp!
What's the point if it's all going to be blurred (even WITH the magic goggles)?
"48 per cent of UK respondents said they would like a 3D TV"
I expect that's the figure the 3D band-wagon will look at and to them it's just about convincing punters to buy.
A more interesting question is on what basis so many think they would like a 3D TV - Is that simply because it sounds like a good idea in principle rather than judged on 3D TV viewing experience? I suspect so and the 3D band-wagon will ultimately be greatly disappointed by real demand, The Next Big Thing (TM) turning out to be a damp squib.
I recall being in favour of 'the internet accessible on a phone', but then we got W@P, which wasn't at all how I expected it to be. Nor how most expected judging by its short lived life.
I can't stand eastenders (insert most terrestial TV normal day to day program of choice), why would I want to watch it in HD, and now I get the possible options of a future where I can watch it in 3D?
It's for the odd film which as has been said is a 'fad', adding nothing to a plot other than a visual treat (allegedly) Never seen the appeal. Certainly not enough to pay the costs of owning one.
but the experiance is. Ive got a 3d telly, mainly for games, and some of them are amazing. Wipeout is quite amazing, the depth actually improved my times from my last 2d play of it. A move game called tumble (think scifi jenga) is vastly improved by playing in 3D and yes i look like an extra from a bad romanian scifi film with my glasses and led wand: but its a great game, even the wife likes it.
On the film front its not there yet, but with any new format there is always a lack of content at the start. The one thing that annoys the bejesus out of me is the exclusivity of certain titles, its as if they are trying to kill the new format.
And for those saying the glasses would annoy you; your not going top be wearing them everytime you watch telly, easties will never be in 3d. Its for the big blockbusters, documenteries, and pron.
Anyhoo, i loves mine, and cant wait to play Gran Turismo 5 in glorius 3D!
that my 6 year old Pioneer plasma is absolutely fine. I really cannot justify getting rid of it. I've seen a few demos of 3D tv, didn't like the cheap £1000 models but some of the more expensive ones in plasma are stunning.
Two issues I've got with it is that they only come with 2 glasses, how about 4 for a normal average family ;-)
And then the fact you need glasses at all, non-glasses technology is right around the corner available on game consoles and phones already. That combined with my current plasma being just fine I can't see a compelling argument to upgrade at this moment in time.
Aside from the debatable thrust of the article (only 600,000 people buying quite new technology in a recession = failure of said tech...?), 3D's certainly of no interest to me.
To labour other posters' point, it's certainly not as high a priority as improving the quality of TV content. Most of the time when my TV's on it's either showing DVDs or something on one of the eternal-repeats channels like Dave, something from way back. New stuff just tends to be either unwatchable 'reality' tat or, at best, just meh. This may be due to falling standards, or I may just be getting old. Or both.
And to be honest, I don't see there's much point in pushing the next big thing in image quality anyway while all films are currently being made in Hollywood's new monochrome of orange and teal.
3D looks nothing like actual 3D, you know like the world is, instead you get a 2D image with the odd item looking like it's suspended in front of the screen.
I remember watching Avatar at the pictures, it did look very pretty but the sensation of having my eyes pulled out of my head by the glasses was a bit much to bear. After I watched the film again on BD in 2D, the visuals were much sharper you could see loads of extra detail that had been lost with the 3D process, enjoyed the film so much more for it.
Other than for computer games I just can't see that it brings any benefit to film or TV.
...I have movie nights, you know, rent a movie people come over inhabit the sofas and watch a movie, consume copious amounts of beer...
you (generic company) want me to buy 600 squids worth of glasses? fuck you (generic company)
oh. and don't get me started on the crappy upscaling/upsampling for non-HD content to 3D.
Do you remember 3D cinema? Yeah, we used to call it the theatre
Just bought a TV in the last few weeks with a budget of about a grand and we went for something with a better picture quality over 3D. Why? Because there's hardly any 3D content yet, HD is only just starting to dribble through to Joe Public so it's going to be a while till 3D makes it through. All 3D I've seen (cinema and shop demo) you have to wear stupid glasses and the edges are always fuzzy when you concentrate on them. And once you notice you can't stop watching those fuzzy edges so I'll let the early adopters iron out the bugs.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
