Yeah, thanks for taking me so literally.
My point was to correct a previous poster by pointing out that 3D was already mainstream by makers.
3D Update
- Thread starter johnfw
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 12K
My point was to correct a previous poster by pointing out that 3D was already mainstream by makers.
But, if car owners constantly and consistently posted anti-Sirius threads every time somebody mentioned a desire to have Sirius included in more cars, it would be just as annoying as the anti-3D trolls. (Yes, I realize some posts like Dare's and Bobby's are not trolling. But, many others are.)
The reason I said Google 3D is dead is because I just read an article about it. I get so many e-mails that give me headlines on mostly electronic sources. So I has to find where I had read this and it was from 2 sources, Forbes and I think it was PCWorld.
For the record , I am not against 3D, I was very interested on how much news came out of CES 2013. And from what I saw there was none on any of the many sources I checked for 3D. It was all 4K and OLED that caught everyone's fancy. I still believe you will see 3D just built into the majority of TV's. The industry will just have to win the public back with passive 3D.
I agree with the poster's comment that 3D is being built in to most manufacturer's product lines, if that is what he is saying. Looking at the TV ads in today's paper I saw Sony, Samsung, LG and Sharp all with 3D models; I didn't pay attention to Panasonic but assume that is the same. At the same time, I noted that the non 3D models are quite a bit cheaper. If the non-3D models are made using a common chip with the 3D models, why the big price differential?
In addition, I agree that passive view will be the way to go; most people won't want to pay $100 for an active shutter pair of glasses so long as there is almost zero content available. While I do not normally favor government intervention into the marketplace, I'd like to see the federal government begin to provide satellite 3D service for select channels such as Discovery, History, Nickelodeon, NickJr, the Military Channel, PBS etc. This could be done for distribution on Dish, DirectTV, and the big Cable companies such as Comcast as a public service. The gov could pay for "3D-ing" the content and also for the bandwidth used for the 3D channels. If a rationale is needed, this could be considered 'pump-priming" to jump start the 3D industry and create more jobs. I hope Prez Obama reads this and jumps at the opportunity this idea provides for creative economic advancement.
If the above were to happen, I would immediately become a consumer with a new 3D HDTV sittilng in my living room or bedroom.
Best regards,
Fitzie
My friends here in the conservative flatlands of Virginia would accuse me of being a real bleeding heart; tax-n-spend liberal. Even I find this thought horrifying. Why on earth would I want the Federal government spending my tax dollars to support this kind of nonsense? This is certainly a case where the marketplace has all it needs to sort out what is viable and what is not.
I'd like to see a little more 3D content, as well. But, this is certainly one area where government intervention is not required, other than perhaps regulate a specific technical broadcast standard for 3D, like was done with ATSC. But, it would be better if the industry could just come up with one, passive method. Proprietary active shutter glasses are what have kept most people away.
In lieu of totally glassless, which may be a bit of a ways off at the moment, cheap, open-source, passive glasses would boost acceptance tremendously. Those idiots should have worked together from the beginning on it.
In lieu of totally glassless, which may be a bit of a ways off at the moment, cheap, open-source, passive glasses would boost acceptance tremendously. Those idiots should have worked together from the beginning on it.
I am sorry, but as screwed up as this Nation's Federal Government is you want them to begin tinkering with 3D, I guess you really want it killed off...
Not directly. It can just as easily be applied to joint standards.
But, it certainly creates an environment wherein corporate entities view it as a new source of revenue, and thus fueling the greed that is behind the lack of cooperation.
I'm not conservative but I sure don't want the Gov spending money on something that isn't gonna do a thing to boost the economy. There isn't anything in 3D that would change a thing in the market place. It's pretty plain and simple the customer has spoken and there isn't that much interest in 3D.
I'm stunned! The US government provide 3D service. Really. Wow, where do I start. The federal government first needs to do their job as outlined in the constitution. They can't even adhere to the limited powers they were granted. If the federal government provides that means they control. It would not take long for them to dictate what is broadcast on your proposed channels. You mentioned the History channel as an example. My suggestion is you go to their website and watch some the documentaries on pre WWII Germany and see how little things like what you propose turned out as time went on.
Back to 3D. I think why their presently is no big push for 3D is they saw the initial reaction of the public. Yes 3D is cool, but nobody wants to be wearing clunky glasses to watch a movie or show. Furthermore, you would need to provide glasses for an entire family. Families probably were mostly not interested in purchasing extra sets of glasses. And I know the manufacturers were not giving them away free. So that's why I say they will wait and make the passive 3D push with the 4K and OLED sets. Yes the sets are high priced presently, so was color TV when first introduced. But time will see the prices drop.
Dish does not want nothing too do with 3D.
Come on they could not even provide the NBC 3D feed for the Olympics.
Come on they could not even provide the NBC 3D feed for the Olympics.
