OK, OK... I give up. I was hoping to avoid this, but the level of misinformation in this thread is a bit to much for me.
Let the 3D pissing match begin.
NAYSAYERS
IMO, 3D in it's current TV evolution should be ignored.
Couldnt have said it any better myself. Satellite companies are still struggling to have HD up in the air, and people want 3D? Seriously, i for one am happy Dish isnt going with this nonsense of an idea. 3d on a t.v.? haha, i just laugh every time i hear that.
Actually, they are. Not that many people will benefit (or care).
Wow. These guys have VERY strong opinions. What are their opinions based on? We don't know. What evidence do they have to support their opinions? We don't know. No links, no quotes; just opinions. Are their opinions informed or just emotional responses to something unfamiliar. We don't know. But they have VERY strong opinions.
GIMMICK
3D was around in the 50's and didn't catch on then either. If the Porn industry goes 3D then it has a fighting chance of going mainstream
Dish 3D? Heck, Dish HD has been missing in action for years...and as I haven't seen anything resembling HD in their channel lineup since 2006. Dish doesn't need to be involved with this gimmick - just improve their HD quality.
It's a fad that will leave enough people with Epileptic Seizures that the manufactures will abandon it and claim ignorance. This was rushed to market faster than anything I have ever seen and now it's coming out that there was little if no research on side effects or even if this whole thing is worth it? Just because the movie theaters are doing it, does not mean it will effectively transfer to home use. AND have you seen the prices? All built on novelty factor. Once a ton of these sets are out there and it is found that it is not all that good of a thing, pricing will drop. A LOT!!! And you all that think these are the tits, can buy one for each room of your house. Don't forget the closets. You never know when your wife's boy toy will be stuck in one until you leave and he can too.
From Wikipedia: "In marketing language, a gimmick is a quirky feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value. Thus, a gimmick sells solely on the basis of distinctiveness and may not appeal to the more savvy or shrewd customer."
That definition works for me. YMMV.
Unless you are color blind, you see in color. Just about everyone has two eyes; in our natural state, stereoscopic vision is the norm. Most of us have two ears, stereophonic sound is the norm.
When film making first began, all films were monophonic, 2D, and black and white. It's not that early filmmakers didn't want color, stereo and 3D. They just didn't have the technology to do it.
From the very beginning, filmmakers knew that if they could add color, stereo and 3D in a manner that equated to a real life experience, their films would seem vastly more realistic. And for many filmmakers, realism is the Holy Grail.
They began work on the Big Three: color, stereo and 3D. They already understood the theoretical principles. Humans see in color, have two ears, two eyes. But how do you replicate those experiences on film using affordable technology?
Strangely enough, 3D had a head-start because of Stereopticons and Stereoscopes like KKlare's great grandmother's owned. The science hasn't changed much in that sense. (In fact, Scott tells us Dish will be sending out a 3D format that is an electronic version of the same side-by-side format used in a stereoscopic photo. So is Directv.)
But back then, 3D technology wasn't sufficiently advanced to tackle film.
Of the Big Three, it was color technology, specifically "three-strip Technicolor", that emerged into the mainstream first. There had been plenty of attempts at color films in the past, but until the mid-30's, the technology wasn't there. The color just didn't look real.
It was Walt Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" that created the mainstream breakthrough the industry had been looking for.
From Wiki:
"Pioneer/RKO's Becky Sharp (1935) became the first feature film photographed entirely in three-strip Technicolor. Initially, three-strip Technicolor was only used indoors. In 1936, The Trail of the Lonesome Pine became the first production to have outdoor sequences, with impressive results. The spectacular success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), which was released in December 1937 and became the top-grossing film of 1938, attracted the attention of the studios."
Not only did color now seem realistic, like the burning of Atlanta in "Gone with the Wind", color could take you to a new dimension called "Munchkin land".
Just like Avatar.
The public said "Me likey!" and from that point on, color films slowly became the norm. Black and white films were still made, but from that point on, color has gradually become the standard for the vast majority of films made today. 'Cause color is just like real life.
The next of the Big Three that became ready for prime time was stereo.
From Wiki: "The first stereo transmission was made telephonically by Clément Ader in 1881. The BBC made radio's first stereo broadcast in December 1925. In the 1930s, Alan Blumlein of EMI patented stereo records, stereo films, and also surround sound.[1] Harvey Fletcher of Bell Laboratories investigated techniques for stereophonic recording and reproduction. The first commercial motion picture to be exhibited with stereophonic sound was Walt Disney's Fantasia (1940). By the mid-1950s, multichannel sound was common for big-budget Hollywood motion pictures.[2]"
Good ol' Walt again! Sure, it took a while for color and stereo to become the norm. Back then, technological change moved at a snail's pace. (Quite unlike what happens today.)
3D technology first hit a price-point where the film industry decided to take a shot in the early fifties. After all, they had already conquered 2 of the Big Three.
50's 3D technology, used as intended, did not create a accurate representation of how things look in real life. But anaglyph glasses were cheap enough for the theaters to give it a try, and so the public gave it a try. Was the 3D effect realistic enough to go mainstream? Not even close. So it failed.
IMO, 50's 3D technology pretty much meets the above definition of a gimmick.
Even though 3D never became mainstream in the 50's, work on 3D technology has continued without stop ever since. For Wiki's rundown see:
3-D film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , under sections : The "golden era" (1952–1955), Revival (1960–1979) in single strip format, and Rebirth of 3D (1985–2003).
So... what is different today? What has happened that has induced Hollywood, the entire cable/satellite broadcast industry, and every single major television manufacturer to invest big bucks in a "gimmick"?
Simple. At long last, the technology, the costs, the demand have all reach critical mass. It's not a gimmick any more. It works.
Avatar wasn't the catalyst, Avatar was the proof; the icing on the cake after a century of development! Walt Disney would be proud.
The various industries required to give 3D mainstream viability have been watching 3D advancements for years. They are well aware that the technological/cost prohibitions have pretty much been solved.
And, sparked on by Avatar's success, they have all joined together to make 2010 the year 3D goes mainstream. Do all of these industries hope to use 3D to pry some money from your pocket? Obviously! As it has always been. KKlare's great grandmother didn't get her stereoscope for free.
The fact is, most industry watchers are convinced 3D is here to stay in the film world. Avatar has become the "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" of our day, and the highest grossing film of all time.
But... can 3D translate to the home experience?
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME
Several in this thread seem to insist that 3DTV technology isn't ready for prime time:
Yep. Has alot of work to do before it becomes mainstream. The question is "how long will it take to get all of the bugs out?" My answer is it will be too late IMO to save it.
Well, what does Consumer Reports say? After all, Consumer Reports entire purpose for existing is objectivity:
"When you test as many products as we do here at Consumer Reports, it's hard to get folks excited. Well, we managed to do just that with our 3D TV tests. As you'll see in the accompanying video, the engineers, editors, and other members of our staff had pretty strong reactions to the 3D TVs we're now testing. Our preliminary test results speak for themselves."
"The 3D effect is realistic, to put it mildly. Our engineers, and the rest of us who put on the wraparound specs, were bobbing and weaving when the paddle-ball from Monsters vs. Aliens seemed about to fly off the screen and hit us."
Consumer Reports Electronics Blog: First look at our 3D TV lab tests
What did HDGuru say about the recent 3DTV broadcast of The Masters:
"Sony’s production of the 3D program is well planned and executed. They make judicious use of extreme 3D effects, limiting gimmicky shots to sand hitting the camera when a player hits the ball out of a bunker and the occasional golfer goofing around by sticking the head of his club toward the viewer into your living room."
"The 3D experience captures the perspective of the game like no past 2D HD broadcast. We invited a number of guests to get a variety first 3D TV impressions. Exclamations of “awesome” and “incredible” punctuated the overall amazement by everyone viewing the telecast. Surprisingly, golf is an ideal sport for 3D capture."
HDGURU.Com
What will be the initial "killer applications" that will propel 3DTV demand into the mainstream? That's easy; and all have already been mentioned:
- Sports
- Gaming
- Porn
- Film
Does 3DTV fit the definition of a gimmick? Hardly.
DISH SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON OTHER PRIORITIES
How about we have our providers provide us with all available HD first, in full-time, before we worry about a few 3D offerings ???
Think back to the days of DBSForums. Many said the exact same thing about Dish's transition to HD. "It's a gimmick! We'll have to buy new equipment. Dish should focus on improving SD!" But Charlie knew that this particular poker game was real and so he bet big. Anyone think he made a mistake? Would Dish still be around today if Charlie had followed the advice of those that demanded Dish focus on SD and ignore HD?
Technology is funny. When you find a new discovery in one area, that discovery often leads to advances in other areas. For example, in order to fit HD bandwidth on their birds, Dish had to switch from MP2 to MP4. What a pain.They still haven't finished switching out all the old receivers. And yet, ironically, it is MP4 that has improved the quality of SD images for everyone.
In the same way, 3d technology has already made a significant contributions to the quality of 2D viewing.
HDGuru once again:
"2D Viewing - The improved scan and phosphors along with the deep blacks and accurate color provided excellent image reproduction and fine shadow detail. These improvements add up to amazing overall images free of the “video look” associated with 120 and 240 Hz LED LCDs."
There is a strong consensus among reviewers that 3DTVs are also the best 2DTVs. BTW, all 3DTVs have a 2d mode. You can watch any 3D broadcast in 2D mode if you want.
A prediction: Dish's current VIP receivers will be able to deliver 3D with nothing more than a firmware upgrade; just like Directv. We'll know next month.
But what about all the extra bandwidth 3D will require? Ummm, 3D doesn't use any more bandwidth than HD.
AND have you seen the prices? All built on novelty factor. Once a ton of these sets are out there and it is found that it is not all that good of a thing, pricing will drop. A LOT!!! .
Currently, Television manufacturers are only adding 3D to their top tier LCDs/PDPs in order to maximize early adopter profit. That makes it appear that the first generation of 3DTVs are far more expensive than their 2D counterparts.
Here's a great explanation from Ron Jones over at AVSForum:
"The first 3D models are generally based on the company's top-of-the line 2D models and the delta cost difference is typically no more than a few hundred dollars for just the TV itself. Also if the 3D shutter glasses are included these add about $150 for each pair included. The 3D model prices cannot be compared directly to less capable budget-to-mid priced 3D models. For example the new 3D 55 inch Samsung UN55C7000 lists for $3299 and is being offered online by several dealers for $2800-$3000. In Samsung's 2D and 3D line-up of LED backlit HDTVs (directly from the Samsung web site) they have:
UN55B8000 - List $3700
UN55B7100 - List $3499
UN55C7000 - List $3299 (3D Model)
UN55B6000 - List $3299
UN55C6300 - List $2499
So how much 3D is adding to the cost all depends on what 2D model you are comparing to."
And yes, during the next few years the price of 3DTVs will drop significantly... as a result of the economy of scale.
HEALTH THREAT
If ur blind or drunk or tired or takin medicine 3D is not for you.
From HDGuru: "Explanation - This week hundreds of US websites and newspapers reported a disclaimer from a Samsung website regarding potential health risks of its 3D TVs (click here for the health warning)."
"No website disclosed that in reality, the disclaimer is just an almost verbatim copy of a 2006 Icuiti owner's manual for a totally different product: a stereo microdisplay (glasses with built tiny LCD screen for each eye)."
"This is hardly a new warning or new information. A few of the many similarities between the two issued guidelines can be seen below. "
Lies, Errors and Myths About 3D
Naysayers: You can kick and scream all you want to. 3DTV is here to stay. In 10 years, 2DTV will seem as antique as black/white and mono.
Ken McPherson
:
Sounds like just a big gimmick to me.
