Dish and 3D - missing in action?
- Thread starter Ken McPherson
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 147
- Views 22K
DIRECTV got everyone sick at their 3D demos last week at their Revolution Show in Dallas. It seems like they placed 3 3DTV's all next to each other in one room and because of this it confused the sync on the glasses. Instead of seeing nice clear 3D they saw mush and many in attendance quickly ripped off their glasses and proclaimed 3DTV junk...
It would have looked better if they only had only 1 TV in there.
It would have looked better if they only had only 1 TV in there.
Wow DTV screwed something up.DIRECTV got everyone sick at their 3D demos last week at their Revolution Show in Dallas. It seems like they placed 3 3DTV's all next to each other in one room and because of this it confused the sync on the glasses. Instead of seeing nice clear 3D they saw mush and many in attendance quickly ripped off their glasses and proclaimed 3DTV junk...
It would have looked better if they only had only 1 TV in there.
While it was DIRECTV's fault, it also wasn't DIRECTV's fault.
I guess they had a big 3DTV demo truck which they were going to do the demos in, but the fire marshall wouldn't let them bring it in to the convention center as it was too big, so they scrambled and made a room with the 3 side by side 3DTV' instead which caused the technical errors with the glasses.
I guess they had a big 3DTV demo truck which they were going to do the demos in, but the fire marshall wouldn't let them bring it in to the convention center as it was too big, so they scrambled and made a room with the 3 side by side 3DTV' instead which caused the technical errors with the glasses.
I had an opportunity this past Sunday so view a 3D demo at ESPN. Unfortunately though, it had to be cancelled due to "technical difficulties".... 
Do people honestly think that Dish needs to jump on the 3D wagon already? It is possible that 3D at home could be the next greatest thing but it won't be this year. I'm excited to hear what Dish's future plans are when I go to Dish Summit in a couple weeks.
As far as the film industry, I agree with you. 3D is the next step in film productions. Hollywood has always wanted it and Avatar has shown that 3D can be "overwhelming" when done correctly. Ah, but there's part of the catch...has the production cost of making a film like Avatar in 3D cost effective enough to make other "overwhelming" films like Avatar, or will Hollywood try to push out "lower cost" 3D films relying on "in your face 3D"?
It's not that the TV manufacturers can't adapt 3D to their models, or that media for home viewing can't reproduce that 3D, it's the practicality of viewing it in your typical home environment. Yes, those lucky enough to have a "Home Theater Room" for viewing movies could benefit nicely from 3D at home, but the average Joe with a TV in the family room and a couple of kids running around...well, "Hey, let's get all our 3D glasses on so we can watch this movie together", don't think it will be that much more enjoying then just a very good quality 2D movie.
Again, this is more about covering their asses in this litigation world we live in now then actual fact, but there are problems with having to wear 3D glasses to watch a film or DVD for some people. I know of a few people who wear regular glasses and either can't really see the 3D that others see, or, that need their glasses to watch the movie, but the 3D glasses will not fit over their Rx glasses. These people have had to opt for the 2D versions of the movies they wanted to see.
Having to rely on 3D glasses to see the 3D seems to be the biggest hurdle for 3D to be mainstream in our homes.
I agree with the first 3 with gaming taking the lead. Gaming is still a "solo" type of entertainment. Even when playing in a room with friends, when you have that controller in your hands you kind of become one with the game...here wearing 3D glasses would only add to the thrill of the game.
Sports & Porn...well almost everything is better with Sports & Porn
.Films, not so much...for all the reasons I stated above.
3D will progress, and in time it will overcome it's hurdles, but for now, except for gaming, I don't see it as being here. We still have people with analog TV's out there and they're not just some diehard's that don't want to let go till you take it "from their cold, dead hands".
Ghpr13
I hope they jump on the bandwagon, as I have a full 3d setup and would like content. Especially Discovery 3D, and the World Cup in 3D.
This thread was started to discuss the future of 3D tv. According to the people on this forum, 3d TV has no future.
No this thread was started by someone looking for information on 3D on DISH Network, in which the question was answered.
As for 3DTV has no future, I dont think thats true, but I feel it will be a niche product.
Wake me up when we have smell o vision.
If Dish jumps on the bandwagon, I hope their methodology is such that I can see it with my current Sony HD/722VIP setup plus a pair of cheap anaglyphic glasses that I can fit over my regular glasses. If I understood Scott G.'s earlier comment correctly, Dish may be planning to use the MPeg4 HD capability of the VIP 222/622/722/922 series with a firmware fix to do just that. Maybe Dish will carry the ESPN 3D channel.
If that is the case, I will certainly subscribe to the 3D channel Dish puts out if the price is not exorbitant. If too many headaches/nausea ensue, one could always just unsubscribe.
Regards,
Fitzie
If that is the case, I will certainly subscribe to the 3D channel Dish puts out if the price is not exorbitant. If too many headaches/nausea ensue, one could always just unsubscribe.
Regards,
Fitzie
Hey Ghpr13, great post!
The 3D in Titans was largely panned by movie and technology critics. But to date, Titans has brought in $146,207,955 at the box office. Not bad!
IMO, with profits like this, Hollywood will continue to produce both quality and crap 3D until audiences learn to notice the difference and begin to reject the up-converted stuff.
Fortunately, much of the costs for Hollywood's transition to genuine 3D are upfront... they need to buy expensive new 3D cameras, editing equipment, etc. But those are one time costs. By the time audiences learn to reject the up-converted stuff, the major studios will have 3D production equipment in-house, and the production costs will come down.
The same thing happened with color, the same thing happened with stereo.
Given the profits of every single 3D film release this year, regardless of quality, it appears Hollywood has already decided 3D is a winner, despite the cost.
) So for a while, 3DTV will remain a niche product... just like HDTV. But the prices will go down as the demand goes up. 3D glasses will quickly become commodities just like Bluray players. Probably around $25.
But it won't be because people don't want 3DTV, it will be because people can't afford it. Just wait until your kids start seeing 3DTV at their friend's homes!
From what I read, in about 5 years, 3D will be a standard feature of the vast majority of HDTVs sold. In 10 years, we won't need 3D glasses and 3DHDTV will be the norm. [The first auto-stereoscopic displays (no glasses) are already being marketed as advertising kiosks.]
IMO, the real question is how large a percentage of the public will have 3D side effects. Currently, the answer to that question is unknown.
If it's the same percentage that have trouble with DLP or peanuts, no problem. If it turns out to be a large percentage, then 3DTV goes back to the drawing boards.
There will always be late adopters. Most people still do not watch in HD, even if they have an HDTV! Fortunately, late adopters have little influence on the industry.
Ken McPherson
Agreed. The two prime examples of your point are Avatar and Clash of the Titans. Avatar was designed and shot 3D from inception. Titans was not designed for 3D and was "up-converted" as a result of Avatar's huge success.
The 3D in Titans was largely panned by movie and technology critics. But to date, Titans has brought in $146,207,955 at the box office. Not bad!
IMO, with profits like this, Hollywood will continue to produce both quality and crap 3D until audiences learn to notice the difference and begin to reject the up-converted stuff.
Fortunately, much of the costs for Hollywood's transition to genuine 3D are upfront... they need to buy expensive new 3D cameras, editing equipment, etc. But those are one time costs. By the time audiences learn to reject the up-converted stuff, the major studios will have 3D production equipment in-house, and the production costs will come down.
The same thing happened with color, the same thing happened with stereo.
Given the profits of every single 3D film release this year, regardless of quality, it appears Hollywood has already decided 3D is a winner, despite the cost.
Yup. As usual with new technology, for the first few years 3DTV will be cost prohibitive for many; particularly large families. That's life in the land of early adopters. (Once upon a time I paid $1000 for a 921 that was obsolete within a few years.
) So for a while, 3DTV will remain a niche product... just like HDTV. But the prices will go down as the demand goes up. 3D glasses will quickly become commodities just like Bluray players. Probably around $25.But it won't be because people don't want 3DTV, it will be because people can't afford it. Just wait until your kids start seeing 3DTV at their friend's homes!
From what I read, in about 5 years, 3D will be a standard feature of the vast majority of HDTVs sold. In 10 years, we won't need 3D glasses and 3DHDTV will be the norm. [The first auto-stereoscopic displays (no glasses) are already being marketed as advertising kiosks.]
There is a percentage of the public that won't be able to use the first incarnations of 3DTV due to personal visual impairment and/or headaches. There is also a percentage of the public that can't eat peanuts or soy products. Some people are color blind. Some people get headaches watching a DLP projector. Such is life.
IMO, the real question is how large a percentage of the public will have 3D side effects. Currently, the answer to that question is unknown.
If it's the same percentage that have trouble with DLP or peanuts, no problem. If it turns out to be a large percentage, then 3DTV goes back to the drawing boards.
The only hurdles I see are cost and possible physical side effects. The cost will dive in a few years. We'll have to wait to learn about the realities of side effects.
There will always be late adopters. Most people still do not watch in HD, even if they have an HDTV! Fortunately, late adopters have little influence on the industry.
Ken McPherson
Like I said; technology moves fast these days:
Toshiba Mobile Display touts 21-inch glasses-free 3D HDTV, raises a few eyebrows -- Engadget
Ken McPherson
Toshiba Mobile Display touts 21-inch glasses-free 3D HDTV, raises a few eyebrows -- Engadget
Ken McPherson
Gosh KAB, that doesn't particularly concern me.
Nor is there any evidence that you speak for the choir.
Ken McPherson
Nor is there any evidence that you speak for the choir.
Ken McPherson
Similar threads
