Is 3d dead?

[gadgtfreek]

I'm talking 3 years ago. It's not like they just started abusing us with 3D. LCD manufacturers are the real crooks.

In 2008 a 50" mid grade 1080p plasma was $2500. This year I bought a 64" higher end 3d plasma for $2700.

 

[televisionarchives]

It's not dead yet but it's on life support. And I'm glad.

Sent from the Planet Earth

 

[DodgerKing]

I'm talking 3 years ago. It's not like they just started abusing us with 3D. LCD manufacturers are the real crooks.

In 2008 a 50" mid grade 1080p plasma was $2500. This year I bought a 64" higher end 3d plasma for $2700.

Just an FYI. I will not buy a Plasma because I want to watch what is on the TV, not what is being reflected on the surface of the screen. Our room is very bright, CRTs and Plasmas do not work

 

[gadgtfreek]

You gotta knock a lot of lcds off that list too.

 

[DodgerKing]

You gotta knock a lot of lcds off that list too.

Only the ones with a reflective glass cover. The differences is, ALL Plasmas are reflective and will not work. With LCDs I do have several options. But those options are limited if I am not willing to pay more for 3D that I will never use.

Our place in Mammoth is dark enough for Plasmas, but Plasmas do not work up there due to the elevation, unless you buy a much more expensive high elevation one. Even those only work up to about 7500 ft (lower than the elevation in Mammoth). This limits what we can buy for there as well.

 

[diogen]

I haven't seen many Panasonic's that would make it simple to get 1:1 pixel mapping from an HTPC: it's either cumbersome or plain impossible...

Diogen.

 

[Ronnie-]

It's not dead yet but it's on life support. And I'm glad.

Sent from the Planet Earth

I don't get this. What impact does it have on you if it makes it or not? You don't have to buy it. Non 3d tv prices are even down in part because of it, and so far you are not being charged more as a non 3D viewer because your provider might offer it. So what about the demise of it would make you glad ?

 

[Ronnie-]

I also know 2D PQ has improved, but the same TV would be less if it were 2D only. TV prices jumped drastically with the introduction of 3D panels. One would actually save a lot of money if the same quality TV was 2D only. The issue is, the market is not pushing this as most do not use 3D. In order to get a 2D TV currently, we would have to go down in overall quality or wait until the difference in price is closer to 0.

No way to know that. Perhaps we wouldnt have seen the 2d PQ increase without the research that went into 3D.
IMO, 2D panels went down BECAUSE of 3D tech. Plus it isnt like the 2D sets you can get now are not (in most cases) better than the 2D sets you could get a few years ago. You still get improvement. Just like at any other time though, to get the best, the cost is higher. This has not, and will not change.

 

[TheForce]

The problem I have is it is now difficult to find a decent 2D only TV. It seems like all TVs (descent ones) are now 3D. If I want to buy a new TV I am pretty much limited to 3D, which will cost me more money for something I will not use.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

I recall the same argument made by many who fear change about 16x9 TV's and HD. My dad complains that nobody makes a TV set in a fine piece of furniture to match end tables and the rest of the decor. They are all cheap plastic! What ever happened to RCA and Zenith?

 

[DodgerKing]

I recall the same argument made by many who fear change about 16x9 TV's and HD. My dad complains that nobody makes a TV set in a fine piece of furniture to match end tables and the rest of the decor. They are all cheap plastic! What ever happened to RCA and Zenith?

Not the same. In the scenario you mentioned, the changes in TVs were due to demand and changing in broadcast standards. In the case with 3D TVs the changes are made by speculation as their is no demand for 3D since few people have it. If one were to look in a show room and see 90% of the TVs as 3D capable, one would assume that 90% of shoppers are looking for 3D. That is not the case.

 

[dfergie]

Most were not looking for HDTV, try to find a SD set now... resistance is futile

 

[televisionarchives]

I don't get this. What impact does it have on you if it makes it or not? You don't have to buy it. Non 3d tv prices are even down in part because of it, and so far you are not being charged more as a non 3D viewer because your provider might offer it. So what about the demise of it would make you glad ?

Because I'm a fan of the movies and I'm not a fan of gimmicks.

Sent from the Planet Earth

 

[televisionarchives]

And please, you can't compare the switch from SD to HDTV . And I will bet anyone here that 3D will die in less then 4 years.

Sent from the Planet Earth

 

[dfergie]

Why not? SD folks hated the fact that some had HDTV, this is the same thing only the hatred by the 2D folks is astounding!

 

[Juan]

Why not? SD folks hated the fact that some had HDTV, this is the same thing only the hatred by the 2D folks is astounding!

There really is no hatred for 3D just waiting for better technology

 

[televisionarchives]

Why not? SD folks hated the fact that some had HDTV, this is the same thing only the hatred by the 2D folks is astounding!

I would argue that a real good HD picture looks more like real life then a 3D movie or TV Show does. Again, It's not up to me, it's up to the majority of the viewers. If the Movie Studios believe in it so much why don't they just release every new movie in 3D?

 

[Ronnie-]

Because I'm a fan of the movies and I'm not a fan of gimmicks.

Sent from the Planet Earth

That still does not answer my question.
I can get not being a fan, but not being a fan and the tech surviving in the consumer market seems to have little to no impact on your current viewing habits. Which again leads me to ask, what about the possible demise of it could possibly make you happy?

Edit: My apologies, I guess that could answer my question if that is the entirety of your response. I guess I am just asking for a better reason. If it is just because you dont like it, I guess that is fine, I will just have to go back to " I dont get it, because it doesnt really impact you in any way".

 

[DodgerKing]

Most were not looking for HDTV, try to find a SD set now... resistance is futile

Most had access to HD even if they were not looking for it. The same is not true for 3D

Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[televisionarchives]

That still does not answer my question.
I can get not being a fan, but not being a fan and the tech surviving in the consumer market seems to have little to no impact on your current viewing habits. Which again leads me to ask, what about the possible demise of it could possibly make you happy?

Edit: My apologies, I guess that could answer my question if that is the entirety of your response. I guess I am just asking for a better reason. If it is just because you dont like it, I guess that is fine, I will just have to go back to " I dont get it, because it doesnt really impact you in any way".

Because it will send a message to Hollywood that it doesn't matter if a movie is in HD , black and white or in color if the movie is good. You don't need to add 3d to a movie or color or hd . A good movie is a good movie.

 

[Ronnie-]

Because it will send a message to Hollywood that it doesn't matter if a movie is in HD , black and white or in color if the movie is good. You don't need to add 3d to a movie or color or hd . A good movie is a good movie.

So using that logic one would assume that you would be glad if color and HD went away from movies and tv as well?
Im sorry if I am coming across as pushy, just curious.