Would you consider buying a 3D TV as your next major TV purchase?

[Ilya]

3D HDTV was the main buzzword at this year's CES. All major TV manufacturers were rushing to announce their 3D products: TV sets, 3D glasses, Blu-ray players.

So, what do you guys think? Would you consider buying a 3D TV set as your next major TV upgrade?

 

[space86]

It's the future

 

[TNGTony]

3D TVs that require glasses are the next fad, but will never be the norm. There are also millions of us who cannot see 3D as most people do. Many of us do not have stereoscopic vison, but we still see 3D since the brain makes our one dominant eye dance back and forth in its socket to get the parallax views.

Even more people get incredible headaches wearing those blasted polarized or shuttered lenses. And even more can't stand wearing glasses at all!

This is not to say that3D will not be the future, but the current crop is just not for the mass audience. When the 3D set out that does NOT require glasses is perfected to the point it doesn't make you sea-sick, and the price is comprarable to non-3D sets, then 3D may stand a chance.

See ya
Tony

 

[Ilya]

Of course, it would help to know the prices. Unfortunately most of the announced 3D products don't have price tags yet.
Just looking at it from the technical standpoint, I don't see the 3D TV sets priced way higher than 2D sets. From the TV set's standpoint, the main difference is the higher frame rate. But many sets already have 120 Hz or even 240 Hz displays, so that shouldn't be such a big deal. The major new component is shutter glasses - those are expected to cost around $100.

 

[Ilya]

There are also millions of us who cannot see 3D as most people do. Many of us do not have stereoscopic vison, but we still see 3D since the brain makes our one dominant eye dance back and forth in its socket to get the parallax views.

Good point. 3D TV is not for everyone. But I don't think this would make a major impact on the industry. There are visually impaired people and there are color-blind people, but that doesn't have a major effect on the color TV production.

As for headaches and getting dizzy during 3D movies, when Lumière brothers showed their first movies (especially the Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat) people experienced fear, terror, and even panic.

 

[vurbano]

It's the future

I just spit my coffee.

 

[vurbano]

- those are expected to cost around $100.

per viewer.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Lets see I just upgraded all my tvs to LCD Toshiba hd tvs and I have one 5 year old tube top Toshiba hdtv. I think I will be waiting a few years before I spend again. Maybe at the end of the next decade, NOT!

 

[navychop]

Consider, yes. Pay a big premium for, no way.

I doubt home 3D will catch on, but I might hedge my bets with the next TV. Of course, that's probably years away. Unless the optical block in my JVC RPTV dies.

 

[charper1]

Not sure.. it would be evaluated along with much more "desired" features, size, cost, etc. Would never say 110% yes or no as its just not that compelling.

 

[Ilya]

Lets see I just upgraded all my tvs to LCD Toshiba hd tvs and I have one 5 year old tube top Toshiba hdtv. I think I will be waiting a few years before I spend again. Maybe at the end of the next decade, NOT!

I hear you!

But just to clarify the question of this poll: I don't expect too many people will rush buying a new TV set just to get the 3D thing.
What I am asking is this: when you are ready to get a new TV set, would you consider getting a 3D set?

 

[TNGTony]

Ilya,

The difference between going to color for so-called colorbrind people and 3-D for those of us that do not have stereoscopic vision is that the visually impared or "color blind" can still watch color TV. And even the color blind perceive color, just differently. You can also turn the color off on any TV if it is a problem.

The totally blind can still hear it and the deaf can watch it.with the use of CC.

Those of us without stereoscopic vision CANNOT watch 3D programming that requies glasses of any type. There would have to be some sort of "off" switch allowing us to see only one field or the other, but then why pay for the 3D set? The technology has to be backward compatible.

Also the difference between the Lumière brothers and the movies we watch now is a difference between 18fps vs 24-30fps. The movie industry did not take off for the mass market until AFTER the switch to the less flickery and less nauseating 24fps standard took hold in the 20s.

3D TV sets that do not require glasses of any type are technologically equivalent to the 18fps film industry. Most can handle it for short periods of time but after a while it is very hard on the eyes and has a physiological effect.

Again, 3D TV sets that require glasses are a fad and will never take off in the general market. It is the ones that do not require glasses that have the potential to be the next big thing ONLY if they are backward compatible to the current standard.

See ya
Tony

 

[teachsac]

Everything I've seen and heard are these sets are (and would have to be) baclwards compatible. While I too see 3D as a niche/fad, I'll wait and see what develops in the future.

S~

 

[Ilya]

Tony, All 3D TV sets (those that rely on shutter glasses) are backward compatible. You can watch them without glasses as a regular TV. In fact, I think 95% (or more) of the viewing initially will be 2D (without glasses) with occational 3D viewing just for fun.

However, if the price penalty is not too high, TV manufacturers may just start selling most of their TV sets as "3D-compatible". Of course, if you can't see 3D, you probably wouldn't be buying. But majority of people can see 3D and a lot of them wear glasses on a daily basis and wouldn't mind occasionally wearing 3D glasses to experience the 3D image every now and then.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

NO WAY. Its a Bigger waste of money then an LED tv
I'll Stick with LCD's Plasma,s and DLPs. They are atleast affordable and provide Top notch PQ. Anything more is a waste

 

[Ilya]

While I too see 3D as a niche/fad...

I think it's actually a well thought-through ploy by TV manufacturers.
It's ingenious if you think about it! A small relatively inexpensive feature that suddenly makes all of our recently purchased AV equipment obsolete! What more could they ask for!

 

[dfergie]

After seeing them in person, why not?

 

[space86]

I think it's actually a well thought-through ploy by TV manufacturers.
It's engenious if you think about it! A small relatively inexpensive feature that suddenly makes all of our recently purchased AV equipment obsolete! What more could they ask for!

I like 3D more now. I had LASIK Eye Surgery in 2008
and now see better than 20/20 in both my eyes

 

[teachsac]

I think it's actually a well thought-through ploy by TV manufacturers.
It's engenious if you think about it! A small relatively inexpensive feature that suddenly makes all of our recently purchased AV equipment obsolete! What more could they ask for!

They've been trying to get 3D as long as I can remember. It has never taken. MAy sets in the past 3-4 years have been "3D" capable, but nothing has ever come out. Now those sets aren't compataible with the new standard.

S~

 

[Ilya]

We've never seen a push to 3D like at this CES! And we didn't have any 3D standards until now...