Would you consider buying a 3D TV as your next major TV purchase?
- Thread starter Ilya
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 108
- Views 12K
No gimmicky 3-D for me. I won't be paying $100.00 for a pair of glasses for each and everyone in my house to watch a 3 -D movie.
Well, so far:
22% would consider 3D TV as their next major TV purchase;
60% would not.
It will be interesting to see which way the balance changes a year from now...
I am surprised that the figures are so one sided the way your question was worded. You said consider for next MAJOR TV purchase.
I can understand those who just purchased a TV not being interested at this time. But with the current pricing of these 3D TV's being very much in line with the other high end TVs from the same providers, and with there 2d performance, at least in the models seen, also being excellent, it would seem quite reasonable to consider them.
I believe the majority watch movies for the story.
Yes, you probably won't watch Avatar on a VHS tape but that's an extreme.
I remember watching Iron Man on a plane: it was very interesting and didn't steal anything from rewatching it later on BD.
3D adds nothing to the story no matter how good done. Gimmick.
And just like every other gimmick it wears off. Hence, I have no interest in it.
When there are no TVs on sale but 3D, I'll probably get one. But not before that.
Diogen.
Yes, you probably won't watch Avatar on a VHS tape but that's an extreme.
I remember watching Iron Man on a plane: it was very interesting and didn't steal anything from rewatching it later on BD.
3D adds nothing to the story no matter how good done. Gimmick.
And just like every other gimmick it wears off. Hence, I have no interest in it.
When there are no TVs on sale but 3D, I'll probably get one. But not before that.
Diogen.
Well, the same can be said about the wide screen, surround sound, or even color for that matter. Wouldn't you agree?
All that doesn't add anything to the story, but it sure improves the experience!
I think with 3D TV, it's mostly about glasses, and the price tag of course. If this wasn't for the glasses and the premium price, everyone would want it.
Well, the same can be said about the wide screen, surround sound, or even color for that matter. Wouldn't you agree?
I think with 3D TV, it's mostly about glasses, and the price tag of course.
If this wasn't for the glasses and the premium price, everyone would want it.
I agree. That is if it didn't make sick watching 3D.lol
Glasses is the biggest drawback IMO. That alone will not change people's opinion of 3D.(including mine)
Yes, I would. Sort of...Well, the same can be said about the wide screen, surround sound, or even color for that matter. Wouldn't you agree?
The key difference - mainstream.
Would you be interested in watching Woody Allen's Manhattan in color? Chaplin with a soundtrack? Not me.
When every movie is taking care of the 3D technology (like color today), i.e. it will get mainstream, this comparison will work. Otherwise it doesn't.
When Cameron says converting Titanic to 3D will take 18 months and TV manufacturers claim to do it real time - that is not something of interest to me, really...
Diogen.
Oh, I agree with that! I don't want colorized movies! I don't want artificial surround sound made out of mono masters! And I don't think I want movies to be converted to 3D either.
But my point is that when the color TV or color movies first came about, I bet many considered that a gimmick too. When the first quadrophonic sound appeared in early 70s many believed that surround sound had no future...
It takes time for something to become "mainstream". 3D is no exception. It will take years for the technology to mature and for general public to accept it. But then, when it happens, the 2D video will suddenly become obsolete, as did B/W video or mono sound.
And I am pretty certain that 3D will become mainstream in our lifetime. I am just not sure this will be the case in the next couple of years though. I don't think we are there yet...
But my point is that when the color TV or color movies first came about, I bet many considered that a gimmick too. When the first quadrophonic sound appeared in early 70s many believed that surround sound had no future...
It takes time for something to become "mainstream". 3D is no exception. It will take years for the technology to mature and for general public to accept it. But then, when it happens, the 2D video will suddenly become obsolete, as did B/W video or mono sound.
And I am pretty certain that 3D will become mainstream in our lifetime. I am just not sure this will be the case in the next couple of years though. I don't think we are there yet...
Well, we're almost in the same boat...
I believe every poster here is anything but an "average" user when talking about technology.
We try new things before the "mainstream" knows it's not a misspelled "blue" but a new optical technology...
But taliking about 3D - and getting back to the question in this thread's title - I'll be in the "mainstream" group here
and get a 3D TV when most movies are done in 3D, done right and no "equipment" in the form of glasses is needed...
Diogen.
I believe every poster here is anything but an "average" user when talking about technology.
We try new things before the "mainstream" knows it's not a misspelled "blue" but a new optical technology...
But taliking about 3D - and getting back to the question in this thread's title - I'll be in the "mainstream" group here
and get a 3D TV when most movies are done in 3D, done right and no "equipment" in the form of glasses is needed...
Diogen.
The instant 3D is available without the need for glasses, I'm in
Actually it is available without glasses. But I must agree that the ones shown so far are very poor and restrictive compared to those with glasses.
Its a fad that just keeps coming back and back, and really, is never much better. You can keep it. Total waste of money and energy. I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are getting sucked into this garbage.
I agree. But now if you could just come out with holographic tv , I might be interested. Anyone remember the ABC mini series "Wild Palms" back in the early 90s? Starred Jim Belushi and Dana Delaney and Angie Dickinson. It had holographic tv and it was like watching real people interacting in your living room. :up
Well, what I'm reading now is the coming of 3D porn. I shoulda thought of that. So I may be wrong, and 3DTV grow beyond "niche" status. Or into a really big niche. "Yes, dear, I bought it because the kids will love the new 3D cartoons...." 
: :devil:
: :devil:
