3d tvs doomed to fail?

[globegenius]

The latest reviews for 3d tvs are not good. Disappointing results and the glasses cost 150 for each pair. Bulky and awkward to wear. A home television can not create the same effects as a big cinema screen. Viewers state pictures do not jump off the screen like in a theater. I see this as a fad that will soon die off. Also the 3d affect tricks the brain into seeing the 3d effect. Ok to watch for a movie but a 8 hour gamer could have serious medical side effects. I think holography will be better technology when they have developed it for tv use. It uses lasers and mirrors to create the affect. No manipulating of the brain involved. Also there is little 3d content available at this time to view.

YouTube - IPHONE Hologram

Reference link

 

[spaminator]

i don't like to have to wear 3d glasses.

 

[Avro]

Bought one....55' Samsung....love it...glasses are not bulky, did you even try them yourself?

Can't find anything about brain damage....and glasses will be a thing of the past.

 

[#juan]

i don't like to have to wear 3d glasses.

The glasses are not the old cardboard things we used to get.

My problem with 3D TV is that right now, it is too expensive and there is very little to watch. Avatar might be out on DVD sometime soon and in the next few years there could be another six or eight movies in 3D. I just can't justify the price.

 

[Praxius]

I have no interest in buying a TV I have to wear glasses for, where probably at best, 50% of the things seen on tv will be 3D and other things won't be.

And what happens to those who don't get one of these tv's and hypothetically the 3D thing takes off? Are they going to be left with half their TV stations being all doubled up and blurry looking because they don't have 3D?

HD Stations and regular Resolution stations are easily interchangeable, but bouncing between 3D and 2D video (Movie, Shows, Commercials, News, etc) I'd find it very annoying to keep bouncing back from glasses to no glasses, to glasses to no glasses, etc. ~ Either one or the other. (see VHS vs. Beta or BlueRay vs. HD DVD)

Besides that, Many people can't handle 3D movies/shows, which is in relation to the same people who have problems with motion/car sickness. One eye strains more then the other (weaker) and thus continually trying to focus on moving graphics, 3D graphics at that (while stationary) can be very disorienting, cause headaches, etc.

That's also one of the reasons why Nintendo's Virtual Boy tanked.

I'll be sticking with my old school CRT's and maybe eventually get an HD flatscreen, but I won't be dabbling in the 3D stuff and will wait until the holographic projection displays start coming our way.

 

[Avro]

The glasses are not the old cardboard things we used to get.

My problem with 3D TV is that right now, it is too expensive and there is very little to watch. Avatar might be out on DVD sometime soon and in the next few years there could be another six or eight movies in 3D. I just can't justify the price.

The 3D tvs are the same price as hd tv's...I even got two pairs of glasses for free.

If someone is in the market for a new tv then I would suggest one of these.

 

[eh1eh]

The 3D tvs are the same price as hd tv's...I even got two pairs of glasses for free.

If someone is in the market for a new tv then I would suggest one of these.

Can you watch regular TV on it too?

 

[coldstream]

3D movies are enormously expensive to make. The only genre where this is cost effective is fantasy films, like Alice and Avatar , which appeal to a young audience who are more interested in special effects and thrills than substantial content.

I think ultimately the 3D monitors for video games will be a permanent presence, because their buyers are will demand it, but 3D TVs will go the way of Quadraphonic Sound. It's not the price of the hardware that will doom them, it's the cost and the narrow appeal of producing products for them.

 

[#juan]

The 3D tvs are the same price as hd tv's...I even got two pairs of glasses for free.

If someone is in the market for a new tv then I would suggest one of these.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need a new 3D player for 3D DVDs?
$3500.00 for the TV and another $400.00 for the player.

 

[Twila]

also the 3d affect tricks the brain into seeing the 3d effect.

I find that after about half an hour of a 3D movie I'm no longer seeing it as 3d. It feels like I've stopped noticing the depth or something. Maybe it's because my brain has figured out it's being tricked.

I won't be buying a 3D TV. I wasn't particularily impressed with it when Future Shop had the display on. It looks more like a shadow box (3d effect inside the tv) rather then the cinema 3d effect of things coming towards you.

 

[theconqueror]

The NEC CRV43 is not 3d but i've been wanting to mention it as i've been debating whether to get a dual screen monitor but I can't handle the gap and seam in the middle. But, this NEC CRV43 is 4 panels in a curve without the seam, I just have to wait for the $8,000 price tag to come down a bit.

 

[Walter]

I've always has a 3D TV. I dare anyone to buy a 2D or a 1D TV.

 

[Twila]

tv's have no depth. they have width and they have lenght,but no depth.

Or am I mistaken?

 

[Praxius]

tv's have no depth. they have width and they have lenght,but no depth.

Or am I mistaken?

No, you're right... someone doesn't know the difference between 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D.

1D is a straight line... 2D is more then a straight line by still flat in appearance (width and height), 3D is when something not only has length & width, but also depth..... 4D is when you take two hits of acid and step into the great divide beyond atoms and matter

Then again, I'm assuming he meant his physical TV is in 3D, not the projection, which are two different things being talked about.

 

[TenPenny]

I've always has a 3D TV. I dare anyone to buy a 2D or a 1D TV.

I have a 2D TV - I cut out a picture and glued it on the wall.

 

[lone wolf]

Here's my 1D

_______________________________________

 

[gerryh]

tv's have no depth. they have width and they have lenght,but no depth.

Or am I mistaken?

No, you're right... someone doesn't know the difference between 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D.

:lol::roll: and I think I just saw a plane fly over top of 2 posters heads.

Walter is right. TV's have always been 3D...... Their picture, on the other hand, have only been 2D.

 

[Twila]

No, you're right... someone doesn't know the difference between 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D.

4D? will there be a smellovision television soon? OMG, I don't know if I like it or don't. Great for cooking shows, but bad for sit coms...

 

[Twila]

screwed by semantics...again.

Tricky tricky, Walter. gah!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

3D movies are enormously expensive to make. The only genre where this is cost effective is fantasy films, like Alice and Avatar , which appeal to a young audience who are more interested in special effects and thrills than substantial content.

I think ultimately the 3D monitors for video games will be a permanent presence, because their buyers are will demand it, but 3D TVs will go the way of Quadraphonic Sound. It's not the price of the hardware that will doom them, it's the cost and the narrow appeal of producing products for them.

You can be sure porn producers will get into 3d TV soon. Porn producers are usually at the cutting edge of technology.