All the top movies are appearing in 3D versions and the Consumer Electronics Show last week was full of new 3D TV’s. Why isn’t anybody buying them? We already bought our big-screen TV’s, thanks.
Suddenly 3D content is everywhere. Movie studios are using it more than ever and consumer electronics companies are even subsidizing 3D for TV programming and home video. But for all the 3D content, 3D TV sales have yet to takeoff. There are many reasons for this, but according to Conor Schutzman, who thinks a lot about such things, it mainly comes down to conflicting motivations for producers and consumers.
Content producers like 3D for two reasons: 1) they can get a 3D premium on ticket sales in theaters that effectively pays for the 3D conversion, and; 2) 3D movies are almost impossible to pirate. Notice that neither of these reasons has anything to do with your TV or mine. That’s important.
The movie industry likes to complain that they are getting killed by piracy — everything from perfect digital dubs to the more common pirate shooting the movie with a camcorder from his theater seat. Neither of these works for 3D movies, effectively killing piracy. And since 3D is made more-or-less free to the studios by our willingness to pay more to see movies in that format, doing 3D versions of most movies is a no-brainer. In fact, if enough theaters were capable of showing high-quality 3D, my guess is that we’d see all movies released in 3D (no more 2D).
That explains all the 3D content that’s appearing, but there is not much of a unified 3D home video strategy to go with it. Most of the companies have a plan for 3D but they are also in competition and want their plan to be the one to succeed. That implies a Beta-versus-VHS market confusion problem, but that’s not really what’s keeping people from buying 3D TVs. It’s more fundamental. What’s keeping them from buying is that they already bought a new TV or three during the recent digital transition. More than 100 million people in the USA alone bought a newer, generally more expensive TV over the last two years. But now that they’ve bought, new TV sales are mainly covering replacements caused by unit failures, and those only happen about every 10 years.
We have no real incentive to buy. Rooms are getting smaller, not larger, in the current economy, so the push for ever-larger screens has waned. Vendors have been trying to lure us with LED backlights and faster frame rates, but anything over 120 Hz is either: a) impossible to even notice for older eyes like mine, or; b) feels actively uncomfortable for folks raised on 24- or 30-frames-per-second. Leave it for the next generation to reach adulthood and thrive on 240 Hz TV. They can pay for it, too.
So 3D TV’s are likely to flop, though Moore’s Law suggests that we’ll see plenty of 3D technology rolled into future sets anyway because it is already developed and because they have to use that silicon real estate for something.
But whether 3D TV’s are a success or not, 3D movies — with their completely different reasons for being — are here to stay.
I just bought a 3D TV, but then I really like 3D technology.
3D has been appearing in the market about every 20 years or so since middle of the 19th century, but it has never really been popular with most consumers.
I think full color, electronic holographic video will be needed to both eliminate the glasses and allow for many people to watch at the same time, but, alas, that technology is still many years away.
In the mean time, enjoy the latest 3D while it lasts.
Ditto. It was actually wasn’t up to me. The best sized TV we could find with all the sales going on, just threw the feature in there.
All blue ray drives are now HDMI for 2011. Analog is no longer being produced and with that comes the ease of the 3D wires every current HDMI 1.3 cable can deliver.
We didn’t plan on buying 3D, but have you seen how flat screen prices are bottoming out? Sooner or later, curiosity will lead us to buy a video or two in 3D alongside our usual 2D content, then a game, and now I see a nifty 3D camera in 1080P for under $200 bucks.
Sorry Robert, but times be changing…
Sorry Steveorevo but I’m with Cringely on this one. You are part of a very very small minority. Most people realise that 3D is just one more ploy by the industry to overcome the problems of selling into a saturated market. A much more sensible, and much much less wasteful approach would be to significantly downside TV manufacturing.
My dad agrees with you. He and everyone in his generation find the data too much. Too stimulating and the glasses as being in the way.
Could it be a generational thing? T.V. has always been the great American way to escape and immerse one’s self into another world. And 3D High Definition and surround sound, like it or not, amplifies that world even more.
I tend to agree with your dad, to much information and to much junk info at that when a simple seach of a title can result in 125 unrelated ,but not the title in question we drowning in mics s***, if you can’t find what you need the WWW is a major pain
Could be a generation thing. Would your tween daughter prefer the immersion from surround sound, 3D high definition Justin Bieber that makes it feel like she’s at the concert over a 2D music video? Probably. Though nauseating (to me) many levels.
If the subject matter is compelling content to begin with, 3D can make for an even more encapsulating experience to a young generation. The lack of content is being addressed. From movies to documentaries, had the discovery of the Titanic or the future landscapes of the moon and Mars be served up in 3D, even the older viewers might just show up.
My dad can’t relate to Avatar, but to today’s young vets to the hip environment conscience twenty-somethings can. And Avatar is all about 3D. Then there are the games… again, it speaks to a young adult generation that embraces newer technology more readily then, well, even me. I wouldn’t write it off just yet…
Ha! Right on! Along with the manufacture of many other products. I often wonder what happens to all this “stuff” that gets made and never sells.
there are also a LOT of folks with one functional eye… either ambylopia or pirate duty, arrrrr… 3D is wasted on us. silly fringing color kerappe is disturbing to us. and I already have my $600 glasses, thanks, and don’t want any cardboard dongles hanging off them.
so 3D… nope.
@DavidWhite: “3D has been appearing in the market about every 20 years or so since middle of the 19th century, but it has never really been popular with most consumers”
I’m not entirely sure they had 3D in the 1850s.
Or the 1950s, for that matter.
“2) 3D movies are almost impossible to pirate.”
I noticed that a few weeks ago when I took my brother to go see Tron in 3D. Just kinda wish that they had spent a bit more time actually USING the technology as part of the story instead of the few scenes where it was obviously “bolted on”.
I hope I can avoid 3D for a long time. I don’t want movies with things flying at my face just because it’s 3D. The color looks awful, it feels like a gimmick.
Never thought I would join the “angry old man” demographic so soon.
Depends. “Dial M for Murder” was an early 3D, using the polaroid method. I saw “Avatar” in polaroid, it was mostly seamless. Good 3D is kind of like surround sound or proper salting of food: you don’t really notice it, except when it isn’t there.
I will never, ever sit in my own house with the silly glasses on to watch anything. I don’t understand 3D, not know why anyone wants to watch 3D.
The fact that the 3D TVs are rather pricey is an issue too.
You lost me on “impossible to pirate.” If it’s available on DVD, won’t it be pirated?
@Cringely:
You should explain the impossible to pirate stuff. If it’s polaroid, I can see why that might not get picked up by a consumer handi-cam. If it’s bi-color, it should.
I don’t understand this, either. Why couldn’t someone just place one of the lenses of the 3D glasses in front of the camera lens to get a 2D version of the movie?
C’mon Jackie, no one would think of that!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert X. Cringely and Jacob Christensen. Jacob Christensen said: "Notice that neither of these reasons has anything to do with your TV or mine." http://is.gd/kvqHF #cringely […]
I only think 3D is happening in theaters because with screens so large, having a 3D event actually looks interesting. Put it on a small screen, where my eyes have a chance to see to the left, right, top, and bottom of a frame, and it begins to looks cheesy.
I think the problem 3D will have in the home, beyond the obvious points that Mr. Cringely made, is similar to the problem of animated movies that try to look “real” – like The Polar Express.
I remember reading how these movies can be disturbing to people because the more “real” you try to make animation, the more the brain notices that something is wrong with it. The more animated you make it, the more the brain just, for lack of a better word, “gives up” trying to find what’s wrong with it. So, an animated face that looks like a cartoon is “fine”, whereas an animated face that tries to look like a real face begins to look “creepy”.
I would think the same thing would be true of a 3D TV. Your brain *knows* it isn’t really in 3D, because your eyes can see both the TV and the stereo equipment next to/below the TV, so it knows something is “wrong” and it looks “creepy”.
Anyway, just a thought.
Something that may (or may not) point to this. Saw Avatar in 3D at the theater, and 2D at home on DVD. I have to say that I almost enjoyed it in 2D more. During the final battle, the 3D makes it look like you are flying in the action. But your brain knows you aren’t, because the perspective keeps changing (I’m flying on the dragon-bird, now i’m in the cargo hold of the bomber, now I’m in the helicopter, now I’m back on the dragon-bird).
So, I actually found the 2D more “enjoyable” – my brain wasn’t trying to digest all the 3D “noise”.
jobo,
you make a superb point — that Hollywood’s never cared to engage in visual storytelling.
Robert Montgomery’s The Lady in the Lake is a 1947 PointOfView film that tanked because it does what you wanted the 3D version Avatar to do, put your perspective IN the movie. It’s never been a commercially-viable way to tell a story (in Hollywood). They don’t know how to do it AND make money.
Absurd edits, jiggle-cam, yammered exposition, the Fourth Wall, manipulative score…the traditional devices work well because we’ve grown used to a century of cinematic conceits. 3D could revolutionize the way movies are made and watched, but then our existing DVD libraries would decrease in value, and studios really don’t want that to happen.
> but then our existing DVD libraries would decrease in value,
> and studios really don’t want that to happen.
Boy, you’re wrong on that one. What do you think Blu-Ray is all about? The VHS->DVD migration got Hollywood’s appetite all whetted as people replaced their now-worth-less (not necessary worthless, just worth-less) VHS catalogs with DVDs – repurchasing already-owned content. DVDs are more capable than standard NTSC TVs, but HDTVs are more capable than DVDs. So it’s time for a “new disk format to fullfill the capabilities of your new TV. Plus they threw in another round of “protection”
People haven’t been rushing out to replace their DVD catalogs with Blu-Ray, so maybe part of the drive to 3D is to field an added incentive for Blu-Ray. It’s worth noting that not all of the new 3D movies are actually shot in 3D – many of them have it post-processed in. If they can do that, no doubt they can reprocess existing movies to “add 3D value” – probably work from the original master footage, add 3D and put onto Blu-Ray.
So far, I’ve seen one movie in the theater with the new 3D (“Avatar”). I was concerned whether I would even be able to experience any of the effects because 1) I already wear glasses, 2) the center bridges on those stupid glasses are so w-i-d-e. I am pleased to announce that I was able to experience the 3D, I just wish there had been more PLOT to the movie. 🙂
As to 3D though, as David White mentioned above, until we can watch these movies without additional glasses I don’t think it will catch on. And I’m NOT going to buy a new TV to then have to spend an additional $100+ per pair of funky glasses!
Regarding “piracy”: IF 3D becomes popular, we computer folks are good at figuring out ways to copy things. And copying does not equal piracy!
Besides, if the theaters keep raising the prices on admission and food, (they might start charging for bathroom privileges), pretty soon they won’t have to worry about people going to the theaters anyway. There! Problem solved!
— As to 3D though, as David White mentioned above, until we can watch these movies without additional glasses I don’t think it will catch on.
Physics tells us that “glasses” are required, whether bi-color or polaroid. For those who normally wear glasses, if the industry can decide on a standard, then “flip ups” (you remember those from nerd movies, yes?) could be bought for a few bucks. The polaroid sunglass flip up is only that, and the movie version would only have to have the two lenses correctly oriented.
Glasses-less 3D screens have existed for some time. On cell phones in Japan, Sharp’s laptop lines and several others. Larger version have already showed up an CES but they do suffer from viewing angle problems.
I believe if quality content is there, the market might just follow. Virtually any episode of National Geographic in 3D would be compelling enough for me to give it a spin.
Those are like the 3D greeting cards. OK if you put your head in a brace for a couple hours.
Then it will be easy to find the movie pirates with their cameras, because they’ll be the only ones in the theaters.
It appears that a lot of folks don’t enjoy 3D movies, but see them anyway because of friends and family. I’m surprised that someone hasn’t yet created ‘2D’ glasses for those folks. They would be simple to make … just have both lenses be left or right views. They could be sorted in the recycle bin by frame color.
I’m one of them, but it has more to do with that my eyes do not focus equally. It isn’t a problem in real life because one is dominant and the slight fuzz is barely noticeable. But ask each eye to function independently to trick my brain into seeing 3D and it is as annoying as it is cool. It still isn’t that cool.
I fall into Bob’s category of “just bought a new TV in the last year,” but I also fall into the “saw a 3D demo at the store and wasn’t impressed.” Specifically it was a 3D demo for a video game, and the quality did not justify the price.
I’m holding out for images pumped directly into my brain, thank you. The human eye is an obstacle true immersion video.
Ahh, “Inception,” then. Very nice.
Interesting idea. I have a son (9 yrs old) with some eye issues – basically, he can track objects in space longer than average (think of moving the tip of a pencil towards your eye and when you lose focus on it), but once he lost tracking, it took him much, much longer than average to get the tracking back.
As a result, during a 3-D movie, about halfway through he would take the glasses off – it was easier for him to enjoy it as a fuzzy 2D than to try to keep track of it in 3-D.
Since then he has hat OT for his eyes, and his tracking is much improved.
But the result is, 3D films did nothing for my boy. 2D glasses for him may have worked well.
I don’t understand how 3D content is harder to pirate than non-3D content. It’s all digital data, isn’t it? You can rip a 3D Blu-ray movie just as well as 2D one. Perhaps the files will be larger… so what? Moore’s law will catch on. I doubt anyone pirates movies using the old handycam-in-a-theater method anymore anyway.
On another note, I used to think the same thing about 3D at home: not needed. Then I saw the demo at a local (now defunct) Sony Store. Videogame demo: whatever. Movie demo: ok. National Geographic nature demo: pretty, but who watches that? Live soccer demo: Incredible. Sports really look fantastic in 3D and the 3D really adds a lot to the experience, looking forward to the day where all live sports transmissions will be 3D.
I think you miss the main reason why we aren’t buying 3D–and won’t. It’s because the technology detracts from the entertainment experience rather than adding to it. I won’t go to see a “3D” movie in the theater, and certainly will never buy a “3D” tv.
Don’t forget the 10-20% of the audience for whom 3D doesn’t really work – if you have a significant difference in sight between your two eyes, or only see through one eye, then 3D is just dimmer 2D.
I can experience the 3D effect just fine. But that doesn’t counter the dimming effect imho. It would be fine if they would boost the brightness up so it would be back to normal with the glasses. (I haven’t experienced the TV version yet.)
No standards yet – buy a 3D TV and you won’t know if you’ve picked Blu-ray or HD-DVD until it’s too late.
I’m waiting for holograms, i.e. “help me, Obi-Wan” – that’s true 3D tech (and doesn’t Apple have a new patent?)
Has Ralph Kramden bought his 3D TV yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPMetvTAYw
I think that it’s ironic that two very obvious reasons weren’t discussed:
* Those >25 don’t like it and don’t want it (generational divide?)
* No one wants to wear glasses to see 3D
-KLH
I get better than 3d for free every day – I walk the dog on a path in the woods near our house each morning. It’s so beautiful, vivid and lifelike, I actually think it beats the holodeck.
Industry has a solution for that problem.
Commenters: nobody cares what you thought about the plot of Avatar… sheesh
Were you trying to say something or did your monkey run across your keyboard while you weren’t looking?
To the guys asking about why 3D is harder to pirate it actually comes down to the fact that all 3D movies are shown in DCI format which means the movie comes on a hard drive from the distributor which generates a key that means that movie can only play on that movie theatre server and whatever projector the server is connected too
DCI movies are digitally watermaked in 2D so if someone sits in the theatre with a camera the studio can tell what theatre the movie was pirated in and even the time and date. The digital format also stops the projectionist from making a clone copy of the film in hi-def format and then using this to create pirate dvd’s
Thats why your seeing alot of pirated movies coming out of mexico or eastern europe because the theatres there can’t afford to upgrade to DCI
Interesting… On that line, how big (in GB or TB) is a typical movie?
Can the movie house go back in time and snare the camera operator? Montreal is already known as the handy-cam centre for pirated videos. But there are 200 theatres there and each shows 5 movies a day. To catch a thief isn’t so simple.
I’m not buying it…..3D movies in the theater or a 3D TV at home. I’ve watched a maybe four 3D movies and I would say only the movie Avatar was worth paying for the extra cost for the movie. I will never buy a 3D TV. Never!
3D is a gimmick thought up by the movie studios to stem their losses. The transition to the small screen has been problematic because:
a) people don’t want to replace their fairly new flat screens for a handful of BD titles,
b) consumer confusion due to marketing some titles as ‘exclusive’ to a certain brand of BD player,
c) the requirement to update the firmware (many people may not be aware of the existence of the ethernet jack on the back of their TV or BD player, let alone the need to connect to the internet to receive updates – reference the number of reports from people complaining that their BD players don’t work any more) or replace your fairly new BD player,
d) people don’t want to buy (or wear) the silly, heavy 3-D glasses, which need to be connected to a decoder, which needs to be connected to your 3D-capable TV,
e) the transition from the big screen to your living room just doesn’t quite equal the big screen experience.
These reasons and others are why 3D is a passing fad. CES isn’t the show to gauge uptake – NAB is. And those guys were already moving on to 2K and 4K technology back in June. Not to mention 21×9 aspect ratios, which is already appearing in the hidden corners of the manufacturers’ product lines.
4K is already getting uptake by the content producers; witness the lack of availability of RED cameras because half of the production has been scooped up to film ‘The Hobbit’. If you thought 1080p and 16×9 was phenomenal, 4K and 21×9 is going to make everybody cream their jeans.
3D was dead a couple of months after it hit the streets. It was another product poorly implemented that killed consumer interest. The manufacturers need to educate their users better as it is, with the constant BluRay DRM updates. People without broadband need to know the limitations they will face if they buy BD players and don’t know about the need to update the keys. The guys and gals at Best Buy largely have no clue, either.
I will likely buy a 3D-capable TV, but probably only because the higher-end TV’s I’m interested in have it. It would be a plus if it came with the 3D goggle kit, as that would be the only way I’d try it out. I’m not going to shell out $200-300 bucks for a starter kit. What would I do if I have more than 2 people that want to watch the movie, spend another couple hundred bucks for another pair? No. I have a high-quality Sony Bravia 120Hz set. I’d like to get a newer 240Hz set with LED backlighting for the better picture. And 3D sets with the backlighting have phenomenal 2D picture quality. I already have an ‘obsolete’ BD player and a newer model I received for Christmas that is 3D-capable. I’m just not going out of my way to acquire 3D, no matter how many Sony Playstations they throw in the box.
What exactly do you do with the perfectly good equipment you are replacing?
CraigsList?
Exactly what Bill in NC says: it’s not 3D. It’s 2D. Sculptures are 3D. Paintings are not, even with annoying glasses.
That said, when it’s done well it’s kind of cool. A little. But they got to lose the glasses or forget it.
I can’t wait until all the “I’ll NEVER buy a 3D TV” whiners eat crow. 3D technology is here to stay – and it will only get better. 3D video gaming will likely drive demand, with 3D porn and sporting events not far behind.
Don’t tell Hollywood, I can think of ways to pirate 3D movies. I won’t because I don’t see the need to do so. Is there a need? That is a key question.
Is pirating really a big problem? Where is it a problem? From my corner of the world I have access to 1000’s of movies on-demand. If I want my own copy I can buy most movies at a reasonable price. If a movie is good enough, I may go see it in a theatre. If it isn’t, I certainly am not going to look for a pirated early copy of it.
The music industry had a lot of pirating problems. I still believe many of them were self inflicted. Once the industry caught up with the times and technology, I think the problem is now greatly reduced. If you give the public what it wants and at a fair price, there is less of a need for piracy.
As a consumer, I won’t pay an extra $1000 for 3D glasses for my family. I am happy with my 2D television.
I just hope that they continue to produce non-3d versions of movies. Why? Because I’m one of those people who gets violently motion-sick watching 3d. I had to leave Avatar to go to the rest room and vomit. (Lots of 2d movies make me want to vomit, but none have actually succeeded.)
I’m sure 3d is the wave of the future, but I hope they remember to make accommodations for dimensionally-disabled people like me.
Have they solved the couch problem? Most people don’t sit bolt upright to watch a movie. They lay down or slump against cushions on the sofa and relax. No big deal, but:
(a) polarized 3D doesn’t work when you head is at an angle (neither does parallax-based 3D) and
(b) you can’t (comfortably) rest your head against a pillow when you’re wearing the giant rectangular glasses, and the LCD shutters are polarized to some degree anyway and will suffer even more dimming off-axis.
I keep hoping this 3D gimmick will go away. I already wear glasses and I don’t want to wear two pair at once. Oh, and I have limited vision in one eye so I really don’t get the 3D experience anyway.
My 20+ year old kids don’t like to see movies in 3D – they say it is annoying.
And I agree with you about the faster scan rates – I have to turn it off on mine or 35mm movies look very flat and unreal. But I’m an old fuddy duddy I guess.
Yeah, 3D’s a miserable experience. Just a phoney-looking effect with the added disadvantage that it’s like viewing everything through 30ft of water. Oh, and you have to wear annoying glasses as well.
I’m through with special-effects blockbusters anyway; numbed by Hollywood’s wild world of sensory over-stimulation. It’s like being condemned forever to read everything in comic-strip format WHAM! BLAM! SLAM! KABOOM! all the time. I visit my local art house more regularly now.
Smaller rooms don’t seem to mean smaller TV’s, certainly not in the UK. My neighbour over the road has a pretty small front room but I’m comfortable watching his HUGE TV from my bedroom. I can see his head swiveling all over the place trying to keep up with what’s on his screen. Ridiculous.
OK. You win the prize for best comment.
Actually, from most reports that I’ve seen, the revenue for 3D in theaters has been going down. If that trend continues, watch for the studios to begin releasing fewer titles in the format. Maybe the trend will turn around, who knows. But it hasn’t been looking good (no pun intended) for awhile now.
In many ways, the problem of market penetration for 3D TV is similar to the problem for 5.1 surround sound. I work in the audio engineering field, and folks have been trying to push for 5.1 for quite awhile now, and while there are more users today for the format than ever before, it’s still tiny, with full acceptance remaining ever-elusive. It’s just very, very difficult to imagine how to get a LOT of people on-board.
Sorry, I meant to include this link for a piece on the declining revenues of theater 3D sales:
Well, here we go one more time. I wish there were a way to edit our own comments here:
https://www.slate.com/id/2264927/
Am I the only one that feels like 3D TV is like the video version of the old GAF Viewmaster? I can see the 3d, but it’s just hokey.
From the Cringely homeland, Wayne County Ohio!
One of two things are likely:
3D will fail precisely because it can’t be pirated,
or more likely,
someone will discover how to pirate 3D and tell all their pirate buddies how.
I will not be buying a 3D TV any time soon, but then I am a technology fart.
Many years ago I used to give a lift to a friend who was a stereo freak. I liked to make sure there was always a Billie Holiday tape in the player. I would enjoy great music, while my friend would be unable to hear anything other than the 1930’s tape hiss. Joy.
There was a comment on the BBC recently that normally your brain only gives you a 3 dimensional view of objects within 15 feet of your eyes (that is if you don’t have a stigmatism like myself). Beyond that what you see is 2D anyway. To compensate programme makers are creating a 3D effect (I guess by moving the cameras apart), and this leaves you with the impression that the football match you are watching is taking place with miniature players on a table top.
This may have been on: https://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/digitalp
Most people realise that 3D is just one more ploy by the industry to overcome the problems of selling into a saturated market.
You missed another reason – some people just plain don’t like 3D or 3D makes little to no difference for them. Even going to the 3D movies, they’re barely 3D to me – nothing really sticks out, etc – it’s just another 2D movie. (And yes, I’ve gone to IMAX 3D movies too.)
So 3D movies in the theatre are bad enough. 3D TV at home is even worse.
Add to that the fact that Nintendo has already published information saying that 3D is bad at least for kids under a certain age (around 6-8 years old) as it hinders eye development (leaving more kids with “lazy eye”) and you’ve got a disaster in the making.
So, I may only be 30, but 3D is not for me. Then again, HD makes little difference to me too.
2 problems with ‘3D’.
1-it isn’t 3d.Its just 2 separate flat views.Changing seats from left side to right side would give you a different view. Think of a live play, each seat has a different view..
2-It makes me wanna hurl within a few seconds.
If they stop making 2D movies, I stop going/buying.
Piracy!. Here in Brazil it is a big bussines, every where you can get one pitare DVD or music CD, in some cities there are special places just to send/buy pirate DVD/CDs.
How much? No more than US$ 3,00. The original DVD is more than US$ 30-40-50,00, so expensive.
I posted a note about my personal experience with 3DTV. More interesting was a followup from a friend of mine that’s a professional video engineer.
http://laminack.com/2010/12/04/the-vido-viewmaster/
Glasses. I searched the word “glasses” in the previous comments, and lost count. bottom line:
Lose the glasses, or no sale.
Glasses. I searched the word “glasses” in the previous comments, and lost count. bottom line:
Lose the glasses, or no sale.
“And since 3D is made more-or-less free to the studios by our willingness to pay more to see movies in that format, doing 3D versions of most movies is a no-brainer.”
What willingness? I had no choice, for the one 3D movie I’ve seen. It was 3D or nothing. After that headache, it will be nothing from now on.
Forget 3D TV. I won’t watch 3D movies. I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D just because it was at a more convenient time for me, but I won’t do that again. 3D adds nothing as far as I’m concerned, and the glasses are annoying. I’ll save my dollars in both places, thanks.
I already have 5 remotes for my current TV and the variety of electronics wired into it. Now I need glasses? I have kids. The glasses would be broken or lost in a matter of hours. 3D TV was, is, and always will be a novelty, not a difference maker.
I saw a live demonstration of a 3d TV at a fry’s electronics a few months ago (the only model whose glasses hadn’t been stolen) and it was severely disappointing. Unlike the 3d movies in theaters, where the movie jumps out at you, the depth was in the opposite direction, as if viewing a 3d puppet show living inside the (seemingly) tiny 60″ television monitor. It really sucked. That’s why 3d tv sales won’t take off like 3d theater sales has.
I’ve just bought a 3D TV and a 3D monitor for my computer. My biggest problem is content. I don’t have enough content to watch in 3D. I think it’s a bit early for 3D now…
Buy $10 Replica Designer Sunglasses with 3-day FREE SHIPPING
Online UK costume and fashion jewellery shop with,
I will continue to focus on
https://www.coachhandbagspurses.org
morphy richards breadmaker…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » 3Dud TV – Cringely on technology[…]…
Knowledge you room-mate a substitute alternatively of your post. It helped me alot in completing my work. Payday Loans
blog about gardening, fixing bicycles, antique cars,…
or decorating cupcakes, there are some things that you can do in order to get your blog listed in the top picks of an internet search. when this happens, you could be more likely to have more customers because people will…