• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

3DTVs not selling very well

Status
Not open for further replies.
polyh3dron said:
Yeah there were lots of articles about 5 years back about sluggish HDTV sales here and many people, even on GAF were talking about how no one wants HD and nobody can tell the difference, SD was the future and yada yada yada
Click to expand...

And they were absolutely right until things the US Government mandated a switch to Digital. The Digital switch artifically inflated TV sales which is why so many companies are bitching about declining sales now.

The mass buy period is over and unless the Government suddenly mandates 3DTVs sales wont be pickin gup for some time
 
yankeehater said:
Why? I had a buddy go to E3 and he said it was awesome, and the review i have seen seem to all be positive.
Click to expand...
It was just terrible. The IQ was awful, the ghosting was insane. In 2D it's one of the best looking console games so far, maybe the best, but in 3D I really thought it looked like ass.

It probably differs from TV to TV and with the different options of course, but with the Sony TV I played it on, it was terrible.
 
antonz said:
Its in my opinion silly to jump into 3D TVs now considering the price
Click to expand...

The price is a few hundred beyond a comparable non-3D TV. Mostly it's paying for a pair of glasses.


and the coming glasses free TVs.
Click to expand...

Well by that line of thinking, PS9 is coming ... guess that means I shouldn't get a PS3 ... 4 ... 5 ... etc :p

While likely an exaggeration, it's also an exaggeration if you've been told they are around the corner.
 
2020: Movie uses smell technology; grosses $1 billion worldwide. That same year, "smell-o-vision" TVs are announced.
 
joshcryer said:
Good, we need proper 3D visors with good contrast ratio. Fucking BS 3D like we're getting destroys the light content of the image and is overall annoying as hell.
Click to expand...

huh?





MIMIC said:
2020: Movie uses smell technology; grosses $1 billion worldwide. That same year, "smell-o-vision" TVs are announced.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... 3D TV's came out because of Avatar :\
 
polyh3dron said:
Yeah there were lots of articles about 5 years back about sluggish HDTV sales here and many people, even on GAF were talking about how no one wants HD and nobody can tell the difference, SD was the future and yada yada yada

BTW: My next TV will be a Panasonic 3D plasma, when they refresh their line next year. CAN'T. WAIT.
Click to expand...


HDTV had an obvious positive effect. Once everything, from the news to sitcoms to spanish soaps started airing in HD, even old technology-phobics couldn't deny the difference. I have yet to see how 3D has this same advantage. Yea great for video games and action movies and maybe sports (and even that one I am questioning) but what is going to push the people that watch reality shows and Fox News and CBS sitcoms into grabbing onto this? To me HD and 3D are not on the same linear path of evolution, I don't see why they are being pushed together. WTF about 3D is going to make watching Two and a Half men so much better? OMG ITS LIKE CHARLIE SHEEN IS RIGHT IN MY FACE TELLING BAD JOKES! 3D needs its content built around it. HD never did. Everything simply looks better in HD.
 
Raistlin said:
The price is a few hundred beyond a comparable non-3D TV. Mostly it's paying for a pair of glasses.




Well by that line of thinking, PS9 is coming ... guess that means I shouldn't get a PS3 ... 4 ... 5 ... etc :p

While likely an exaggeration, it's also an exaggeration if you've been told they are around the corner.
Click to expand...

65" may not be right around the corner that is true but the glasses free TVs are coming this year. Even Sony has their new patent for Glasses Free Screens. The big push on 3D TVs right now is the fact they sell expensive glasses to prop up the bottom line even more.

3D TVs will kill the market for glasses and cut into profit margins so for now Sony etc are very eager to sell as many 3DTVs as they can
 
Raistlin said:
Well by that line of thinking, PS9 is coming ... guess that means I shouldn't get a PS3 ... 4 ... 5 ... etc :p

While likely an exaggeration, it's also an exaggeration if you've been told they are around the corner.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole is not your friend.

3D without glasses televisions are coming this year. Technology will be perfected over the next few years, as it will become very apparent its what consumers want.

Don't be mad because you bought in already to a stupid iteration of the technology.
 
Everything is going to move to being shot digitally, the cost of producing 3D TV is going to basically be a one off fee for the 3D cameras, then that's it, it's not harder as far as I can tell.

It'll be a few years, but I think we'll see 3D be as pervasive as colour is. That took a very long time to happen, but it did.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
I thought that the best TVs in terms of non-3D performance, quality, features, etc are still priced the same this year as they have been in previous years, they just happen to have 3D support as well? I'm thinking of the Panasonic plasmas right now. Yeah, they're not cheap, but the high-end stuff was never really "cheap" in the first place.
Click to expand...

They are but premium TV models have never sold in mass quantities.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
Hyperbole is not your friend.

3D without glasses televisions are coming this year. Technology will be perfected over the next few years, as it will become very apparent its what consumers want.

Don't be mad because you bought in already to a stupid iteration of the technology.
Click to expand...
:lol



Sharp's 10.6-inch parallax barrier display makes us love our 3D glasses (video)



http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/04/sharps-10-2-inch-parallax-barrier-display-makes-us-love-our-3d/


also-





Engadget on Toshiba's 3D display with out glasses-


That leaves us to talk about 12-inch 12GL1, and what can we express other than disappointment? The 466 x 350 resolution (yes, that's less than standard definition) is just awful, you can lose the 3D effect moving marginally to the left or right, depth is not pronounced, and medium-to-fast pace footage just doesn't work. For all the warm-yet-cautious approval we give to the 20GL1, its little brother is quite the black sheep, especially at ¥120,000 ($1,443). Not that ¥240,000 for 20 inches is a bargain, but at least you're getting a quality screen... and for once, you don't actually need additional eyewear to enjoy it. Decidedly two-dimensional snapshots and video taken from an almost pitch-black showroom (i.e. very not optimal) can be found below.
Click to expand...


3D with out glasses isn't coming any time soon for the normal consumer. And from whats been displayed at trade shows so far it isn't any thing to write home about.
 
mr stroke said:
3D with out glasses isn't coming any time soon for the normal consumer. And from whats been displayed at trade shows so far it isn't any thing to write home about.
Click to expand...
goddamn, son. did you read a word of my commentary?

I believe I've said in my last few posts that:

1.) It will be ready in a few years when

a.) The viewing angles are wider

b.) When the screens get bigger.

and obviously when the quality is better. The industry is going to move towards without-glasses tech because no mothafuckin body wants to wear the glasses.

2.) Consumers will prefer it without glasses for all the obvious reasons.

I thought I said that shit pretty clearly. Yet here you are, quoting my comment and saying the exact same shit.
 
I wear glasses. I've always worn glasses and always will. I'm mildly annoyed with having to wear two pairs of glasses in theaters, but it's something I'll put up with two or three times a year. No fucking way I'm sitting on my couch that way.
 
daycru said:
I wear glasses. I've always worn glasses and always will. I'm mildly annoyed with having to wear two pairs of glasses in theaters, but it's something I'll put up with two or three times a year. No fucking way I'm sitting on my couch that way.
Click to expand...
And if you could get prescription polarized glasses?
 
Corran Horn said:
Yep. Besides a few select ps3 games and even fewer amounts of blurays which most have some sort of exclusive tv bundles...why get one now. :lol
Click to expand...

You can play 1000s of games in S3D right now. For anyone posting on GAF, that's a lot of compelling content.
 
StuBurns said:
And if you could get prescription polarized glasses?
Click to expand...

Last time I got glasses they were 500 bucks a pair (needed sunglasses too), or 250$ after insurance.

I don't want to know what prescription 3d glasses would cost, especially if they are the active ones that require batteries.

I think 3D is great when its done right. Avatar looked amazing in the theater and is probably the most visually impressive movie I have seen yet. (say what you want about the corny plot).

However aside from movies and games I don't see much application for it in sitcoms/news programs. I don't watch TV anyways and wouldn't even own one if I didn't live with my parents still.

However I AM interested in 3-d gaming on my PC.

You won't see people spending money on 3DTVs in the middle of an economic downturn, especially when many of those people just bought their first HDTV in the past 5 years. Additionally as others have mentioned there just isn't enough content.

More than likely it will take an economic recovery for the middle class combined with the launch of new consoles using 3d tech to push the newer tvs on people.
 
I don't even understand how 3D has time to be in TVs when it's clearly been so busy killing all your grandmothers.
 
Seeing as how there are glasses-less sets that are being made (with prototypes that work at correct angles), I don't see why TVs with such expensive glasses would be desirable...
 
Fuck this 3D shit. Give me a retina display TV instead!

After seeing the iPhone 4, Sharp Quattron, and other shit it made me realize how much farther 2D can go.

Seriously the 3D looks like shit, it just pops up at you like a picture book. I'm excited with it on the 3DS because I can imagine how it can benefit gameplay but on a TV it just seems annoying.

3D needs some more time in the oven. It's improved dramatically over the past 2 decades but it needs perhaps two more before it can get to the level I'd settle for.

Also, seriously? TV's are suppose to last me YEARS. I accept getting a new computer, MP3 player, or game console because well they aren't that expensive a (unless you shop Mac or SONY, and even that's starting to change) and the benefits of new tech is immediate. But TV's? First you have to go through the wave of shitty expensive next generation products, then I have to build a completely new library of media I own, and no just no. I just spent a fair share of money on my 32" LG 1080p LCD (has hold up great BTW) 2 years ago. I'm not about to dip toward another TV so soon.

Maybe they should worry about getting companies to properly convert and optimize their "HD" content first. Most Blu-Ray movies look barely a step up from DVD which is bullshit.


I should hold my tongue though because maybe this glassless 3D could be the real deal.

I mean pe-WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG DEAL IF 3DTV'S STOP USING GLASSES!? :lol :lol :lol
 
thesoapster said:
Seeing as how there are glasses-less sets that are being made (with prototypes that work at correct angles), I don't see why TVs with such expensive glasses would be desirable...
Click to expand...
Because it's going to be like five years until a decent autostereoscopic TV worth buying will be a reasonable price and maybe people who are buying new TVs at the moment don't mind paying that little extra to have 3D until those worthwhile glasses free units are available.
 
Wow that really sucks about the non glasses 3D sets. I'm willing to wait though. I don't need glasses at home.

Ninja Scooter said:
HDTV had an obvious positive effect. Once everything, from the news to sitcoms to spanish soaps started airing in HD, even old technology-phobics couldn't deny the difference. I have yet to see how 3D has this same advantage. Yea great for video games and action movies and maybe sports (and even that one I am questioning) but what is going to push the people that watch reality shows and Fox News and CBS sitcoms into grabbing onto this? To me HD and 3D are not on the same linear path of evolution, I don't see why they are being pushed together. WTF about 3D is going to make watching Two and a Half men so much better? OMG ITS LIKE CHARLIE SHEEN IS RIGHT IN MY FACE TELLING BAD JOKES! 3D needs its content built around it. HD never did. Everything simply looks better in HD.
Click to expand...

This post sums the whole situation up well. For general viewing 3D doesn't have many tangible benefits. Plus it took forever for companies to convince people to get HD sets. 3D is a harder sell because of the equipment required and lack of content.
 
Mrbob said:
This post sums the whole situation up well. For general viewing 3D doesn't have many tangible benefits. Plus it took forever for companies to convince people to get HD sets. 3D is a harder sell because of the equipment required and lack of content.
Click to expand...
agreed.
 
Not surprised. People are just a few years into buying an expensive HDTV that they expect to last for around 6-8 years. And these CE companies think people are eager to jump to an even more expensive TV just a few years later where its benefits are highly ambiguous? :lol

And let's not even mention the those goofy, expensive glasses required to even experience the 3D effects. Assuming a typical household of 4-5 people, that's an extra $500+ investment.
 
Averon said:
Not surprised. People are just a few years into buying an expensive HDTV that they expect to last for around 6-8 years. And these CE companies think people are eager to jump to an even more expensive TV just a few years later where its benefits are highly ambiguous? :lol

And let's not even mention the those goofy, expensive glasses required to even experience the 3D effects. Assuming a typical household of 4-5 people, that's an extra $500+ investment.
Click to expand...
If you have a shutter system. If you have polarized the glasses are dirt cheap.
 
i got one just cuz it's the best tv in production not for the 3d. i guess that's what poors are doing with hdtvs now.

altho for everything i hear about the 3d i think it'll be a cool little gimmick (movies & games) -- nothing more, granted
 
If I hadn't just bought a hdtv a year ago, I would definitely give 3d a shot; the price is not that far off comparable hdtvs. I don't see why it gets so much hate...
 
It's not the push for 3D that's doing that. There's a massive surplus of LCD panels. HDTVs are going to be absurdly cheap this holiday season. That $400 LG 32" set will be $250 on Black Friday.
 
Zoramon089 said:
3D TVs are like $2000-$3000 and glasses are around $150-$200 EACH. Of course no one is going to pay for something that ridiculous
Click to expand...

yeah this is the most ridiculous part about it. like fucking seriously? maybe 30-50 bucks is one thing but that shit is ridiculous for just ONE PAIR of fucking glasses.

movies are a social thing for me. i cant have 10 people over to watch a 3D movie and get glasses for everyone. retarded.

i still plan on getting a 3DTV sometime down the road but i really cant justify this thing right now.
 
All you people with these pipe dreams of glasses-free 3DTVs don't understand the 3D technology that is out there and how much harder it would be to do glasses-free 3D well.

All 3D content out there works by having 2 flat, 2-dimensional picture streams, one for each eye. The display system needs a way to deliver both images to their respective eye completely separate of each other. The glasses are the tools that seperate the two images, whether it's by polarization, active shutter glasses or only allowing cetain colors to show in either eye with the old anaglyph glasses.

The one way to provide glasses-free 3DTV with only two different perspectives is via refractive surfacing, like the scratchy surfaces you see on the limited slurpee cups when they have moving pictures on them. As you can probably figure out from turning the Slurpee cup around, the viewing angle will inherently be shit and it'll look all shimmery.
 
polyh3dron said:
All you people with these pipe dreams of glasses-free 3DTVs don't understand the 3D technology that is out there and how much harder it would be to do glasses-free 3D well.
Click to expand...
we understand. but we are hopeful that over the next few years, they'll improve the technology substantially.

we have no interest in glasses 3D, brah. give us 2D over that bullshit.
 
Not interested in 3D, the novelty wore off fast for me after seeing a ton of films this year in 3D, it will be a miracle if it takes off.
 
thesoapster said:
Seeing as how there are glasses-less sets that are being made (with prototypes that work at correct angles), I don't see why TVs with such expensive glasses would be desirable...
Click to expand...
Because an autostereoscopic TV big enough for your entertainment center would currently be way too expensive and won't be affordable for another 5-10 years.
 
3DTV will only become popular when it is autostereoscopic - i.e. no glasses

To do this in a way where multiple viewers can see the 3D at 1080P, say, at 8 different angles, you would need a TV with 33177600 pixels.

So we would need a resolution of 7680 by 4320 . That's 16 times the resolution of 1080P.
 
TekkenMaster said:
3DTV will only become popular when it is autostereoscopic - i.e. no glasses

To do this in a way where multiple viewers can see the 3D at 1080P, say, at 8 different angles, you would need a TV with 33177600 pixels.

So we would need a resolution of 7680 by 4320 . That's 16 times the resolution of 1080P.
Click to expand...
that's not the only way, is it?
 
Dreams-Visions said:
that's not the only way, is it?
Click to expand...

Well, you could lower the resolution drastically for each viewer. Or just have fewer (or only one, like the 3DS) viewing angle.

But really awesome 3DTV would need at least 8 or so angles. I saw some 8 angles 3DTVs at CES...the problem was that the resolution was extremely shitty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Prometheus holds up very well 13 years later
2
96
2K
Trilobit replied
Man Funds Wedding By Selling Pokeman Cards
15
145
Freelance Yakuza replied
Fashions that are very distracting.
2 3 4
181
2K
The Fartist replied
We've done it! Companies selling AI dead people!
2
67
956
Shubh_C63 replied
Apple posts a very cringe ad for new iPhone - A ferret gets triggered
48
1K
PonyStation4 replied
Top Bottom