Topic: How likely are you to have a 3d capable display in the next three years? (Read 26470 times)

Matt · « **on:** October 28, 2011, 04:58:54 pm »

I'd like to get a feel for the market penetration of 3d among our users.

Please don't report other features you want more than 3d, as this is only exploratory.

Thanks.

imugli · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:01:47 pm »

I said very likely, but it has a catch...

I may BUY a TV that does 3D, but will I use it? Still not sure...

bunglemebaby · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:12:44 pm »

Personally, I won't even consider a 3DTV until I feel like the market and technology have settled down some. I suppose it's possible that they both have...but I don't feel like they have, and sad as it might be it's what's important. I'm also not super interested in 3D to begin with, but the wife is and we know how that can work...
-Jon

MerlinWerks · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:31:03 pm »

I just bought a new display about a month ago and it is 3D, but I didn't buy it to get 3D specifically. I've messed around with it a bit and it definitely has some gee-wiz factor going. Whether it becomes more than a novelty for me remains to be seen. I was actually planning to try and watch a full movie tonight

kensn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2011, 05:44:10 pm »

I don't see buying a 3D tv for the 3D capability, but if it had the best picture I would buy it. Not into the 3D glasses and all.....

Magic_Randy · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:04:01 pm »

I responded with not likely. That will change if the technology is improved. Specifically:

1) No glasses
2) Brighter

JustinChase · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2011, 08:39:38 pm »

The Mitsubishi DLP I bought is 3D capable (neat, but not part of the buy decision), but I'll still need to spend another $150 or so to actually use it.

If it was a good experience, I'd spend the money and use it.

fitbrit · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2011, 11:36:17 pm »

Like Justin, my Samsung LED DLP is 3-D capable and has bee since 2007. However, it uses the checkerboard format, which is currently only commonly supported by Panasonic BD players. I've never used it for 3D, but have been considering it recently. I will probably get a 3-D capable projector in the next three years to replace my current 2D one. I'm mostly interested in waiting until no glasses are required however.

glynor · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2011, 11:59:37 pm »

I happen to have it on my TV, so I voted for that.

I've never used it, or even taken the glasses out of their box.

jmone · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2011, 12:43:15 am »

I'm the same, if I replace my TV for something bigger and better and it has 3D then sure...but it will not be a buying decision.

Z0001 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 29, 2011, 01:04:13 am »

3D is great fun when the director uses it well and isn't just trying to poke you in the eye. The relative darkness doesn't bother me, it adds to the event. It would be a great compliment to MC capability and another reason to ditch TMT.

Zeno

craigmcg · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2011, 06:19:04 am »

I wouldn't pay extra for 3D since the glasses and darkness don't do it for me. I will be buying a larger TV within the next two years but I doubt 3D will be a selling point.

flac.rules · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2011, 07:22:11 am »

I don't like 3D much, so I probably wouldn't use, but seeing the market to day, I find it very unlikely that my next set won't have some kind of 3D-capability anyways. Its the same as for instance dynamic brightness, my TV has it, most LCDs has it, but I am not using it.

wig · « **Reply #13 on:** October 29, 2011, 07:26:12 am »

I recently purchased a TV that has 3D, but it wasn't a buying decision for me either. I will show the 3D to guests as a novelty but I won't watch it myself for more than 5 minutes.

Supersnake · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2011, 12:40:19 pm »

Never, I hate 3d

...causes me eye strain and discomfort. It may have been novel when it emerged in the 1950's in movie theaters but
today I regard it as an anachronistic marketing gimmick that should have been put to rest long ago. Besides, the picture ends up not
being as visually clear to view as two dimension. No thanks, I don't need it. And don't get me started on the glasses.

stottle · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2011, 01:40:28 pm »

I'm not currently that excited about it. I like the occasional 3d movie in the theater, but I haven't got a TV that supports it. However, this seems like one of those things that still might take off. If they get more/better content, like sports on cable, another blockbuster like Avatar (which was just too early) it could get a huge boost.

Most here are the technophiles I would guess, so if more of the masses use it, we won't want to be left behind, right?

My $.02

AVTechMan · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2011, 03:21:17 pm »

I have no interest in 3D. Means more $$$ you have to spend to upgrade equipment and it brings a horrible strain to my eyes with the glasses when I did try them out (Final Destination 4 comes to mind...).

No I am just fine with 2D 1080p quality. More movie action, less distraction.

audunth · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2011, 10:29:10 am »

Just bought a Sony HW30 3D projector, and the brightness in 3D isn't bad at all, depending on the screen brightness and size of course. Watched Drive Angry in 3D last night, and it was awesome! Haven't gotten 3D Blu-ray to work yet, so currently watching MKVs in side by side format which works in MC.

3D movies wasn't my main reason for buying the projector, but it's really cool if it's made well.

Anxiously waiting for MC to support 3D fully :-)

fitbrit · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2011, 10:50:00 pm »

Quote from: audunth on October 30, 2011, 10:29:10 am

Just bought a Sony HW30 3D projector, and the brightness in 3D isn't bad at all, depending on the screen brightness and size of course. Watched Drive Angry in 3D last night, and it was awesome! Haven't gotten 3D Blu-ray to work yet, so currently watching MKVs in side by side format which works in MC.

Do you mean half side by side, or actual side by side?

BartMan01 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2011, 11:51:05 pm »

'Very Likely' with the caveat that I expect to buy at least one set in the next 3 years, and any decent set these days has it built in whether you want it or not.

Vocalpoint · « **Reply #20 on:** October 31, 2011, 09:59:09 am »

Can't ever be bothered as I get no 3D channels nor have I ever seen anything in 3D broadcast. And I would never buy an media (BR/DVD that was 3D in nature).

Personally - I can't see the point or the need as all 3D media (outside of the odd excellent Pixar kids feature - which require the theater quality projection) is complete crap anyway.

Having said all that - despite the obvious "non-event" that 3D is...I will assume any display out there purchased between now and 3 years from now will certainly be 3D capable.

VP

bob · « **Reply #21 on:** October 31, 2011, 12:16:20 pm »

I've got a 3ds.

Hendrik · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2011, 02:26:24 pm »

I think 3D (at home) is completely overrated.

Instead of writing some long explanations, some bullet points:

- most 3D content is "fake" (filmed in 2D, converted to 3D in post-processing by the studio)
- Annoying Glasses
- Reduced resolution and/or brightness
- Health concerns, especially for children (which get completely buried by the industry)

If there is one good 3D movie a year (and face it, there aren't more then that), i rather go watch it at the cinema.
*Maybe* once they fix the requirement for glasses, and work out the image quality/brightness issues (and studios actually film in 3D instead of faking it), maybe then it could be viable.
Personally, i think it'll die before it gets good.

Instead of focussing on 3D, i wish the movie industry would work on improving the image in other ways (resolution, frame rate, etc). But of course, those wouldn't have the big "wow" effect to get people to pay extra for it.

fitbrit · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2011, 03:10:22 pm »

Quote from: nevcairiel on November 03, 2011, 02:26:24 pm

- Health concerns, especially for children (which get completely buried by the industry)

When I do go 3D, my daughter will probably be at least 3 (2 yrs 9 months now). I will hide the technology from her as long as possible.

Matt · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2011, 03:12:27 pm »

Because I take my job so seriously, I recently got my home theater setup with 3d.

I'm still on the fence about it.

With a movie that's made for 3d like Avatar, it can be a really mind blowing experience.

But even with a bright projector, it's a lot less bright with 3d glasses on. And a little less sharp and less comfortable.

pcstockton · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2011, 03:20:49 pm »

Quote from: Matt on November 03, 2011, 03:12:27 pm

It's too soon for me to speak for JRiver about if or what we might do in this area.

Please ignore this "area" for a while. 3D TV is a fad... that is all. It looks like nuts.

I see in 3D every second of every day. Not that big of a deal. Like I need that in my escapism.

Maybe at the theater, but I cant imagine a film I would want to see released in 3D. When SERIOUS artists and filmmakers are using the tech, we will already have known it arrived.

Who wants to wear (another) pair of glasses while catching some of the game?

Smellovision and nothing more.

audunth · « **Reply #26 on:** November 07, 2011, 11:42:57 am »

Quote from: nevcairiel on November 03, 2011, 02:26:24 pm

I think 3D (at home) is completely overrated.

Instead of writing some long explanations, some bullet points:

- most 3D content is "fake" (filmed in 2D, converted to 3D in post-processing by the studio)
- Annoying Glasses
- Reduced resolution and/or brightness
- Health concerns, especially for children (which get completely buried by the industry)

If there is one good 3D movie a year (and face it, there aren't more then that), i rather go watch it at the cinema.
*Maybe* once they fix the requirement for glasses, and work out the image quality/brightness issues (and studios actually film in 3D instead of faking it), maybe then it could be viable.
Personally, i think it'll die before it gets good.

Instead of focussing on 3D, i wish the movie industry would work on improving the image in other ways (resolution, frame rate, etc). But of course, those wouldn't have the big "wow" effect to get people to pay extra for it.

I don't agree with you at all. I've so far watched the following movies in 3D, all from this year:
Drive Angry (shot in 3D)
Green Lantern (shot in 2D and converted, but still looks great in 3D)
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides (shot in 3D)
Transformers Dark of the Moon (partly shot in 3D)
Sanctum (shot in 3D)

Captain America is, according to reviews, pretty nice lookin' in 3D too, even if converted.

There's a comprehensive listing of 3D movies here: http://realorfake3d.com/ and if you can't find more than one 3D movie per year, you either not into action movies, or you haven't checked what content is actually available.

On top of that, sports in 3D are starting to be more and more common.

Also I don't understand what's so annoying about the glasses. Millions of people use glasses, and wearing them EVERY DAY ALL DAY is way more annoying than for 2 hours watching a movie! I know, I've worn glasses most my life, but decided to get laser surgery to get rid of them. I'm still not bothered by wearing them for a short time watching a movie, and every new version of 3D glasses get lighter and more comfortable.

The brightness also gets less of a problem for each generation. On my projector it's not really a problem, even if I have a grey screen. Obviously with a high gain white screen the image would be more than bright enough. The resolution is full HD with Blu-ray. SBS content or Over/under content (TV broadcasts or converted Blu-ray to play in MC) is half resolution (or at least output in half resolution if played in MC).

I think 3D definately is the way of the future, but the only way we'll know is to wait and see. We can discuss statistics all we want, but no one can see into the future.

fitbrit: I have tried both, but since the full SBS files are downscaled to fit the 1920x1080 resolution output by the video card to the projector, it doesn't make any difference. I even have to unselect keep aspect ratio to avoid the height also being cut in half. To be able to watch full SBS in full resolution, it has to be converted to real HDMI 1.4 3D with a 3D player like Stereoscopic Player, unless Stereoscopic Player's DS filter can be used in MC somehow.

Matt: Which 3D projector did you get? Or do you use a TV?

pcstockton · « **Reply #27 on:** November 07, 2011, 01:55:19 pm »

What is so annoying about wearing glasses? Well if you do wear glasses, all day, everyday, I dont really want to wear TWO pairs at the same time while catching the game.

How long has 3D been around??? And it is still a novelty and not the norm in movie theaters. After 50 years it still isn't any better. A legit Virtual Reality situation seems like a much more viable and forward looking

Sure an IMAX movie in 3D is pretty cool, as is a Planetarium or something. But for EVERYDAY movie, sports, and TV programming I couldn't be any less interested. I could maybe see it used in gaming where you are trying to immerse yourself into a world. Even then, a virtual reality technology makes more sense. But I dont want to immerse myself in either a movie or sporting event. I would rather it be as close to real life as possible. This means sitting in the crowd and watching action unfold. It is in front of you but certainly not enveloping. Keep in mind that movies and TV shows are essentially based on books and/or theater. This is something you view from outside. It is a story.

Going to a baseball game in real life is obviously a three dimensional experience. But it isn't like everything is whizzing past you and jumping in your face, right there to grab onto. When sitting in the stands everything really does come across much more like a 2 dimensional view. Yes we do get depth and perspective with our eyes that we dont get with 2D TV. But I think the detail and resolution with HDTV is what makes it look good, not trying to make it 3D.

The things that make the screen viewing experience pleasurable have nothing to do with the technology used to convey it.

My 2 cents,
Patrick

audunth · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2011, 02:08:16 pm »

3D hasn't improved in the last 50 years? I'm not even gonna answer that.

Doing sports or exercise with glasses is really annoying. That's why a lot of people use contacts when exercising. And what about sunglasses? They'll probably even make 3D glasses with strength some time in the future, unless 3D without glasses comes first.

Matt · « **Reply #29 on:** November 07, 2011, 02:24:31 pm »

Quote from: audunth on November 07, 2011, 11:42:57 am

Matt: Which 3D projector did you get? Or do you use a TV?

I got an Epson 3010. I had forgotten how miserable it is to not have lens shift. But now that I'm done patching walls, painting, etc., the picture is great.

glynor · « **Reply #30 on:** November 07, 2011, 02:52:38 pm »

Quote from: audunth on November 07, 2011, 11:42:57 am

Also I don't understand what's so annoying about the glasses.

To me, this really gets down to the crux of the issue (the glasses being annoying, the reduction in brightness and sharpness, and all the rest).

It isn't that the glasses are that annoying. (ASIDE: Now, I think conflating personal eyeglasses with the types of active shutter 3D glasses currently in wide deployment is a bit of misdirection. Active Shutter glasses are a far-cry from personal eyeglasses, an passive 3D glasses are only now, and only really with projectors, becoming a viable option -- early implementations were terrible).

The problem isn't that they are extremely annoying. They are mildly annoying. And heavy. And expensive. And you have to have one for every person who might ever show up and want to watch a movie at your house. And they aren't very stylish. And you can't pick from different styles (leaving you at the mercy of whatever Taiwanese conglomerate decides to design them). And there are a million different standards, and you can NOT just buy one set of "3d glasses" for yourself and expect them to work on every system no matter where you go. And regarding the brightness thing, you're right... With the current top-end generation 3D systems it isn't that bad, nor is the blurriness.

BUT... All those problems do still exist. And they're cumulative. The glasses are irritating, and you look silly, and you don't have enough of them for the friend who showed up unannounced, and the picture doesn't look as good (still pretty good, but still always better with it turned off).

And... 3D just isn't that cool.
It is a gimmick-level cool. But it doesn't blow your socks off.

It is neat. But sometimes it makes you sick, and sometimes it is badly done. And with all those cumulative negatives listed up above, it only takes one bad experience before the average consumer says "You know, that was cool in the theater, but in my house? Yeah, not worth it." Especially with the added effort it takes to make sure you have all the pieces in place.

When I saw the movie everyone said was "the reason for 3D in the theater", Avatar, I thought... Meh. It was okay. I wouldn't have paid extra for it if I had it to do again (actually, if I had it to do again, I'd have waited for HBO to see "Dances with Wolves In Spaaaaaaaace!") I've seen one or two others, and my opinion? I really just don't care. When it is "good" it is "meh", and when it is "bad" (with stuff flying out at you like it is a tech demo, not a movie) then it is terrible and I'd just as soon walk out.

Why should I go to the effort?

My vision is 3D. That stuff on the TV? Yeah, that is 3D-like, not 3D. Until the experience can be as immersive as "real life" then it'll stay firmly in niche and gimmick territory.

Quote from: audunth on November 07, 2011, 11:42:57 am

I don't agree with you at all. I've so far watched the following movies in 3D, all from this year:
Drive Angry (shot in 3D)
Green Lantern (shot in 2D and converted, but still looks great in 3D)
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides (shot in 3D)
Transformers Dark of the Moon (partly shot in 3D)
Sanctum (shot in 3D)

Captain America is, according to reviews, pretty nice lookin' in 3D too, even if converted.

I think some of the issue is the types of movies where any kind of 3D effect has an appeal. Your list is the perfect example... I have literally zero desire to see any of those movies. None of them.

The last thing I can say about the whole thing is this:

I can tell you as someone who is at least peripherally involved in "The Biz"... Consumer Home 3D is now largely viewed as a huge flop. It is over, by and large. The consumer electronics companies were pushing it as the Next Big Thing, hoping they could get all those people who already bought HDTVs to upgrade again, and fuel the next boom cycle. That didn't happen. It is already too late. They'll keep deploying it because they've already spent the R&D money, but the shift and talk among the people who MAKE the content has already moved to "Focus on the Theater, where 3D makes sense."

Most of us content-producers? We'd have MUCH rathered the consumer electronics companies had spent their resources on increasing resolution (and pixel density), color accuracy, contrast, and refresh rates (real frame rates for delivery, not junky resampled 320Hz refresh rates).

Oh, and mark my words: The next big thing they're going to try to push will be the UltraWidescreen formats. They'll flop too.

glynor · « **Reply #31 on:** November 07, 2011, 03:00:47 pm »

By the way... I do think the best potential for consumer in-home 3D will absolutely be for gaming. There are a bunch of reasons, but, the main things are that: (1) Gaming is personal. You don't need a bunch of glasses for everyone. One or two sets will suit you just fine for that purpose. And (2) it adds something functionally to the content, not just a visual gimmick that reduces quality.

gtgray · « **Reply #32 on:** November 07, 2011, 03:24:09 pm »

I have 3D capability and have basically tested it. There are very satisfaction issues that prevent me from spending any energy on it with this display. 2009 82' Mits DLP. I will probably be upgrading to either the 92 Mits which fixes the little niggles that make think 3D isn't worth the effort or I will go with something like the 80" Sharp which has no 3D at all. Not to say that by the time I pull the trigger an equivalent or larger Sharp may not be available and just happen to 3D capable.

For me, it is on the nice to have list if works well, it is not a primary driver. Image quality and size are the primary drivers. If great 3D comes along for the ride and it works well okay.

I would much rather see support for cable tuners in MC17... 18 or whatever than 3D. Ocur tuner support keeps me married to Windows Media Center and I would like to get out. I am not likely to buy much 3D content but if I could watch ESPN 3D inside JR MC via a MadVR a calibrated madVR level of rendering.. that could help driver purchase decisions.

Another preferred feature would be a full blown CMS or a tight plug in to the Upsilon Mixer.

rick.ca · « **Reply #33 on:** November 07, 2011, 04:48:28 pm »

I'm holding out for a holodeck.

gappie · « **Reply #34 on:** November 07, 2011, 04:57:14 pm »

i voted: never.
it does not add to the movies much accept an headache. for now i think 3d is a hype.. maybe it will pass leaving some company's a bunch of dollars richer. but who knows where it will end, seeing how quickly technology is still moving.
as for the technology. 3d is more then having two eyes (shh i think i say the same about ears when talking about sound). sight for humans is also accomplished by slight head movements (that is why 1 eyed people/other animals see 3d, know the right distance to grab there cup of coffee). it is my personal theory that the headache comes from the discrepancy between the head movement and the information you get from the glasses/screen.

gab

raym · « **Reply #35 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:25:21 pm »

I voted "already have it" but I don't really enjoy it for non-animated films. I think it really works well for animated stuff but I find it an annoyance for most other content (reasons already discussed).

StuckMojo · « **Reply #36 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:40:04 pm »

@rick.ca

Yeah,A Holodeck would be great!!!

@gappie

When did you watch your last 3D film?

With Eclipse 3D technique i had this headache problem too.
This 3D technique open/close the shutters in the glasses very fast.
This results in a light flickering Movie.Which "produced" my headache after a while i think.

But on my new 3D TV I have no problem anymore.
My TV uses Polarization 3D technique.Looking 3D Movies playing 3D Games for Hours.
No problem anymore.

glynor · « **Reply #37 on:** November 07, 2011, 05:40:45 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on November 07, 2011, 04:48:28 pm

I'm holding out for a holodeck.

Hah!

I don't think we need holodeck-style systems.

Just some sort of contact-lens you can drop in your eye that directly interfaces with the Optic Nerve. You could generate all sorts of sensation with that, including sound and momentum and all sorts of other stuff that would be difficult otherwise, and you wouldn't need to implant anything.

gappie · « **Reply #38 on:** November 07, 2011, 06:01:55 pm »

Quote from: StuckMojo on November 07, 2011, 05:40:04 pm

@gappie

When did you watch your last 3D film?

With Eclipse 3D technique i had this headache problem too.
This 3D technique open/close the shutters in the glasses very fast.
This results in a light flickering Movie.Which "produced" my headache after a while i think.

But on my new 3D TV I have no problem anymore.
My TV uses Polarization 3D technique.Looking 3D Movies playing 3D Games for Hours.
No problem anymore.

i admit, that is some weeks ago.

but maybe it is the biologist in me that thinks that the technique would not matter until 3d is real and not some fancy 2d.. ive not been gaming for a long time. but when you play some shooter and you move your head to look behind something just in front IN the screen what happens.. can you look behind it? nope, but your brain expects it, getting this 3d information. this happens also on a small level when just watching a movie.

but hey.. i hear the difference between 24 and 16 bit audio (to put it simply), so dont bother what i say.. and i really think it is nice you enjoy 3d television. i just wanted to explain my vote..

gab

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #39 on:** November 07, 2011, 09:14:54 pm »

Quote from: audunth on November 07, 2011, 11:42:57 am

I don't agree with you at all. I've so far watched the following movies in 3D, all from this year:
Drive Angry (shot in 3D)
Green Lantern (shot in 2D and converted, but still looks great in 3D)
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides (shot in 3D)
Transformers Dark of the Moon (partly shot in 3D)
Sanctum (shot in 3D)

I can see you wanting 3D if you're watching that fine list of Hollywood jobs program output.

It should be noted that I probably wouldn't even have an HDTV if Jim didn't pay for the bulk of mine. (Thanks, again, btw. Greatest perk ever.)

Beamer · « **Reply #40 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:47:25 am »

Bearing in mind that most JRiver users probably still use the program for audio only and most 3D display owners are already using an alternative player. IMHO JRiver would get a more accurate response to this question by posting a poll on the AVS Forum. Surely the goal of JRiver is to not only satisfy current users it is to increase the user base.

Placing this poll in the MC17 section is also IMHO a bad choice since many users have not ventured away from the MC16 section yet! The global sticky section may have been a better choice.

I would hate to see JRiver abandon 3D based upon this poll.

I only found this thread after Matt directed me to it!

Just my two cents

audunth · « **Reply #41 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:12:19 am »

3D is of course a niche, and so is projectors, huge screens, large expensive speaker systems, etc. Most people were fine with a 32 inch screen and DVD and didn't even need HD or Blu-ray. Many said HD was going to be a flop as well. Most people just buy what the consumer electronics industry pushes upon them. I think the introduction of affordable flat screens at the same time was a big help. A screen that fits on the wall and takes no space is something most people DO care about.

Now, 3D has its place in home theatres. People spending lots of money on projectors and big sound systems are likely to watch movies that give their system a workout, and those kind of movies look good in 3D also. And those people don't mind spending a few extra 100$ on extra glasses, cause it's really drops in the pond. Since JRiver clearly is focusing on all kinds of customers, including us home theatre moviebuffs, 3D support is a given somewhere down the road. It may well be other areas that are of higher priority right now, but that's up to the dev team to figure out. Looking over at AVSforum and registering which topics are hot and which are not is probably a good help.

I agree with you, Glynor, watching normal TV content in 3D doesn't make sense. But movies (those that fit 3D) and sports look great. Watching a fotball game on a big 3D screen is much more like being at the stadium than watching it in 2D IMHO. Of course there are annoyances still, and I also think a couple of hours of 3D is engough for one evening. But seeing the current development, I think most quirks are going to be gone in a few years. I remember getting my first projector about 8-10 years ago, a Panasonic PT-AE100 with a on-off contrast of a few hundred. Even bought a dark filter at a photo retailer to help the black level a little. Brightness was probably not even half what I get in 3D today. But I still enjoyed many good movies on it

For the normal consumers, they will watch some 3D content because if they get a new TV in the next few years, it will most likely have 3D built in. In Norway, already you have to buy a pretty low-end TV not to get 3D. A friend of mine just got a new TV. Didn't care that much about 3D, but "might as well try it out since it comes in the package". He thought it was awesome.

Matt: I just read a shootout review on the new Panasonic 3D projector that uses Epson's panels vs. the Sony HW30. Panasonic won on 3D, so you've made a good choice

glynor · « **Reply #42 on:** November 08, 2011, 11:31:15 am »

Quote from: Beamer on November 08, 2011, 02:47:25 am

Bearing in mind that most JRiver users probably still use the program for audio only

I don't think that's a good assumption anymore, but we have no data either way.

Based on what I see here on the forums, though (which certainly may not be representative of all users), I suspect that has shifted fairly dramatically since MC14-15's era.

I don't disagree with anything else you wrote though, by the way.

I should add to what I said above... I do think it would probably be worthwhile for MC to support 3D playback, if it isn't too much trouble. One possible way you could accomplish this would be to support CoreMVC 3D or something. Even though I think 3D support is a relatively niche feature that people won't use often, I do agree that the vast majority of new HDTV purchases going forward will likely support 3D (maybe unless Apple really does build an actual TV).

Even though I probably won't use it often, many customers would use it occasionally if it was available. And, it is probably a "feature checklist item" that people would look at when comparing options for BluRay playback.

pcstockton · « **Reply #43 on:** November 08, 2011, 12:16:37 pm »

Quote from: audunth on November 08, 2011, 04:12:19 am

Many said HD was going to be a flop as well.

I dont recall that at all. It was maybe the fastest and most definitive leap towards a technology I have seen. This was even despite lack of a large amount of content. When I got my first in 2004 there were only about 20 HD channels available from my provider.

As soon as they were available at a retail level they flew off the shelves. Every sports bar in the country starting swapping out their old sketchily hung CRTs for flat screens. EVERYONE who watched TV wanted one.

I dont recall once anyone saying this was not a worthwhile technology with downside. There was no downside other then standard definition looking worse than ever. For those people they still made the HD widescreen CRTs, but they maxed out at ~32".

3D on the other hand.... I agree with almost EVERYTHING Glynor says in his post a few up on the page. I dont want to deal with glasses or have them for guests (I entertain a lot). I dont think it looks good. It looks fake. I have seen the finest TVs with the finest glasses with movies shot in true HD. "Meh" is the best case scenario. "This sucks" is more likely.

In gaming I do see it working somewhat. It would be the logical progression of what gaming did in the 90s with the "3D" style polygonal characters in a world with depth. Tomb Raider and whatnot... This kind of "3D" where you add a third dimension in terms of control, depth, shadowing etc... Not where

Remember that old holographic arcade game from the 80s where you were a gunslinger? Lots of bling but the worst game in the place. And it cost like $2 per play (when 50 cents was a premium game). That is what 3D TV reminds me of. It is for children.

I seriously doubt any movie I am interested in seeing will be released in 3D any time soon. The last piece of crap I went to see that was available in 3D I avoided at all costs (the last Harry Potter). I even ponied up an extra $10 and waited for the next showing (not a matinee) so I wouldn't have to endure it. Then when I watched the movie I could instantly pick out those scenes and effects that were especially made for the 3D version. WEAK! So unnatural.

Give me a very fine display with great blacks, awesome color, cripsy resolution and I am happy as can be. Make it HUGE if you want, as long as I can sit away from it. But keep the 3D for the little Nintendo gaming system.

-Patrick

glynor · « **Reply #44 on:** November 08, 2011, 12:51:40 pm »

I don't know what "people" he was referring to (that's so vague as to be a useless statement, like when they say "Some people say" on the news)... BUT, I think most industry watchers did not predict that HDTV would fail.

Many watchers did predict that BluRay and HD-DVD would both fail to catch on the way DVD did, and I think they've been proven basically correct. BluRay certainly hasn't "failed" but it absolutely has not lived up to the expectations of the consumer electronics companies (and movie studios) that were pushing the format.

That's why they're shipping BluRay discs with a DVD in the box now.

Adoption of BluRay hasn't been exactly dismal, but it sure didn't fuel the upgrade surge that the movie studios and CE companies were hoping for. No one is going out and re-buying their whole DVD library on BluRay. They may have switched over for new purchases (and lots of people aren't even doing that), but all the explosive growth predictions were based on an uptake curve similar to DVD. And a lot of that was because people threw away their VHS tapes and went out and re-bought their favorite movies on DVD.

That boom didn't happen, and it isn't going to happen. Digital downloads are the winner of the format war, long-term, and everyone in the industry pretty much knows it now.

audunth · « **Reply #45 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:53:02 am »

I admit my statement about HD was based on people I spoke to at the time, not articles, statistics, media watchers etc. And many people I spoke to said "meh". Some compared it to the Laserdisc as an enthusiast only thing. I myself had no doubts it would be big. I guess I could have found some articles or whatever speculating about the fall of HD, but I'm not going to spend the better part of my day searching for that.

The reason everyone wanted a flat screen was because they were big and flat! In the beginning it had very little to do with resolution. The first flat screens were not even HD!! And the PQ sucked compared to a good CRT set. Heck, even of today's models most can't compete with a good CRT when it comes to black level!

Implementing HD to the public would have been a lot harder if it wasn't for the fact that it came as the same time as the big, flat screens became affordable. Pushing 40+ inch TVs so people could actually benefit from HD was a good choice. Even so, a lot of people still watch DVD on their HDTV. As you say, there's a reason they include a DVD in the Blu-ray case. There are still people who don't care about HD, and there will always be people who don't like or care about 3D. Making every TV 3D capable will help, but if the industry thinks it will make everyone jump up and down about 3D, they're bound to be disappointed.

I guess my point is people will buy whatever the industry sells them. And as long sales of new TVs doesn't stop, the industry can put whatever technology they want to push into them.

As a side note, here in Norway most channels are still SD. Out of maybe 100-200 channels available maybe 10 or 20 are HD, and some switch between HD and SD. Thankfully, 3D can be broadcast on any HD channel, so hopefully we'll see some 3D sports soon even here in Norway

(they've already sent some football).

Fred12 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 02, 2012, 10:29:01 am »

I'd really love to see JRiver MC being capable to play 3D Blurays, I own a 3D TV and I find it really amazing...
would be OK to pass the costs to the users I think... but in these times 3D technology is getting more popular and it really
shouldn't be missing in a Media Player that can do everything except playing 3D movies...
MC would just be perfect if it fulfills 3D Bluray playback.... plz add this as soon as possible!

Beamer · « **Reply #47 on:** October 02, 2012, 10:35:13 am »

Quote from: Fred12 on October 02, 2012, 10:29:01 am

I'd really love to see JRiver MC being capable to play 3D Blurays, I own a 3D TV and I find it really amazing...
would be OK to pass the costs to the users I think... but in these times 3D technology is getting more popular and it really
shouldn't be missing in a Media Player that can do everything except playing 3D movies...
MC would just be perfect if it fulfills 3D Bluray playback.... plz add this as soon as possible!

+1

slerch666 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 02, 2012, 10:51:56 am »

Going to the original question, I have a 7 year DLP TV. I love it.

Next time the bulb goes (first bulb lasted 6 years with well over 30k hours on it, when it was only rated to 10k hours), I'm probably on the market for 3D TV. That could be 1 day or another 5 years though. And who knows, maybe by the time I need a new TV we'll have 4k capable displays and 3D will be gone? I hope not, as I've invested in some 3D BDs (those stupid expensive 5 disc sets) I'd love to see in 3D... at some point.

3D penetration is pretty bad:

http://consumerist.com/2012/10/02/by-the-numbers-why-3d-tv-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

Daveyravey · « **Reply #49 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:47:08 pm »

I'd really love to see JRiver MC18 being capable to play 3d movies. I do however currently convert to side by side format and play which is just as good.
I would like to see blu ray menu's etc to be added as well.

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

How likely are you to have a 3d capable display in the next three years?

Author Topic: How likely are you to have a 3d capable display in the next three years? (Read 26470 times)