DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Digital Video Industry News (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/)
-   -   ORC: HDTV Hot, 3D Not (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/471927-orc-hdtv-hot-3d-not.html)

Adam Gold January 29th, 2010 03:31 PM

ORC: HDTV Hot, 3D Not

Study Finds Two-Thirds of U.S. Homes Have HDTVs

I worked in the TV research biz for a while, and ORC is a pretty reputable outfit.

John Vincent January 29th, 2010 06:17 PM

Not a big surprise. Report doesn't mention what size sets people have - you can pick up a HD 19" for $150. Can't buy an old skool TV anymore.

3D isn't on people radar right now because of two things - one, there are no sets on the market. Two, AVATAR is available yet for blu-ray.

Both of those things will change within a year.


Adam Gold January 29th, 2010 06:31 PM

Good points all, but I remain skeptical about 3D. Every five or ten years for longer than I've been alive, 3D has been touted as the next big thing that was going to revolutionize movies (and, later, TV). And every time it dies a quiet death for the same reason: those stupid glasses. And no matter how expensive or stylish those glasses become, they're still stupid and give you a headache.

I tried to take my kids to see Avatar in 3D and they were profoundly uninterested and flat-out refused. They wanted to see it in 2D.

And on the artistic level, no amount of fancy gimmickry can overcome a bad story or lack of filmmaking skills (not saying either of those shortcomings apply to Avatar, which I liked). And the Avatar Producer's assertions to the contrary, 3D is exactly the least immersive technology available, because every moment you're thinking about the 3D, you're not involved in the story.

Let's see where it is in a few years. Maybe I'm wrong and this time will be the charm.

Robert M Wright January 29th, 2010 06:51 PM

That only 2/3 of households have HDTVs in 2010, with a projection of 3/4 in 2013, doesn't say "hot" to me.

As far as I can tell, a heck of a lot of folks just simply could not care a whole lot less about television image quality, and are pretty much happy as a clam if the images are good enough to discern animals from plants.

3DTV is going to be a tough sell in living rooms across the country.

Tim Polster January 29th, 2010 11:20 PM

I agree especially after many folks just purchased an HDTV.

The 3D push just seems a bit greedy to me. They have been asking people to pay a lot more for TVs than they historically have paid over the past 5 years then want to push another technology right away in a challenging economic environment.

On top of that...who cares? I am perfectly happy with my 1080p plasma and I am a tech nerd and image quality fanatic. Maybe its just me though.

Stelios Christofides January 30th, 2010 01:44 AM

You know it will be very interesting (if you could) make a survey from those people who saw 3DTV at the CES show, if they are going to purchase a 3DTV. I am in the process now of changing my 36" CRT and if prices are reasonable, yes I will purchase a 3DTV compatible.


Simon Wyndham February 4th, 2010 03:46 PM

Eventually you'll buy a TV and it will just have 3D whether you want it or not. Much like DVD Players have DVD Audio capability, and TV sets have simulated surround sound. I think it will probably go the same way as those features.

Brian Drysdale February 4th, 2010 04:06 PM

It also depends if people are actually viewing HD on their HD capable sets. I know quite a few HDV cameras that have never shot a frame of HD, only standard def.

David Heath February 4th, 2010 04:47 PM


Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham (Post 1481691)
Eventually you'll buy a TV and it will just have 3D whether you want it or not.

Indeed, just as virtually all TVs currently on sale have HD capability.

My own feeling is that it will be gaming that starts to really drive 3D, and the more you consider it, the more the possibilities are. As example, the two images fed to the screen need not be "left eye/right eye", but could be player1/player2 viewpoints. Then shutter one set of glasses to get one image in both eyes, the other set to get the other image. Both players look at the same screen and see different images!

I have a two year old set and won't be rushing it out to replace it with a 3D set next year. BUT if it suddenly died, chances are I'd choose it's replacement to be 3D capable. Even if the majority of viewing remained 2D for the foreseeable future.

Simon Wyndham February 6th, 2010 12:28 PM

Do we even need to buy a dedicated 3D TV capable set if the likes of Sky etc are just going to display the alternate images on alternate interlaced fields?

David Heath February 6th, 2010 07:51 PM

I don't think that is how they intend to do it - I understood they were proposing a transmission system of two side by side 960x1080 images within a standard 1920x1080 transmission channel, then descrambling to display at 50 frames (100 fields) /sec, half one eye, half the other.

John Vincent February 9th, 2010 03:40 PM

My understanding is that to be 3D, your set would have to have at least 120 htz refresh rate... which most sets at this point don't (the ones that do are usually marketed as "sports" tvs).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network