ORC: HDTV Hot, 3D Not at DVinfo.net

Adam Gold · January 29th, 2010, 03:31 PM

Interesting...

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.

john

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.

Stelios

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

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).

john

January 29th, 2010, 03:31 PM	#1
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	ORC: HDTV Hot, 3D Not Interesting... 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. __________________ "It can only be attributable to human error... This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error."

January 29th, 2010, 06:31 PM	#3
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	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. __________________ "It can only be attributable to human error... This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error."

January 30th, 2010, 01:44 AM	#6
Stelios Christofides Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS Posts: 1,080	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. Stelios __________________ My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis

January 29th, 2010, 06:17 PM	#2
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	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. john

January 29th, 2010, 06:51 PM	#4
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	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.

January 29th, 2010, 11:20 PM	#5
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	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.

February 4th, 2010, 03:46 PM	#7
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	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.

February 4th, 2010, 04:06 PM	#8
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	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.

February 6th, 2010, 12:28 PM	#10
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	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?

February 6th, 2010, 07:51 PM	#11
David Heath Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,699	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.

February 9th, 2010, 03:40 PM	#12
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	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). john