4 ms·

3D TV? Too Soon Now, but One Day You Will Want It

7 points by kkleiner 17y ago

motters 17y ago
Although I'm interested in 3D vision I'm not very interested in this sort of technology, which is not far removed from 19th century anaglyphs or the cinema crazes of the 1950s. I expect that this has an initial novelty value, which will quickly wear thin. This is yet another attempt to reinvent TV, which will probably not succeed. Having recently been involved with people in the TV industry it's clear that they're struggling to compete against internet based delivery of video content, and are desperately searching for ways to attract or at least retain conventional TV viewers, and the advertising revenues which go along with that. Ultimately, this is a battle which they're going to lose.
jsz0 17y ago
I'm not sure how 3D can catch on when so many people seem to have an adverse reaction to it. Lots of people I know who saw Avatar in 3D complained of headaches or feelings of motion sickness. I don't have true stereo vision so the whole effect is lost on me anyway. It just ends up looking blurry and distorted to me. I'm much more interested in 2K displays personally. That's something everyone can appreciate and enjoy.
gamble 17y ago
I don't see grandma putting on the shutter glasses to watch Leno in 3D. Even with the ideal target market - kids watching 3D animated movies - do you really want your kids tethered with expensive glasses to an even more expensive television? I could see 3D TV appealing to console gamers, but the hardware cycle isn't at a point right now where any of the console manufacturers is likely to add 3D support. Particularly since 3D glasses have been available on PCs for years with little apparent demand.
dgallagher 17y ago
3D is probably inevitable if you think about it. Television has room to evolve until it reaches the limits of a pair of healthy human eyes. That includes factors like color, resolution, frame rate, and depth perception. Most 3D tech seen today is in its infancy. There isn't much content for it. You still need to wear 3D glasses for most of it (those are probably going to get tossed before 3D takes off in the home - it's not natural enough to use). HDTV took a while before becoming mainstream. We were hearing about it back in the mid-1990's. There was no content at first, TV sets were expensive, certain standards didn't solidify yet (Blu Ray, HDMI to name a few), etc... It didn't start taking off until recently. Right now we're seeing the same for 3D. A bunch of different standards, all in their infancy. It might take 5-10 years before it starts becoming mainstream, similar to HDTV. The 3D standards you see today may end up being toys for rich people only to be replaced with something better shortly after, like Laserdisc's were before DVD's came to be. Beyond 3D TV running at 240fps at 20K x 10K pixels, what else is there? Probably something that links directly into your brain, bypassing your eyes (and ears) entirely. A few decades away from that I'm afraid though. :)

7 points by kkleiner 17y ago

Although I'm interested in 3D vision I'm not very interested in this sort of technology, which is not far removed from 19th century anaglyphs or the cinema crazes of the 1950s. I expect that this has an initial novelty value, which will quickly wear thin. This is yet another attempt to reinvent TV, which will probably not succeed. Having recently been involved with people in the TV industry it's clear that they're struggling to compete against internet based delivery of video content, and are desperately searching for ways to attract or at least retain conventional TV viewers, and the advertising revenues which go along with that. Ultimately, this is a battle which they're going to lose.

jsz0 17y ago

I'm not sure how 3D can catch on when so many people seem to have an adverse reaction to it. Lots of people I know who saw Avatar in 3D complained of headaches or feelings of motion sickness. I don't have true stereo vision so the whole effect is lost on me anyway. It just ends up looking blurry and distorted to me. I'm much more interested in 2K displays personally. That's something everyone can appreciate and enjoy.

gamble 17y ago

I don't see grandma putting on the shutter glasses to watch Leno in 3D. Even with the ideal target market - kids watching 3D animated movies - do you really want your kids tethered with expensive glasses to an even more expensive television? I could see 3D TV appealing to console gamers, but the hardware cycle isn't at a point right now where any of the console manufacturers is likely to add 3D support. Particularly since 3D glasses have been available on PCs for years with little apparent demand.

dgallagher 17y ago

3D is probably inevitable if you think about it. Television has room to evolve until it reaches the limits of a pair of healthy human eyes. That includes factors like color, resolution, frame rate, and depth perception. Most 3D tech seen today is in its infancy. There isn't much content for it. You still need to wear 3D glasses for most of it (those are probably going to get tossed before 3D takes off in the home - it's not natural enough to use). HDTV took a while before becoming mainstream. We were hearing about it back in the mid-1990's. There was no content at first, TV sets were expensive, certain standards didn't solidify yet (Blu Ray, HDMI to name a few), etc... It didn't start taking off until recently. Right now we're seeing the same for 3D. A bunch of different standards, all in their infancy. It might take 5-10 years before it starts becoming mainstream, similar to HDTV. The 3D standards you see today may end up being toys for rich people only to be replaced with something better shortly after, like Laserdisc's were before DVD's came to be. Beyond 3D TV running at 240fps at 20K x 10K pixels, what else is there? Probably something that links directly into your brain, bypassing your eyes (and ears) entirely. A few decades away from that I'm afraid though. :)