5 ms·

I also think that this is a fad - and only industry fad if I may add. I don't believe that people will start throwing out their 2D HD sets just because of 3D.

I also think that this is a fad - and only industry fad if I may add. I don't believe that people will start throwing out their 2D HD sets just because of 3D. It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses. But I kinda like the emergence of 3D sets - because it will probably bring down prices on 2D sets, which is good. And I guess that people might start buying 3D sets - if they phase out 2D sets and not increase the price too much. But people buying and using stuff - that's completely different on the other side - I divine that entertainment industry will try to charge even more for 3D movies than what they charge for already overpriced 2D movies - and that certainly WILL kill 3D. And also it is interesting to see corporate drones all droning to the same failed hype. Call me when the holo-TV is ready. kthxbye

nanairo 16y ago
I agree. But those who need to buy a new TV anyway may end up getting some 3D TV to be future-proof... then all you need it's a bit of spin doctor magic telling everyone how many 3D TV are out there, and bang: instant success. ... or maybe I am just cynical. :) But yeah, don't you think that long-term thinking people may end up buying 3D systems just because? If the 2D quality is not any worse for it, I fear that may very well be the avenue to sell it.
viraptor 16y ago
> It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses. I believe that the argument for "radio > tv" sounded very similar. People said that it would require doing stupid things like sitting and concentrating on what's on the screen, instead of "just listening".
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  Similar, maybe - but spending evenings on couch with polarization glasses on my nose, enduring headaches really seems way more unpleasant to me :) If you're after an analogy - people have been trying to build various 3D mouses for quite some time now and this one (http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en) seems in the same league as 3D TV - regarding inconvenience to the user. I have a similar opinion about speech recognition as interface. Why would I want to talk to a computer ("Turn on the Lights!") - when it ought to just "recognize" that I'd like more lighting - so I'm just gonna wait for Brain-Computer Interfaces and Holo-TV :)
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  The difference between radio to tv and tv to 3d tv is that with radio to tv, you upgrade a single element (radio to tv) to get the benefit. You also gain a substantial benefit: visual as well as audio. With 3d tv, you can't just upgrade the TV. You also don't get any major upgrade like radio to tv. You get the simulation of depth, but that's it. Finally, with radio, you could invite people over to listen, as well as with the TV. 3d tv prevents that.

nanairo 16y ago

I agree. But those who need to buy a new TV anyway may end up getting some 3D TV to be future-proof... then all you need it's a bit of spin doctor magic telling everyone how many 3D TV are out there, and bang: instant success. ... or maybe I am just cynical. :) But yeah, don't you think that long-term thinking people may end up buying 3D systems just because? If the 2D quality is not any worse for it, I fear that may very well be the avenue to sell it.

viraptor 16y ago

> It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses. I believe that the argument for "radio > tv" sounded very similar. People said that it would require doing stupid things like sitting and concentrating on what's on the screen, instead of "just listening".

JanezStupar 16y ago
Similar, maybe - but spending evenings on couch with polarization glasses on my nose, enduring headaches really seems way more unpleasant to me :) If you're after an analogy - people have been trying to build various 3D mouses for quite some time now and this one (http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en) seems in the same league as 3D TV - regarding inconvenience to the user. I have a similar opinion about speech recognition as interface. Why would I want to talk to a computer ("Turn on the Lights!") - when it ought to just "recognize" that I'd like more lighting - so I'm just gonna wait for Brain-Computer Interfaces and Holo-TV :)
jasonlotito 16y ago
The difference between radio to tv and tv to 3d tv is that with radio to tv, you upgrade a single element (radio to tv) to get the benefit. You also gain a substantial benefit: visual as well as audio. With 3d tv, you can't just upgrade the TV. You also don't get any major upgrade like radio to tv. You get the simulation of depth, but that's it. Finally, with radio, you could invite people over to listen, as well as with the TV. 3d tv prevents that.