Is 3D HDTV Right For You?

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
Just in case you haven't purchased enough A/V upgrades in the last few years, the home 3D home-video age is now upon us with plenty of new upgrades for your home theater system. Several brands have already hit the market that meets the new FHD3D standards for full 3D HDTV capabilities. But what exactly are you expected to buy and is it even worthwhile?


Discuss "Is 3D HDTV Right For You?" here. Read the article.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
The article itself is a little bit thin on some of the things I think that consumers should be aware of.

For example, if someone just got a TV, then most likely it wasn't a 3D TV. It doesn't make sense for people to go out and replace something they just bought to get early adopter level 3D displays if they aren't absolutely head over heels for the technology in their home.

I can nearly guarantee, that in just a few years, almost all HDTVs will be 3D models. Why? Because 3D is an enhancement to an existing technology. It's like DVD players which upconvert. These were far less available just a few years ago, and often a hundred dollars or more expensive than similar non-upconverting models. Now, they are everywhere, and extremely inexpensive. 3D TVs will just need a single chip upgrade and an increase to at least 120hz for all capable models to handle 3D. It will be standard.

So, while your current HDTV is probably not 3D, the next one you get, a few years (or more) from now, probably will be.

This year, while there is a lot of buzz around FHD3D, there is no content. Gaming will likely be available first, but this will be limited. How many Blu-rays are currently available with 3D right now at your local store? None! Nada! Not a single piece of 3D content is available for all the new TVs being sold which are 3D capable and come with 3D glasses.

So, why are the 3D TVs selling at all then?

Because the top tier TVs from Samsung and others are 3D capable.

If you want one of the best displays from Samsung, Sony, or Panasonic (more to come) in the next couple of years, then that TV will have 3D built in. Those TVs have always been 120hz or 240hz model displays so adding 3D did not require a single change to the architecture of the TV itself really. It just needed the processing on board to accept and utilze the standard 3D format(s).

3D can be a complete and total flop akin to SACD or DVD-A, but that doesn't stop those formats from being available on many DVD players on the market, and even if 3D doesn't take off, it will still likely become a standard feature on most displays purchased in the hopes that consumers will eventually end up picking up a few pairs of 3D glasses for the family and boosting revenue by a bit.

The follow up concepts of sports broadcasts in 3D and other channels presented in 3D will be an entirely new arena for consumers as well which has yet to be judged or seen.

There is a lot going against 3D compared to some other technologies which have been released, and a lot of people complain about the glasses. But, for those who enjoy good 3D, and have a nice home theater space, I can't imagine spending $10,000+ on a nice setup, then limiting that setup because you don't spend a few hundred dollars more to get the full capabilities of 3D in the next couple of years if you are already spending that money on a HD setup.

But, I wouldn't recommend anyone dump a nearly new setup to become an early adopter for FHD3D.
 
W

wesley63

Junior Audioholic
I assume that this is old news for everyone, but here is a link to Samsung's photosensitive seizure warning. If you have a history of stroke, epilepsy, or are currently pregnant, then 3D TV is not for you.

http://www.samsung.com/au/tv/warning.html

Oh, and don't watch 3D TV when you're drunk.

Jim
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
That's just great!:rolleyes: I haven't bought a new HDTV for the rec room yet, because I need to renovate the room first. On one hand, I won't have an obsolete 2D TV, but on the other I have an RX-V1800 that won't pass the 3D signal. So, unless I get an HDMI splitter, I won't be able to utilize the lossless audio formats (unless they start adding multiple outputs to BD players)? Do I understand that correctly? If I will need a splitter, do they degrade the signal?

The whole format just seems so gimmicky to me...
 
Wayde Robson

Wayde Robson

Audioholics Anchorman
The article itself is a little bit thin on some of the things I think that consumers should be aware of.

For example, if someone just got a TV, then most likely it wasn't a 3D TV. It doesn't make sense for people to go out and replace something they just bought to get early adopter level 3D displays if they aren't absolutely head over heels for the technology in their home.

I can nearly guarantee, that in just a few years, almost all HDTVs will be 3D models.
Hey BMX, I think the article is saying exactly what you're saying after you say the article is thin!

From the article:
"It’s likely that someday nearly all new HDTVs sold will be capable of the FHD3D standard."

I agree with everything you're saying in your post and I think I tried to encapsulate it in an article. But make no mistake, my main message is just editorializing that I think 3D itself is just a gimmick, a fun gimmick and if it's just an added feature - why not?
 
Wayde Robson

Wayde Robson

Audioholics Anchorman
That's just great!:rolleyes: I haven't bought a new HDTV for the rec room yet, because I need to renovate the room first. On one hand, I won't have an obsolete 2D TV, but on the other I have an RX-V1800 that won't pass the 3D signal. So, unless I get an HDMI splitter, I won't be able to utilize the lossless audio formats (unless they start adding multiple outputs to BD players)? Do I understand that correctly? If I will need a splitter, do they degrade the signal?

The whole format just seems so gimmicky to me...
I can't speak for HDMI splitters, but it sounds like a clever way to circumvent the limitations of the receiver not passing the signals.

The only way to tell if the HDMI splitter will work is to try it or look for one that claims to be 1.4 fhd3d compliant - which will only come at a premium. You're better off buying a splitter from somewhere that'll let you take it back if it doesn't work. But that's just what I'd do.

Or - just forget 3D, IMHO it is a gimmick and currently a pricey one compared to comparable 2D HDTV. Someday, I'm pretty sure (so is BMX) that it'll just be an added feature on any HDTV you buy.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I wonder if 3D will increase teh amount of porn rented or purchased? :D :p
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
:D

Not thin as in incorrect, but thin as it uses one line to explain something which really needs a paragraph or two.

There are people who aren't interested in 3D that don't realize that if they want a good display they likely must get a 3D display, even if they never utilize the feature.

I kinda felt that the article had to much of the personal 'gimmick' mindset and not enough of the substance of the question posed as the title: "Is 3D HDTV Right For You?" followed by a question at the end of the opening paragraph "But is it necessary?"

If we are to ask if 3D is right for a general populace, then the facts about the technology should be presented, along with a lot of open ended thoughts to allow people to make up their own decision. But this statement early in the second section: "It’s only contribution to the medium of film is turning it into a passive carnival-ride." is extremely questionable as both a statement on its own and as something which then will allow for people to make up their own mind about the technology.

By example, there are people who think that surrond sound is an abomination to the way audio should be heard. That 2 speakers are plenty and anything more is not at all immersive, but is completely distracting to the art as it should only be presented. 3D is can be a spectacle, but should not be used as one. Instead, it should be done, as Avatar did, as a tool to enhance the film in subtle ways to a point where you do ignore it and simply want it, as you do a good image and good audio.

In fact, almost everything about the opening sections aims to discourage the technology based more on personal belief and bias instead of presenting facts first, then stating why your opinions are your own. Which, as an editorial is your right, but as a reader with an open voice on the forums, is my right to say why I think it is inappropriate. Especially in consideration of the title of the editorial.

The facts in helping a consumer make an informed decision are not something which should be presented as an afterthought, but your opinion of that technology should be the afterthought.

ie: People don't have to be persuing a 3D TV, but perhaps just a really nice Panasonic, Samsung, or Sony TV. The fact that their best TVs also support 3D and do so at about the same price that last years premium TVs were selling for means that there really isn't a premium on 3D itself, or the display itself. They've just added features and kept the price the same on their best displays. If someone wants 3D, they just have to get the nicer display which supports it.

Finally, the failure to mention the Panasonic DMP-BDT300 player, which has dual HDMI outputs, one for the 3D video, the other for the HD audio, was either intentional so that people don't know that they have a choice. Or, worse, perhaps unitentional indicating that you weren't aware of this player and that it allows people to get both the video and audio without the requirement to change out their current HD audio setup.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Video/Blu-ray-Disc-Players/model.DMP-BDT300_11002_7000000000000005702

Sorry, I am coming off a bit negative, but as I said, I thought that the article, by the topic title, was thin on the information that actually matters to consumers if they are interested in 3D, and is far more of your opinion ("over-publicity of this terribly ordinary sci-fi movie") which just doesn't help anyone make any decision other than the one you want them to make.

But, I guess, that's why they call it editorials and not news. ;) Also, why we have forums to respond.
 
Wayde Robson

Wayde Robson

Audioholics Anchorman
In fact, almost everything about the opening sections aims to discourage the technology based more on personal belief and bias instead of presenting facts first, then stating why your opinions are your own. Which, as an editorial is your right, but as a reader with an open voice on the forums, is my right to say why I think it is inappropriate. Especially in consideration of the title of the editorial.
That's fair, I appreciate reading your opinion.

It wasn't my intent to write the ultimate 3D-Wiki, it was just an "editorial" - meaning an opinion piece. Maybe the title made it seem like it was going to be a reference material for HD shoppers.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
Here's my beef with 3D (continuing the "3D is a gimmick" topic rather than the tech topic):

The idea that standard films are not "3-D".

Of course they are!

In the opening of Star Wars, the small rebel ship receded into the distance, and then the big Imperial ship flew overhead. That's a lot of depth!

The rebel ship didn't just appear on screen, and then get smaller. The Imperial ship didn't appear at the top of the screen and move very slowly towards the the center of the screen.

When we watch a movie, there are tons of depth cues: linear perspective, motion parallax, texture gradients, planes of focus from the camera, and on and on.

When we say a movie is "3D", what we really mean is that there is now one additional depth cue: binocular disparity, or stereopsis.

In real life, this depth cue is most important for relatively close distances. The 3D to infinity effect in movies is often very exaggerated, as if our eyes were a few meters apart instead of a few centimeters. This is why 3D movies often have a "more 3D than real life" eye-popping quality to them.

Another way of approaching this: When you close one eye while walking down the street, do you suddenly feel as if you've entered a Flatland, with everything in the world in the same plane? Of course not. Your judgment of (relatively close) distances is impaired, there is some loss of the full vividness of depth (perhaps), but you're still in a 3D world.

In fact, a substantial fraction of the world's population can't use stereopsis as a depth cue at all. This is especially true if at any time of your life you had misaligned eyes. These people have no need to see Avatar in 3D, and can't see the "Magic Eye" pictures. Sad but true. But they don't see a 2D world, either.

I was glad to see Avatar in 3D, because it was designed as basically a big ride. I later saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D, and while it was kinda neato, I guess, I was pretty tired of wearing the glasses and tired of the effects by the end (when something looms in the extreme foreground, especially if it's out-of-focus, my eyes sometimes feel like they're going to pop out of my head or something.)

So, uh, I'm not terribly concerned about home 3D.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I'm going to wait for the technology to mature first before venturing out into 3D land. It doesn't add any additional enjoyment to my movie watching experience and like Zhimbo mentioned, it causes me more fatigue than anything.
 
B

BBigJ

Junior Audioholic
The current generation of shutterglass 3DTVs reminds me of the CRT-based HDTVs that filled big box stores 10 years ago. Yeah, they were HD, and yes they were (relatively) affordable. But, I'm pretty glad I waited long enough for plasma to drop into my range.

In 3-5 years we'll be seeing 3DTVs with 2160 lines of vertical resolution with alternating polarization. This will allow the use of passive (and cheap) Real-3D glasses. At that point I'll consider the technology mature and think about jumping in.
 
s162216

s162216

Full Audioholic
Personally I like the sound of Dolby 3D. As it doesn't use polarisation you can't get a headache ever really and it could end up being easier and cheaper to implement.

Basically you put a special colour filter in front of the projector in a cinema so the RGB wavelengths are shifted, different wavelengths are destined for different eyes, so the glasses block the wrong wavelengths entering the wrong eye, giving a '3D' effect. I don't see why a similar technology couldn't be put in an LCD or Plasma as it doesn't rely on reflection of polarised light by a silvered screen like reald 3d does. The glasses are specialised ones but I can't imagine them costing anything near that of the active shutter glasses.

O.K so the picture is pretty much unwatchable without the glasses due to the colour shifts but looking at a polarised one is pretty much unwatchable as well.
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
To date I've seen 3dTV twice. The first was on a 50" tv watching tech divers on a deep wreck, I was amazed at how good it looked. Then I found out it was, IIRC, ~$30k in processing and was a professional setup way beyond what is affordable to most.:eek: The second time was seeing "Alice in Wonderland" in 3d IMAX and I wasn't impressed. There were a few moments that were really cool, but overall it felt gimmicky to me.

Based on these limited experiences and everything I keep hearing and reading I'll wait a few years before I consider jumping on board. I just don't see the point in wasting money for equipment that at this time will likely be outdated or inferior before we have any real content to view.
 
A

AV_Integrated

Audiophyte
To date I've seen 3dTV twice. The first was on a 50" tv watching tech divers on a deep wreck, I was amazed at how good it looked. Then I found out it was, IIRC, ~$30k in processing and was a professional setup way beyond what is affordable to most.:eek: The second time was seeing "Alice in Wonderland" in 3d IMAX and I wasn't impressed. There were a few moments that were really cool, but overall it felt gimmicky to me.

Based on these limited experiences and everything I keep hearing and reading I'll wait a few years before I consider jumping on board. I just don't see the point in wasting money for equipment that at this time will likely be outdated or inferior before we have any real content to view.
See, but this is what every typical consumer says. It's not a 'this tech sucks' attitude, but a 'let's wait a bit' mentaility and is very typical of the average consumer.

The best part is, those who wait a few years will have a lot of content to choose from including TV and tons of BD movies available as well as video games.

I mean, it is very interesting to note that there are a lot of discussions about 3D right now, but you can't buy a single 3DBD at this time in any store. The only 3D Blu-rays available are packaged with the TVs you buy, and nothing else is out there.

Let me ask you this:
Were you all set to buy a brand new TV this year? Was that originally a part of your plans? Or did you think you probably would wait a few years to buy a TV anyway?

If the later, then when you do buy, it seems like 3D will be something you might consider.

But what about if it was the former? I would guess that you just didn't want the high end Samsung or Sony display which has it... which is fine. Just curious really.
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
See, but this is what every typical consumer says. It's not a 'this tech sucks' attitude, but a 'let's wait a bit' mentaility and is very typical of the average consumer.

The best part is, those who wait a few years will have a lot of content to choose from including TV and tons of BD movies available as well as video games.

I mean, it is very interesting to note that there are a lot of discussions about 3D right now, but you can't buy a single 3DBD at this time in any store. The only 3D Blu-rays available are packaged with the TVs you buy, and nothing else is out there.

Let me ask you this:
Were you all set to buy a brand new TV this year? Was that originally a part of your plans? Or did you think you probably would wait a few years to buy a TV anyway?

If the later, then when you do buy, it seems like 3D will be something you might consider.

But what about if it was the former? I would guess that you just didn't want the high end Samsung or Sony display which has it... which is fine. Just curious really.
I bought a new TV 6 months ago and if I felt HD3D was halfway workable with what's offered now I'd consider a new one. As someone who is interested in A/V I would normally consider becoming an early adopter because I don't want to wait for the new toys. However with 3D so far, IMO, there isn't much point to becoming an early adopter yet, there's just little if any content available and the technology is progressing forward without that content. Until there's content there is no point in owning technology that may or may not work with it in 6 months. As soon as it is all there I'll seriously consider upgrading, until then I'll wait on the sidelines.
 
s162216

s162216

Full Audioholic
Alice in Wonderland might not have looked as good becasue it was filmed in traditional "2D" and then digitally converted to the 3D format.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
I bought a new TV 6 months ago and if I felt HD3D was halfway workable with what's offered now I'd consider a new one. As someone who is interested in A/V I would normally consider becoming an early adopter because I don't want to wait for the new toys. However with 3D so far, IMO, there isn't much point to becoming an early adopter yet, there's just little if any content available and the technology is progressing forward without that content. Until there's content there is no point in owning technology that may or may not work with it in 6 months. As soon as it is all there I'll seriously consider upgrading, until then I'll wait on the sidelines.
I think that this is definitely the case for a lot of people at this point. The main advantage of 3D is that it encourages new purchasers to get their 'premium' model TV for the next year or two, but on its own, 3D has very little to offer.

Not sure when you bought your first HDTV, but there were very few who bought into that 10 years ago when there was only the RCA DTC100 DirecTV receiver and a couple of channels of minimum content HD. It's not much different now with 3D, but the big (huge!) plus is that 3D doesn't take away from the 2D TV, and is part of the premium 2D displays.

I will watch my budget this year and will hopefully get a good 3D projector if it comes to market. But, I'm keeping my options open.

I do know that I don't want to buy something now, and moving forward, which is not up to date with the 3D spec. So, my next BD player will have 3D capability, as will my next A/V receiver and display. Since I likely would buy the nicer product anyway, then I want to make sure I'm covered for when content is available.

But, I'm sure not going to upgrade right away without any content. I will wait, at the very least, until Avatar is released in 3D on Blu.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top