Yes, I noticed. Presentation is key, my dear two-legged eggplant.
ProtoZone wrote:
Because they justed wasted an gargantuan amount of money on making a 3D television which requires glasses for the 3D to be enabled. More people prefer a "no-glasses" 3D television set, and more people will purchase this television as opposed to Sony's BRAVIA HX800 Series 3D HDTV, and Sony will recieve very little money from this product, because it's "old technlogy" In a nutshell, auto-stereoscopic display > "with-glasses-3D"
lolokeedokee
They said at its soonest, this will be on the market in five years.
Everyone is going to wait five, six maybe seven years until this comes out? I'd think about that for a moment.
By the time it comes out, Sony's 3D TV set will start selling less and less. That was the point I was trying to make.
*Hunt the Hare and turn her down the rocky road all the way to Dublin, Whack follol de rah!*
They'll still sell plenty of TVs in the next five years to have a solid hold in the market.
And Sony isn't the only one making 3D TVs. There's a few companies selling these things and if the next best technology is five years away, at best, they should still be able to return their investment.
Nobody is screaming in rage. It's not like Sony didn't know something newer and better would be coming along. They're just trying to push 3D on their console and TVs at the moment.
I'm sure they'll be selling 3D TVs without the glasses too in the next decade.
As I've said before, the current 3D-push for home televisions is just a way for the industry to try to re-inflate demand after the big HD-switch has mostly died down. It has nothing to do with 3D actually making any particularly notable strides technologically of late; they're just looking for the next "big thing" to market and they think they've found something suitable. Shuttering the eyes is still a very old way to produce the 3D effect, and still isn't sufficiently cost-effective or convenient. I hope it fails, personally.
(But I should stress that I don't know how it will far, I just want it to do badly. I'm debating a "should" more than a "will".)
This is the first point in time people have been making quite a few 3D movies and the technology is reasonably priced.
I'd believe that has something to do with the 3D TVs in home push.
I don't know what anyone gains from having it fail, just means less money to put forth for new technology and less of an incentive to produce 3D movies since they won't be going anywhere after they leave the theater.
Fair enough. Part of it has to do with the kind of films I enjoy. I don't watch action-blockbusters or whatnot, so that only genre that has been in 3D in which have any interest is Pixar films. However, I greatly prefer the visuals in Up when viewed in 2D. In general, I find 2D film to be much better aesthetically. There's something fundamental in the composition of a shot that gets lost in 3D, because you're no longer taking in the whole image so much as looking around actively in a space. But I like old classic films and dramas of various sorts, so that's part of the issue.
Twitter is a good place to throw your nonsense. Wii FC: 8378 9716 1696 8633 || "How can mushrooms give you extra life? Get the green ones." -
3D TVs seem pretty darn expensive to me, and I don't know anyone with that kind of money to toss around.
Out of curiosity, what is "reasonably priced" to you, and how many glasses does that include? I haven't looked into it much, but even the glasses themselves seem to be quite expensive, and if I watch a movie is usually with a few others.
Evevtually this kinda stuff will be in ALL TV's and gaming systems.
sup, I will give you advice if you ask. FC: Wii Console:3985-2203-0804-1295 SSBB:0173-0975-3949 MKW:3738-0981-3164 Toribash:3481-69299534 HG-1162-1907-7904 Goldeneye:514439432409
Ah, that's not that bad. $1000 is a lot for me to even consider for a TV, but that'd be a pretty great deal for family households. I've never seen any as low as $1200, but granted, I haven't really been looking hard.
They'll still sell plenty of TVs in the next five years to have a solid hold in the market.
And Sony isn't the only one making 3D TVs. There's a few companies selling these things and if the next best technology is five years away, at best, they should still be able to return their investment.
Nobody is screaming in rage. It's not like Sony didn't know something newer and better would be coming along. They're just trying to push 3D on their console and TVs at the moment.
I'm sure they'll be selling 3D TVs without the glasses too in the next decade.
I was only making an attempt at humor when I said "screaming with rage". I also thought they may be "enraged" by this because they would have to design a new auto-stereoscopic television set, and have to spend a large amount of money in doing so. They will sell plenty of 3D TVs, but an auto-stereoscopic television set will most likely be more popular.
*Hunt the Hare and turn her down the rocky road all the way to Dublin, Whack follol de rah!*
Everyone is going to wait five, six maybe seven years until this comes out? I'd think about that for a moment.
I didn't realise it was such a hot in-demand feature given there's so few Blu-Ray films announced for it, so yeah, why wouldn't people wait that long? Hell, most people in Europe already have flat panel TVs that will be functional beyond that point, so that might make a lot more sense from a "tv -upgrade" perspective.
Of course in America where apparently woodgrain paneled tvs are still commonplace in people's living rooms, there might be households champing at the bit for threedeeteevee!
Ah, that's not that bad. $1000 is a lot for me to even consider for a TV, but that'd be a pretty great deal for family households. I've never seen any as low as $1200, but granted, I haven't really been looking hard.
I agree with you Adam. $1000 isn't that bad, especially when you realise how much your family household will enjoy 3D for the next six years at lest.
Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant? Isaiah 42:19
My Youtube Page: http://www.youtube.com/user/royalusher
Sean there'd be no point in waiting if people are already in the market for a new TV, since a 3dTV isn't much more than a good HDTV.
If someone is interested now, they're not going to sit back and say 'Well, you know I might wait ten years till that glassless one comes out'. That's ridiculous. As is your theory there'll only be a handful of 3D movies for the next decade..
Likewise, anyone interested in 3D movies (not you, I know, you're way too good for such foolishness) probably won't wait until there's thirty-forty movies out. A lot of people don't do that with video game consoles, not sure why you think EVERYONE will do it when it comes to TVs.
Finally, give it a rest. Some people enjoy 3D and your constant mockery of it (and Americans in this case) isn't helping retain an image I'd like to believe you wish to uphold as a member of the site's staff.
Sean there'd be no point in waiting if people are already in the market for a new TV, since a 3dTV isn't much more than a good HDTV.
it took well over a decade for HDTV to catch on in the west, and considering that that process is still ongoing, 3D is sort of getting ahead of itself. don't underestimate how overwhelmed the average consumer is when it comes to this stuff....
3DTV may not cost much more than the high end HDTVs, but who's buying those? the best selling hdtvs in america are by far cheap, cheap LCDs (vizio). cost is very much an issue for the average buyer, so when you say that people in the market for an hdtv may as well just buy 3D, keep in mind that would require going a few thousand dollars over their budget.
AlexSays wrote:
If someone is interested now, they're not going to sit back and say 'Well, you know I might wait ten years till that glassless one comes out'. That's ridiculous.
i'd like an OLED tv today, but i'm not paying exorbitant prices for the first models. 3D is closer to being practical, but i for one still wouldn't buy yet.
overall i think sean's argument is sound. there are people willing to buy 3Dtvs, but only the dedicated videophiles who were in the market to buy a $3,000 tv anyway. for the mainstream, 3D is at least a few years away still, even if the technology were already advanced enough.
also, that wood-paneled tv comment is very true. i remember those sets well...
If I believed they were almost three times the price they actually are, I'd be way less enthusiastic.
There was also zero support for HD when it was first 'invented'. They already have 3D movies and 3D games.
There's no comparison whatsoever, but apparently people are dead set on 3D TV failing. Don't worry, when they pull all 3D TVs off store shelves because absolutely nobody is buying one, I'll come back to this thread and say how right everyone was.
Forums
Topic: 3D Without the Glasses For Television!
Posts 21 to 40 of 50
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.