Do People Want 3D TV?

The 3D stuff I've seen either requires the use of special glasses or (for systems that don't use special glasses) has a limited 'headbox' where the 3D effect occurs. Neither of these techniques is fundamentally new; they are just modernized versions of methods that have been around for a long time for creating stereographics.

A truly revolutionary system that provides stereo imagery without glasses and with an effectively unlimited headbox might have some appeal. But even then, I also think a new generation of visual artists are needed who understand the immersive power of '3D'. It's use needs to be integrated into the video experience just as 'surround sound' helps draw the viewer into the action and story line. Very few movies and very little 'TV' programming need '3D'.

What matters for a good movie or TV show are (on the one hand): plot, characters, action, dialogue, and (on the other hand) color, contrast, resolution, and sound. (Granted that one or more may be deleted and still yield a masterpiece such as 'Citizen Kane', a black-and-white classic.) So, like color, '3D' isn't necessary to tell a story; but like the use of color in 'The Wizard of Oz' it may be that 3D can provide a necessary enhancement. I don't think the appeal of the current systems is strong enough to make it a reality.

Many times I have wondered - why was it necessary for Mr John G Kennedy to say - "Let us Put man on the moon". and thereafter America did work on it and did put man on the moon. How many commoners really wondered - why was was it necessary? Many did not even know the beneficial effects like discovery of many materials, software etc- which for improving life of commoners. Thermocole, Teflon etc - to my knowledge are some such material. It gave employment opportunities. It gave Pride - generated a kind of enthusiasm- into a sagging economy etc.- to Americans.

Similarly HDTV, 3D TV - are yet to mature. Let some scientists get jobs and work on it. Let VC make some money. Excitement (journey) of working - is more important. After the goal is achieved - very little fun is left - it is just donkey's job of routinely multiplying it.

My $0.02. Interesting idea not quite ready for prime time.

For scenes with little or no motion it seems to work reasonably well except for the wearing sunglasses indoors effect. Objects moving across the screen with any speed tend to look like a series of still frames rather than continuous motion. Projected (foreground) objects look transparent.

In a recent consumer test 52 percent who tried out 3-D televisions said it was a better experience than they had expected — but many were actually less interested after using the special glasses required

No offence intended, but that statement has no useful meaning. If some people thought it better, would they want one ? Does 'many' refer to the whole sample, or just the 52% who thought it better ?

It matters not - give it a couple of years and you won't be able to buy anything other then a 3D telly. Vinyl, tape, CD, DVD, Blueray............A certain pattern seems to emerge. I've got music on all formats, and is there a big difference in quality ? No. Do I enjoy a gatefold album more than some shiny disc I stick in a slot ? I won't even answer. <sigh>

Not this consumer. I vote for less TV all around. Not more.

My vote is against 3D. That's all we need; more diversion from our everyday life whatever that is thats left. 3D and all the other media experiences just makes us more reclusive. Let's say; if you want 3D, restrict it to the movie theatres, not in the home.

There will be an inevitable big-hitter to consider: The Pornography biz.

The biz was a major player in the Videotape Format war and the High-Def format war, and had a large influence in each. By some accounts, there is about $10,000,000,000 (Ten Billion) US dollars per year at stake (the Wiki article is a little unclear, but that number appears to be US sales only!).

Add all this potential 3D sales to internet-enabled 3D television, and you might be talking about some real money.

Maybe when a full-blown Holodeck becomes available....

As a repairer of electronic goods among other things, I hate the ever continuing new products that arrive- in EVERY case they are less & less reliable- & the new features are just not worth it. Let us consider this- the products available as a young person grows up & becomes familiar with tend to colour that person's perceptions- & all new fangled things may be looked upon with suspicion. In the case of 3D tv it is just a means for makers' to try to get suckers to buy their product- which we just do not need or want!- after all tv or motion picture screens purvey an artificial product- sure it is entertaining- but all we are doing is escaping reality!. Still if your belly is full, got a beer or three , nothing else to do, & just want to relax- it's not bad!.

I have amblyopia (lazy eye) so stereoscopic vision and 3D is something that I have never experienced, nor can I ever. So I am not excited by this technology, In fact I am not really excited by most of the latest television technology. I still have antique CRT analogue televisions. I have watched the new HDTV sets, but I am not so impressed by them that I want to go out and by one yet. Sure, when my current TV dies I will have to buy one; but until then, the NE Patriots, Boston Celtics, and Red Sox games are just as exciting (or disappointing) on my old TV.

Now, if some one could convince me that the Patriots would win the Super Bowl, the Red Sox win the World Series, and the Celtics the NBA Championship if I watched them on HDTV, or in 3D, I would rush down to the store and buy one today.

My enjoyment in TV is not the technology of the presentation, but in the content of the shows that I watch.

I liked it at Disney World, but unless Hollywood starts producing a lot of 3D films suddenly (and they cost more to make I am told), what will you watch?

I see it as a novelty, nothing more, nothing less.....

But it has made good normal TVs much cheaper, so that is the positive side....