|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2010, 05:57:43 AM » |
|
Could 3D sweep the country in a way HD never quite did? With 52" 3D sets priced at just $3k, it could happen!
Two things: (1) HD has "swept the country" such that you can hardly buy an SD television any more, and (2) 3d won't be fully viable unless/until there's a single display format that doesn't require 3d glasses to watch. 3d may become a marketable novelty in the near future, but there is no "3d standard" so it's inherently limited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HankCastello
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2010, 12:45:21 PM » |
|
You know, it wasn't that long ago that you and I were having this same debate over hi-def!
Regardless of the rest of the world, if this year's superbowl is available in 3d, I'll have a 3d set.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hank - Forum Administrator
|
|
|
|
DavidPartington
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2010, 01:17:51 PM » |
|
You know, it wasn't that long ago that you and I were having this same debate over hi-def!
Regardless of the rest of the world, if this year's superbowl is available in 3d, I'll have a 3d set.
I don't expect 3D to sell in any great numbers in the UK (and even Europe) any time soon. Ever time I've tried to watch something in 3D I've ended up with a major headache. Active glasses drive me nuts with the visible flickering. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2010, 11:56:04 PM » |
|
You know, it wasn't that long ago that you and I were having this same debate over hi-def! There are two key difference here: (1) there's no single 3d standard so the TVs aren't all compatible; (2) having to wear silly glasses to enjoy the results. It does appear 3d is getting a lot of attention and some consumers may want it, but it's going to be even more of a novelty than HD from a delivery standpoint. I'm staying out of this one for now... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HankCastello
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2010, 10:39:18 PM » |
|
There wasn't a single hd standard two years ago (and you can argue that there still isn't today!).
While some have trouble with the glasses, nobody in my circle does and I thoroughly enjoy 3d. OK, maybe I just want to buy some new toys! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hank - Forum Administrator
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 12:39:29 AM » |
|
There wasn't a single hd standard two years ago (and you can argue that there still isn't today!). You can prepare content for any HDTV without knowing what brand it is in advance, but you won't be able to do that for 3D because the display standards are physically incompatible. Imagine having to make one kind of 3D disc for the happy couple and another for their parents and so on depending on who bought into which 3D technology. No thanks. But as I said, it could be a marketable novelty, so go for it.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2010, 10:21:21 PM » |
|
Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for release on October 15th - who's gonna be first to buy one? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HankCastello
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2010, 10:25:04 PM » |
|
Gotta figure how to edit with them first. Last time I checked, a 3d monitor for editing cost more than any camera I've ever owned.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hank - Forum Administrator
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2010, 02:35:34 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DavidPartington
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2010, 05:37:55 PM » |
|
Saw a wedding (or a short extract from it) shot in 3D (at a trade show). I have to say it really did nothing for me. The glasses really take away from the viewing experience, and, errr.... it just seemed such an unnatural a picture that I was having to work hard to watch it.
I am quite sure that 3D will catch on, but honestly, so far I am not impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2010, 09:09:20 AM » |
|
There's talk of 3D displays that don't require special glasses to view the 3D effect, but even then I wouldn't bet consumers are going to rush to buy them. Where I live just about everyone with any money to spare has already bought a standard HDTV, and those folks aren't going to be in any hurry to upgrade again.
On the other hand, I see where Panasonic is working on a removable 3D lens for their micro-4/3rd video camera, so then you wouldn't have to buy a separate set of cameras to offer 3D output. 3D could become the novelty some people thought HD was, while HD is becoming the de facto standard for any serious video work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HankCastello
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2010, 09:32:41 AM » |
|
3D could become the novelty some people thought HD was I was going to post that there is no historical evidence of a new format becoming a novelty. B&W tv became a world-wide standard, then color, then hi-def. But when it comes to 3d, there actually is historical evidence. Remember (if you're old enough) stereographic 3d viewing gadgets, Viewmaster, etc. ? Still, my chips are on 3d becoming a standard eventually. The only question is "when". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hank - Forum Administrator
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2010, 11:15:04 PM » |
|
I'd say having 3D displays that work without special glasses would go a long way toward making the technology appealing to consumers - otherwise it's probably destined to remain a novelty because it's a nuisance to use. (Took decades to make headway in movie theaters.) But advertisers are doing their best to pitch 3D technology as the next big thing for consumers, so we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kwshaw1
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2010, 06:38:37 AM » |
|
FYI, in a review of the Panasonic 3d camera at Camcorderinfo.com, they concluded it needs a whopping 55 lux to produce an acceptable image with the 3d lens. So this isn't realistic for most weddings - it's basically an outdoor camera. :-(
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
