3D Television

I still associate 3-D with hokiness.
Maybe if I saw one, I'd be interested.

I feel the same as George about this right now. I haven't seen a 3D tv yet, so maybe I would change my mind.

But I have seen 3D movies and I don't find them that much more compelling than regular movies. But mostly that's because I don't think I've seen a 3D movie with a great story, or with realistic scenes from which to experience the 3D (Avatar was disappointing to me, both visually (because it seemed like a cartoon), and because the story was hokie.)

Didn't see Avatar, but I think seeing a 3-D movie is a bit different.

A movie is a once-in-a-while thing.
TV (for me at least) is every night.
I can't imagine sitting down and putting on 3-D glasses every night.

3D television is not one olf those "next big things" IMHO. Im more impressed with HD and thin flat panel tvs. As a kid I saw a couple of 3D' movies and I got sick from the stereo glasses.

ARe they making any 3D shows?

Chai- Thanks for the laugh. That clip was priceless!

Oh I agree. As long as it involves putting on special glasses I'll never waste my time with it. But the newer sets claim to do 3D without the glasses.

The question for me is, will I ever prefer to watch that kind of 3D tv for my normal programming. And I'm not sure about that yet. But my biggest complaint about TV and movies lately has nothing to do with the visual elements, and everything to do with content.

I remember when color tv happened... but we still watched black and white shows, because the show was good. It was nice to have color, but color alone wasn't good enough to make you watch it (except as a novelty). It wasn't until the content was combined with color that B&W faded away.

3D television will eventually be the next generation of the television media but for now the format is an utter waste of technology, time, and money.

With little content and the high price of the televisions themselves (not to fail the annoying obvious that the damn glasses are additional to the cost). As far as I understand one has to remain watching the television at a set location to get the full effect of the 3D content. Move and you'll lose the effect. Not worth the inexplicably high early adopter price of the television.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I think the whole 3-D thing is a gimmick. Also, I'm betting it is hard on the eyes.

I still have an analog TV, but one of these years, will move up to a flat panel.

i'm holding out until they come up with 4D or maybe 5D...

Lt. Philbis, you left your Holodeck program running again . . .

Mr. P. is an audiophile. As such, I have become very familiar with the concept of the "sweet spot", so I don't think that it would bother me.

I would not buy a 3D set right away. I did not buy an flat panel hi-def set, until the technology had worked out most of the bugs. The same thing with blu-ray. No one knew, in the beginning, which would prevail, blu-ray, or HDDVD. So I waited . Also, as you have mentioned, there is no point in trading in my perfectly fine 2 hi-def sets until the amount of programming makes buying a 3D set practical.

I didn't.

Hey, it happens. I wonder how many people are stuck with 8 tracks, Betamaxes,
and vinyl recordings?

I bought 2 portable CD players, when I knew that they were becoming obsolete. I bought the 2nd one in case the first one dies on me. I like to walk, and have many recordings that I like to listen to when I walk. I'll be damned if I will buy an ipod, and record the exact same stuff that I have already!

I still think the HD format was better. I'm over it, though lol.

I'm not sure of that. Some technologies get replaced by other technologies before they take a foothold. 3D TV could easily be superseded by Virtual Reality glasses which would be cheaper and more effective at enclosing the viewer in a true 3D experience.

One of the nice things about TV now is that it's not immersive. Many people use TV simply as a background activity while they do other things. 3D tv may be TOO immersive to be used in the same way, in which case it'll never replace 2D, but instead only be an additional entertainment used for times when complete immersion is what people want.

Never gave that a single thought but you could be a prophet ros. ALL the dead formats had some "lifestyle" issue associated with them. VCR won over Beta because of the convenience ,blu ray took less set up steps,HD is also learning that its a "progressive media improvement".
We watch only a few shows strait through and most of these(like DEXTER) we DVR it through our cable.


CLOUD COMPUTING will have something to say about whats gonna be the next big thing. I say its gonna be "Infinite content" at any time. If I wanna watch NOSFERATU on ST Blaize Day, I can do it. But, if I wanted an infoinite content INDEX (sorta like what the internet gives us now in information), Im gonna need some bigass cloud.

I currently have a LG 3D TV and it is absolutely fantastic. Although I do not get to watch 3D TVs as much as I wish I could, I have never been more satisfied with the quality. I love playing PS3 on my LG TV. Not only is the quality superb but the price was very reasonable.

I kinda differ with ros on this--"Avatar" was the only movie I've seen where I've thought 3D was worth it. I still remember the first shot when he woke up as the Navoo, or whoever they are, and there was that huge amazing shot of the alien jungle stretching away into the sunlit distance and it was magnificent. It's been all downhill from there. Everything else I've seen, after a couple minutes you forget it's 3D. It's just kinda like old boring real life., which is in 3D anyway. It's about as thrilling as your average walk to the grocery store in 3D live.