Five common myths about 3DTV
It was poised to be the biggest tech trend of the year — or so you’d think after attending the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January — but 3DTV hasn’t taken off as fast as the industry had hoped. Here are a few thoughts on why.
Sure, a television is big ticket item, but there must be other reasons why 3DTV hasn’t caught on as fast as predicted. More content is becoming available and those who’ve experienced the effect agree it looks great, so what else could be a barrier of entry?
As with any new technology, perhaps there is some confusion about what 3D is and what you need.
We caught up with Future Shop’s director of home theatre, Eric Stockner, to address a few common myths surrounding ths emerging technology.
1. They only produce 3D outputs on screen.
Not true. One of the most common misconceptions is 3DTVs only display 3D material. In fact, 3DTVs offer the most powerful engines and parts (e.g. 240Hz, 1080p) for the best for 2D viewing. The majority of the time, consumers today will watch their favourite TV shows in HD on the TVs; the 3D viewing can done when either upconverting [2D] content [to 3D] or watching/playing their favourite 3D title.
2. 3DTVs are expensive.
Also not true. Now with more than 20 3DTV models at retail stores and on Futureshop.ca, the prices of 3DTVs have been driven down. Consumers can now get in the 3D game for as little as $799.99 (such as this Samsung 50″ Plasma HDTV, PN50C490, on sale). Compare that to the summer of 2009 when LED HDTVs hit the market and cost north of $2,000.
3. 3DTVs require 3D glasses all the time.
This is only true when watching movies or gaming in 3D. 3D glasses are not required when watching in 2D.
4. 3DTVs require 3D components.
This is true: To get into the entire 3D experience, 3D components, including 3D glasses, receiver, source (e.g. 3D capable Blu-ray player) and 3D-capable HDMI cable are required. There are a variety of bundled 3D TV packages to make the buying easier and to make for a stop purchase, often valued propositioned when buying in bulk (e.g. Sony BRAVIA 40” 1080p 240Hz 3D-Ready LED HDTV w/ blu-ray home theatre system).
5. Have no content.
Each passing week, content is ballooning. There are a variety of 3D Blu-ray and gaming titles available to consumers today and releasing through 2011. For example: Call of Duty: Black Ops, Gran Turismo 5 and NBA 2K11 are examples of 3D games; CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada is broadcasting the Leafs game in 3D on Dec. 11, and more to come in 2011, plus the Masters 2010 golf tournament broadcast the back half in 3D; dozens of movie titles are in 3D, such as IMAX Deep Sea 3D, Polar Express 3D, Clash of the Titans 3D, Open Season 3D, etc.
Sync readers, what’s your take on this 3DTV myth-busting? Are you a fan of the technology? Waiting for more content or a cheaper price tag? Or do you prefer to see 3D in theatres only?
Having to wear special gear (glasses) in order to view is dumb. I would even drive across town to to avoid watching a 3D movie in the theater.
@ Andy wtf are you talking about?? You make no sense!
He makes perfect sense to me. I hate 3-D!
Why do you hate! 3D? did it attack you at some point?
He’s saying what a lot of ppl feel.
Watching TV with those glasses on is annoying.
what’s annoying about it? do you wear shades when it’s sunny out?
I agree – the major stumbling block here is the glasses themselves. TV companies only include 1 or sometimes 2 pairs of the super special glasses. If you have any kids or guests you’ll need several other pairs and at more than $200 a pop that’s a huge hit. The glasses are also heavier, bulkier than what I’d want to wear – the polarized ones from the movie theatre. Until the TV manufacturers either make lighter and cheaper glasses that don’t require charging or make tvs that don’t require glasses at all it will be a slow process.
The other major issue is there’s really very little content out there. Why buy a $2000 plus TV, drop another $300 on a playstation 3 or 3D bluray player, special cables, and then shell out another $400 to $800 for more glasses (2 for my kids, and 4 more for guests) only to watch the occasional special broadcast and a very limited library of movies?
I’m Mister Gadjet but there’s no way I’m buying one of those TVs at this point.
Anyne who saw Avatar in 3D knows how great it looks. This person is misguiided.
Really? you would drive across town to avoid watching a 3d movie? lol. You’re not a happy person are you? you probably don’t let the driver trying to get over get in front of you either do you? It’s a stinking pair of glasses for a couple of hours. So what? I’ve gone with my little girls. It was fun. I wouldn’t rain on their parade just because I want to fight against tech.
I don’t agree that these myths are the reason why people aren’t buying. I think the big reason 3D TVs haven’t been flying off the shelves is that for the past 3-4 years, regular HDTVs have been selling like hotcakes. That means a lot of people – possibly a majority – recently invested over $1000 on a new TV. I include myself in that group :)
So while I think 3D is cool, I’m simply not willing to get rid of my perfectly good plasma TV – heck it isn’t even 1080p – for an upgrade that we will only use occasionally. And that’s really one of the big problems with 3D – you wouldn’t want it on all the time. I think manufacturers and retailers overestimated people’s hunger for this tech in a time when they recently made tech investments and when the economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.
Give it a few more years and I’m sure things will change.
Amen brother. I too still have my trusty (and also non-1080p) plasma. What am i going to do? Simply chuck it out? There’s not enough 3d content out there yet to warrant a 3D tv purchase.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your two last points. Last year we bought a top of the line Sony, so I hear you.
Yes, I agree! I went and bought a Sony XBR 120 HZ 2 years ago and it is a fantastic TV. So I would not spend the money on a 3D TV. I was at WalMart this week and they couldn’t even give away an LCD TV for $600, they reduced it to $450 within 15 mins and they weren’t selling. Everyone has one already.
I agree with you, but it’s a regular HDTV..more powerful than a normal HDTV but you have the ability to watch 3D if you want. You can switch back and forth on that same 3dtv
Yes, that’s true – I re-read my comment and it sounds like I think that you *have to* watch in 3D, which is silly of course :) My point was that *most* of the content we watch (or would want to watch) is 2D, so buying a new TV right now in order to take advantage of a feature that we will use for less than 4 hours of viewing a month doesn’t make a lot of sense to me…. UNLESS… you need a new TV anyway, in which case you may as well spend a few extra bucks and future-proof yourself as well as you can. But check this out: http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2010/12/vizio-debuts-theatre-3d-tvs-a-first-in-north-america.html even today’s 3D TVs might already be obsolete!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lisa Bell, Lisa Cahone. Lisa Cahone said: 3D TV: Marc Saltzman Five common myths about 3DTV http://bit.ly/hG0SnD [...]
>>> Future Shop’s director of home theatre, Eric Stockner <<<
You never asked him if he owns a 3D television.
Sorry, but the technology is just not good enough. Not worth paying any extra price for the hardware, and not worth wearing special glasses that feel unnatural. In a few years, if the technology and the glasses improve, maybe. But I have ZERO interest in being an early adopter based on what I’ve seen so far.
Hey Simon,
Interesting perspective — and you bring up a good point. Many Canadians have blown their budget on a perfectly good HDTV over the past few years and they simply aren’t going to buy a new TV just because it delivers 3D content. But I do believe that when it’s time for an upgrade (for some it’s this year, others will be a while from now) it makes sense to buy a 3D-ready TV because there won’t be a premium on it at that point (there’s a small one now), they make for excellent 2D TVs (they have to be good as you need that speed to deliver smooth 3D HD to each eye) and there will be a lot more content to justify the investment. Being the music lover that I am, if there were a 24/7 3D concert channel on my Bell TV I’d never leave the house! The glasses don’t bother me, either, per Andy’s comment, but I guess it boils down to personal preference; truthfully, I forget I’m wearing them after a short while.
Marc
I don’t understand why the industry had to create another new 3d technology, with expensive and heavy glasses. Why not simply use REAL 3D technology, as in the theatre? The cable companies would use another series of channels as they do with HD, and we would simply put on low weight, low cost REAL 3D glasses. This would work just as well with DVD releases.
They “created” this technology to drive sales. Pure and simple.
I wear glassess, so wearing glasses on top of glasses is a pain. I am also part of the population who can’t watch 3D movies without getting a little queazy. What good is watching a movie that I have to take the glasses off or close my eyes for a while so that I can feel better. I also have some relatively new TVs and will wait for the 3D experience without the glasses, which will probably be out around the time I am ready for a new TV.
Don’t you just love having to pay extra at a theatre to be made sick. I so know where you’re coming from.
It’s funny that people who complain about 3D glasses are happy to wear sunglasses for hours and hours on end. Where are all of the blog rants about sunglasses being silly or horrible to wear?
3DTV manufacturers have put a premium on the TVs because they’re greedy. There’s no difference between a 3DTV and an HD TV other than a little software. They made a strategic, greedy blunder in premium pricing on sets. They should just sell the glasses at a reasonable price.
Their messaging has been horrible as well– not letting people know that 3DTVs are excellent 2D HDTVs by definition.
And then there is the content issue. Broadcasters don’t want to go full bore on 3D programming because there’s absolutely no ROI model that makes good business sense right now. 3D is more difficult, time consuming, and costly to produce.
Moreover, there are still very, very few people who can produce good 3D content. It takes about 6 months of serious hands-on work in 3D to be good at it.
I’m a glasses wearer, glasses over glasses is not comfortable for long. Are there any other choices in 3D glasses for glasses wearers? like clip-ons.
As a glasses wearer as well, I agree. I only wish they did, but they require batteries so they’d be kinda heavy
You’ve hit it on the nail.
It makes no good business sense right now in this economy for broadcasters to throw money at more expensive content, nor does it make sense for people to throw their hard earned cash at a new technology in difficult economic times.
People certainly certainly dont want to pay more for all the extra equipment that’s needed.
I think the industry’s timing is off by a few years. Obviously it’s a strategy to try to make money through tough economic times – there are people out there who MUST have the latest gadgets, but it’s not the majority right now. Most people are happy that they have a decent, and very new, HDTV, and that they still have a job.
In good economic times it could take off, but right now and with very recent updgrades to HDTV, it will not.
And the rsik could be that broadcasters wont go for it if there’s not enough money to be made. Could it be a fad?
When you wear glass to improve vision you buy them to fit your face properly not some molded one fits all plastic.
I won’t be buying a 3D TV anytime soon if ever. I am much more comfortable laying on my couch with a cushion then sit with glasses on and taking away all my comfortable positions.
I am also one of those people who would drive across town to watch a movie in regular 2D.
If its not broke don’t fix it.
sound lazy and spiteful. you don’t want 3d glasses because you want to be able to lay down. You will drive across town to avoid 3d. lol! you’re not hurting anyone but yourself. That’s the type of person that always talks about how they could of would of etc…had a chance to invest in google but…had a chance to be a singer but….always something
When mainstream TV shows regularly broadcast in 3D I believe you will see an upswing in 3D TV sales. Once the NFL and PGA provide all their games in 3D, look out! I see a 60″ 3D TV coming my way
[...] Marc Saltzman Five common myths about 3DTVSync (blog)This is only true when watching movies or gaming in 3D. 3D glasses are not required when watching in 2D. This is true: To get into the entire 3D experience, … [...]
[...] the original: Five common myths about 3DTV | Sync Blog 0 Comment Click here to cancel reply. Name [...]
Mark
Are there 3DTV’s that do not need glasses? And if not are they working on it for future sets?
No offense to anyone. I understand all your reasoning, but I needed a tv and did the research. The reason I bought a 3d TV was not for the 3d, although I hope to get lots of use in the future using it. I bought it because it gives me the best picture available for a reasonable price. The picture quality on this tv leaves my 1080 HDTV in the dust. The picture quality was so good it took awhile to adjust my eyes. Personally, I could not go back to the old quality. 240 hertz is amazing. Any other quality tv would have cost the same or more and most companies were giving away the 3d bluray player and glasses with the promotion so that didn’t cost extra. Using 3d is an option and if I never use it I still have a fabulous tv.
Just bought a Panasonic VT complete with 6 pairs of glasses. TV itself costs little more than regular 1080i plasma but quality seems much better when played in regular 2D. Since I don’t buy that type of equipm’t every year, I didn’t want to be in a situation where I’d miss 3D football and hockey in a year or so because my TV was obsolete. All we need now is for cable providers like Videotron to get up to speed as now they lag behing Bell on the 3D front. Bell has the Canadian/Maple Leaf game on in 3D tonight!
Jea Jay
I get migraines from 3D movies. No 3D TV for me.
Happens to me also for some reasons…
3D may be great, but one of many people that have suffered the loss of sight in one eye, this 3D thing does not work for us, so buying a 3D set-up is not practical or economical
I for one have just recently upgraded my TV and bought one for my daughter and neither one is 3D.
Reasons…
1) too expensive relative to the deals I got on both TV’s ( for same brands LG 47″ and Samsung 46″)
2) wearing special glasses is stupid
3) I still am unhappy about the amount of HD programming available in Canada. I am paying for premium programming in my area and there are still times when I can’t see what I want in HD. You can only watch so much Discovery Channel!
So I will give 3D a miss thank you, and when I need a new TV we will be 4 or 5 more technology upgrades that the industries thinks “I MUST” have.
Thank god I missed the Beta revolution!
looks like you missed all the revolutions
To be clear, 3D TV is a very nice experience when watching quality 3D. A good 3D nature documentary or properly produced live sports program is fantastic. The glasses are only silly if you think all glasses are silly. Let’s face it, you’ve all worn stuff awesomely more silly than 3D glasses and thought it was cool. They’re glasses. That’s all.
No, 3DTVs are actually now very, very close in price to 2D televisions. If you shop around, you can get a killer 50″ Samsung 1080p plasma with glasses for $1,337– no taxes and shipping included. That’s a great deal in any dimension.
Anyone who says the glasses or the price are problems is simply repeating stuff they read on a blog 6 months ago.
where’s the thunbs up button?
I currently have a Sony 55 inch LCD rear projection which works fantastic,connected to blue ray player, and 7 channel THX sound. I can’t see myself looking to replace this with 3 D ,the Sharp Aquas LED looks pretty tempting however I say if you’re going to get me to change ,make it bigger and of course affordable. How about a Sharp Aquas 70 inch plus or an LG THX certified screen in 70 to 80 inch.Like blow me away.
Blow you away , get a hooker not a Sony tv.
Many many people withing the last 5 years have upgraded to flatscreen and hd. The manufacturers of electronics constantly bleed people financially by flooding the market with one product and then making that product obsolete a year or two later. I would bet that when the manufacturers of 3D where hyping HD they had 3D well underway, just sitting there waiting so that they could gouge the consumer again in a couple years. Further, the amount of unwatchable crap that is on TV makes even watching any kind of TV impossible at times.
I agree, there is way too much crap on tv. better to spend your money at I-Tunes or Netflicks.
Every Canadian agrees with you thats for sure eh.
The stores extremely over price this 3D TVS and limited content, its discouraging and when you add the HST to it , it a kick in the nuts.
I can’t wait for 3D porn.
Should be a hoot.
I think you should now take a cold shower and find a used blow up doll.