• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

3D TV appears to be the HD Radio

C

chrish

Just read an article in the business pages of the Boston Hearld about the much less than stellar reception of 3D TV with the public which appears to be declining
fast, real action is not with clumsy glasses etc but with internet ready HDTV with Apple or ROKU. Mark Cuban Dallas Mavericks owner had labeled 3D TV a major bust. Seems like we are seeing a replay of HD Radio all over again. There seem to no want or need from the public and they have spoken loudly.
Even the Consumer Electronics Association admits it a downward spiral
 
There are definite similarities to each product's position in our entertainment world.

Like HD radio, 3D TV was attempting to improve on something that most people are happy with. In this case, the still relatively new HDTV.

Like HD radio, it requires a special set to receive and doesn't perform in any kind of natural way. HD radio has dropouts, 3D TV has a problem with causing headaches and nausea. HD digital sounds worse than analog and 3D TV is nowhere near as realistic as real human vision.

The difference is 3D TV will likely keep on improving and may flourish in another time and place. HD is consigned to limp along in its current incarnation forever.
 
I'm not about to buy a new TV anyway since I just bout a 55" Sony two years ago, but I looked at one at Costco and just wasn't impressed. I've seen good 3D in theaters and the TV I looked at didn't come close.
 
Zach said:
The difference is 3D TV will likely keep on improving and may flourish in another time and place. HD is consigned to limp along in its current incarnation forever.
Click to expand...

3D TV will flourish when TVs just have it, and you don't have to wear glasses to see it; it just works.

HD Radio will flourish when radios just have it, and you don't have to do anything baroque with an antenna to get it; it just works.

My money's on the former happening first.
 
hubcity said:
3D TV will flourish when TVs just have it, and you don't have to wear glasses to see it; it just works.

HD Radio will flourish when radios just have it, and you don't have to do anything baroque with an antenna to get it; it just works.

My money's on the former happening first.
Click to expand...

I think the tipping point on 3D TV may be when you can use the cheap polarized glasses for it - which would require some way of polarizing the TV screen. You can bet the TV makers are working overtime to make that happen! Titles are another problem - there are still less than 200 3D movies for sale. You can only ooo and ahh so many times over Avatar before it gets old.

HD radio may never reach a tipping point. The technical problems are even more problematic than 3D TV - at least 3D TV has stable reception. Use the glasses and it works. HD radio does not have stable reception - the purchase of an HD radio does not guarantee content will be available. I often contrast it with satellite. They make satellite work in bad weather, it is semi-robust even going under overpasses because they buffer it. Content is compelling because of the sheer number of channels available. HD radio may be "free", but that is free after buying a radio. And with most listening in the car, it means using an aftermarket receiver that doesn't integrate well with steering wheel and rear seat controls, etc. No such problems with 3D TV - the HDMI spec version 1.4 and 1.4A already accommodate 3D. So integration is a snap - you buy the new 3D components or in some cases just update firmware and you are good to go, you don't give up functionality.
 
hubcity said:
Zach said:
The difference is 3D TV will likely keep on improving and may flourish in another time and place. HD is consigned to limp along in its current incarnation forever.
Click to expand...

3D TV will flourish when TVs just have it, and you don't have to wear glasses to see it; it just works.

HD Radio will flourish when radios just have it, and you don't have to do anything baroque with an antenna to get it; it just works.

My money's on the former happening first.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Look at a person wearing glasses. That person does not own and will not purchase a 3D tv as long as spectacles are needed for viewing. It's just too much hassle, even if they fit over the prescription lenses.
 
I haven't ever watched 3D on a home television but if its anything similar to the movie theater experience I can see why it hasn't caught on. First of all you need glasses to see anything in 3D otherwise the screen looks like a blurry mess. Also the 3D can get tiring on your eyes after a while. Maybe someday in the future they will get it working, but for now HDTV is still relatively new and keeping people satisfied.
 
It's been shown in studies that 3D glasses absorb as much as 60% of the brightness of images. While the system gives an illusion of depth the loss in brilliance blurs fast motion and reduces perception of parts of the image towards the edges of the screen. 3D is indeed tiring to the eyes and in susceptible persons, can cause nausea.

An interesting and successful experiment has been done doubling the speed of movie cameras and projectors from the 80-year old sound-on-film standard of 24 fps to 48 fps. It's surprising that the faster speed actually creates a perception of depth which is comparable (in films composed for the purpose) to 3D, with none of the drawbacks - not the least of which is no viewing glasses needed.

3D is a gimmick fashioned to wring another buck or two per ticket out of moviegoers and/or sell a few new TV sets.
 
Savage said:
It's been shown in studies that 3D glasses absorb as much as 60% of the brightness of images. While the system gives an illusion of depth the loss in brilliance blurs fast motion and reduces perception of parts of the image towards the edges of the screen. 3D is indeed tiring to the eyes and in susceptible persons, can cause nausea.

An interesting and successful experiment has been done doubling the speed of movie cameras and projectors from the 80-year old sound-on-film standard of 24 fps to 48 fps. It's surprising that the faster speed actually creates a perception of depth which is comparable (in films composed for the purpose) to 3D, with none of the drawbacks - not the least of which is no viewing glasses needed.

3D is a gimmick fashioned to wring another buck or two per ticket out of moviegoers and/or sell a few new TV sets.
Click to expand...

I will say this - if I close one eye while watching HD TV, I immediately perceive 3D out of the remaining eye with a realism at least as good as a 3D movie. The effect is immediate and striking.
 
Some of the 3D images are difficult to focus on if you have astigmatism or other vision issues. It's fun, it's a gimmick, but I don't see how it will be something that everyone 'must' have until such time as the 3D image can be seen without glasses - and when it can process the image so that your TV appears to have "depth" (as opposed to cheesy things being pointed at - or coming at - you).
 
There have also been complaints of nausea from some 3DTV viewers, particularly after long viewing sessions. Toshiba is launching a 3DTV that doesn't require glasses. The TV has a much higher density LCD panel then conventional HDTVs and a special prism that creates nine different 3D viewing "regions" within the screen area. Wherever you sit you will more then likely hit one of those viewing regions.

However, here's the big difference: yes, 3DTV is a gimmick. But if a TV station decides to broadcast in 3D they can safely do it without interfering with their neighbor broadcasters who don't.
 
BRNout said:
Some of the 3D images are difficult to focus on if you have astigmatism or other vision issues. It's fun, it's a gimmick, but I don't see how it will be something that everyone 'must' have until such time as the 3D image can be seen without glasses - and when it can process the image so that your TV appears to have "depth" (as opposed to cheesy things being pointed at - or coming at - you).
Click to expand...

That is a good point - it needs to be an option people can turn off - like a mono switch on a stereo, or turning down the color level to get BW on a color TV. A seamless downgrade path - like analog stereo switching down in quality to HD digital if the station has an HD-2.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom