Hockey in 3D falling out of favor, low viewership

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Are there really people with 3D tv's? I can't imagine a bigger waste of money.

Most new TV's you buy now are 3D capable, so its not really a waste of money if you're buying a new TV. (And I dont own that new of a TV, 720p panasonic plasma)

 

[Bill_Crosby*]

3D= just another gimmick, just like Blu Ray. It's created to make people rush out and buy a new tv, just like blu ray making people rush out and replace their entire dvd collection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Someone needs to watch Bladerunner on bluray

 

[Mayor Bee]

3D is no different than it was 60 years ago. Yes, the technology has improved, but the basic logistical issues have not.

3D is to HD what DVDs were to DIVX.

 

[kdb209]

Most new TV's you buy now are 3D capable, so its not really a waste of money if you're buying a new TV. (And I dont own that new of a TV, 720p panasonic plasma)

Uhh - no.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/us-3dtv-sales-half-annual-forecast-20101106915.htm

But first, let’s look at the numbers.

It’s estimated that TV manufacturers will have shipped 3.2 million 3DTVs in 2010 in North America. That works out to 2 percent of all TVs sold this year being of the 3D variety. That’s not exactly devastating, but manufacturers were hoping for a bit more.

It’s expected that 3DTV will make up approximately 40 percent of all TVs sold once 2014 rolls around.

So it’s not like 3DTV is going to die or anything, just that it’s going to take a little bit longer for people to jump on the bandwagon.

And why’s that?

Oh, you know, because there’s next to no compelling 3D content out there. Sports broadcasters are still trying to figure out how to shoot in 3D, which is a tremendously important deal because live sports are really the only reason to even have a TV in 2010.

3D adds $1000+ to the price of a comparable TV - plus extra costs for add'l equipment.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365010,00.asp

At the time of this writing, for example, Panasonic's 50-inch full HD 3D plasma, the TC-P50VT25 sells for about $2,600. The same-size, similarly featured TC-P50G25 sells for $1,400 without 3D. You do get a set of active shutter glasses in the box with the TC-P50VT25, but a $1,000+ premium is a lot to pay when you consider that you'll probably want to pick up a 3D-ready Blu-ray player (another $400 for Panasonic's DMP-BDT300) and additional pairs of active shutter glasses ($150 each).

 

[Moo]

I would not expect glasses-less 3D TV for quite a while.

There are optical techniques (parallax barriers or lenticular lenses) that can generate the stereoscopic image separation needed for 3D viewing without using glasses as a filter - but they are expensive and are pretty much limited to a single fixed viewing point.

They work adequately for a small screen at a fixed distance and viewing angle - a la the new Nintendo 3DS - but do not translate well to larger screens or living room viewing.

I tried to play a 3DS one time and it just was... well... awkward trying to view it. I didn't like it.

 

[mindmasher]

3D= just another gimmick, just like Blu Ray. It's created to make people rush out and buy a new tv, just like blu ray making people rush out and replace their entire dvd collection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Yea gee, going from 480p to 1080p NOT NOTICEABLE AT ALL!!!

mod

 

[Fugu]

CBC had the Heritage Classic in 3D. They also had a Toronto-Montreal game in 3D, marking the first time since 1999 that the Leafs had any depth.

That was pretty good. Missed it the first time.

I think it's because blu-ray is pushing close to 50% of sales for new releases, and the majority of users seem to agree (or at least vote with their wallets) that it's a superior format to DVD. So, calling it a gimmick like 3D television and calling users stupid was not only a poor comparison, but an insult to probably around half the people on the forum.

This is a hockey board. More like 95% if you trust the demographics. (Techies, early adopters.)

Depends what glasses you're talking about. They don't use red/blue glasses if that's what you're thinking. And they don't use the glasses you'd get in a theatre either (the polorazed ones). 3d tv's use active shutter glasses that require batteries. Each lens opens and closes alternetely so each eye gets a different picture. It's so fast that its imperceptable to your eyes. The glasses cost over $100 each which I think is part of the problem with current technology.

There are new tv's they are developing that would use the polarized lens like from the movie theatre that are obviously much cheaper.

That's still the problem for people prone to migraines, or even epilepsy. It's visual disturbances that trigger headaches or seizures in the susceptible population. Light intensity, frequency and what each eye receives as input has to be processed neurologically. When the two eyes cannot work in tandem, the brain has a difficult time processing the information. It's not well understood why there's a sensory nerve sensitivity in the first place, but the triggers are well known.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

I don't recall it ever being in favor in the first place.

 

[BadHammy*]

I don't recall it ever being in favor in the first place.

Exactly. It's nothing but a stupid gimmick. Anyone watching hockey in HD on a nice TV really can't ask for more. If you desperately want to see everything exactly as it is, go to the game. But even that will present logistical/viewing issues, nothing is perfect people.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

I can't see very well out of one eye so '3D' usually means 'things pop out at me but it's all in soft-focus and gives me a headache after 20-30 minutes'

For movies it's an obvious gimmick to boost ticket sales. I've never seen sports in 3D but I'd imagine it's even worse. I can't imagine that center-ice view being augmented in any significant way by virtue of being in 3D.