# Dish Needs to Get Moving on 3D



## Michael1

I was just over at the Directv site, and they now have four 3D channels! Dish, zero. Even the stodgy old cable companies have 3D. Comcast has three 3D channels, and Time Warner one channel. Where's Dish?

According to an In-Stat report released yesterday, sales of 3D televisions are up 500% from last year. They also predict that soon all TVs over 40" will have 3D built-in. The prices of 1080p 3D projectors are also coming down. In-Stat predicts that by 2015 300 million households worldwide will have a 3D TV.

Also this month, another research firm, iSuppli, confirms In-Stat's numbers, and predicts 3D TV shipments up 463 percent in 2011, with a total of 23.4 million units shipped. They see 3D TV shipments increasing by 132 percent in 2012, with 54.2 million units shipped. By 2015, iSuppli predicts that over half of all TVs shipped will be 3D.

I've already heard reports from people who moved from Dish to Directv for the 3D content.

When I was at CES, and asked the Dish people about 3D, their response was, "We just don't see the 3D content yet." That's not forward thinking. They are going to be left behind.

Any company in the technology business needs to stay current, or perish.

Michael


----------



## tampa8

No they don't need to. They need to get RSN's, and then broadcast them in HD. They first need to get MLB, more international news channels, and some other things.

_Statisically_, virtually no one has 3D TV's, and statiscally, there is virtually no real amount of movies or TV shows to warrent most getting 3D.

You are falling for the 500%, a very old trick. If two people have something, and now there is a 500% increase, that's 10 people. I encourage people to switch to whoever they want if 3D is that important. I want Dish to get the things mentioned above, and keep ahead in the amount of HD channels. There are multitude of articles about 3D tv's stacking up in the warehouses. Not saying this won't change at some time (though I have my doubts) but there are many things far more important than getting 3D.

There are some people who buy them because they want the highest level TV. And there are some who are waiting for the technology to shake out regarding glasses. finally, there was a surge in the first couple of months this year, but Best buy recently reported a slow down again.


----------



## jpalmer

There's a lot of things dish network needs to get up to date with i service both systems with my compay and they are so far behind with there technology alone. There activation stinks for a installer pov and with MDUs ( wich i work in) the MFH2 system for directv is so much easier to work on than the MDU system for dish which they still run there equipment off of the dp-44.:nono2:


----------



## epokopac

tampa8 said:


> No they don't need to. They need to get RSN's, and then broadcast them in HD. They first need to get MLB, more international news channels, and some other things.
> 
> _Statisically_, virtually no one has 3D TV's, and statiscally, there is virtually no real amount of movies or TV shows to warrent most getting 3D.
> 
> You are falling for the 500%, a very old trick. If two people have something, and now there is a 500% increase, that's 10 people. I encourage people to switch to whoever they want if 3D is that important. I want Dish to get the things mentioned above, and keep ahead in the amount of HD channels. There are multitude of articles about 3D tv's stacking up in the warehouses. Not saying this won't change at some time (though I have my doubts) but there are many things far more important than getting 3D.
> 
> There are some people who buy them because they want the highest level TV. And there are some who are waiting for the technology to shake out regarding glasses. finally, there was a surge in the first couple of months this year, but last figure I saw was 2 million. that's nothing.


Good observations!

My criteria for moving to 3-D:

A - ONE (1) world-wide standard for 3D
B - NO glasses
C - Significantly more programming; just how many times can a human be expected to watch Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs?


----------



## lparsons21

epokopac said:


> Good observations!
> 
> My criteria for moving to 3-D:
> 
> A - ONE (1) world-wide standard for 3D
> B - NO glasses
> C - Significantly more programming; just how many times can a human be expected to watch Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs?


I'm with you!

As to the sales of 3D tvs, yep there is an increase but the numbers aren't huge and include sales of things like the '3D ready' sets that need another box to actually do 3D.


----------



## jadebox

> Dave Schull the Sr VP of Programming for DISH Network [...] said that 3D Linear channels are coming to DISH this summer but did not give any details. He also mentioned that 722's will support 3D shortly.


Source: http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-ne...am-summit-general-assembly-thoughts-pics.html

BTW, "linear channels" are regular programming channels as opposed to video-on-demand or streaming sources.

-- Roger


----------



## klang

lparsons21 said:


> I'm with you!
> 
> As to the sales of 3D tvs, yep there is an increase but the numbers aren't huge and include sales of things like the '3D ready' sets that need another box to actually do 3D.


Plus if someone chooses to purchase a top-of-the-line set today, it will likely have 3D. I wonder how many sets never get used for 3D.


----------



## tampa8

klang said:


> Plus if someone chooses to purchase a top-of-the-line set today, it will likely have 3D. I wonder how many sets never get used for 3D.


Yep, that has been mentioned in articles. Some of the best HD sets include 3D, so those that can afford it, get it as being the best, not so much for the HD.


----------



## RAD

lparsons21 said:


> I'm with you!
> 
> As to the sales of 3D tvs, yep there is an increase but the numbers aren't huge and include sales of things like the '3D ready' sets that need another box to actually do 3D.


But don't many folks already have that 'other' box so they can do 3D? All those millions of PS3's out there can do 3D. The DIRECTV H21 and HR21 and higher boxes all support 3D. IIRC Dish has said that the 722 will get 3D support along with the 922's out there. Cable companies also have STB's available that support 3D and if you have a HDTV chances are you already have a STB attached to that TV.


----------



## kenglish

klang said:


> Plus if someone chooses to purchase a top-of-the-line set today, it will likely have 3D. I wonder how many sets never get used for 3D.


Probably about the same percentage as the sets that never get used for real HDTV :lol: .
(How many sets are connected by RF Cable from a converter or sat box, or just use s-vhs or even component video?)


----------



## olguy

To my knowledge, and admittedly that's limited, Samsung and Mitsubishi were the sets that needed the 3D adapter. I don't need that on my 2009 Mits because my Panasonic 3D BD player will output the checkerboard format Mits uses. And I don't need it on my 2010 Mits because a firmware update took care of it. Starting with the 2010 models Mitsubishi no longer needs the box. Don't know about Samsung.


----------



## Michael1

tampa8 said:


> You are falling for the 500%, a very old trick. If two people have something, and now there is a 500% increase, that's 10 people. I encourage people to switch to whoever they want if 3D is that important. I want Dish to get the things mentioned above, and keep ahead in the amount of HD channels.


Why do you assume I fell for some trick? I also said that the TV manufacturers are predicted to ship 23 million 3D televisions this year. That's not two or ten or a hundred or a thousand.

The problem I see is people are projecting their own likes or dislikes for 3D, and assuming everyone is like them. Frankly, most of the people saying they don't like 3D are older. The generation before them, still don't see a need to own a computer. However, the next generation is already playing games in 3D, and, yes, wearing the 3D glasses for long periods of time.

Michael


----------



## olguy

Michael1 said:


> Frankly, most of the people saying they don't like 3D are older. The generation before them, still don't see a need to own a computer. However, the next generation is already playing games in 3D, and, yes, wearing the 3D glasses for long periods of time.
> 
> Michael


My wife and I love 3D. We have 3 of 'em. And we're 73. I also have a houseful of various and sundry electronic toys and an EVO. You should see the expressions on the very young cashiers faces when I whip out the EVO and show them the Reward Zone coupons at Best Buy. But I understand I'm not the typical grandpa. But I do know several like me. I think it depends, at least for we youth challenged on what we did for a living.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Frankly, most of the people saying they don't like 3D are older.


Talk about projecting opinions.


----------



## Michael1

SayWhat? said:


> Talk about projecting opinions.


Not really. From a study done in Nov. 11-14, 2010 by Caravan,

"While respondents under the age of 45 showed stronger household interest in purchasing a 3DTV (20 percent), one in 10 respondents over the age of 45 indicated that they either own or planned to buy one within the next two years."

Michael


----------



## gtal98

kenglish said:


> Probably about the same percentage as the sets that never get used for real HDTV :lol: .
> (How many sets are connected by RF Cable from a converter or sat box, or just use s-vhs or even component video?)


See it all the time. Digital converter boxes setup to HDTVs. Even unhooked a DTV install that had the HD receiver connected to a 42" HDTV with an RF modulator. :nono2: :lol:


----------



## HobbyTalk

Michael1 said:


> Not really. From a study done in Nov. 11-14, 2010 by Caravan,
> 
> "While respondents under the age of 45 showed stronger household interest in purchasing a 3DTV (20 percent), one in 10 respondents over the age of 45 indicated that they either own or planned to buy one within the next two years."
> 
> Michael


Where does that quote state that most older people do not like 3D?


----------



## tampa8

Michael1 said:


> Why do you assume I fell for some trick? I also said that the TV manufacturers are predicted to ship 23 million 3D televisions this year. That's not two or ten or a hundred or a thousand.
> 
> Michael


And now you fell for another trick. "The manufacturer predicted" means nothing, no more than hype. That is no different than Dish saying something is coming "Soon." I am telling you actual facts not predictions. 3D TV's are backed up in the warehouses and 3D games are not selling as was predicted. That's now. And that's my whole point. I don't see that Dish has to bypass other missing things for 3D at this time. It is fully possible in the future there will be a demand. I posted before and it holds true, not one of my friends or anyone I associate with enough to know, has a 3D TV, and most all only have one HD TV in the house.

In the first link, notice how Samsung predicted 3D would result in 3 million sales, admitted 1 million.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029948

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entert...sumers-manufacturers-price-according.html.csp

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/04/nintendo-3ds-sales/


----------



## lparsons21

RAD said:


> But don't many folks already have that 'other' box so they can do 3D? All those millions of PS3's out there can do 3D. The DIRECTV H21 and HR21 and higher boxes all support 3D. IIRC Dish has said that the 722 will get 3D support along with the 922's out there. Cable companies also have STB's available that support 3D and if you have a HDTV chances are you already have a STB attached to that TV.


You're thinking of the source boxes for 3D. I'm referring to the converter boxes needed to make that '3D ready' set actually be able to do 3D. Like the Mitsibushi rear projectors for instance.


----------



## garygaryj

I'm leaving DirecTV to join Dish Network because they were sinking too much money into 3D (amongst other things like PPV, and Sports) and not enough into good regular HD channels upon which they built their subscriber base. 

I definitely hope Dish does not sink that kind of money into 3D, and stays with what most people want - high quality HD for high quality channels.

Just my opinion, though. Maybe those who want 3D can trade, and you can join D*TV.


----------



## Michael1

tampa8 said:


> In the first link, notice how Samsung predicted 3D would result in 3 million sales, admitted 1 million.
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029948
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entert...sumers-manufacturers-price-according.html.csp
> 
> http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/04/nintendo-3ds-sales/


Now you have fallen for a trick. The first two links are old news from almost six months ago. They also have a negative slant, without justifying why they are negative. The last one is for a game toy.

Here's one for you.

Blu-ray doubles; 3D outpacing HD

Michael


----------



## Stewart Vernon

3D devices (Blu-ray players and HDTVs) are only showing increased sales because by and large most of the new Blu-ray players and HDTVs come with 3D.

My HDTV (not 3D by the way) also has component inputs... so I could make a claim that sales of component video connections are on the rise and keeping pace with 3D! But that would be misleading.

I'm not seeing reports of mega-sales on 3D movies as compared to other movies... I'm also not seeing reports of high demand for 3D programming. Recent 3D movies at the box office have been falling short of last year and the year before... so the recent fad seems to be waning.

IF people had a choice to buy an HDTV without 3D, but got all the other features... and saved some money... do you think 3D sets would still be on the rise?

A better way to track adoption of 3D by consumers would be to find out how sales of the 3D glasses are doing... because lots of people are getting Blu-ray and HDTV w/ 3D because it comes built-in... but many are opting not to spend the additional money on the required glasses at this time.


----------



## BillJ

Sales of 3D TVs are up because manufacturers are making their high end TVs 3D capable. In one article after another you see the comment "the best TV for 2D is a 3D capable TV". Doesn't mean viewers are all that excited about 3D. How are sales of extra 3D glasses? With some manufacturers only giving you one pair, families should be buying 3 or 4 extra pairs if they plan to watch a lot of 3D. I haven't seen the stats on glasses sales but they would be interesting. I know my next TV will probably be 3D capable because I want the best 2D but I'm not even sure I care about getting a 3D BluRay yet.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I definitely hope Dish does not sink that kind of money into 3D, and stays with what most people want - high quality HD for high quality channels.


Yeah, I'd rather they don't blow money on a passing fad.


----------



## djlong

In order, from Dish, I want:

WGBH (Boston) and WENH (Durham NH) in HD [PBS].
NESN in HD 24/7. NESN Plus as warranted.
NECN (New England Cable News)
MLB Channel
MLB Extra Innings availability

THEN we can talk about 3D.

...but that's *my* list.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...
> 
> A better way to track adoption of 3D by consumers would be to find out how sales of the 3D glasses are doing... because lots of people are getting Blu-ray and HDTV w/ 3D because it comes built-in... but many are opting not to spend the additional money on the required glasses at this time.


That would not be a better way because glasses are almost always given for free in a "starter pack" with a voucher for a free exclusive 3D BR disc (Avatar, Megamind, etc) when you purchase a 3D set and sometimes with a 3D players.


----------



## ruralruss

I for one do not want 3D tv. It does not look real, it looks like a bunch of layers with flat images on them. I don't use the setting on my LCD that make film look like video either. I also hate it when programming is not shown in it's native aspect ratio. I also like the grain in film.


----------



## Joe Bernardi

I have no interest in 3D tv, but my next TV (when the current on fails) will probably be 3D capable if gives the best 2D picture - unless the fad has died by then.


----------



## Rduce

Every 25 years or so, some one makes a push to make 3D a cutting edge technology and really the concept has not changed since the 1950’s and until that happens it will not be accepted by the masses.

Currently there is only limited content and that content is unimpressive, at least in my opinion. Basically it is only creating more attention deficit disordered adolescents, along with 5 second scenes between cuts and CGI masturbation fests that pass as passable story telling. 

There are many more important things Dish needs to be working on.


----------



## clapple

at least for we youth challenged on what we did for a living.

That's a FACT!


----------



## JohnMI

Michael1 said:


> Why do you assume I fell for some trick? I also said that the TV manufacturers are predicted to ship 23 million 3D televisions this year. That's not two or ten or a hundred or a thousand.


It's a feature built into TVs that will very likely be unused on the vast majority of those sets though. It's like trying to say that COMPOSITE VIDEO is going to be very popular next year because TV manufacturers are predicted to ship 40 million televisions with composite video inputs. :grin:

In other words, using the numbers of 3D-capable TVs being shipped to try to justify something related to providing 3D content is quite a stretch. They aren't necessarily that related.

- John...


----------



## harsh

klang said:


> Plus if someone chooses to purchase a top-of-the-line set today, it will likely have 3D.


3D capability and a full set of 3D spectacles are two different things.


----------



## JohnMI

harsh said:


> 3D capability and a full set of 3D spectacles are two different things.


I think that was klang's point -- that all these TVs have 3D built in, but it doesn't mean that they are using the technology, of course.

If people want to try to "predict" the importance and growth and interest of 3D for the next year, they shouldn't be looking at the number of 3D TVs sold, they should be looking at the number of PURCHASED (not bundled with the TV) 3D glasses. That would be a better indicator, of course. Not perfect, but certainly more pertinent than just the number of 3D capable HDTVs sold, of course.

- John...


----------



## harsh

Michael1 said:


> According to an In-Stat report released yesterday, sales of 3D televisions are up 500% from last year. They also predict that soon all TVs over 40" will have 3D built-in. The prices of 1080p 3D projectors are also coming down. In-Stat predicts that by 2015 300 million households worldwide will have a 3D TV.
> 
> Also this month, another research firm, iSuppli, confirms In-Stat's numbers, and predicts 3D TV shipments up 463 percent in 2011, with a total of 23.4 million units shipped. They see 3D TV shipments increasing by 132 percent in 2012, with 54.2 million units shipped. By 2015, iSuppli predicts that over half of all TVs shipped will be 3D.


Don't confuse predictions with functional units delivered.

Best Buy bet the farm on 3D in 2010 and it virtually didn't happen. 3D capable TVs represented only 2% of the sales. A 500% increase represents only 10% of the TV market.

There's still the overarching issue of a paucity of must-have content that plagues 3D. Even after ESPN3D went full-time, DIRECTV's incarnation of the channel is still part-time.


----------



## SayWhat?

Will 3D even be around 5 years from now? Or will it have disappeared again like it has in the past?


----------



## klang

jgoggan said:


> I think that was klang's point -- that all these TVs have 3D built in, but it doesn't mean that they are using the technology, of course.


Yep, exactly right. I'm sure the next 55" class TV I buy will be 3D capable although I have no interest in the feature.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm still waiting for full holographic projection where the program plays out IN your room instead of on a screen. Add smell-o-vision and sensory touch and it'll be the next best thing to a Holodeck.


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> I'm still waiting for full holographic projection where the program plays out IN your room instead of on a screen. Add smell-o-vision and sensory touch and it'll be the next best thing to a Holodeck.


I believe that smell-o-vision was already tried in some jungle movie. Until that elephant passed gas...


----------



## Michael1

Rduce said:


> Every 25 years or so, some one makes a push to make 3D a cutting edge technology and really the concept has not changed since the 1950's and until that happens it will not be accepted by the masses.


It seems to me the same was said about multi-channel audio. We had Quad in the 70's. The experts and non-experts alike said multi-channel audio was a waste, and it didn't add anything. They said there was no use for it. "Nice try. No one's interested." It was declared dead forever.

Fast forward to 2011. Multi-channel audio is almost ubiquitous. It has a different name now. Oh, and it has even more audio channels than before.

Michael


----------



## SayWhat?

One difference ---- multi-channel audio actually works.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> One difference ---- multi-channel audio actually works.


3D doesn't work?


----------



## tsmacro

I suppose when the day comes that there's channels providing new content in 3-D on a regular basis and there's actually enough consumer demand for Dish to make some $$$ on them then yes they need to jump aboard the 3-D bandwagon. Until that day though.....not so much.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> 3D doesn't work?


It does, but really no better than in the past.

The problem with 3D is that much of our source material really doesn't benefit from 3D.


----------



## RAD

lparsons21 said:


> It does, but really no better than in the past.
> 
> The problem with 3D is that much of our source material really doesn't benefit from 3D.


But the material that does really does benefit. Nobody says that all programming needs to be in 3D.


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> It does, but really no better than in the past.
> 
> The problem with 3D is that much of our source material really doesn't benefit from 3D.


It's a whole lot better than those blue & red glasses; colors and effects were atrocious. Just like HD...There's good 3D and bad 3D.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> That would not be a better way because glasses are almost always given for free in a "starter pack" with a voucher for a free exclusive 3D BR disc (Avatar, Megamind, etc) when you purchase a 3D set and sometimes with a 3D players.


I was not aware that some manufacturers are giving away 3D glasses.

Still... I did say track "purchases" of 3D glasses.

You can't track HDTV or Blu-ray device purchases... and you can't track freebies.

You could only track purchased 3D glasses... or perhaps movies... but then some of the movies are given away too as promos with TVs.

Bottom line... there hasn't as yet been any reliable data that shows the public is clamoring to purchase 3D in large numbers.... only data that shows people will accept 3D with whatever other purchase they were making anyway.


----------



## Michael1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I was not aware that some manufacturers are giving away 3D glasses.
> 
> Still... I did say track "purchases" of 3D glasses.
> 
> You can't track HDTV or Blu-ray device purchases... and you can't track freebies.
> 
> You could only track purchased 3D glasses... or perhaps movies... but then some of the movies are given away too as promos with TVs.
> 
> Bottom line... there hasn't as yet been any reliable data that shows the public is clamoring to purchase 3D in large numbers.... only data that shows people will accept 3D with whatever other purchase they were making anyway.


Vizio and LG have put a wrench into the works of tracking 3D glasses sales as a barometer of interest in 3D with their just released passive 3D TVs. With the passive 3D TVs you can just use the glasses you got for free at the movie theater.

Michael


----------



## HDlover

When is dish gonna make the 722k able to play 3d PPV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HDlover said:


> When is dish gonna make the 722k able to play 3d PPV.


I don't have a 722K... but I would have thought it would be the easiest one to implement after the 922, since they share a lot of the same hardware inside... I can't think of an obvious reason why the 722K couldn't do it... especially if they are working towards the regular 722 at some point.


----------



## TBoneit

epokopac said:


> Good observations!
> 
> My criteria for moving to 3-D:
> 
> A - ONE (1) world-wide standard for 3D
> B - NO glasses
> C - Significantly more programming; just how many times can a human be expected to watch Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs?


I can answer item C, 0 (Zero) times.

As for must see content in 3D? Right now as I see it there is Zero content in 3D I have any interest in seeing. I haven't seen any new movie being advertised that made me think, I gotta go see that. Most of the movie being advertised make me think why did they waste all that time & money?

Being in 3D doesn't turn Garbage into Gold.

What am I looking forward to seeing? Warehouse 13, The Closer, Rizolli & Isles, Psych....


----------



## Reaper

3D TV is a fad IMHO.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> Will 3D even be around 5 years from now? Or will it have disappeared again like it has in the past?


It probably go into hyber nation again.


----------



## harsh

Paul Secic said:


> It probably go into hyber nation again.


I'm not sure hibernation is the term I'd use. More like hoping against hope that absence makes the heart grow fonder.


----------



## jerry downing

8-Track, Laser Disc, Quadraphonic Sound, 3DTV.


----------



## grooves12

Personally, I could care less for 3DTV... I have zero desire to ever have it in my home. It makes me dizzy, you have to wear stupid glasses, you have to be in the perfect spot in front of the TV, your head has to be at the perfect angle, and it's expensive. That is too much work to watch TV.

I've been shopping for a TV, and I can tell you why the numbers of 3D sets sold are way up... that is because most manufacturers aren't making non 3D TV's anymore. They are forcing it on us. If I had an option, I would pick the equivalent 2D TV every time. Unfortunately, the only 2D TVs available are older generation panels, so if you want other advancements (blacker blacks, higher resolution during motion, contrast, etc.) you are forced to go 3D.


----------



## Nick

> _Personally, I could care less for 3DTV... _


Don't you mean that you '_couldn't_ care less...' about 3D?


----------



## Laxguy

Nick said:


> Don't you mean that you '_couldn't_ care less...' about 3D?


That is, of course, the origin of the current phrasing. However, both work for me: "I _*could *_care less, (but to do so would be more trouble than I wish to expend, so I will care just the amount I do now, thank you very much!", the latter being the unstated portion of the plaint.)
YMMV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Nick said:


> Don't you mean that you '_couldn't_ care less...' about 3D?


That one always bothers me too... but I gave up banging my head against the wall since almost no one says it the right way anymore


----------



## Jhon69

grooves12 said:


> Personally, I could care less for 3DTV... I have zero desire to ever have it in my home. It makes me dizzy, you have to wear stupid glasses, you have to be in the perfect spot in front of the TV, your head has to be at the perfect angle, and it's expensive. That is too much work to watch TV.
> 
> I've been shopping for a TV, and I can tell you why the numbers of 3D sets sold are way up... that is because most manufacturers aren't making non 3D TV's anymore. They are forcing it on us. If I had an option, I would pick the equivalent 2D TV every time. Unfortunately, the only 2D TVs available are older generation panels, so if you want other advancements (blacker blacks, higher resolution during motion, contrast, etc.) you are forced to go 3D.


My new Vizio 55" M550SV is not 3D,but it is 240Hz.

What fascinates me about 3D is the warnings the manufacturers are coming out with concerning 3D? looks like someone trying to cover all the bases against ligitation?.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20002438-503983.html


----------



## Paul Secic

grooves12 said:


> Personally, I could care less for 3DTV... I have zero desire to ever have it in my home. It makes me dizzy, you have to wear stupid glasses, you have to be in the perfect spot in front of the TV, your head has to be at the perfect angle, and it's expensive. That is too much work to watch TV.
> 
> I've been shopping for a TV, and I can tell you why the numbers of 3D sets sold are way up... that is because most manufacturers aren't making non 3D TV's anymore. They are forcing it on us. If I had an option, I would pick the equivalent 2D TV every time. Unfortunately, the only 2D TVs available are older generation panels, so if you want other advancements (blacker blacks, higher resolution during motion, contrast, etc.) you are forced to go 3D.


I have one bad eye so when I buy a new TV down the road I'll have pay more for a feature I can't use.


----------



## hyabusha

My 82" 3DTV needs 3D channels!!!!


----------



## Laxguy

Paul Secic said:


> I have one bad eye so when I buy a new TV down the road I'll have pay more for a feature I can't use.


I am sorry to hear that, but take heart in that it's cheaper to build one 65" HDTV with 3D capability than one each of with, and without. Or at least, not much more expensive. I think that premise holds true on a fair number of electronic items.


----------



## gpollock87

hyabusha said:


> My 82" 3DTV needs 3D channels!!!!


omg 82 inches! that would hurt my eyes


----------



## Paul Secic

Laxguy said:


> I am sorry to hear that, but take heart in that it's cheaper to build one 65" HDTV with 3D capability than one each of with, and without. Or at least, not much more expensive. I think that premise holds true on a fair number of electronic items.


I live in a small house my parents left me, a 65" TV is way too big. Perhaps a 42" set would work. I've got a 37" SHARP AQUS in my living room now. Hopefully it last 5 to 6 years.


----------



## jsk

I have a 3D TV because it had the best HD quality. I didn't even pay extra for the glasses so I don't care if Dish adds 3D programming. Maybe if I tried it, I would like it, but right now it isn't a priority for me.


----------



## maartena

Michael1 said:


> According to an In-Stat report released yesterday, sales of 3D televisions are up 500% from last year.


The only reason this stat works out, is because people are simply buying a new HD TV, and it just so happens to come with 3D functionality. It's sort of like saying: "Sales of TV's with DLNA went up 500% from last year", because many new TV's simply come with that feature on board.


----------



## SayWhat?

Sears is running a special right now giving away 3D DVD players and glasses with some 3D TVs. I would read that as sales ain't so good and they have to sweeten the pot with freebies.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> Sears is running a special right now giving away 3D DVD players and glasses with some 3D TVs. I would read that as sales ain't so good and they have to sweeten the pot with freebies.


I wouldn't because just about every retailer has been doing this since 3D sets hit the market. Nothing new.


----------



## tampa8

If people want 3D it's like anything else, hope you get it. But for those of us who have felt it just is not going to be relevant, here is but two of a number of recent articles that suggests it might fade.

http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-bust-2011-5

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/ana...y-3d-as-consumers-tire-of-high-ticket-prices/

If it were just because of higher ticket prices that would be one thing. But as some articles are pointing out, and has been my point, 3D does not add overall to a movie as much as to just some scenes, where as HD was an easy predictable hit because it lends greatly to the overall experience on TV.
Add to all this, I don't see any real plans for 3D TV shows, save for a special here and there. As with anything, with a new development not now known, it could take off and be a hit, but right now you may be looking at the peak.


----------



## ggotch5445

"It's unnatural!" "It will destroy the movie industry!" "One cannot appreciate the storyline like this."

These were some of the sentiments voiced by individuals who protested the arrival of sound in motion pictures. Somethings, like "talkies" come down the pike that are quite difficult to envision/apprciate.

I feel the same way, proesently, about 3D. I personally find it a bit of a distraction, and I simply am not interested in actively pursuing it. But ultimately it may find its way into the mainstream, and if that happens it will likely become a good thing.

Before that happens however, it has to be less gimmick-y. The glasses have to go!! Most folks want to come home from a hard day at work, and plunk down in front of their display with no special conditions attached. When 3D simply appears by turning on one's screen it will help that format.

Of course, at this time, there are still quality issues, regarding the compromises of detail, brightness, ghosting etc., that 3D imposes onto the image of a given display. But all of that can get cleaned up once actual 3D standards are agreed upon, and the manufacturers adhere to those precepts.

As with everything else, the marketplace will determine how successful 3D will be. But that success moment is a long way off. There are folks who come to this forum who don't have HD as yet. I have friends and family who don't have HD yet. My brother-in-law is a doctor, with quite the disposable income, and he only got HD within the last year. Same with my brother.

I don't blame any company who is apparently slow at embracing 3D. Dish is wise to step lightly towards adopting this format yet.


----------



## phrelin

ggotch5445 said:


> "It's unnatural!" "It will destroy the movie industry!" "One cannot appreciate the storyline like this."
> 
> These were some of the sentiments voiced by individuals who protested the arrival of sound in motion pictures. Somethings, like "talkies" come down the pike that are quite difficult to envision/apprciate.
> 
> I feel the same way, proesently, about 3D. I personally find it a bit of a distraction, and I simply am not interested in actively pursuing it. But ultimately it may find its way into the mainstream, and if that happens it will likely become a good thing.
> 
> Before that happens however, it has to be less gimmick-y. The glasses have to go!! Most folks want to come home from a hard day at work, and plunk down in front of their display with no special conditions attached. When 3D simply appears by turning on one's screen it will help that format.
> 
> Of course, at this time, there are still quality issues, regarding the compromises of detail, brightness, ghosting etc., that 3D imposes onto the image of a given display. But all of that can get cleaned up once actual 3D standards are agreed upon, and the manufacturers adhere to those precepts.
> 
> As with everything else, the marketplace will determine how successful 3D will be. But that success moment is a long way off. There are folks who come to this forum who don't have HD as yet. I have friends and family who don't have HD yet. My brother-in-law is a doctor, with quite the disposable income, and he only got HD within the last year. Same with my brother.
> 
> I don't blame any company who is apparently slow at embracing 3D. Dish is wise to step lightly towards adopting this format yet.


Excellent post.

On a personal note, I've said in other threads that my 2003 Pany 720p Plasma that was supposedly good for three years if I was lucky, seems to be going strong. I'm hoping that by the time it dies, assuming I haven't (died) I'll be able to get a 3D unit that offers a glasses-less, sit-anywhere-in-the-room, crystal clear 3D picture - not a 3D "experience" but as HD is no longer an HD "experience", simply part of what I expect to see from a TV picture.

Dish need not rush to 3D to make me happy.


----------



## HDlover

What's the BFD by Dish about adding a few 3D channels? I think they can't get them and are not telling the truth.


----------



## HDlover

phrelin said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> On a personal note, I've said in other threads that my 2003 Pany 720p Plasma that was supposedly good for three years if I was lucky, seems to be going strong. I'm hoping that by the time it dies, assuming I haven't (died) I'll be able to get a 3D unit that offers a glasses-less, sit-anywhere-in-the-room, crystal clear 3D picture - not a 3D "experience" but as HD is no longer an HD "experience", simply part of what I expect to see from a TV picture.
> 
> Dish need not rush to 3D to make me happy.


Yeah because 3D TVs are so expensive.  Some people on this forum buy a new one every year. Would it hurt you if there were some 3D?


----------



## HDlover

tampa8 said:


> If people want 3D it's like anything else, hope you get it. But for those of us who have felt it just is not going to be relevant, here is but two of a number of recent articles that suggests it might fade.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-bust-2011-5
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/ana...y-3d-as-consumers-tire-of-high-ticket-prices/
> 
> If it were just because of higher ticket prices that would be one thing. But as some articles are pointing out, and has been my point, 3D does not add overall to a movie as much as to just some scenes, where as HD was an easy predictable hit because it lends greatly to the overall experience on TV.
> Add to all this, I don't see any real plans for 3D TV shows, save for a special here and there. As with anything, with a new development not now known, it could take off and be a hit, but right now you may be looking at the peak.


It does add to the experience, it makes it more lifelike. Next time you go to a play, think about if it was in 2D.


----------



## phrelin

HDlover said:


> Yeah because 3D TVs are so expensive.  Some people on this forum buy a new one every year. Would it hurt you if there were some 3D?


I like to get my money's worth. Already have 8 years on my Pany Plasma.

We also buy a new care every 10 years whether we need to or not.

What can I say?

If Dish gets 3D, that's great! I'm still waiting for my local PBS HD channel to be delivered by Dish.


----------



## Nick

I am sitting here at 7:20 am E getting my daily fix of "Morning Joe" and wondering how delicious Mika would look in 3D. Hmmm... :sure:


----------



## AZ.

Nick said:


> I am sitting here at 7:20 am E getting my daily fix of "Morning Joe" and wondering how delicious Mika would look in 3D. Hmmm... :sure:


4:45am here.....yep.....I could think of a few more ways she could look even better in 3D!!!!


----------



## RAD

It's 9:04AM here and watching IMAX Space Station 3D on 3net, don't have to wonder how it looks in 3D.


----------



## l8er

It's 9:12 here and I'm sitting here watching the grass grow in real time. Don't have to wonder how it looks in 3D.


----------



## TBoneit

HDlover said:


> Yeah because 3D TVs are so expensive.  Some people on this forum buy a new one every year. Would it hurt you if there were some 3D?


Since I'm not buying into 3D yes it would hurt me. It would be a useless channel.

I have some 3D equipment in the house. The New BluRay is 3D since all the newer ones seem to be 3D, The Software that came with my BluRay burner can do 3D.

No 3D TV and no desire to run out and buy one while this still works. If one day it gives out a puff of smoke and stops working I won't be buying a 3D replacement unless that is all there is.

What else? Oh yes, I'm waiting for Holographic TV.


----------



## TBoneit

l8er said:


> It's 9:12 here and I'm sitting here watching the grass grow in real time. Don't have to wonder how it looks in 3D.


I do that too, then I curse it out for being a quickly growing green strandy weed that needs to be mowed again.


----------



## Laxguy

TBoneit said:


> No 3D TV and no desire to run out and buy one while this still works. If one day it gives out a puff of smoke and stops working I won't be buying a 3D replacement unless that is all there is.
> 
> What else? Oh yes, I'm waiting for Holographic TV.


I'm pretty sure we're close to there being nothing but 3D sets now from what I've read- bought my two Sammys a year ago December, and I am out of the market for, I hope, at least three years.

I hope we have the holographs by then. With Smell-O-Vision!


----------



## SayWhat?

Laxguy said:


> With Smell-O-Vision!


http://smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry/D6A3X8N2

http://www.gizmag.com/device-emits-odors-on-cue/18985/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387301,00.asp


----------



## Rduce

The BFD is that it will cost more and I for one am completely fed up paying for something I have absolutely no interest in. From what I see here very few currently have any interest in the until there is better content and the technology provides for a more enjoyable experience. If it cost an additional charge or a PPV event, I bet you wouldn’t see many clamoring for it then.


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> I like to get my money's worth. Already have 8 years on my Pany Plasma.
> 
> We also buy a new care every 10 years whether we need to or not.
> 
> What can I say?
> 
> If Dish gets 3D, that's great! I'm still waiting for my local PBS HD channel to be delivered by Dish.


Getting PBS HD would be really great.


----------



## odbrv

I am a senior citizen and just purchased a Vizio 3d 42" from Amazon for $698 and a Panasonic Blue-Ray 3d DVD player. In addition I purchase 5 3D disks( 1 movie and 4 IMAX documentaries). All came with free shipping. 3D is not over priced any more. All it took for me was seeing Avatar in 3d compared to the non 3d version. The 3D made an amazing difference. With Thor, Tron, Cars 2, Green Latern and many more being done in 3D, I believe it is here for a while. I also went to a friends house and saw the NBA final in 3D and the Masters, it was very well done. At minimum Dish needs to get ESPN 3D.


----------



## Laxguy

Paul Secic said:


> Getting PBS HD would be really great.


PBS has good OTA broadcasts that I receive, about 8 miles East of the Bay Bridge. 9.1-9.5. Hoping you can get OTA without additional stress!


----------



## RasputinAXP

ugh, PBS OTA. I hate Philadelphia because of ABC and PBS. VHF-LO 6 and VHF-HI 12. ><


----------



## Laxguy

RasputinAXP said:


> ugh, PBS OTA. I hate Philadelphia because of ABC and PBS. VHF-LO 6 and VHF-HI 12. ><


Why "ugh" on PBS OTA?? Or is that a Philly thing? If so, can you please elaborate a touch?


----------



## RasputinAXP

Philly thing. It's nearly impossible to get pbs or abc without a large vhf antenna.


----------



## Laxguy

RasputinAXP said:


> Philly thing. It's nearly impossible to get pbs or abc without a large vhf antenna.


Yokay, I see, said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.

Paul, I think, lives in my general area, where it's a strong signal (LOS permitting.)


----------



## RasputinAXP

Yeah. I just twitch. I wish they were still on their "temporary" UHF signals.


----------



## Jim5506

If Dish wants to be all things to all people, then they should go ahead and waste time and money on 3D, but if they want to be profitable and grow, they need to spend their time on providing the mass of the populace what they want, which is more HD channels for a lower price.


----------



## jadebox

Jim5506 said:


> If Dish wants to be all things to all people, then they should go ahead and waste time and money on 3D, but if they want to be profitable and grow, they need to spend their time on providing the mass of the populace what they want, which is more HD channels for a lower price.


Yes .. and they should get rid of all the stuff the "mass of the populace" doesn't watch. Most people don't watch the international channels so, ax them. Get rid of most of the sports channels, the main ESPN channel is enough. Not very many people watch the shopping channels, so Dish shouldn't carry them. Niche channels like the Game Show Network and G4 shouldn't have been added in the first place. The Food Network? HGTV?

Why should DISH bother adding channels most people won't watch?

-- Roger


----------



## dkdesantis

Dish please please add 3D programming.


----------



## hyabusha

dkdesantis said:


> Dish please please add 3D programming.


+1!!


----------



## odbrv

I have been with E* since the beginning. I lived through no NFL Season ticket. I survived many years of less HD and still no local HD. I had no locals at all for many years .Our DMA was one of the last to get locals. I suffered through the loss of all the Voom channels. I agonized over the possible loss of DVRs with the TIVO suit. Yet , not once, did I call the competition. 

But now I am being asked to do without 3d. I went online to Directv. They offered a great deal with a free NFL Season Ticket . I saw their 3d schedule. It was impressive. They also have my locals in HD. The only thing holding me back from moving is the loss of all the programming I have on EHDs. Some of which are old VOOM Rave concerts that I will never be able to duplicate. I am interested enough that I am researching how to use Directv limited EHD solution. The EHD becomes the only HD and is tied to one receiver. I am also researching if I can program a solution to copy E* formated to D* formated EHD.


----------



## SayWhat?

> But now I am being asked to do without 3d.


Heavens To Mergatroid!!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

odbrv said:


> I am also researching if I can program a solution to copy E* formated to D* formated EHD.


Not likely to be possible... and even IF it somehow is, it would require breaking the encryption somehow... which would be very much against the terms of subject, and thus not discussable here.


----------



## TulsaOK

odbrv said:


> But now I am being asked to do without 3d.


How much can one person endure without taking a hostage?


----------



## GrumpyBear

After watching Harry Potter in 3D and in 2D, personally I am not even interested in 3D. The idea of sitting around watching a movie for hours wearing those silly glasses, just to get more depth, with less color vibrance, is something that doesn't interest me at all. Just like with Avatar, great movie, but the color was better in 2D, and I didn't have to spend hours adjusting those silly glasses over and over again.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Even Roger Ebert said in his review "HP7-2 is not worth it in 3D, it's dark enough as it is and then when you cut the light down by doing 3D you're up a creek"


----------



## Paul Secic

odbrv said:


> I have been with E* since the beginning. I lived through no NFL Season ticket. I survived many years of less HD and still no local HD. I had no locals at all for many years .Our DMA was one of the last to get locals. I suffered through the loss of all the Voom channels. I agonized over the possible loss of DVRs with the TIVO suit. Yet , not once, did I call the competition.
> 
> But now I am being asked to do without 3d. I went online to Directv. They offered a great deal with a free NFL Season Ticket . I saw their 3d schedule. It was impressive. They also have my locals in HD. The only thing holding me back from moving is the loss of all the programming I have on EHDs. Some of which are old VOOM Rave concerts that I will never be able to duplicate. I am interested enough that I am researching how to use Directv limited EHD solution. The EHD becomes the only HD and is tied to one receiver. I am also researching if I can program a solution to copy E* formated to D* formated EHD.


3D is just a fad. Forget about it!


----------



## Rduce

Currently 3D is nothing more than a gimmick to relieve you of more of your hard earned dollars and movie theaters are finding that out, for the most part, the same films offered in regular 2D are outselling the 3D.

Why is this you ask? Simply the 3D effect really does not offer any thing to the story and only marginally to the visual significance of the film. True, a few movies do look better in 3D, but they are far a few between. 

The main reason that 3D will not be embraced in its present form, are the glasses, the wearer must look at the screen in a far different manner and far different than what are brains have been taught to do over millions of years of evolving. This is why after a few minutes, many people will have a headache and which is why a few early 3D films from the late 50’s and early 60’s cued you when to put on your glasses to see the effect. 

So as long as 3D forces you to focus on one point, while trying to converge on a second, it will never really be viable; and I do not see any 3D holographic projections coming along anytime soon.


----------



## GrumpyBear

RasputinAXP said:


> Even Roger Ebert said in his review "HP7-2 is not worth it in 3D, it's dark enough as it is and then when you cut the light down by doing 3D you're up a creek"


Even movies like Avatar that weren't as dark as HP7-2, the colors were muted, and its just not worth the hassles. I watch HD for the clarity and colors. 3D has a long way to to before its really primetime. Not bagging on those that want it, but totally understand why there is really very little 3D, channel support out there, as its really not HD primetime, and a big step back, for viewing enjoyment.


----------



## odbrv

I saw the same kind of comments when color tvs came out. Color tvs just don't have the same contrast and deep blacks as BW TVs. Its just a fad. The same was true when HD first arrived. Who will pay so much for so little? What about when Cable and Satellite Tv came out. Everyone said we will never pay for TV. Many were against the internet. There will be plenty who will want 3D. Of the major cable and Satellite cos only E* is without any. In a high tech world I believe they need to change their business model.


----------



## GrumpyBear

odbrv said:


> I saw the same kind of comments when color tvs came out. Color tvs just don't have the same contrast and deep blacks as BW TVs. Its just a fad. The same was true when HD first arrived. Who will pay so much for so little? What about when Cable and Satellite Tv came out. Everyone said we will never pay for TV. Many were against the internet. There will be plenty who will want 3D. Of the major cable and Satellite cos only E* is without any. In a high tech world I believe they need to change their business model.


Trying to compare 3D's 4th or so attempt at trying to reach the mass's with Color TV, Internet, HDTV and Internet is a pretty big reach.

Little younger than you, as Color TV has always been around for me. Granted I still remember shows that said NOW in color. Never heard anybody growing up that color was a fad. As for Cable it was it sucked that it took so long to get were you lived, not it was a Fad. I have heard people talk about HDTV, but those that don't really like it, its due to the TV's being to big. As for Internet, those over 90 back in the 90's may not have been interested, but that's really about it. One of the reasons the entire Internet and stocks of companies that supplied the backbone and equipment went sky high and had the bubble burst was due to overwhelming demand, not because people didn't want it.

Direct has 2, 3D channels, Comcrap has 1, all those are exclusive to the provider. Only Espn 3D is open to everybody and Discovery Channel is talking about launching in 2012 now its 3D channel. Several providers out there who are offering support for those every so often shows, that a network will put out in a gimmick show, which those shows are, gimmicks.

I have watched Sky3D, and can tell you, it about ruins a soccer game, not bad for Rugby, but fast sprinting sports, on a large field, its horrible for as the movement is to broad. 3D is cool for that needed special effect, but not for every day TV.


----------



## RAD

I agree that not every channel and every show benefits from 3D but shouldn't the option be available for the folks that do want it? I have DIRECTV and not everything on their 3D channels should be but there are many programs that do benefit. You mention that some folks get headaches trying to watch 3D but many don't so you're saying that because of that Dish shouldn't make the channels available for those that don't?


----------



## Rduce

odbrv said:


> I saw the same kind of comments when color tvs came out. Color tvs just don't have the same contrast and deep blacks as BW TVs. Its just a fad. The same was true when HD first arrived. Who will pay so much for so little? What about when Cable and Satellite Tv came out. Everyone said we will never pay for TV. Many were against the internet. There will be plenty who will want 3D. Of the major cable and Satellite cos only E* is without any. In a high tech world I believe they need to change their business model.


I'm sorry I am old enough to remember the advent of color tv and from what I recall everyone wanted one!! Now, if you could afford one was a totally different story! The simple fact is people want 3D because it is human nature to want the latest and greatest gadget. Well, 3D isn't a gadget it isn't even cutting edge tech. it is 1950's tech that is being used to sell people more televisions, blueray players and movies that are more expensive then they should be!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Comparing the appeal of 3D to color isn't a good one.

When color TV was invented, people wanted it but not everyone could afford it... but it was wanted by everyone as soon as they could be afforded in the home.

Once that tipping point was reached, you saw mostly an end to new black and white development on TV... but that was many years ago AND... color TV never failed and went away. It was always wanted, and slowly grew.

I've lost count during my lifetime (and it goes back further) of the number of times and methods for 3D... it comes, and some people really like it... but even those people get tired of it and stop wanting to pay more for it if asked... so it keeps going away again.

Maybe this time it will stick, since it is being put into new HDTVs... so over time more people will have it... but it just isn't as necessary.

Color arguably is infinitely more necessary over black and white to achieve the look of reality... whereas we have largely adopted viewing 2D images on a screen for a few generations now... so the jump to 3D can be cool but can also be meh.

Honestly, until we have Star Trek-like hologram technology where you can actually be in the movie and walk around the characters... 3D on TV or other flat screens will just be a poor approximation of 3D in real life.

Give me a holodeck and I'll jump at that! But 3D glasses (or even not glasses) TV? I can wait.


----------



## HDlover

Why doesn't Dish have OnDemand HBO 3D? Would not take a channel.


----------



## James Long

HDlover said:


> Why doesn't Dish have OnDemand HBO 3D? Would not take a channel.


DISH has some 3D available OnDemand ... but the direction they are going with 3D will take them away from the current receivers and require upgrades to receivers not yet available (with the 922 being the "low end" 3D receiver similar to where the 622 is today). DISH's equipment isn't ready for 3D.

Other than that, there are about a dozen things DISH needs to get moving on before tackling 3D. Getting the EPG for the channels we already pay for right would be a good start. Getting full time HD RSNs for at least the non-alt channels would be a better move forward than 3D. There are much bigger fish to fry.


----------



## dkdesantis

Although I have not confirmed yet, I was told by Dish Customer Service that the 722K receiver is now capible to view Dish 3D VOC.


----------



## odbrv

Now I see the real story. Even if E* had 3D, they couldn't send it to my 622s. So I guess the arguement as to which companies DVRs are better gets another plus in the Directv corner. I am not happy.


----------



## Ray [email protected] Network

dkdesantis,

The 922 is the only receiver we currently have that supports 3D events. I have not heard of any upgrades to other receivers or if the other receivers have the capability of 3D. Currently the 722k is not 3D capable. I apologize for the misinformation you were given.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

odbrv said:


> Now I see the real story. Even if E* had 3D, they couldn't send it to my 622s. So I guess the arguement as to which companies DVRs are better gets another plus in the Directv corner. I am not happy.


I'm pretty sure not all of DirecTV's receivers are 3D capable either. I couldn't tell you which ones... but I'm sure there are existing DirecTV customers who would also need a new receiver for 3D.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm pretty sure not all of DirecTV's receivers are 3D capable either. I couldn't tell you which ones... but I'm sure there are existing DirecTV customers who would also need a new receiver for 3D.


Correct, the Hx20 don't play 3d... 21, 22, 23, & 24 all do.


----------



## RAD

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm pretty sure not all of DirecTV's receivers are 3D capable either. I couldn't tell you which ones... but I'm sure there are existing DirecTV customers who would also need a new receiver for 3D.





sigma1914 said:


> Correct, the Hx20 don't play 3d... 21, 22, 23, & 24 all do.


If you did have a HR20 and got a 3D set DIRECTV will swap it for a >HR20 for free. Plus except for the H20 the non HD DVR's also can do 3D.


----------



## dkdesantis

RayC.

I received the below message from Matt. I hope he is right. Can you confirm? And if you are right, push the Dish tech dept. Thanks.





The 722k has the capability to view 3D VOD, but at this time there are no 3D movies available for it.

Currently, only the 922 has 3D VOD titles that are able to be viewed
__________________
Matthew Gonzales
DISH Network Customer Service
Sunday-Thursday 2:45p-11:15p (MST)


----------



## HDlover

James Long said:


> DISH has some 3D available OnDemand ... but the direction they are going with 3D will take them away from the current receivers and require upgrades to receivers not yet available (with the 922 being the "low end" 3D receiver similar to where the 622 is today). DISH's equipment isn't ready for 3D.
> 
> Other than that, there are about a dozen things DISH needs to get moving on before tackling 3D. Getting the EPG for the channels we already pay for right would be a good start. Getting full time HD RSNs for at least the non-alt channels would be a better move forward than 3D. There are much bigger fish to fry.


Yes but seems On Demand HBO 3D would be easy and a start. Of course on the 722K also because that is what I have.


----------



## jcrobso

One broadcast sources says that 3D sales are slumping, not a big sales item. The 3D HDTV cost more the price of the glasses needed to watch is BIG$$$. The demos in stores are not good most of the glasses are missing or broken.
3D in theaters is one thing but at home is more or less ho-hm.


----------



## jwktiger05

jcrobso said:


> One broadcast sources says that 3D sales are slumping, not a big sales item. The 3D HDTV cost more the price of the glasses needed to watch is BIG$$$. The demos in stores are not good most of the glasses are missing or broken.
> 3D in theaters is one thing but at home is more or less ho-hm.


Swanni @ TV Predictions has several great posts about how overhyped 3D is and its not something people care about


----------



## Rduce

I think this may put things into perspective; Best Buy lists 6057 BluRay titles on their website. Only 53 of them are in 3D. There really just isn’t any interest in 3D and the initial hype has waned.


----------



## sigma1914

Rduce said:


> I think this may put things into perspective; Best Buy lists 6057 BluRay titles on their website. Only 53 of them are in 3D. There really just isn't any interest in 3D and the initial hype has waned.


That's not an indicator of anything, really, other than Best Buy carries most 3D titles. There's only about 66 3D titles on the market, currently.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> That's not an indicator of anything, really, other than Best Buy carries most 3D titles. There's only about 66 3D titles on the market, currently.


It is an indicator of availability of 3D titles... but I agree it isn't an indicator of interest in 3D.

When there aren't many titles available, it's hard to gauge consumer interest.

BUT... it's valid when saying that "Dish needs to get moving on 3D"... because if the leading movie companies have only produced 66 Blu-ray releases in 3D... and there are only a couple of 3D channels available... then it is hard to say Dish is very behind in 3D at this point.

Ticket sales at the box office have began to reflect that people care less about 3D than they do a good movie. GOOD 3D movies still sell well... but bad 3D movies no longer have that "new car smell" that drives people to buy tickets.

So... I think Dish would be smart to take the wait and see approach before investing too much in 3D technology.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> It is an indicator of availability of 3D titles... but I agree it isn't an indicator of interest in 3D.
> 
> When there aren't many titles available, it's hard to gauge consumer interest.
> 
> BUT... it's valid when saying that "Dish needs to get moving on 3D"... because if the leading movie companies have only produced 66 Blu-ray releases in 3D... and there are only a couple of 3D channels available... then it is hard to say Dish is very behind in 3D at this point.
> 
> Ticket sales at the box office have began to reflect that people care less about 3D than they do a good movie. GOOD 3D movies still sell well... but bad 3D movies no longer have that "new car smell" that drives people to buy tickets.
> 
> So... I think Dish would be smart to take the wait and see approach before investing too much in 3D technology.


Agreed. I think it's smart that Dish is waiting. I enjoy 3D, but there's no reason to invest in it like DirecTV seems to be doing.


----------



## olguy

I wonder how many of those 6057 are actually new movies that were released in the last couple or 3 years? I have several that are old movies remastered to bluray. Click here for a site that lists 67 3D movies that are to be/have been released in 2011 and 2013. Numbers are fun aren't they? If the folks who say 3D is just a fad that has no place in their home are correct then those of us who have 3D sets will not have a use for them in a few years and they can crow "I told you so!" In the meantime I for one will enjoy my 3D TVs. And my Panny bluray that does a decent job of converting 2D DVDs to 3D. And the Panny plasma that will convert any signal to 3D. Not perfect maybe but we enjoy them.


----------



## Rduce

Granted many of those movie are not now or will never be offered in 3D, but my opinion comes from reading many online sites.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/15269898/2011/08/15/hollywood-going-too-far-with-3d-movies

http://www.technologyguide.com/default.asp?newsID=5107

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Harr...g-2D-Over-3D-For-Deathly-Hallows-2-25307.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-bust-2011-5

If you one of those that enjoys 3D that's fine with you, but I really feel that it will disappear once again, just like all the other incarnations have.


----------



## jcrobso

Michael1 said:


> It seems to me the same was said about multi-channel audio. We had Quad in the 70's. The experts and non-experts alike said multi-channel audio was a waste, and it didn't add anything. They said there was no use for it. "Nice try. No one's interested." It was declared dead forever.
> 
> Fast forward to 2011. Multi-channel audio is almost ubiquitous. It has a different name now. Oh, and it has even more audio channels than before.
> 
> Michael


Digital audio didn't existent in the 70s, But now it does and multi-channel sounds good.


----------



## Joe Bernardi

I'm not wearing 3D glasses over my prescription glasses.

I'd be happy if the cable & satellite providers would just show uncompressed, full 1920 x 1080P.


----------



## jcrobso

BillJ said:


> Sales of 3D TVs are up because manufacturers are making their high end TVs 3D capable. In one article after another you see the comment "the best TV for 2D is a 3D capable TV". Doesn't mean viewers are all that excited about 3D. How are sales of extra 3D glasses? With some manufacturers only giving you one pair, families should be buying 3 or 4 extra pairs if they plan to watch a lot of 3D. I haven't seen the stats on glasses sales but they would be interesting. I know my next TV will probably be 3D capable because I want the best 2D but I'm not even sure I care about getting a 3D BluRay yet.


I now own 5 HDTVs none are 3D.
I saw Avatar twice in 3D at the theater, when I got the BR DVD and watched is at home I was amazed at how much more detail I could see and I became more aware of the sound track, interesting. I started thinking about this and realized that the brain processing time of the 3D was detracting from the audio perception. I run a lot of live sound, when I really want to hear the mix I close my eyes so I can concentrate on the sound.
Lately when I go to the show I see the 2D version of the movie, getting tired of the $$ for the glasses and wearing them.


----------



## mike1977

Are they going to fill in the missing HD premium channels, which they have but only in SD? Like HBO2 West, MoreMax, Sho Extreme, Sho Beyond, TMC extra?

I'd like to see them get moving on that.


----------



## Jim5506

The audience for full time RSN's in HD is much greater than any audience for 3D.


----------



## tampa8

Jim5506 said:


> The audience for full time RSN's in HD is much greater than any audience for 3D.


Yes, not even close.


----------



## FarmerBob

At the moment 3D is an over hyped diverse non-established "universal" specification that is no different than the HDMI group, Betamax/VHS or Blu-ray/HDDisc fighting matches. It's the movie theaters that have a set, somewhat, format that may not translate to LCD 3D. It will to my DLP. Because that's what they are using. Dish could adopt one of the pre-specs that may not work with your particular 3D TV because they're not the same. Until they come up with a solid set specification, which means you may need to buy a new TV, it's basically a crap shoot/moot point. Although they do have several levels of hardware, i.e., HDMI 1.4 and the 4k DLP projection (which Mitsubishi uses) that is in place but may not work in trickle down conversion. But until they are firm standards on the market, it is foolish for any "3rd party" vendor (DISH) to latch on to a format. It could end up being "not the one" in the end. It is way to early in the game for a group such as DISH to grab a format. If they what to broadcast something that is already 3D, I trust it may be "this image may not appear as intended".

PLUS, it is being found out that 3D may not be the best thing for the human condition. They have found may idiosyncrasies that the human body just can't assimilate to. For instance, Johnny Depp, as there are many, did not go to the opening of the last Pirates 3D premier, because he can not see 3D as it is at the moment. The situation is so early in its infancy for anyone to really jump in and go for it and expect it to last for the long run. But what with the fastly growing population of those that really want it, the process of finalizing and final standard shouldn't be long off.


----------



## evnow

We have seen the exact justifications given earlier for not moving quickly on HD.

All businesses have to act both tactically & strategically. Just saying channel xyz will get more audience and thus not invest in a new technology can stagnate and cost the business mindshare and finally marketshare.

ps : I used to post using a different alias. Decided to change it to keep it consistant everywhere.


----------



## Laxguy

evnow said:


> We have seen the exact justifications given earlier for not moving quickly on HD.
> 
> All businesses have to act both tactically & strategically. Just saying channel xyz will get more audience and thus not invest in a new technology can stagnate and cost the business mindshare and finally marketshare.
> 
> ps : I used to post using a different alias. Decided to change it to keep it consistant everywhere.


What "were" you?


----------



## HDlover

Could easily make 3D VOD. Dish is passing up an added revenue source.


----------



## James Long

HDlover said:


> Could easily make 3D VOD. Dish is passing up an added revenue source.


DISH has 3D VOD on the 922 ... if one really wants 3D one can pay (revenue source) for an upgrade to a 922.

There are other upgrades to DISH's system which would be a greater revenue source and expanding 3D to other receivers.


----------



## BillJ

Saw yesterday that DirecTV is dropping ESPN 3D. Not many subscribers willing to pay for it.

The jury is still out on 3D. Even the movie producers are backing away a little. The novelty has worn off. Sure, I'd buy a large screen 3D TV because the best TVs for 2D currently all include 3D capability, but I don't think I watch much, if any, 3D programming.


----------



## RAD

"BillJ" said:


> Saw yesterday that DirecTV is dropping ESPN 3D. Not many subscribers willing to pay for it.


Where did you see this? DIRECTV does not charge any extra for the 3D channels, you just need to have the HD access charge.


----------



## BillJ

RAD said:


> Where did you see this? DIRECTV does not charge any extra for the 3D channels, you just need to have the HD access charge.


You're right. My brain doesn't work well early in the morning. It was AT&T U-verse, not DirecTV. Sorry.


----------



## RAD

BillJ said:


> You're right. My brain doesn't work well early in the morning. It was AT&T U-verse, not DirecTV. Sorry.


NP. Yea, charge $10/month for one channel and then they're surprised not that many folks sign up to take it.


----------



## Paul Secic

Laxguy said:


> PBS has good OTA broadcasts that I receive, about 8 miles East of the Bay Bridge. 9.1-9.5. Hoping you can get OTA without additional stress!


I live behind The Bay Fair Mall and my neighbor put an digital antenna on his roof, but couldn't get any signals. I think we live too far away.


----------



## HDlover

"James Long" said:


> DISH has 3D VOD on the 922 ... if one really wants 3D one can pay (revenue source) for an upgrade to a 922.
> 
> There are other upgrades to DISH's system which would be a greater revenue source and expanding 3D to other receivers.


I ment more than just an occasional movie. Like hbo-3d, espn3d, etc. Then people might upgrade.


----------



## evnow

HDlover said:


> I ment more than just an occasional movie. Like hbo-3d, espn3d, etc. Then people might upgrade.


Right.

Not sure many people are gamers here (I'm not) - but it looks like gamers are going to 3D in a big way. We now have both NVidia and ATI supporting 3D with most of their cards. Many games are being made in 3D. That will drive the market.

The 3D projectors are coming down in price - with Optoma just announcing HD33 for just 1.5K - a 1080p DLP that does 3D.

I don't look at 3D as a gimick - no more than surround sound. It will just become part of the content and add another layer of realism.


----------



## wwtech

FarmerBob said:


> At the moment 3D is an over hyped diverse non-established "universal" specification that is no different than the HDMI group, Betamax/VHS or Blu-ray/HDDisc fighting matches. It's the movie theaters that have a set, somewhat, format that may not translate to LCD 3D. It will to my DLP. Because that's what they are using.


Well, there are standards that everyone is using. Digital cinema have theirs, BluRay has it's standard, HDMI has a standard and satellite and cable distribution has one.

DLP in the cinema is not like a home DLP. Cinemas use full chips and polarizers, and 99% of the home DLPs use a standard called checkerboard. Nothing like each other.



FarmerBob said:


> Dish could adopt one of the pre-specs that may not work with your particular 3D TV because they're not the same.


No, the standard for satellite distribution (and cable) is Side By Side. It looks like a standard HD signal to all the equipment down to your receiver. ANY receiver that can output HD can output 3D. It may not be able to flag the video so the TV knows it is SbS, but that TV could be switched into 3D manually. I do it all the time.



FarmerBob said:


> Until they come up with a solid set specification, which means you may need to buy a new TV, it's basically a crap shoot/moot point. Although they do have several levels of hardware, i.e., HDMI 1.4 and the 4k DLP projection (which Mitsubishi uses) that is in place but may not work in trickle down conversion. But until they are firm standards on the market, it is foolish for any "3rd party" vendor (DISH) to latch on to a format.


No there is a standard. Any 3D TV made for the past year will work with any 3D source.
And what 4K is Mitsubishi using? I went to one of their demos, and they were using one chip and it was checkerboard.



FarmerBob said:


> It could end up being "not the one" in the end. It is way to early in the game for a group such as DISH to grab a format. If they what to broadcast something that is already 3D, I trust it may be "this image may not appear as intended".
> 
> PLUS, it is being found out that 3D may not be the best thing for the human condition. They have found may idiosyncrasies that the human body just can't assimilate to. For instance, Johnny Depp, as there are many, did not go to the opening of the last Pirates 3D premier, because he can not see 3D as it is at the moment. The situation is so early in its infancy for anyone to really jump in and go for it and expect it to last for the long run. But what with the fastly growing population of those that really want it, the process of finalizing and final standard shouldn't be long off.


There are plenty of stories of how 3D affects SOME people, but MOST of us see it just fine, and some of us even enjoy it. It just appears the haters are more vocal.

Again, they only standard that mattered was the HDMI and BluRay ones, and they have been set for over a year. I watched the World Cup last summer in side by side, and I and my friends enjoyed it.

The only thing that is killing 3D is the really bad movies that are being released. Most are awful. Most are for children. A lot are not even real 3D, but poor conversions from 2D to jump on the bandwagon. Those will give you a headache! The studios are not releasing 3D content as fast as the 2D releases. And some releases are at outrageous prices because they force you to buy 4 copies of the movie! (DVD, BluRay, 3D and the digital copy).

I wish Dish could at least get ESPN, but they are in a dispute with Disney, so no way. Discovery Networks also has a channel. And if it is a "no" for financial reasons, Panasonic is sponsoring a channel on DirecTV. Surely Charlie could get some of that money from Panasonic!

As for me, I hope to enjoy the US Open in 3D this weekend.

...sorry for the long winded post...


----------



## evnow

After being with Dish for more than 10 years, I'm now actively thinking about jumping to Directv - because of lack of 3D channels. Not just lack of 3D channels - but they aren't even paying lip service.

Every new BD player, TV, Projector, AV receiver that is being made now (i.e. anything that isn't bottom of the barrel) now supports 3D. Not sure which planet Dish execs live on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> After being with Dish for more than 10 years, I'm now actively thinking about jumping to Directv - because of lack of 3D channels. Not just lack of 3D channels - but they aren't even paying lip service.
> 
> Every new BD player, TV, Projector, AV receiver that is being made now (i.e. anything that isn't bottom of the barrel) now supports 3D. Not sure which planet Dish execs live on.


How much 3D is there on DirecTV?

I know they have ESPN3D... but is there anything else besides PPVs in 3D?


----------



## RAD

Stewart Vernon said:


> How much 3D is there on DirecTV?
> 
> I know they have ESPN3D... but is there anything else besides PPVs in 3D?


They have the n3D channel which they partner with Panasonic on. Tons of recycled (nicer way of saying repeats) but they do throw a new one out there every now and then. They also have the occasional special, I think the US Open tennis will be there and in the past they've done some other special sports programming, US Open golf last summer was another.

There is also the 3Net channel with is a partnership of Sony, Discovery and IMAX. They used to have three new programs every Friday, Saturday and Sunday but that hasn't happened for awhile, might just be because of 'summer reruns'.

There's also an On Demand channel, they used to have about 20 programs out there, now it's down to only two, that's very disappointing. It would be nice if they could get the rights to the 3D content that HBO and Starz has on their On Demand channels, probably that's hung up with $'s somewhere.

So far all this is free as long as you have HD Access (except for the PPV's) and any HR21/H21 or newer receiver can get the 3D channels, only the HR20/H20 can't and DIRECTV will swap those out for free if needed.


----------



## evnow

Stewart Vernon said:


> How much 3D is there on DirecTV?
> 
> I know they have ESPN3D... but is there anything else besides PPVs in 3D?


Well, when we started on HDTV - we had but 2 channels - mostly with upconverted content. 3D is slightly better (or about the same) now on Directv.

But the problem is - Dish not only doesn't have anything - they also don't seem to have any plans of getting any. So, when the HDNet comes up with their 3D channels, Dish won't have it. FTV is now out of dish and they want to go to 3D - so likely they will go with Directv.

Basically, Dish no longer seems to be competing with Directv at the technical edge. They just want to get people who want programming some 5 or 10 bucks cheaper.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

From what I can see, it doesn't seem like there is much 3D content available right now.

Also... not all Dish receivers can support 3D... and consumers are not likely to want to pay for that upgrade right now either.

It just doesn't seem like a smart investment to me at the moment. IF 3D ever takes off, Dish could add channels the next day and still be right in the mix... so I don't see any urgency here.


----------



## tampa8

I still see replies from those who want 3d when asked just how much is available not have good answers. It's mostly this channel is planning to or when this channel launches. The amount of 3d let alone the overall disinterest by most according to most everything I read online tells me Dish is better to wait on this and continue in adding HD and channels like MLB as they are doing.


----------



## evnow

Stewart Vernon said:


> From what I can see, it doesn't seem like there is much 3D content available right now.
> 
> Also... not all Dish receivers can support 3D... and consumers are not likely to want to pay for that upgrade right now either.
> 
> It just doesn't seem like a smart investment to me at the moment. IF 3D ever takes off, Dish could add channels the next day and still be right in the mix... so I don't see any urgency here.


Replace 3D above with HD - it is just deja vu all over again.

Except, Dish was not a laggard in HD. Infact HD was a lot more of an investment - one HD channel ate the bandwidth of 6 SD channels.



tampa8 said:


> I still see replies from those who want 3d when asked just how much is available not have good answers. It's mostly this channel is planning to or when this channel launches. The amount of 3d let alone the overall disinterest by most according to most everything I read online tells me Dish is better to wait on this and continue in adding HD and channels like MLB as they are doing.


You could have said exactly the same thing with HD a few years back (and you probably did).

Dish can continue to wait and gather the reputation of a laggard, bleed customers & market share hoping to earn all that back "sometime" in the future. There is no place for laggards in the marketplace. You can never underestimate the speed at which markets can take off.

Dish already has a problem with the current channels being Directv exclusives. If Dish continues to show no interest content providers will not hesitate to sign exclusive multiyear deals with Directv.


----------



## 356B

Stewart Vernon said:


> From what I can see, it doesn't seem like there is much 3D content available right now.
> 
> Also... not all Dish receivers can support 3D... and consumers are not likely to want to pay for that upgrade right now either.
> 
> It just doesn't seem like a smart investment to me at the moment. IF 3D ever takes off, Dish could add channels the next day and still be right in the mix... so I don't see any urgency here.


Every other movie this summer offered 3D......the horror, fantasy and cartoon crowd must be buying tickets or the movie makers wouldn't be messing with it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> Replace 3D above with HD - it is just deja vu all over again.


I think you are both right and wrong here 

You are right... some said the same thing about HD too... and to be honest, as much as I love my HD... HD was available via OTA in my market before anywhere else since WRAL was the first channel to broadcast digital HD OTA in the US... but when I signed on with Dish in 2002, I didn't even have an HDTV.

I didn't get an HDTV for another year or two after that... and didn't get an HD receiver from Dish until another year after that... by which time arguably HD had been around nearly 10 years! And Dish was the HD leader at that time... with the 5 channels that were available!

So... IF you are going to make the comparison of 3D and HD... this 3D technology right now is barely a year or two old in terms of an available channel. Dish and DirecTV were nearly 10 years late to the HD party in some respects!

I would say waiting to see if 3D is around for 5 years might be prudent AND would still put Dish ahead of the HD adoption curve.



evnow said:


> Infact HD was a lot more of an investment - one HD channel ate the bandwidth of 6 SD channels.


All things being equal, though... doesn't a 3D channel take the same space as 2 HD channels, given the left/right frames? Or is it not quite twice the bandwidth due to compression efficiency?



356B said:


> Every other movie this summer offered 3D......the horror, fantasy and cartoon crowd must be buying tickets or the movie makers wouldn't be messing with it.


Perhaps... but how is the box office doing on all those movies?

Avatar was a big hit, mostly because people liked the movie AND also because it was 3D... so Hollywood jumped into 3D development after that and we are seeing the fruits of that labor this summer... but I guarantee you if box office draw continue to underwhelm for most of those 3D films, we won't see the trend continue in subsequent years.

Like when a particular sitcom or drama hits it big... then next season each network tries 2 versions of that same formula... and most of them crash and burn. Check out the super-hero movie trend.

Marvel started with Blade, X-Men... Spider-Man, stumbled a bit with the first Hulk movie, then had Iron Man and has been back on a high... DC countered with another Superman that floundered and a Batman that hit highs, but had a Green Lantern that missed horribly this year.

As long as more super-hero movies make big money... they will keep making them... AND they will make more, even for less-popular characters... but a few more flops like Green Lantern, and Hollywood will decide to turn away from super-heroes again for a few years.

That's what has historically happened with 3D... It comes around, makes a splash, then gets overused for bad movies... then goes away again. It remains to be seen if 3D is here to stay this time OR is just another glitch.


----------



## RAD

Stewart, the side by side format that DBS and cable uses doesn't take anymore bandwidth then a 2D channel. A 1920x1080 channel effectively becomes a 960x1080 channel with each eye's picture getting half the frame.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> Stewart, the side by side format that DBS and cable uses doesn't take anymore bandwidth then a 2D channel. A 1920x1080 channel effectively becomes a 960x1080 channel with each eye's picture getting half the frame.


Ah... ok, thanks for that. I knew of a wide range of 3D options... ranging from the half-res version to the full 1080p version.

I didn't know what the 3D channels on cable/sat might be using.

So... no bandwidth issue then... but 3D comes at the expense of trading away half of the horizontal resolution.


----------



## RAD

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Ah... ok, thanks for that. I knew of a wide range of 3D options... ranging from the half-res version to the full 1080p version.
> 
> I didn't know what the 3D channels on cable/sat might be using.
> 
> So... no bandwidth issue then... but 3D comes at the expense of trading away half of the horizontal resolution.


NP.

And for folks that use passive 3D sets it gets even worst since they cut the resolution in half again.


----------



## evnow

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... IF you are going to make the comparison of 3D and HD... this 3D technology right now is barely a year or two old in terms of an available channel. Dish and DirecTV were nearly 10 years late to the HD party in some respects!


Well, Dish (and Directv) started HD broadcasts before you joined the crowd. Infact Dish was the leader.

The first HDTV set was on sale in Nov, 1998.

http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/928.asp



> In January 1998, TV manufacturers showed off the first HDTVs at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). By September, the first HDTV sets, from Mitsubishi and Panasonic, reached stores � just in time for the first HDTV network broadcasts, due to begin November 1. CBS was ahead of schedule when, on October 29, it broadcast the launch of the John Glenn space shuttle mission.


Dish released the first tuner in Jan, 1999 i.e. within 3 months ! Not after 10 years. I got Dish 6000 in 2000, as soon as it came out. IIRC, we had Showtime HD and HBO HD at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishnetwork



> Investing for the future
> 
> In January 1999, the company released the industry's first High-definition television (HDTV) tuner. In August 2003, the company launched Echostar IX, the first satellite equipped with commercial Ka band payload for broadband service over the United States. This led the company in 2004 to be the first satellite TV service to offer local channels to all 50 states. In that year, the company also introduced the nation's first interactive TV multiple picture-in picture application for the Olympic Games, offering coverage from multiple channels at once. This year the company also acquired its 10 millionth customer.


When you consider the amount of hardware support now available - and at prices barely above 2D HD hardware, you have to wonder what Dish is upto. They have basically given up their challenge to Directv and happy to be the poor cousin of Directv.


----------



## evnow

An amusing blast from the past.

http://www.hometheater.com/hdtvsattuners/67/



> While DirecTV offers more sports programming, DISH Network offers as many or more movie channels and twice as many HDTV channels. OK, so "twice as many" means two more than the competition. DISH Network offers Showtime and HBO, a demo channel for retail displays, and a dedicated 24-hour pay-per-view movie channel. DirecTV offers only HBO and a second channel that displays demo material during the day for retailers and pay-per-view programs in the evening. Regardless, for high-definition-display-owning, non-sports-enthusiast movie lovers like me, the extra HD channels are a big bonus.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

But we're still talking about "early days"...

Even as your examples hold... there was a time when Dish had a couple of HD channels and DirecTV did not... but I don't remember gloom and doom predicted for DirecTV because Dish was "way ahead of them on HD" at that time.

That was my point... that there wasn't significant investment in HD until much later.

Dish has a receiver capable of 3D today... The 922 gets some 3D PPV movies. So... Dish has a 3D-capable receiver if you want one and some 3D viewing, limited to be sure.

DirecTV sounds like it has a couple of channels... and that's about it.

So... there just isn't leaps and bounds of 3D anywhere right now... and it is early in the game.

IF 3D is around in a few years and there are some more channels, then Dish will probably get on board then.

There's no need to make a huge investment now in something that may or may not be popular for the long-run.


----------



## RAD

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> DirecTV sounds like it has a couple of channels... and that's about it.


Just to be clear, DIRECTV has four full time 3D channels, n3D, 3net, ESPN 3D and a PPV channel, plus an On Demand channel. Yes a lot of the content gets repeated, just like the early days of HD, but it's growing.


----------



## kucharsk

Just FYI, AT&T UVerse recently dropped ESPN 3D, and ESPN has publicly stated that they're trying to determine whether the channel itself will continue operations.

3D movies are not doing well at the box office these days (the upcharge often being $5 or more) and 3D-capable sets just aren't selling all that well yet, or at least not for their 3D capabilities (_e.g._ most people buying 3D sets don't care about 3D but want the best TV, and that often comes with 3D capabilities.)

It's likely that while HD followed a more DVD-like adoption curve, 3D is likely to be more like Blu-ray, or worse, like DVD-A or SACD.


----------



## harsh

kucharsk said:


> ... and ESPN has publicly stated that they're trying to determine whether the channel itself will continue operations.


A link to this public statement is imperative.


----------



## evnow

> 3D movies are not doing well at the box office these days (the upcharge often being $5 or more)


 Ofcourse Hollywood is finding out that they still need to make decent movies. 3D won't sell by itself.



> 3D-capable sets just aren't selling all that well yet, or at least not for their 3D capabilities (_e.g._ most people buying 3D sets don't care about 3D but want the best TV, and that often comes with 3D capabilities.)


Speculation stated as fact.


----------



## HobbyTalk

A few negative stories below... Was going to post some positive ones but couldn't find any.

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-espn-already-giving-up-on-3d-tv-2011-9

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/love_affair_with_tvs_ends_a1RikT9zccfxYzpDLXx4iN

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/06/30/3d-tv-sales-projected-to-decline-in-2011

http://www.tvpredictions.com/panasonic090711.htm

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3d/npd-price-glasses-continue-thwart-3dtv-adoption-23611

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/11/3dtv-sales-hollywood

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/story/2011-09-07/3D-TV-not-ready-for-prime-time/50296416/1

http://www.investorplace.com/2011/07/3d-television-3-d-tv-sales-sony-panasonic-toshiba/


----------



## Joe Bernardi

I'm not interested in 3D, but those who are might enjoy reading this article about Toshiba's no-glasses 3D, viewable from 9 different locations.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20100665-264/toshiba-guns-for-no-glasses-3d-tv-market/?tag=nl.e702


----------



## Inkosaurus

Majority of consumers always flock around the next big gimmick. 3d sales are floundering in there main market (theaters) already, i find it doubtful that many channels are really going to make the investment to offer 3d if things keep going the way they are. Especially with the few 3d channels we have around now not being anything particularly special.

Since the new wave of 3d movies there really have only been 3 or 4 movies to even do it right and make it worth the upsell (imo, avatar, Tron:legacy and a few others), the majority of everything else was just 3d tacked onto a movie to grab a sell (clash of the titans). Or just straight up gimmick garbage like Shark Night 3d and Piranha 3d.

People are getting tired of paying extra money to see Thors hammer thrown at you in one scene of a movie. Honestly, 3D is a big farse and im glad more and more people are starting to see its a big waste of time and money.


----------



## evnow

HobbyTalk said:


> A few negative stories below... Was going to post some positive ones but couldn't find any.


Find me a few positive stories about HD from around 2000 and I'll checkout the links you posted.



Inkosaurus said:


> Majority of consumers always flock around the next big gimmick.


You mean like surround sound ?!

In reality few can really figure out right now what will happen in the future. You can look at the past and pull out examples to match your expectations. There is always a SACD for every BD.

The point is not whether 3D WILL succeed. The point is Dish should embrace the new format as an investment for the future - considering all the hardware support. Just like they did with HD (when the hardware support was much less). Nothing is certain in this world - success or failure of 3D is no different.


----------



## SayWhat?

3D = BetaMax

Days are numbered from the start.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> The point is not whether 3D WILL succeed. The point is Dish should embrace the new format as an investment for the future


Actually, from a business standpoint... Dish should consider whether or not 3D will succeed before investing a lot of money.

IF they don't feel 3D is going to stay around or grow rapidly... then they would be fools to invest in it now.

IF 3D succeeds, then all the technology will be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today and Dish could save money by not being an early adopter themselves!


----------



## AZ.

SayWhat? said:


> 3D = BetaMax
> 
> Days are numbered from the start.


??? Not even close!

BetaMax was top quality video, stereo, and the best pause in the industry, its only demise was due to hi quality it gave less recording time....So lets be honest, it was the cheap population that cared more about recording time than they did quality!!!!

Were that has anything to do with 3D is an apple to a orange!!

What about Lazer Disks?


----------



## RasputinAXP

what about them? They're dead too. They were a high end product with low adoption and was surpassed by newer, cheaper technology.

Much like I expect the current batch of 3D TVs to go, really.


----------



## evnow

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF 3D succeeds, then all the technology will be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today and Dish could save money by not being an early adopter themselves!


Not really - remember they don't need to invest a lot.

The big problem Dish will have is people will leave in droves as 3D catches on and it is much more difficult (and costly) to get them back.

Also, more time Dish procrastinates, more channels will go Directv exclusive. Then, where is dish going to get content from ?

I see this as a low risk, low investment option.


----------



## evnow

RasputinAXP said:


> Much like I expect the current batch of 3D TVs to go, really.


Ofcourse - the TVs will improve. What has that got to do with dish supporting 3D. The standards are set - including the HDMI standard. That is all Dish has to care about.


----------



## RAD

I keep hearing about Dish investing in 3D, just how much would we be talking about? They already have a HD DVR that supports 3D, the 922, so they might actually make some money on upgrade fees and higher monthly lease charges from folks wanting 3D, besides a couple PPV's. A 3D SBS channel takes the same bandwidth as a 2D HD channel so if Dish has the bandwidth available they could add it. Guess just trying to see how much of an investment we're talking about?


----------



## jcrobso

AZ. said:


> ??? Not even close!
> 
> BetaMax was top quality video, stereo, and the best pause in the industry, its only demise was due to hi quality it gave less recording time....So lets be honest, it was the cheap population that cared more about recording time than they did quality!!!!
> 
> Were that has anything to do with 3D is an apple to a orange!!
> 
> What about Lazer Disks?


Yes, Beta gave better quality, but only at the Beta 1 speed and 1 hour play time. When you used the Beta 2 speed to get 2 hours you got the same quality as VHS.:eek2: Sony wanted BIG$$$ for Beta machines, VHS prices were lower. I spent a lot of time resurrecting this before going with VHS. 
At the time of Beta-VHS wars most people had 10~15 year old color TVs and couldn't see the difference anyway.


----------



## RasputinAXP

evnow said:


> Ofcourse - the TVs will improve. What has that got to do with dish supporting 3D. The standards are set - including the HDMI standard. That is all Dish has to care about.


The 3D standards are NOT set. That's the problem. I didn't buy "draft N" wireless, I'm not going to buy non-standard 3D.


----------



## RAD

RasputinAXP said:


> The 3D standards are NOT set. That's the problem. I didn't buy "draft N" wireless, I'm not going to buy non-standard 3D.


Besides the interface between the TV and the glasses, in the case of active 3D sets, what doesn't have a standard yet?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> Not really - remember they don't need to invest a lot.


Define "a lot"... Every 3D channel takes bandwidth that could have been an HD channel that everyone can watch or about a dozen SD channels.

Right now Dish only has one receiver that officially supports 3D. To develop more would take money and time... and customers would have to be willing to upgrade to those receivers and that takes more money and time for Dish to create the receivers and get them installed.



evnow said:


> The big problem Dish will have is people will leave in droves as 3D catches on and it is much more difficult (and costly) to get them back.


Really? People keep predicting this. Dish was the leader in HD at first, then fell behind for about a year to DirecTV. All that year people predicted the mass exodus of Dish customers... and it never happened. Dish eventually added most of those channels and now even has some that DirecTV still doesn't! (of course DirecTV also has HD that Dish doesn't too).

So... the customers are not going to suddenly run from Dish over 3D either... especially not now when the adoption rate is so low.

Consider... not all of the customers who own a 3DTV are actually using it for 3D most of the time. Heck, I wager there are still 3DTV and HDTV people in large numbers out there who don't subscribe to an HD package too!

So... a large investment in 3D when the customers seem lukewarm to it, seems unwise... when there is a limited amount of content and only a few channels right now... and Dish could jump in the game 1, 2, or maybe 3 years from now and have just as much 3D as everyone else.



evnow said:


> Also, more time Dish procrastinates, more channels will go Directv exclusive. Then, where is dish going to get content from ?


That's not going to happen any more than HD channels went exclusive. Yes, there have been a couple of exclusive HD channels... but by and large most of them are available to all providers. Content providers would be short-sighted themselves if they limited carriage to one company while trying to expand their customer base.



RAD said:


> I keep hearing about Dish investing in 3D, just how much would we be talking about? They already have a HD DVR that supports 3D, the 922, so they might actually make some money on upgrade fees and higher monthly lease charges from folks wanting 3D, besides a couple PPV's.


This works both ways... IF Dish saw a lot of people willing to spend $200 to upgrade to the 922, then they might say "hey, let's invest more in 3D for those customers"... but as the 922 has been slower to adopt, I suspect, that tells Dish that right now customers might want things but don't want to pay for them.

Are customers going to want to pay $5 more per month for a 3D channel? Nobody knows the answer to that I don't think.



evnow said:


> A 3D SBS channel takes the same bandwidth as a 2D HD channel so if Dish has the bandwidth available they could add it.


Another twist here too...

People freak out about Dish "down-rezzing" their HD from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080... and want "full HD".... but then would be willing to take 960x1080 resolution in 3D? That seems odd to me.


----------



## RAD

While Dish adding a 3D channel or two might not cause a bunch of new subs maybe by not doing so is or reason for losing subs? And Stewart, still don't understand your 'large investment' reasoning. You agree that the 922 does support 3D so no need to spend any additional money to develop a new STB, if Dish had any 3D channels then maybe they'd sell more of them. On the who would spend $5/month for 3D comment, so don't charge for it, DIRECTV and Comcast don't charge, that's the number one and two providers. Just saying by not offering any 3D channels Dish might be losing some of those higher ARPU customers that they'd like to have.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> While Dish adding a 3D channel or two might not cause a bunch of new subs maybe by not doing so is or reason for losing subs? And Stewart, still don't understand your 'large investment' reasoning. You agree that the 922 does support 3D so no need to spend any additional money to develop a new STB, if Dish had any 3D channels then maybe they'd sell more of them. On the who would spend $5/month for 3D comment, so don't charge for it, DIRECTV and Comcast don't charge, that's the number one and two providers. Just saying by not offering any 3D channels Dish might be losing some of those higher ARPU customers that they'd like to have.


All I'm saying is that the market doesn't seem to support a huge interest in 3D at this point. Theatrical 3D movies have not been raking it in this summer as the studios expected... and if that trend continues, expect them to pull back on 3D support.

There was never a mass exodus when Dish was behind DirecTV in HD... still no mass exodus with DirecTV having more sports... so why expect a mass exodus over 3D?

Giving DirecTV credit where it is due... they are leading with 3D right now... but are they gaining lots of subscribers because of it? The numbers don't support that because they aren't growing any faster now than they were before they added 3D content.

I also never said the investment itself was necessarily "huge"... but that it will cost Dish more now than it will cost in a few years... so why waste time, bandwidth, and money on 3D for a very small market today... when Dish can wait and see if it stays around.

IF 3D goes away, then win to Dish for saving the money! IF 3D sticks around and grows, then Dish can add some 3D channels in a few years and be right in the thick of it.

Even the majority of people on this forum aren't demanding 3D... and we are the tech-savvy early-adopters... Most of Dish's customers are still SD-only customers! So... no need to rush to spend any money on 3D when most of your money comes from SD, then HD, and only a small amount asking for 3D.


----------



## dkdesantis

What good is demanding 3D to Dish? They don't listen.


----------



## wwtech

kucharsk said:


> Just FYI, AT&T UVerse recently dropped ESPN 3D, and ESPN has publicly stated that they're trying to determine whether the channel itself will continue operations.


ATT charged $10 for ESPN 3D. I like and want 3D, but even I would not pay that for one channel.

And ESPN stated that a year ago. They have moved on to "5D" production, so their costs are going down. They don't sound like they are gonna drop 3D anytime soon.

See:

www dot variety dot com /article /VR1118041243


----------



## inazsully

Several problems with 3D. Two types of glasses are butting heads, Passive and Active. Active is better and passive is much cheaper. They are not interchangable so which do you go with? Can you say Beta vs VHS? It's estimated that 10% of the population cannot watch 3D for physical reasons. Bummer. Several display manufactures are working on 3D that requires no glasses. One will be released in Europe within the next 12 months. Which brings us to the networks. Will the 3D they broadcast be watchable with both active and passive glasses and will they need to change something to be watchable on a screen requiring no glasses at all? 3D will probably stick around because multiple major companies are investing billions in the technology. The question is why. Major profits is the answer. In three years you will see every single new display 3D capable. Every single blu-ray player will be 3D capable. 50-75% of main line broadcasts will be available in 3D. New TV's, new DVD players, new DVD's all flying off the shelves. Look up the names of the companies heavily invested in the future of 3D. It ain't going away.


----------



## harsh

inazsully said:


> 3D will probably stick around because multiple major companies are investing billions in the technology.


Similar reasoning was applied to HD-DVD.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Similar reasoning was applied to HD-DVD.


But that was in competition with a very similar product; It's not parallel to 3D rollouts.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> But that was in competition with a very similar product; It's not parallel to 3D rollouts.


If you think about it in terms of active versus passive, there is a similarity.

For 3D to settle out, the glasses need to be interchangeable.


----------



## odbrv

Last night the Oklahoma State vs Arizona game was in 3D. I had to go to a neighbor's to watch it. I have Dish he has Directv. We both have 3d sets. We both bought Vizeo 3DTVs for about the same price as non 3D HDTV's.

The sucess of 3D will be in the price of TV's and the availability of programming. Vizeo has made the price difference a non factor. In fact, my 42 inch 3D plazma cost less than most 42 inch HDTVs. So getting 3D did not hurt financially and was more a plus element to the buying decision. I was also able to buy a Blu-Ray 3d DVD player for less than many non 3D Blu-Ray players. So again I had no cost hurt. The cost hurt comes with buying higher priced 3D DVDs. Most 3D offerings comes in sets that have the 3D version , the Blu-Ray version, and the DVD version. Not a bad idea for those that have each kind of DVD player in the house. However, it adds cost to the buy.

I now have a good collection of 3D DVDs. If there is no interest in 3D, why do I have so many of my friends coming over to watch my 3D content? They save the glasses they get from the movie theaters to use at my house. They never came over before 3D. It is sort of like when I got one of the 1st color tvs in the neighborhood. Likewise, I am going to friends who get 3D content via their TV providers. If Directv had the ability to play my Dish formated EHDs, I would switch for the extra 3D content. It doesn't cost more. So again it becomes a buying bonus element. OH!! watching a show in 3D is a more exciting TV experience for me and most of the people who have seen my content.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The multi-company competition thing is also hurting people interested in 3D with their exclusive bundles.

Several good movies are only available in 3D Blu-ray if you buy a certain manufacturer's 3DTV setup... in which case, you can't get all of those movies if you want them until some point where they become non-exclusive.

I understand offering a free movie with a bundle... that's cool... but making that the only way to get the movie seems like a misstep since most people aren't going to go buy 3 new 3DTVs to get 3 different movies that they can't get any other way.


----------



## l8er

In the long run I believe the glasses will kill 3D. My wife and I both wear corrective lenses and 3D glasses of any kind are extremely uncomfortable.

We saw Avatar at two different theaters, but haven't been to a 3D flick since.


----------



## evnow

kucharsk said:


> Just FYI, AT&T UVerse recently dropped ESPN 3D, and ESPN has publicly stated that they're trying to determine whether the channel itself will continue operations.


*ESPN's $14 Billion Eight-Year Extension With NFL Includes 3D*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1359268


----------



## shadough

We dont just need ESPN 3-D, we need ESPN Goal-line too! Course it'll never happen till they resolve they're contract dispute.


----------



## Jim5506

If the Vision 3D TV is cheaper than the competitors 2D TV, perhaps it is because nobody wants them - supply and demand thing - supply is OK, no demand.


----------



## sigma1914

Jim5506 said:


> If the Vision 3D TV is cheaper than the competitors 2D TV, perhaps it is because nobody wants them - supply and demand thing - supply is OK, no demand.


Or maybe it's because the set isn't very good, so it's cheaper.


----------



## koralis

harsh said:


> If you think about it in terms of active versus passive, there is a similarity.
> 
> For 3D to settle out, the glasses need to be interchangeable.


Not really. As long as all 3d sets can access the same 3d content it doesn't matter whether a given living room has active glasses, passive glasses, or no glasses. It's as meaningless as what color the tv is. When you buy a set, you lock into that tech until you buy a different set (at which point you can stay the same, choose something different, etc) but at no point will your 3d movies be rendered worthless by chosing a different TV/glasses technology.

In the HDDVD vs Bluray war, the media wasn't interchangable so people adopted a "wait and see" attitude, not wanting to spring for a dozen movies only to have them be the loser.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

koralis said:


> When you buy a set, you lock into that tech until you buy a different set (at which point you can stay the same, choose something different, etc) but at no point will your 3d movies be rendered worthless by chosing a different TV/glasses technology.


That's a nice thought... but we really don't know that for sure. It's hard to say how long Blu-ray will be around.

Some folks are pushing for digital downloads... Others are thinking SD-RAM might replace optical media at some point.

So... it might be true that your current Blu-ray player will always play your current movies... but 5 years from now a new media player might not.

Heck... some Blu-ray players right now are not getting updates to play movies, and others have received updates that broke previously playable movies (Samsung is a great example here... I have some Disney movies that play with older firmware but not the newer firmware... and if I downgrade to play those, then I can't play some newer movies).

The point is... any time I hear "future-proof" I run away fast... because what that really means is "we are making this up as we go"...

Remember all the people who bought Blu-ray players that thought they were getting BD-Live ready and then found they couldn't upgrade? Or people who thought they could upgrade for 3D support but then couldn't?

There's always the possibility of the next new thing not being backwards compatible... and then if your current player breaks, you're out of luck.


----------



## harsh

koralis said:


> Not really. As long as all 3d sets can access the same 3d content it doesn't matter whether a given living room has active glasses, passive glasses, or no glasses.


Imagine inviting all your rowdy friends over for a viewing party and you only have three or four pair of glasses.

Now imagine that everyone can bring their own pair to your party and have them work.

Which is going to be the more successful affair?


----------



## evnow

How would you guys like to miss Olympics in 3D ?

This improves the odds of me switching to DirecTV.

http://news.panasonic.net/archives/2011/0901_6368.html



> Panasonic Corporation, the Official Worldwide Olympic Partner in the Audio and Visual Equipment category, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Olympic Broadcasting Services (OBS) announced their partnership agreement to make the London 2012 Olympic Games the first ever live 3D Olympic Games at the press conference of IFA2011, the global trade show for consumer electronics and home appliances, presents the latest products and innovations.
> 
> The partnership will produce the first HD 3D live broadcast in Olympic history, and will allow audiences around the globe to witness the world's greatest sporting event in immersive 3D.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> How would you guys like to miss Olympics in 3D ?


To be fair... I don't care about the Olympics in 2D except for the basketball during the summer Olympics.

The Olympics are just one of those largely "meh" things to be no matter how many "D"s you add.


----------



## SayWhat?

I haven't watched a single minute of them since the early 70s. On any channel, in any format.


----------



## evnow

l8er said:


> In the long run I believe the glasses will kill 3D. My wife and I both wear corrective lenses and 3D glasses of any kind are extremely uncomfortable.


Who knows. As I wrote earlier every non-bottom of the barrel hardware being made is now 3D - TVs, Projectors, HT recievers, Blu-ray players etc etc. Anyone who read about the just concluded CEDIA knows what I'm talking about. Content ofcourse, is still scarce.

The way I look at it - I enjoy 3D (whatever little I've seen). So, I'd like to get as much 3D programming as possible. Infact, if as many doubters here argue, 3D will not survive - I definitely want to watch it before it "goes away".


----------



## tampa8

evnow said:


> Infact, if as many doubters here argue, 3D will not survive - I definitely want to watch it before it "goes away".


Lmao......

You are correct about many TV's that are not bargain basement are being made with 3D. That is a plus for those hoping it survives. Though they made BetaMax after the medium was dead.....


----------



## evnow

tampa8 said:


> You are correct about many TV's that are not bargain basement are being made with 3D. That is a plus for those hoping it survives. Though they made BetaMax after the medium was dead.....


One of the reasons I'm optimistic about 3D is that there is no format war (though the glasses are a bit of a mess at the moment). HDMI 1.4a has been formalized and everyone is supporting it in this year's products.

Don't know how many of you frequent AVSForum but, there are threads there where some are even asking is there is anything for 2D at Cedia this year.

If we remember HDTV introduction - people had to pay 3 to 4 times SD to get HDTVs - and yet there was little original programming. Now the 3D hardware is available at almost no premium.


----------



## tampa8

evnow said:


> Now the 3D hardware is available at almost no premium.


That was a good move by the industry. But from reading articles, many have a 3d set simply because of that, or they got the best set possible which happen to have 3D, but have no interest in 3D. I think the comparison to HD hurts 3D because HD was a vast improvement to watching anything from begining to end. 3D really does not add to a regular program for instance, other than special effects that might be used. In fact, what 3D I have seen, people look a little out of place in relation to the backround. Then there's the problem of many getting headaches or eye strain, and those that just can't see 3D. (I do get eye fatigue, but it takes awhile) It _can_ work, I felt Avatar gained some by being in 3D, but overall maybe it just needs alot more medium for us to decide.

(I do go to Avsforums - same name there)


----------



## evnow

tampa8 said:


> That was a good move by the industry. But from reading articles, many have a 3d set simply because of that, or they got the best set possible which happen to have 3D, but have no interest in 3D.


That is how a lot of HD started, though people bought "flat panels", even though more expensive, just because they are flat and thin.



> I think the comparison to HD hurts 3D because HD was a vast improvement to watching anything from begining to end. 3D really does not add to a regular program for instance, other than special effects that might be used.


That is how surround sound started.


----------



## evnow

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair... I don't care about the Olympics in 2D except for the basketball during the summer Olympics.
> 
> The Olympics are just one of those largely "meh" things to be no matter how many "D"s you add.


Ofcourse, those who aren't going to care about ESPN 3D aren't probably going to care about Olympics either.


----------



## 356B

When I went shopping for a new TV the one I choose as being the best possible choice for me just happened to have 3D......Interestingly enough it was a unexpected fun experience for friends and fam. Do I sit around pining for more 3D? Hell no......I do know this, the 3D demise seems to have been greatly over estimated.
Sure 3D TV's are selling for less, everything is...it's buyers market...on everything....except gold and gas.......


----------



## Stewart Vernon

evnow said:


> Ofcourse, those who aren't going to care about ESPN 3D aren't probably going to care about Olympics either.


Apples and oranges.

I watch a lot of ESPNHD and ESPN2HD (would watch ESPNUHD if Dish ever gets it)... I watch a lot of sports... I just don't care that much about 3D sports.

The Olympics, I don't even care about in 2D... so it's a different thing.


----------



## evnow

356B said:


> Sure 3D TV's are selling for less, everything is...it's buyers market...on everything....except gold and gas.......


Even gas is selling a lot less to our household, ever since I got my electric car, Leaf ;-)

BTW, last weekend's top grosser ? Yes, a 3D re-issue of a 17 year old movie.



> *'Lion King' 3-D Makeover Tops Weekend Box-Office With $30.2 Million Sales*
> 
> "The Lion King" is playing in theaters for two weeks before the release of a 3-D Blu-ray disk on Oct. 4. The film is among several older hits that studios are converting to 3-D for theatrical release, including James Cameron's "Titanic."


----------



## Inkosaurus

Lion Kings a classic though, i bet alot of those sells are just people wanting to see that movie on the big screen again regardless of it being 3d or not.

Its not like the fact that it being 3d is generating the sells, its the fact thats its a great movie for all ages. I saw that movie as a child in theaters and loved it, im not passing up on the chance to take my son to see it as well and i bet alot of the other mid 20 year olds like myself feel the same about it.


I dont really think that movie is a good example of why 3d is going to stick around.

Now if we applied the reverse, you know Re-Release a movie with 3D on it how ever instead of it being a classic make it a piece of garbage movie. Lets see how many sells it gets.
And even then that wouldnt be an accurate metric either, since theres people out there that really love the "Its so bad its good" movies lol.


----------



## Rduce

http://www.slate.com/id/2303814/


----------



## HobbyTalk

High sales of Disney DVD releases is nothing new. They purposely hold back on releasing DVD for many years. Then when they are released again they get huge sales because they have not been available. Same thing for the movies, they like to rerelease them so that there is a new generation of kids that haven't seen it yet.

BTW, reviews of the 3D conversion say it is pretty bad.


----------



## FarmerBob

HobbyTalk said:


> High sales of Disney DVD releases is nothing new. They purposely hold back on releasing DVD for many years. Then when they are released again they get huge sales because they have not been available. Same thing for the movies, they like to rerelease them so that there is a new generation of kids that haven't seen it yet.
> 
> BTW, reviews of the 3D conversion say it is pretty bad.


+1


----------



## sigma1914

HobbyTalk said:


> High sales of Disney DVD releases is nothing new. They purposely hold back on releasing DVD for many years. Then when they are released again they get huge sales because they have not been available. Same thing for the movies, they like to rerelease them so that there is a new generation of kids that haven't seen it yet.
> 
> BTW, reviews of the 3D conversion say it is pretty bad.


But people are choosing the 3D version at a huge ratio. Of the $29.3 million in earning, 3D presentations accounted for 92 percent of the gross. Also, real viewers are happy with the 3D conversion...look on AVS.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Pretty easy to skew the numbers when they are limiting the 3D version to a 2 week run. 

It earned ~$12K per screen this past weekend.

In 1994 it was released on 66 screens earning $1.8M the first weekend. That is $27K per screen and that is in 1994 dollars.


----------



## evnow

Well, life is too short to wonder what the masses will do or argue that Dish should lead, not follow the masses.

I just signed up for Directv. So ends my 12 years of Dish service. I've always rooted for the underdog - so hope Dish does well and provides needed competition to Directv.


----------



## HobbyTalk

The beginning of the end of 1080i/p HD & active 3D.http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/red-ceo-teases-4k-3d-laser-projector-bound-for-theaters-and-mi/


----------



## RAD

HobbyTalk said:


> The beginning of the end of 1080i/p HD & active 3D.http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/red-ceo-teases-4k-3d-laser-projector-bound-for-theaters-and-mi/


IMHO that's not happeing for a long time. Companies have problems with bandwidth for the 1080i/p channels now.


----------



## FarmerBob

HobbyTalk said:


> The beginning of the end of 1080i/p HD & active 3D.http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/red-ceo-teases-4k-3d-laser-projector-bound-for-theaters-and-mi/


Just read this in my morning site scan. I am not surprised and totally jazzed about the prospect of a Red projection device to go with their capture gear. And as I have said all along, until the dust settles and there is a (one) set 3D standard out there, that survives the La Brea Tar Pits, 3D is a wash until. Just like all the other media formats there is always a couple to start then everything settles and we end up with the "one". We're too early in the process, but then that's what hype is for. To cheer on your favorite format. To the winner goes the spoils. The "spoils" being us, the consumer.

I have a couple of crews using Red gear and it's amazing for capture, so I would guess that their projection gear will be just as amazing and set the standard. Will wait, can't wait, am drooling at the three installs that I have that this would be perfect for.


----------



## olguy

At 73 I doubt if I will ever see this marketed for home (non-rich) consumers. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy my 82" 3D Mits. Glasses and all.


----------



## evnow

FarmerBob said:


> And as I have said all along, until the dust settles and there is a (one) set 3D standard out there, that survives the La Brea Tar Pits, 3D is a wash until.


There is always something round the corner. HDMI 1.4a based 3D is as good a std we are going to get for sometime.

Display technologies keep improving - there is no known "end state" there.

Having watched a few 3D documentaries, even my usually pro-status quo wife is convinced 3D is totally worth it. Optoma HD3300 - the first 1080p 3D projector - has been a great performer.


----------



## FarmerBob

evnow said:


> There is always something round the corner. HDMI 1.4a based 3D is as good a std we are going to get for sometime.
> 
> Display technologies keep improving - there is no known "end state" there. . . .


And there will be 1.4b, c, d . . . that will add features to the cabling. And yes, there will be no "end" state. But there needs to be "one beginning" so that there are not a million different types of 3D out there with a million different TVs. Just like Vinyl vs. CD and VHS vs. Betamax. It needs to be brought to one specification where when you buy a "3D TV" you'll know it'll work with the 3D disc player you have or are looking to buy and the discs that it plays without a ton of investigation to make sure it will. Also along the lines of ATSC, QAM & NTSC and PAL and 110-130 Volts 50-60 Hz AC. Standards.


----------



## jadebox

FarmerBob said:


> It needs to be brought to one specification where when you buy a "3D TV" you'll know it'll work with the 3D disc player you have or are looking to buy and the discs that it plays without a ton of investigation to make sure it will.


That's what we have now. A Blu-Ray 3D disc will play through HDMI on any 3D TV.

-- Roger


----------



## FarmerBob

jadebox said:


> That's what we have now. A Blu-Ray 3D disc will play through HDMI on any 3D TV.
> 
> -- Roger


At last count, there are _at least four_ stereoscopic 3D transmission formats currently in wide use, called frame sequential, frame packing, side-by-side, and checkerboard. There are other transmission formats as well . . .

Common 3D display technology for projecting stereoscopic image pairs to the viewer include: 

*With lenses*:
Anaglyphic 3D (with passive red-cyan lenses)
Polarization 3D (with passive polarized lenses)
Alternate-frame sequencing (with active shutter lenses)
Head-mounted display (with a separate display positioned in front of each eye, and lenses used primarily to relax eye focus)

*Without lenses*: Autostereoscopic displays, sometimes referred to commercially as *Auto 3D*.

*Standardization efforts*

The entertainment industry is expected to adopt a common and compatible standard for 3D in home electronics. To present faster frame rate in high definition to avoid judder, enhancing 3-D film, televisions and broadcasting, other unresolved standards are the type of 3D glasses (passive or active), including bandwidth considerations, subtitles, recording format, and a Blu-ray standard.
With improvements in digital technology, in the late 2000s, 3D movies have become more practical to produce and display, putting competitive pressure behind the creation of 3D television standards. There are several techniques for Stereoscopic Video Coding, and stereoscopic distribution formatting including anaglyph, quincunx, and 2D plus Delta. . . .

more at . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television


----------



## jadebox

FarmerBob said:


> At last count, there are _at least four_ stereoscopic 3D transmission formats currently in wide use, called frame sequential, frame packing, side-by-side, and checkerboard. There are other transmission formats as well . .


Uh, huh ... but that doesn't affect what I said. A Blu-Ray 3D disc will play through an HDMI connection to a 3D TV.

The transmission format doesn't matter to subscribers. What matters is the interface from the receiver to the TV. And, for that, there is standard in place - HDMI Specification Version 1.4a. There's no VHS/Beta type of standards war going on.

If a satellite receiver implements the HDMI 1.4 standard, it will work with all modern 3D TVs. As I understand it, from the little Dish has said, they are working towards a "true" HDMI 1.4a capability.

-- Roger


----------



## dishman1999

people love 3d but I wouldn't waste my money on it. just give me out state local in HD I'm happy.


----------



## olds403

jadebox said:


> Uh, huh ... but that doesn't affect what I said. A Blu-Ray 3D disc will play through an HDMI connection to a 3D TV.
> 
> The transmission format doesn't matter to subscribers. What matters is the interface from the receiver to the TV. And, for that, there is standard in place - HDMI Specification Version 1.4a. There's no VHS/Beta type of standards war going on.
> 
> If a satellite receiver implements the HDMI 1.4 standard, it will work with all modern 3D TVs. As I understand it, from the little Dish has said, they are working towards a "true" HDMI 1.4a capability.
> 
> -- Roger


So what if you and your friend have different brands of 3d tv's with different glasses. You decide you want to go to their house(or vice versa) to watch a movie and neither of you has enough pairs of glasses for everyone that will be watching at either your house or your friends house. The type of transmission and glasses DO matter, not just that it transmits on HDMI. For this to really work ALL tv's need to use the same type of transmission AND the same type of glasses. I'm just not buying into something with so many variable.


----------



## FarmerBob

olds403 said:


> So what if you and your friend have different brands of 3d tv's with different glasses. You decide you want to go to their house(or vice versa) to watch a movie and neither of you has enough pairs of glasses for everyone that will be watching at either your house or your friends house. The type of transmission and glasses DO matter, not just that it transmits on HDMI. For this to really work ALL tv's need to use the same type of transmission AND the same type of glasses. I'm just not buying into something with so many variable.


Exactly. ONE FORMAT!!!!!!!


----------



## jadebox

olds403 said:


> So what if you and your friend have different brands of 3d tv's with different glasses. You decide you want to go to their house(or vice versa) to watch a movie and neither of you has enough pairs of glasses for everyone that will be watching at either your house or your friends house. The type of transmission and glasses DO matter, not just that it transmits on HDMI. For this to really work ALL tv's need to use the same type of transmission AND the same type of glasses. I'm just not buying into something with so many variable.


Uh, sure ... that's a real impediment to Dish adding 3D content .........

-- Roger


----------



## sigma1914

jadebox said:


> Uh, sure ... that's a real impediment to Dish adding 3D content .........
> 
> -- Roger


Roger,

It's not even worth discussing 3D with anti-3D people. Unfortunately, a 3D topic can't exist on the web without the anti-3D taking it over with their "3D is a fad" or "It makes me nauseous" or "The no set format" or etc.


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> Roger,
> 
> It's not even worth discussing 3D with anti-3D people. Unfortunately, a 3D topic can't exist on the web without the anti-3D taking it over with their "3D is a fad" or "It makes me nauseous" or "The no set format" or etc.


good luck with that headache and recharging the glasses and overprices TV.

Health effects

Some viewers have complained of headaches and visual problems after watching 3D TV and films. There have been several warnings, especially for the elderly.

It is believed that approximately 12% of people are unable to properly see 3D images, due to a variety of medical conditions


----------



## RAD

dishman1999 said:


> good luck with that headache and recharging the glasses and overprices TV.
> 
> Health effects
> 
> Some viewers have complained of headaches and visual problems after watching 3D TV and films. There have been several warnings, especially for the elderly.
> 
> It is believed that approximately 12% of people are unable to properly see 3D images, due to a variety of medical conditions


I paid under $2K for a very nice Samsung Plasma and Blu-Ray player that included to pairs of glasses and Megamind. That's $5K less then I paid for my first plasma back in 2004 so IMHO that wasn't overpriced. Hell Rooms to Go is including 50" Samsung 3D sets in some of their deals for living rooms.

So far NOBODY in my family has experienced any health effects from watching any 3D programming. Yes, some folks have reported ill effects from watching 3D programming, but nobody is forcing them to watch 3D if it's cauing them problems. I think the point of the OP is that they have 3D hardware and wish Dish would add some 3D programming.

BTW, how many people are color blind, should Dish not offer programming in color since they can't properly view it? How about people with hearing issues, should DIsh not offer Dolby Digital audio since they can't hear the audio? Again, nobody is forcing 3D on anyone, just make it available for folks that do want and enjoy it.


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> good luck with that headache and recharging the glasses and overprices TV.
> 
> Health effects
> 
> Some viewers have complained of headaches and visual problems after watching 3D TV and films. There have been several warnings, especially for the elderly.
> 
> It is believed that approximately 12% of people are unable to properly see 3D images, due to a variety of medical conditions


Good job cutting & pasting the health effects from Wikipedia. Next time, link your plagiarism. 

As for the headaches, I don't get them. Recharging the glasses is simple...just plug in the USB. Lastly, the TV's aren't overpriced. I got what was one of 2010's best plasma TVs (50"), 2 glasses, a 3D BluRay player for $1,800. It just happened to be 3D


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> Good job cutting & pasting the health effects from Wikipedia. Next time, link your plagiarism.
> 
> As for the headaches, I don't get them. Recharging the glasses is simple...just plug in the USB. Lastly, the TV's aren't overpriced. I got what was one of 2010's best plasma TVs (50"), 2 glasses, a 3D BluRay player for $1,800. It just happened to be 3D


so sorry smart azz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television happy now!


----------



## dishman1999

RAD said:


> I paid under $2K for a very nice Samsung Plasma and Blu-Ray player that included to pairs of glasses and Megamind. That's $5K less then I paid for my first plasma back in 2004 so IMHO that wasn't overpriced. Hell Rooms to Go is including 50" Samsung 3D sets in some of their deals for living rooms.
> 
> So far NOBODY in my family has experienced any health effects from watching any 3D programming. Yes, some folks have reported ill effects from watching 3D programming, but nobody is forcing them to watch 3D if it's cauing them problems. I think the point of the OP is that they have 3D hardware and wish Dish would add some 3D programming.
> 
> BTW, how many people are color blind, should Dish not offer programming in color since they can't properly view it? How about people with hearing issues, should DIsh not offer Dolby Digital audio since they can't hear the audio? Again, nobody is forcing 3D on anyone, just make it available for folks that do want and enjoy it.


very nice that you putting American out of work good work!:nono2::nono2:

Vizio is a American company and is base out of so cal!

http://www.buysquad.com/product.aspx?pf_id=XVT3D424SV


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> very nice that you putting American out of work good work!:nono2::nono2:
> 
> Vizio is a American company and is base out of so cal!
> 
> http://www.buysquad.com/product.aspx?pf_id=XVT3D424SV


 I am fairly certain all your products you buy are not 100% American made.

Vizio doesn't make very good TVs. They're not bad, but when you want a great plasma set you look to Panasonic or Samsung...definitely not Vizio.


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> I am fairly certain all your products you buy are not 100% American made.
> 
> Vizio doesn't make very good TVs. They're not bad, but when you want a great plasma set you look to Panasonic or Samsung...definitely not Vizio.


I know you aren't buying anything that made in America that for sure how that Honda and Samsuck! Vizio American Made and Chevy the only car that I would buy Buck a Fix on repair daily. here a link's for you!

http://www.youreviewelectronics.com/vizio-reviews/
http://www.youreviewelectronics.com/reviews/plasma-tv-reviews/vizio-vp505xvt-review/
http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-M370VT-...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://www.amazon.com/XVT3D474SV-47...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1317228668&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m33O422DA0M67Q/ref=ent_fb_link

and I will only buy a Seagate Hard drive because the company is base in california!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagate_Technology

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001FWIE1Y...5&creativeASIN=B001FWIE1Y&tag=cnet_mp-3279-20
5 star: (559) people gave it.
Dell computer not a Apple from china!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell


----------



## RAD

Boy, you're really stretching now Dishman1999, forget the reason for this thread and now going off on where something is made. 

OK, so I bought a Samsung, you really believe that Vizo is made in the US? Dell, they used to all be made in the US, Dell is based about 20 miles north of where I live and have a Dell right here. Oh wait, what does it say on the label on tha back of the case, made in China. Got an HP to replace it, that came from Mexico. So what TV are you buying that's made in the USA, not just a US based company?


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> I know you aren't buying anything that made in America that for sure how that Honda and Samsuck! Vizio American Made and Chevy the only car that I would buy Buck a Fix on repair daily. here a link's for you!
> 
> http://www.youreviewelectronics.com/vizio-reviews/
> http://www.youreviewelectronics.com/reviews/plasma-tv-reviews/vizio-vp505xvt-review/
> http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-M370VT-...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
> http://www.amazon.com/XVT3D474SV-47...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1317228668&sr=1-1
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m33O422DA0M67Q/ref=ent_fb_link
> 
> and I will only buy a Seagate Hard drive because the company is base in california!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagate_Technology
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001FWIE1Y...5&creativeASIN=B001FWIE1Y&tag=cnet_mp-3279-20
> 5 star: (559) people gave it.
> Dell computer not a Apple from china!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell


:lol: Vizio TVs are manufactured overseas in Taiwan and China. Some Seagate drives are made in Singapore and Thailand. Just because a company is based in a country, that doesn't mean it's made there.


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> :lol: Vizio TVs are manufactured overseas in Taiwan and China. Just because a company is based in a country, that doesn't mean it's made there.


show me where you see that .

http://www.vizio.com/index.php
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> show me where you see that .
> 
> http://www.vizio.com/index.php


Google 'vizio made in China' and enjoy.


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> show me where you see that .
> 
> http://www.vizio.com/index.php
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA


From your 2nd link: 


> although some parts are made in other countries


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> Google 'vizio made in China' and enjoy.


Yes, the company Vizio is a USA company although some parts are made in other countries but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA. As a result, the profits are spent here in America

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA#ixzz1ZGu6ob9Q

ENJOY

Key part:but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA


----------



## RAD

dishman1999 said:


> Yes, the company Vizio is a USA company although some parts are made in other countries but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA. As a result, the profits are spent here in America
> 
> Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA#ixzz1ZGu6ob9Q
> 
> ENJOY
> 
> Key part:but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA


So you say don't buy Apple since they aren't made here but you say buy Vizio which also aren't made here, but both companies do development and engineering in the USA, very confused.

So do you also say don't buy a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord, both of which are build in the US, employe thousands of Americans?

I'm out of here since this thread has gone so far off course not worth it.


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> Yes, the company Vizio is a USA company although some parts are made in other countries but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA. As a result, the profits are spent here in America
> 
> Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA#ixzz1ZGu6ob9Q
> 
> ENJOY
> 
> Key part:but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA


Exactly...they're not 100% American made. You're doing exactly what you chastised RAD for doing. You're supporting a foreign company, AmTran, since they own 23% of Vizio and 85% of their foreign made TVs come from overseas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120820684382013977.html?mod=todays_us_page_one


> Much of Vizio's success stems from the cozy relationship that Mr. Wang has forged with Taipei-based AmTran Technology Co. AmTran is a contract manufacturer that for years built computer monitors and TVs for companies like Sharp Corp. and Sony. Unlike with those customers, however, AmTran owns a 23% stake in Vizio.
> 
> The arrangement gets Vizio preferential treatment. AmTran sometimes swallows shipping costs and pushes component suppliers to ensure Vizio's products are high quality and on time. AmTran now gets about 80% of its revenue from Vizio. In turn, Vizio sources as many as 85% of its TVs from AmTran, according to research firm DisplaySearch.


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> Exactly...they're not 100% American made. You're doing exactly what you chastised RAD for doing. You're supporting a foreign company, AmTran, since they own 23% of Vizio and 85% of their foreign made TVs come from overseas.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120820684382013977.html?mod=todays_us_page_one


wrong. the money stays in America and not go back to Japan! Samsucks!
As a result, the profits are spent here in America

if foxs news corp writes it you must think it the Holy word!


----------



## dishman1999

RAD said:


> So you say don't buy Apple since they aren't made here but you say buy Vizio which also aren't made here, but both companies do development and engineering in the USA, very confused.
> 
> So do you also say don't buy a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord, both of which are build in the US, employe thousands of Americans?
> 
> I'm out of here since this thread has gone so far off course not worth it.


ya buy those crap cars it take 5 seconds to take the seat of a Honda two bolts what junk all there money goes back to Japan and China so No don't buy there crap!

http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/honda/honda_accord.htm

what great cars LOL!

NEWS: Engine problems force Honda recall

WASHINGTON - March 19, 2007 - Honda Motor Corp. said Monday that it was recalling about 165,000 vehicles from the 2005-06 model years in the United States to deal with potential engine problems

Honda said the recall affected 2005 models of the Acura RL, TL and TSX sedans, 2005 Honda Accord coupes, sedans and hybrids, 2005 Odyssey minivans and 2006 Ridgeline trucks.

The move is part of a global recall because of similar problems, said Honda spokesman Chris Martin. Details on the total number of vehicles and the number of countries where the vehicles were sold were not immediately available, he said.

Martin said the automaker discovered that sealer material leaked onto a coil wire inside the fuel pump relay on some of the vehicles. The wire can become brittle and snap, causing the engine to stall or fail to star


----------



## sigma1914

dishman1999 said:


> wrong. the money stays in America and not go back to Japan! Samsucks!
> As a result, the profits are spent here in America
> 
> if foxs news corp writes it you must think it the Holy word!


How does the money stay in America if AmTram owns 23% of Vizio?


----------



## dishman1999

sigma1914 said:


> How does the money stay in America if AmTram owns 23% of Vizio?


but development, engineering etc. are here in the USA. As a result, the profits are spent here in America

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_Vizio_Tv_made_in_The_USA#ixzz1ZH6YuJGs


----------



## sigma1914

I give up. *facepalm*

:backtotop I can understand Dish waiting on 3D. I doubt enough customers have left for that reason to mean anything to Dish.


----------



## tampa8

sigma1914 said:


> I give up. *facepalm*
> 
> :backtotop I can understand Dish waiting on 3D. I doubt enough customers have left for that reason to mean anything to Dish.


+1 on both.


----------



## dishman1999

tampa8 said:


> +1 on both.


-100000


----------



## Inkosaurus

sigma1914 said:


> I give up. *facepalm*
> 
> :backtotop I can understand Dish waiting on 3D. I doubt enough customers have left for that reason to mean anything to Dish.


I get maybe one call a month (if im lucky) from a customer asking about 3D capability at dish network.
About a month ago on our internal message board there was actually a thread asking us CSR's to give details on the calls we get about 3D or if the subject even comes up during the call to report it in the thread.

It could have been anywhere from the customer asking if we offered 3D services, to the customer just speaking about 3D at the movies.

There were 10 posts from CSR's in that thread, most of which were about the customer stating they dislike 3D


----------



## evnow

FarmerBob said:


> And there will be 1.4b, c, d . . . that will add features to the cabling. And yes, there will be no "end" state. But there needs to be "one beginning" so that there are not a million different types of 3D out there with a million different TVs.


That 1.4a is the beginning.

I don't think you have done enough home work on 3D. I suggest you read how the various pieces all talk to each other using HDMI 1.4.

The differences in display and implementation are just that - implementation differences. Just like you have LCD/Plasma/DLP/DILA displays you have various ways of actually implementing 3D as well. But they all work together.

You can get any 3D enabled source (any 3d blu-ray player, Directv, any 3d enabled graphics card), 3d enabled AVR, 3D enabled display and high-speed HDMI cables and they work together.


----------



## evnow

Inkosaurus said:


> There were 10 posts from CSR's in that thread, most of which were about the customer stating they dislike 3D


I never called Dish about 3D - just saw the writing on the wall and moved to DirecTV. Apparently a lot of even dbstalk dish people don't want to be at the cutting edge. I'm sure many of them were asking for more SD channels instead of those bandwidth hogging HD.

BTW, in 1998 how many customers called you asking for HD ?

That is the difference between leading & following.

note to self : change the dbstalk fovorites link to Directv forum so that I don't land in this thread


----------



## normang

There is a big difference between 1998 and HD and 2011 and 3D. 

If you look at the 3D market, it does not appear to be growing, people are not running out and getting new sets for 3D, they maybe getting them because they want a new flat screen, but not because, they want 3D, and the glasses are annoying and for some sets, way over priced. 

I've seen a number of 3D movies now at the theater and the extra cost for what you get, its not worth it, the same goes for those movies coming to a TV, unless you have a larger set, and a room that can accommodate 3D viewing optimally, its just not that impressive.


----------



## Paul Secic

Michael1 said:


> I was just over at the Directv site, and they now have four 3D channels! Dish, zero. Even the stodgy old cable companies have 3D. Comcast has three 3D channels, and Time Warner one channel. Where's Dish?
> 
> According to an In-Stat report released yesterday, sales of 3D televisions are up 500% from last year. They also predict that soon all TVs over 40" will have 3D built-in. The prices of 1080p 3D projectors are also coming down. In-Stat predicts that by 2015 300 million households worldwide will have a 3D TV.
> 
> Also this month, another research firm, iSuppli, confirms In-Stat's numbers, and predicts 3D TV shipments up 463 percent in 2011, with a total of 23.4 million units shipped. They see 3D TV shipments increasing by 132 percent in 2012, with 54.2 million units shipped. By 2015, iSuppli predicts that over half of all TVs shipped will be 3D.
> 
> I've already heard reports from people who moved from Dish to Directv for the 3D content.
> 
> When I was at CES, and asked the Dish people about 3D, their response was, "We just don't see the 3D content yet." That's not forward thinking. They are going to be left behind.
> 
> Any company in the technology business needs to stay current, or perish.
> 
> Michael


Who needs 3d?


----------



## Joe Bernardi

3D TV sales are going up because there are few, if any, new HDTVs for sale that are not 3D. That doesn't mean that all the buyers plan to watch 3D TV.

I wonder what the vote would be if every registered DBStalk member responded to an online poll about their interest in 3D.


----------



## DoyleS

There will always be the early adopters that get the latest technology and upgrade their hardware. It is interesting here in the Bay Area, the largest electronic store which is Fry's is always advertising 3D sets. The same is true at Costco. As you walk in the door there are 3D sets on display. So, when people do purchase a set, they can look at the cost difference and decide whether they want to go 3D or not. In my case, my current projector died and I am choosing to go with a 3D capable projector. I have no intention of leaving Dish so for the near future, it will be renting 3D disks in addition to 2D BlueRay. Paul's comment is right on with "Who needs 3D?" probably not many. The other question is Who Wants 3D? Needs and Wants are often different.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Joe Bernardi said:


> I wonder what the vote would be if every registered DBStalk member responded to an online poll about their interest in 3D.


I added a poll to this thread that will be open for 45 days... just to gauge some of the interest and see what we see.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I might be buying a new TV, but I don't care if it has 3D, nor will I be buying or subscribing to any 3D content.


----------



## Inkosaurus

I had to choose option 3 in the poll as it fits my situation closest.
I have a 3D tv but dont care for its 3D capabilities at all, i just couldnt be bothered to go out and look for a good 2D tv.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> I added a poll to this thread that will be open for 45 days... just to gauge some of the interest and see what we see.


Good idea.

I voted for 4. as I am not sure when I may buy another TV- prolly when I move, also uncertain. But it will have 3D, and I'd pay up to a few hundred more if need be. Just to play with it, watch occasionally, experiment, enjoy.
But it's not a big enough draw to dump an excellent Samsung at this time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... I thought I had a "3D ready" TV in my Samsung... but turns out it isn't quite... IF it were, then I might have considered getting some glasses and trying out the 3D PPVs on Dish or maybe even splurging for a 3D Blu-ray player to see... but since I would have to pretty much replace every component in my system to even try... I can't see it happening in my house for a long time.


----------



## tcatdbs

I'm sure I'll end up buying a "3D" TV at some point (since all the new ones seem to have that included)... but if the same TV without 3D was available for $10 less, I'd opt to save my $10. Kind of like BlueRay, why buy something that disks cost more? Standard DVD's look fantastic on my TV's... but then who buys DVDs anymore...


----------



## djlong

On a large enough screen, you DO see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVDs. It's nto that DVDs are bad by ANY stretch of the imagination. In the end, it all boils down to preferences. ...and since the premium for Blu-Rays has gone way down, that's the direction I went.


----------



## tampa8

djlong said:


> On a large enough screen, you DO see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVDs. It's nto that DVDs are bad by ANY stretch of the imagination. In the end, it all boils down to preferences. ...and since the premium for Blu-Rays has gone way down, that's the direction I went.


There is distinct difference for sure, even on all but the smallest screens. But if your eyes can't see it, I guess why pay more for it......


----------



## Michael1

I frequent another forum which discusses home theater, tvs, projectors, audio, etc. There are bunch of 3D naysayers over there, too, who like to rain on everyone's parade. However, there are a lot of people who are greatly enjoying 3D, and don't appear to want to give it up, no matter what other people say. When I see comments such as "the 3D is to die for" when describing how well a display works, or people who went out and splurged on a bunch of 3D blu-rays, that doesn't sound like any "fad" that is going away soon.

Just like surround sound, it is not for everyone, but there are quite a few people who are really getting into it.

Michael


----------



## jadebox

Michael1 said:


> Just like surround sound, it is not for everyone, but there are quite a few people who are really getting into it.


One of my co-workers was bashing 3D a while back. After a while, I realized he was thinking that TV was going to switch to 3D - like it did to color then stereo audio - where most of the programming will eventually be in 3D and he'd be forced to watch it in 3D. 

-- Roger


----------



## Eternal Jazz

I'll never invest one a 3D tv. They're just a passing fad and since I wear glasses, when I watch a 3d movie it feels like my eyes want to be ripped out of my head. Not worth it, in my opinion. Plus, I have seen enough innovation with it.


----------



## Joe Bernardi

I just purchased an Epson Powerlite Pro Cinema projector. I had a choice of Epson's latest 3D and non-3D projectors.

I chose non-3D, and price differential was not a consideration.

When I upgrade in ten years, maybe I'll get a no-glasses 3D or Holographic HDTV.


----------



## Laxguy

TVs are not investments! Their value never appreciates. 

And if you want a new one, or have to replace one, more than likely it'll be a 3D set. But quite watchable in 2D....


----------



## Paul Secic

Eternal Jazz said:


> I'll never invest one a 3D tv. They're just a passing fad and since I wear glasses, when I watch a 3d movie it feels like my eyes want to be ripped out of my head. Not worth it, in my opinion. Plus, I have seen enough innovation with it.


I'm not buying into 3d because I'm happy with HD.


----------



## inazsully

If you look at who is pushing 3D and how much they have invested in it you will see that 3D will not be allowed to fail. In 3 years every TV over 40" will be 3D whether we like it or not.


----------



## HDlover

Paul Secic said:


> I'm not buying into 3d because I'm happy with HD.


And before HD came along you were probably happy with SD. Life is 3D. I guess you'd be happy with one eye because that is what 2D is. I'll take as close to life as can be done. I Really like 4K 3D at the movies. Looking forward to holodecks, I should live so long!

OH. where's the 3D Dish?!


----------



## HDlover

Inkosaurus said:


> I get maybe one call a month (if im lucky) from a customer asking about 3D capability at dish network.
> About a month ago on our internal message board there was actually a thread asking us CSR's to give details on the calls we get about 3D or if the subject even comes up during the call to report it in the thread.
> 
> It could have been anywhere from the customer asking if we offered 3D services, to the customer just speaking about 3D at the movies.
> 
> There were 10 posts from CSR's in that thread, most of which were about the customer stating they dislike 3D


How about a premium 3D bundle. Money talks, isn't that why Dish is in business? And throw ESPN into that bundle, not everyone by far watches it but everyone is paying premium rates for it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

"HDlover" said:


> I guess you'd be happy with one eye because that is what 2D is.


I have debunked this on another forum... One eye is most definitely NOT just 2D.

Most of your depth perception has to do with the brain interpreting shadows and relative sizes of familiar objects... Yes, you gain better perception ith two eyes, but only one eye is necessary for how our brain interprets the 3D world.

Only in artificial 3D constructs like TV is there a reliance on stereo-vision to approximate reality.


----------



## Frodo301

Based on the poll numbers, I would think 3d is still not ready for prime time. Granted there is a market and I do believe there will be more of a push as more programming becomes available. Also the technology will gain a whole lot more support and my money when the sets are 3d without the need for glasses.


----------



## jadebox

Frodo301 said:


> Also the technology will gain a whole lot more support and my money when the sets are 3d without the need for glasses.


Unless you're willing to watch a 19" TV, you'll be going without 3D for a very long time. 

I first saw a glasses-free 3D lenticular TV back in 1987. They haven't improved much since then. So, don't expect any major breakthroughs any time soon.

TVs using Lenticular displays will be more expensive and probably won't be as good at displaying 2D as current 3D TVs. And 3D viewing will be restricted to a narrow angle in front of the TV. The need for 3D glasses isn't going away anytime soon.

I think a lot of people forget that you only need to wear the glasses when you're watching a 3D program. The rest of the time - _most _of the time - a 3D TV serves as a really good 2D TV and you don't need glasses to watch it.

And, wearing the glasses to watch a movie is not a big deal at all. I usually turn down the lights and turn off my computer to avoid distractions during "movie nights" anyway. After putting on the glasses, I easily forget I'm wearing them as soon as the movie starts.

If you're in the market for a new TV, don't ignore 3D TVs. Adding 3D using LCD glasses to a current high-end TV costs the manufacturer almost nothing. And high-end 3D TVs don't cost the consumer much more than equivalent 2D TVs. The poll results don't mean anything. When I was shopping for a TV, I would have responded that I wasn't interested in 3D. But, the 3D Samsung TV I ended up buying cost about $100 more than the comparable 2D model and mine came with a Blu-Ray Player, a 3D Blu-Ray movie, and two pairs of glasses. So, for the most part, you can consider 3D as a bonus included with some TVs.

-- Roger


----------



## 722921

Frodo301 said:


> Based on the poll numbers, I would think 3d is still not ready for prime time. Granted there is a market and I do believe there will be more of a push as more programming becomes available. Also the technology will gain a whole lot more support and my money when the sets are 3d without the need for glasses.


The poll has been closed for a long time now...so it is quickly becoming irrelevant.

So what 3D is available on Dish anyway?


----------



## Jim5506

What we need is 3D TV that works on any and all TV sets - that would be an accomplishment.


----------



## Ray [email protected] Network

We have VOD movies in 3D at times (they are identified with 3D on the left of the Guide on channel 1 or 501). The only receiver currently supporting 3D are the 722/722k and 922. Thanks.



722921 said:


> The poll has been closed for a long time now...so it is quickly becoming irrelevant.
> 
> So what 3D is available on Dish anyway?


----------



## inazsully

jadebox said:


> Unless you're willing to watch a 19" TV, you'll be going without 3D for a very long time.
> 
> I first saw a glasses-free 3D lenticular TV back in 1987. They haven't improved much since then. So, don't expect any major breakthroughs any time soon.
> 
> TVs using Lenticular displays will be more expensive and probably won't be as good at displaying 2D as current 3D TVs. And 3D viewing will be restricted to a narrow angle in front of the TV. The need for 3D glasses isn't going away anytime soon.
> 
> I think a lot of people forget that you only need to wear the glasses when you're watching a 3D program. The rest of the time - _most _of the time - a 3D TV serves as a really good 2D TV and you don't need glasses to watch it.
> 
> And, wearing the glasses to watch a movie is not a big deal at all. I usually turn down the lights and turn off my computer to avoid distractions during "movie nights" anyway. After putting on the glasses, I easily forget I'm wearing them as soon as the movie starts.
> 
> If you're in the market for a new TV, don't ignore 3D TVs. Adding 3D using LCD glasses to a current high-end TV costs the manufacturer almost nothing. And high-end 3D TVs don't cost the consumer much more than equivalent 2D TVs. The poll results don't mean anything. When I was shopping for a TV, I would have responded that I wasn't interested in 3D. But, the 3D Samsung TV I ended up buying cost about $100 more than the comparable 2D model and mine came with a Blu-Ray Player, a 3D Blu-Ray movie, and two pairs of glasses. So, for the most part, you can consider 3D as a bonus included with some TVs.
> 
> -- Roger


55" 3D sets are now being sold in Japan that do not require glasses of any kind.


----------



## 722921

Ray [email protected] Network said:


> We have VOD movies in 3D at times (they are identified with 3D on the left of the Guide on channel 1 or 501). The only receiver currently supporting 3D are the 722/722k and 922. Thanks.


Thanks, I will investigate...


----------



## DavidMi

Last night I picked up one of those new Playstation 3D televisions from Best Buy for $299! Now I just need some 3D to play on it! (I have directv installed down in the main living room, but in the bedroom I have only dish)


----------



## koralis

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have debunked this on another forum... One eye is most definitely NOT just 2D.
> 
> Most of your depth perception has to do with the brain interpreting shadows and relative sizes of familiar objects... Yes, you gain better perception ith two eyes, but only one eye is necessary for how our brain interprets the 3D world.


Ok, then "2d" TV is also 3d since the brain can still interpret the relative sizes, etc. And this is true, since you can play a "3d" game without stereoscopic vision and still have a sense of distance, etc.

But that's beside the point... they're clearly talking about "flat" (ie non-stereoscopic) perception and one eye vs a normal HD screen seems like a fairly decent analogy to me.


----------



## koralis

For the record, I jsut bought a 3d TV, own a 622 and a non-3d capable blueray player. Why? 

1) Support may improve in the future making me want it.
2) I got the TV for a price that basically gave me the capability for free.


----------



## tampa8

koralis said:


> For the record, I jsut bought a 3d TV, own a 622 and a non-3d capable blueray player. Why?
> 
> 1) Support may improve in the future making me want it.
> 2) I got the TV for a price that basically gave me the capability for free.


Exactly as many articles are saying. As a percentage very few are buying 3D because they just have to have 3D. (Unlike those who did buy HD sets because they did have to have it - and even that is up for debate, I still many who come here getting their first HD set) It's because the price of the sets are very close in price now, and to get the most features (other than 3D) you need to get the 3D set. For TV viewing we will know 3D is alive and well when the networks (and I include the big four, A&E, USA, etc...) have 3D programming. Until then, there is a place for 3D TV's for watching media for those who want it, just not for Dish to spend much on it if it takes away from other resources.


----------



## dkdesantis

And after 8 years I am now leaving Dish because of no 3D broadcasting.


----------



## RasputinAXP

3 channels of 3D are that important, or it's one on the list of your reasons?


----------



## 356B

dkdesantis said:


> And after 8 years I am now leaving Dish because of no 3D broadcasting.


 I'm beginning to think this is a vast Direct TV conspiracy....


----------



## dkdesantis

Yes I want ESPN 3D and anything else 3D. This is what I am leaving. This board is too anti 3D/anti 3D glasses to believe it. You may be the majority but you are not the only voice. Dish needs to hear the other side is the only reason for my post. I have posted 3 or 4 messages on this site to Dish for the need for 3D broadcasts in the past 6 months.


----------



## 356B

dkdesantis said:



> Yes I want ESPN 3D and anything else 3D. This is what I am leaving. This board is too anti 3D/anti 3D glasses to believe it. You may be the majority but you are not the only voice. Dish needs to hear the other side is the only reason for my post. I have posted 3 or 4 messages on this site to Dish for the need for 3D broadcasts in the past 6 months.


I believe this board has zero influence on how much Dish has of 3DTV.
For the record I have been a proponent of 3D for a while. I have a Samsung 3DTV, Blu-ray 3D capable machine, and the hated by some glasses. I'm not leaving Dish because even with all it's issues I like Dish TV. I've seen Direct and it's not for me.


----------



## Rduce

dkdesantis said:


> Yes I want ESPN 3D and anything else 3D. This is what I am leaving. This board is too anti 3D/anti 3D glasses to believe it. You may be the majority but you are not the only voice. Dish needs to hear the other side is the only reason for my post. I have posted 3 or 4 messages on this site to Dish for the need for 3D broadcasts in the past 6 months.


I do not feel that this thread is anti-3D, if anything it is a validation that over 70% of consumers just feel that 3D, in its current form and foreseeable future, is not worth running out and buying products to watch it.

From my own perspective, I have seen a swing to less 3D movies being offered at my local movie theaters. So I feel that is indicative of the fact that the rest of the consumer base is also hovering around the same percentage point of not buying into the 3D trend just yet.


----------



## Paul Secic

dkdesantis said:


> And after 8 years I am now leaving Dish because of no 3D broadcasting.


3D is not important. Go ahead and get DirecTV and pay a lot more.


----------



## wolfjc

Three years I bought a Pany HD and I can see NO reason why I should buy a 3D when my HD set is working just fine.
When or IF it breaks down then maybe I will look at 3D


----------



## puckwithahalo

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/tech/gaming-gadgets/why-3d-tv-not-popular/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6

Some of the things that this article points out may be why Dish hasn't done more with 3D. Biggest thing I saw in it is only a 3% market penetration rate at this point.


----------



## FarmerBob

I read an article in a trade mag a while ago that mentioned that 3D was declining in the U.S. and in Europe not taking on at all, and they will not pay the extra few bucks (Euros) to see a 3D movie much less a 3D TV.

Another CES first days article mentioned that it appeared that there are fewer 3D offerings this year compared to the last two. So . . . 

I personally think it's a fad and since it's coming to the surface that there are many of the general public, Johnny Depp who didn't go to the 3D premier of his latest 3D movie, that either can not see 3D or it really messes them up. After watching a Sony 3D Soccer display, it took about 15 minutes for my eyes to calm down so I could drive. 

Plus do they have a firm specification out yet or a ton of drafts? It's not going to really come around until there is one spec that all manufacturers follow it. VHS/Beta, HDD/Blu-ray . . .


----------



## inazsully

And on the plus side of 3D, LG announced at the CES Show that for 2012 they are introducing 25 new 3D displays and Sharp announced that it is releasing a 80" 3D display with a msrp of $6499. IT's unlikely that Sony and Samsung and Vizio will passively stand by and watch as they already have a large investment in the success of 3D. The buying public will have absolutely no choice about accepting 3D because it is being shoved down our throats. What new display are you going to buy when 3D is your only option?


----------



## 356B

I remember people complaining about color TV. Jim Hardie, "Tales of Wells Fargo" had a green face from a ill adjusted new fangled color TV........time marches on........


----------



## jadebox

inazsully said:


> The buying public will have absolutely no choice about accepting 3D because it is being shoved down our throats. What new display are you going to buy when 3D is your only option?


It doesn't cost the manufacturer more than a couple of dollars extra to add 3D functionality to a high-end TV. So, it's likely to be a common feature of the more expensive TVs.

My TV has lots of features I don't use. I don't think of them as having been "shoved down my throat."

-- Roger


----------



## normang

I suspect that its more than a couple dollars for a mfg to use a 3D capable panel, and whatever else is different to provide it.

However, for active 3D, the glasses are over-priced. it would cost you enough for a another smaller HD sets to get enough glasses. The passive 3D glasses are cheaper, but you still pay more for added glasses.

The biggest issue is the total lack of software, many movies that were 3D in the theater are not being released on Bluray, and then there is an added cost for that too, and for what, a little viewing depth?

Once every set is 3D because they only want to to make them that way, and enough glasses come with the set to accommodate a family of 4 and some friends and you don't pay extra for the set or the movies, then maybe, if your one that doesn't get ill watching 3D, perhaps it will gain a little more ground.


----------



## RAD

normang said:


> However, for active 3D, the glasses are over-priced. it would cost you enough for a another smaller HD sets to get enough glasses. The passive 3D glasses are cheaper, but you still pay more for added glasses.


When sets first came out I'd agree, but prices are coming down even for the active glasses. I just ordered another pair of Samsung active glasses for $24.04 shipped.


----------



## inazsully

With at least 50 new displays announced for 2012 being 3D, with one being Sharps 80" model, the future is looking more and more 3D. If one network decides to offer a 100% 3D option for sports, and only sports, the biggest display buying demographic, men 24-60, will insure the dominance of 3D availability.


----------



## RAD

inazsully said:


> If one network decides to offer a 100% 3D option for sports, and only sports, the biggest display buying demographic, men 24-60, will insure the dominance of 3D availability.


There's already ESPN 3D, a 100% 3D sports channel.


----------



## tampa8

jadebox said:


> It doesn't cost the manufacturer more than a couple of dollars extra to add 3D functionality to a high-end TV.
> 
> -- Roger


:sure:


----------



## inazsully

RAD said:


> There's already ESPN 3D, a 100% 3D sports channel.


ESPN 3D may be online now and showing 3D but you are close in sensing that ESPN was part of my scenario. Disney owns both ABC and ESPN and since Disney had a 7.5 billion dollar year and they have a heavily vested interest in the success of 3D they could exercise a major influence in what we watch and buy. Consider the content if all sports on ABC and ESPN were made available in 3D. Really good 3D shot with state of the art cameras. They may take a financial hit at first but all the dudes and dudetts out there that love their sports will be jumping on the 3D band wagon. NBC and CBS would soon follow.


----------



## harsh

inazsully said:


> With at least 50 new displays announced for 2012 being 3D, with one being Sharps 80" model, the future is looking more and more 3D.


Even if they came out with a device to retrofit existing televisions with 3D, there's still an alarming paucity of good software. While sports is neat, you can't watch it very many times and even ESPN hasn't improved their fresh content percentage as much as most had hoped.

3D needs to be something more than a tool you retain to wow friends and neighbors.


----------



## jadebox

normang said:


> I suspect that its more than a couple dollars for a mfg to use a 3D capable panel, and whatever else is different to provide it.


A high-end TV already has a "3d-capable panel" - i.e. one with a high refresh rate. Pretty much all that's added for 3D is a different HDMI interface, some software, and a controller for the glasses.



> However, for active 3D, the glasses are over-priced. it would cost you enough for a another smaller HD sets to get enough glasses.


I spent about $300 total for six pairs of glasses for my Samsung (and I got all the Shrek films in 3D, MegaMind, How To Train Your Dragon, and a few other moves on Blu-Ray with them).

-- Roger


----------



## Presence

inazsully said:


> If you look at who is pushing 3D <snip>


That would be you. I am weary of your incessant posts.

My two cents: 3D is dead, the recent CES pretty well confirmed that. This will change, however, once televisions that do not require glasses have matured and come down in price. That is at least five years away.


----------



## Grandude

This thread could easily outlast consumer interest in 3D TV.;>)


----------



## inazsully

Presence said:


> That would be you. I am weary of your incessant posts.
> 
> My two cents: 3D is dead, the recent CES pretty well confirmed that. This will change, however, once televisions that do not require glasses have matured and come down in price. That is at least five years away.


Actually I do not have a 3D TV and since I'm with Dish I don't have any 3D programming. I always recommend that friends do not buy a 3D TV at this time unless they don't mind spending the extra money. However, that does not mean I am blind to the hand writing on the wall telling me that 3D will eventually become a reality. If you don't like my incessant posts then feel free to ignore them. Where exactly did the CES confirm that 3D is dead? Perhaps with the introduction of OLED in 3D or Sony introducing Crystal LCD in 3D or was it the introduction of all the new 3D models for 2012.


----------



## 356B

Grandude said:


> This thread could easily outlast consumer interest in 3D TV.;>)


Then why waste your time?:grin:


----------



## tampa8

Grandude said:


> This thread could easily outlast consumer interest in 3D TV.;>)


----------



## jadebox

inazsully said:


> I always recommend that friends do not buy a 3D TV at this time unless they don't mind spending the extra money.


My Samsung cost $100 more than the equivalent non-3D model. But, my TV came with a free Blu-Ray player, a couple of Blu-Ray movies, and two sets of 3D glasses. I didn't mind spending the extra money. 

-- Roger


----------



## Laxguy

jadebox said:


> My Samsung cost $100 more than the equivalent non-3D model. But, my TV came with a free Blu-Ray player, a couple of Blu-Ray movies, and two sets of 3D glasses. I didn't mind spending the extra money.


Indeed. My impression is that if you're buying a mid to high end set, you're likely to be getting 3D as a part of it all.


----------



## inazsully

Laxguy said:


> Indeed. My impression is that if you're buying a mid to high end set, you're likely to be getting 3D as a part of it all.


Anytime you can get some serious bang for the buck I say go for it. The included blu-ray player in this deal is great, especially if you are getting the Blockbuster Movie Pass since it includes blu-ray movies at no extra charge. The bigger the display the more you can appreciate the higher PQ of blu-ray.


----------



## Orion9

inazsully said:


> The buying public will have absolutely no choice about accepting 3D because it is being shoved down our throats. What new display are you going to buy when 3D is your only option?


I replaced my previous TV when it was 21 years old. The new one is 1 year old. By the time I replace it, I'll probably have to worry about 6D being pushed down my throat.


----------



## koralis

Orion9 said:


> I replaced my previous TV when it was 21 years old. The new one is 1 year old. By the time I replace it, I'll probably have to worry about 6D being pushed down my throat.


You have an amazing amount of faith in the longevity of modern electronics. My last TV lasted about 4 years before it literally broke. (shattered color wheel.) I replaced it. 6 months later, half the screen went black. A bit of research, started training a fan on it... kept going another few months before the TV would just power itself down intermittantly. Kept dealing with that for a few months... jsut seemed to get more and more frequent, at which point I decided to replace it.

Yes, my intention was to have the TV for 10 years or more... but the hardware didn't live up to my intentions.


----------



## Orion9

Well, my last TV: 21 years (didn't die - just wanted HD). Parent's last TV: 28 years (theirs did die and they live in the middle of nowhere where repairs are difficult). My Betamax from 1984 still runs. I replaced my VHS with SVHS machines around 1989. They work though the transports now make all kinds of squeaks. My LD player from the same era still works perfectly. Of course, since I bought the HD TV, a year ago, these old analog devices aren't getting much playing time. The audio is still running through my 1978 speakers. The 1985 receiver was replaced but only because I wanted HDMI switching, more inputs, etc.

Interestingly, the whole thing that kicked my over to HD was that my 1999 TiVo started to act up - as far as I have been able to determine, it wasn't a hardware problem - rather a bunch of old TiVos started crashing on the data downloads - an incompatibility, ancient bug, out of memory, whatever it was, TiVo considered them obsolete so I gave up on TiVo and SD in general.

The first DVD player I bought still works (~1998 I think), though it too is getting less exercise since I got the Blu-ray.

My first computer - an Altair 8800b from 1976 still works. In fact, I have never had any personal computer fail. They just get "outdated" every decade or so. My microwave oven is from 1985.

A couple of years ago, I used my 1985ish turntable and tape deck hooked to my PC to digitize some of my old audio media - so I know they were working then at least.

This house was built in 1990 and everything is original except the furnace that was replaced last year and the fridge 2 years ago.

I've never had a digital camera fail - though I do want more features every 5 or 6 years. My mom is still using my very first digital camera in all it's 1 megapixel glory. Oh and a friend's mother is still using my first VHS deck - with its wired remote control! I think that one is from 1982.

I do always check the reliability records, both by brand and by technology, when I shop and I weight this very heavily. As I recall, DLPs and rear projectors in general did have a higher breakdown rate than LCDs, which was one my reasons for choosing the latter. 

Hopefully my new stuff will do as well.


----------



## inazsully

In my experience in retail sales, the majority of buyers purchase a new product (TV, CAR, Most electronic equipment etc) because they just want to, seldom because they have to. Very few people keep a car for 10 years and even fewer keep electronic equipment for even 5 years. If they can afford to buy new, even if it's not necessarily an up grade, they do so. With electronic equipment it's almost always an up grade at the 5 year mark, not always the case with cars. It seems that this is the way our society is wired. My dad, myself, my sons, all with the same buying tendencies.


----------



## FarmerBob

koralis said:


> You have an amazing amount of faith in the longevity of modern electronics. My last TV lasted about 4 years before it literally broke. (shattered color wheel.) I replaced it. 6 months later, half the screen went black. A bit of research, started training a fan on it... kept going another few months before the TV would just power itself down intermittantly. Kept dealing with that for a few months... jsut seemed to get more and more frequent, at which point I decided to replace it.
> 
> Yes, my intention was to have the TV for 10 years or more... but the hardware didn't live up to my intentions.


Sounds like you got a Monday-Tuesday model or just the wrong brand. My last "real" cathode TV, a Mitsubishi 35" DiamondVision, is going on 22 years and going strong. And the Samsung DLP I got in Sept. '08, was suppose to be an LED model with the light source rated at 11+ years, the lamp is going on 8,000 hours even though it's only rated for 4k hours. The set itself 3.5 years with no issues with another year and a half on the warranty. So I'd say contemporary electronics have great longevity. Plus all the new CES offerings, unless there's a glaring manufacturing issue that would be covered under warranties, they'll last even longer. There's less to them.


----------



## harsh

FarmerBob said:


> Sounds like you got a Monday-Tuesday model or just the wrong brand. My last "real" cathode TV, a Mitsubishi 35" DiamondVision, is going on 22 years and going strong.


I have an RCA tube TV that is 40 years old and its getting tired (limited contrast) but it still works (ultrasonic remote with forward rolling tuning assembly). On the other hand, I visited the transfer station the other day and there were two different Mits DLP TVs and a couple of cheap flat screens in the electronics recycling van.

The longevity is indeed decreasing and the replacement parts availability is decreasing rapidly. My local TV repair place now takes winters off.


----------



## Orion9

I can remember when we had an all-tube TV. There were maybe 3-4 issues per year. Most were debugged by my dad using tools at home or by taking a bunch of tubes out and testing them on a tube tester machine at a store. But that still left maybe one service call per year or perhaps 1 every other year to the TV repairman. I can remember him being in the house on three occasions but those were just the summer breakdowns when I was home from school. I think the TV repair business has been hurting ever since TVs became mostly transistorized.

I've seen flat panels being swapped out at airports but that appears to be due to burn in on Plasmas, which I think is pretty much guaranteed when you run a display of mostly static text in a bright environment 18-24 hours a day. Hopefully our home TVs will survive much longer.


----------



## koralis

FarmerBob said:


> Sounds like you got a Monday-Tuesday model or just the wrong brand.


Samsung DLP isn't exactly AOC.  It was new technology, and unproven. I've now seen it proven to suck. I'm more hopeful about the LG LCD I replaced it with, but given the penchant for manufacturers to only care about getting an item past the warrenty period I wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## RAD

"koralis" said:


> Samsung DLP isn't exactly AOC.  It was new technology, and unproven. I've now seen it proven to suck. I'm more hopeful about the LG LCD I replaced it with, but given the penchant for manufacturers to only care about getting an item past the warrenty period I wouldn't bet against it.


I've got a Mits DLP set going on it's fourth year and original build, still going strong. I also have two LCD's, a Dell and Samsung that are four and a half years old and still working fine. My son has a Panasonic plasma that's 8 years old, also still working fine. Just a data point that not all sets are built to fail.


----------



## Michael1

Presence said:


> That would be you. I am weary of your incessant posts.
> 
> My two cents: 3D is dead, the recent CES pretty well confirmed that.


You must have been at a different CES than the one I went to.

If you saw LG's booth, you would know it was anything but dead. They had the largest 3D display ever at CES, with a floor to ceiling video wall. Their new OLED TV was showing 3D, too, along with just about every TV they had. As for the rest of the TV manufacturers, it was not the hit of the show this year, but they can't keep pushing the same thing year after year and build any excitement. This year, the big sell was internet connectivity (Smart TVs). However, there were plenty of new 3D TVs being introduced from every manufacturer.

Michael


----------



## tampa8

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-gamers-declare-3d-gaming-dead-138412324.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/247739/why_3d_tv_isnt_cool_at_ces_this_year.html

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/01/05/no_one_buying_3d_tvs/

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/3d-hdtv-prices-plunging-thanks-to-weak-consumer-demand/4531


----------



## sigma1914

tampa8 said:


> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-gamers-declare-3d-gaming-dead-138412324.html
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/247739/why_3d_tv_isnt_cool_at_ces_this_year.html
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/01/05/no_one_buying_3d_tvs/
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/3d-hdtv-prices-plunging-thanks-to-weak-consumer-demand/4531


From one link:


> The truth is that 3D isn't dead, it has just gone into a hibernation of sorts. I'll get into why, but for the time being, expect 3D technology to be pushed to the background for the next year or two. But don't you worry--3D is coming back, and when it does, it will be with a vengeance.


----------



## HDlover

Olympics in 3D this summer, Dish will have to start it by then. Dish is already 6 months late on when they said it would start. WHY NOT ONDEMAND!!! What is the BFD? There's already lots of OnDemand, what's a few more?


----------



## tampa8

sigma1914 said:


> From one link:


I used that link for some balance, because honestly most of the newest information is not good for 3D. But to the whole reason for this thread, it still tells me there is no reason for Dish to put much into 3D at this time. Other than a very few, no one is demanding it.


----------



## hoophead

Without having the time to read all of these pages, I have just purchased a 3D LG, what is the latest about DISH passing along 3D anytime soon?


----------



## HDlover

Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Michael1

I don't think it would be that hard for Dish to put in a 3D channel. It's just encoded a bit differently, with the video typically being broadcast in side-by-side for 1080i/60.

Michael


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Michael1 said:


> I don't think it would be that hard for Dish to put in a 3D channel. It's just encoded a bit differently, with the video typically being broadcast in side-by-side for 1080i/60.
> 
> Michael


I don't think anyone ever said it would be hard... just that Dish hasn't seen enough demand for 3D to be worth paying what the handful of existing 3D channels are probably asking for their 3D channels.


----------



## tampa8

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't think anyone ever said it would be hard... just that Dish hasn't seen enough demand for 3D to be worth paying what the handful of existing 3D channels are probably asking for their 3D channels.


Perfectly stated, and I will add the relatively handful of people who _really_ want it, rather than it would just be _nice_ to have it.... Heck even HD hasn't supplanted SD yet.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire...-now-the-majority-but-hd-viewing-lags-behind/


----------



## Michael1

tampa8 said:


> Perfectly stated, and I will add the relatively handful of people who _really_ want it, rather than it would just be _nice_ to have it.... Heck even HD hasn't supplanted SD yet.
> 
> http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire...-now-the-majority-but-hd-viewing-lags-behind/


So you are saying the reason we don't have all that many HD channels is there is not enough demand?

Michael


----------



## tampa8

Michael1 said:


> So you are saying the reason we don't have all that many HD channels is there is not enough demand?
> 
> Michael


Read my link (and many others like it) believe it or not yes, but not anywhere to the extent of the low demand for 3D. You have to actually see for yourself to believe it, but I can count on one hand ANYONE of elderly neighbors in Florida that want anything to do with HD. It generally costs more and they have to change equipment. Not interested. Alot still use an antenna only. Even though they could watch networks in HD they don't unless they buy a new TV.

"44 percent of homes either do not have an HD set or an HD service." That 44% are not demanding HD. Those of us who post here are generally much more interested in technology than others. How many posts have there been where the poster is discouraged because he set up his parents with HD and they watch SD, say they can't tell the difference.....(Of course there is a huge difference)

Let me put it another way, if there was enough demand for all HD programming, the providers would have it, at the very least one of the Sat providers would, because they would corner the market. But that's not the case. Heck, I think Direct has less HD than most cable companies if you take out the sports programming, certainly DISH has much more. Yet Direct has tons of subscribers. Other things are more important still. All that is multiplied thousand of times for 3D, I maintain there is virtually no demand for it by percentage or numbers.


----------



## Michael1

tampa8 said:


> Read my link (and many others like it) believe it or not yes, but not anywhere to the extent of the low demand for 3D. You have to actually see for yourself to believe it, but I can count on one hand ANYONE of elderly neighbors in Florida that want anything to do with HD. It generally costs more and they have to change equipment. Not interested. Alot still use an antenna only. Even though they could watch networks in HD they don't unless they buy a new TV.
> 
> "44 percent of homes either do not have an HD set or an HD service." That 44% are not demanding HD. Those of us who post here are generally much more interested in technology than others. How many posts have there been where the poster is discouraged because he set up his parents with HD and they watch SD, say they can't tell the difference.....(Of course there is a huge difference)
> 
> Let me put it another way, if there was enough demand for all HD programming, the providers would have it, at the very least one of the Sat providers would, because they would corner the market. But that's not the case. Heck, I think Direct has less HD than most cable companies if you take out the sports programming, certainly DISH has much more. Yet Direct has tons of subscribers. Other things are more important still. All that is multiplied thousand of times for 3D, I maintain there is virtually no demand for it by percentage or numbers.


I did see your link. That would explain why 3D demand is still low. We've only got another 19 years to go before we have even 50% demand.

Direct having fewer HD channels than most cable companies, is one reason why I am with Dish. Movies especially look awful in standard definition these days.

Michael


----------



## Laxguy

Michael1 said:


> Direct having fewer HD channels than most cable companies, is one reason why I am with Dish. Movies especially look awful in standard definition these days.


Most cable companies? Do you have more than one to choose between where you live?

Surprising that cable, wherever, has better movie selection than the sat providers.


----------



## Orion9

My parents also watch nothing but noisy analog cable stretched to 16:9 on their HDTV. It gives me headaches but they feel it's fine. Some of my early Tivo-adopting friends have bought HDTVs but still have only SD service because of the old TiVos. 

I wonder how far off the 4K channels are?


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't think anyone ever said it would be hard... just that Dish hasn't seen enough demand for 3D to be worth paying what the handful of existing 3D channels are probably asking for their 3D channels.


I guess that Dish should certainly have a feel for the demand of 3D, but, in looking at the 2012 TV offerings I see that Panasonic will roll out 16 3D plasma models. Not sure about Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sharp etc but it seems to me that Dish should be involved in the 3D game. When you buy a new TV in 2012 the odds are it will be 3D capable (42"+). As an existing Dish customer I expect my provider to offer at least some 3D viewing options? I don't expect it for free and I'm sure "D" is not offering it for free. I would like to think that my provider is the leader in the industry, not the "lets wait and see how it shakes out" provider.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> I guess that Dish should certainly have a feel for the demand of 3D, but, in looking at the 2012 TV offerings I see that Panasonic will roll out 16 3D plasma models. Not sure about Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sharp etc but it seems to me that Dish should be involved in the 3D game. When you buy a new TV in 2012 the odds are it will be 3D capable (42"+). As an existing Dish customer I expect my provider to offer at least some 3D viewing options? I don't expect it for free and I'm sure "D" is not offering it for free. I would like to think that my provider is the leader in the industry, not the "lets wait and see how it shakes out" provider.


Yeah... but those 3D TVs are also HDTVs... and still 40-50% or customers seem to be connecting SD services to their HDTVs today... Dish still has more SD receivers in the field than HD receivers by a long shot I believe... so just because everyone kind of gets forced to buy a 3D TV these days doesn't mean they have any interest in it.


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... but those 3D TVs are also HDTVs... and still 40-50% or customers seem to be connecting SD services to their HDTVs today... Dish still has more SD receivers in the field than HD receivers by a long shot I believe... so just because everyone kind of gets forced to buy a 3D TV these days doesn't mean they have any interest in it.


Very true for sure. But don't you think that curiosity alone will cause most to at least want to check 3D out after they've purchased the set? I'm more concerned about the folks that are looking for a provider and thinking that if the price is the same or close why not go with the company providing 3D. If Dish eventually begins offering 3D, and I think they will, why come in on the back end? It's no big deal to me because it will be a couple of years before I'm ready for a new TV but in my large retirement community I am often asked what TV to buy and what service to use. Most have cable which I never recommend so it's usually Dish. Not sure what to tell them if they buy a 3D TV, especially since I'm seeing a lot of these TV's including a free 3D player and a movie or two.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> Very true for sure. But don't you think that curiosity alone will cause most to at least want to check 3D out after they've purchased the set? I'm more concerned about the folks that are looking for a provider and thinking that if the price is the same or close why not go with the company providing 3D. If Dish eventually begins offering 3D, and I think they will, why come in on the back end? It's no big deal to me because it will be a couple of years before I'm ready for a new TV but in my large retirement community I am often asked what TV to buy and what service to use. Most have cable which I never recommend so it's usually Dish. Not sure what to tell them if they buy a 3D TV, especially since I'm seeing a lot of these TV's including a free 3D player and a movie or two.


IF I had a compatible 3DTV, I would be curious... but I wouldn't be looking to pay a lot, especially if I had to subscribe to a 3D add-on or pay for premium content... so curiosity doesn't necessarily translate into reliable revenue for Dish yet.

I grant you that it behooves a company like Dish to test the waters (like they did with HD) and try to be a little bit ahead of the curve... but I think they are probably hedging for the same reason the other providers, 3D Blu-ray, and everyone else is... because there hasn't been a huge jump by consumers indicating that they are willing to pay more for 3D on a regular basis.

IF that shift starts... then I have no doubt we will see more 3D on Dish... but until then, I would hate to see customer bills going up to pay for 3D investments that Dish isn't able to sell well enough to pay for themselves by subscribers.


----------



## tampa8

Laxguy said:


> Most cable companies? Do you have more than one to choose between where you live?
> 
> Surprising that cable, wherever, has better movie selection than the sat providers.


Sure,many places have more than one Cable choice. In Florida at my house it would be Brighthouse or FIOS, even in rural Ct. Charter or Uverse.


----------



## RasputinAXP

I keep trying out those 3D TVs when I'm at Best Buy. It looks like a moving Viewmaster and isn't very "real" to me. I tried a few different sources, too: ESPN 3D, Avatar 3D Bluray...*shrug* I get it. I just don't...'get' it.


----------



## Michael1

inazsully said:


> I guess that Dish should certainly have a feel for the demand of 3D, but, in looking at the 2012 TV offerings I see that Panasonic will roll out 16 3D plasma models. Not sure about Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sharp etc but it seems to me that Dish should be involved in the 3D game. When you buy a new TV in 2012 the odds are it will be 3D capable (42"+). As an existing Dish customer I expect my provider to offer at least some 3D viewing options? I don't expect it for free and I'm sure "D" is not offering it for free. I would like to think that my provider is the leader in the industry, not the "lets wait and see how it shakes out" provider.


Actually, Direct includes 3D free with HD.

The poster has a good point. Whether Dish likes it or not, they are in the technology industry. You can't wait to see what happens. Microsoft hesitated with the phone and tablet markets. Big mistake. Look where they are now. Waaaaayyyyy behind, and playing catchup, if they can ever catch up.

Michael


----------



## harsh

The wide availability of hardware is no assurance that a technology is going to ultimately appeal to the masses. Consider HD DVD.

Perhaps the 3D of today is yesterday's VCR+ -- a stepping stone to the real thing.


----------



## harsh

Michael1 said:


> Microsoft hesitated with the phone and tablet markets.


It isn't that Microsoft wasn't trying to compete. They were just marketing their mean old porcupine as a hedgehog.


----------



## inazsully

harsh said:


> The wide availability of hardware is no assurance that a technology is going to ultimately appeal to the masses. Consider HD DVD.
> 
> Perhaps the 3D of today is yesterday's VCR+ -- a stepping stone to the real thing.


HD DVD (Toshiba) had direct competition from a bigger player Blu-Ray (Sony). Today's 3D technology not only has no competing technology but has the backing of every TV manufacture in the world as well as every movie studio in the world not to mention ESPN, ABC, Disney etc. Journey 2 opens today using the same 3D cameras Cameron used in Avatar. Wait and see how it does in theaters. That could be a good barometer for the future acceptance of well done 3D. The key word is WELL DONE 3D. If it knocks your socks off people will want it, especially if it's a free HD option as it is with "D". One thing I know about the American consumer, they like free.


----------



## david_jr

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... but those 3D TVs are also HDTVs... and still 40-50% or customers seem to be connecting SD services to their HDTVs today... Dish still has more SD receivers in the field than HD receivers by a long shot I believe... so just because everyone kind of gets forced to buy a 3D TV these days doesn't mean they have any interest in it.


To further the point that many feed an HDTV an SD source, a local hospital near me just outfitted their entire hospital with all 32 in HDTVs in every room, but are feeding them with the worst SD cable signal imaginable. I seemed to be the only one in the hospital who really cared. Unfortunatley was there every day for a couple of weeks with a sick relative. I pointed it out to a few others who visited and to some of the staff that I met, but noone seemed bothered by it at all. All of this makes me tend to believe that demand for 3D just isn't that high among the masses when a lot aren't even bothered by SD on HDTV.


----------



## inazsully

I think that most would be bothered by a SD signal into their home display, especially if it was 42"+. But who knows, there are an awful lot of TV watchers out there. I assume that "E" has a pretty good idea based on what equipment they have in the field.


----------



## harsh

inazsully said:


> Today's 3D technology not only has no competing technology but has the backing of every TV manufacture in the world as well as every movie studio in the world not to mention ESPN, ABC, Disney etc.


But today's 3D does indeed have competition in the form of something that we hope must be coming: glasses-free 3D.

My point with HD DVD was that even owning a majority on the brands and models doesn't insure success with an even chance. 3D that requires glasses doesn't even have an even chance against what we hope can be glasses-free in the long haul.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> But today's 3D does indeed have competition in the form of something that we hope must be coming: glasses-free 3D.


What is the difference in the signal or in transmission between 3D sent to a 3D TV set that requires glasses vs a 3D TV that is glasses-free?

DISH delayed their launch of 3D in 2010 because better transmission technology and processor chips were coming. DISH did not want to launch a 3D service around 2009/2010 technology and be stuck supporting that level. (Much like the introduction of NTSC color television was stuck supporting NTSC black-and-white television until both technologies were replaced by ATSC.)

But the difference between glasses and glasses-free? That is all in the set. That is part of the competition between set makers, not 3D broadcast technology. If you're looking for an excuse why DISH hasn't done 3D, don't blame glasses-free.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> But the difference between glasses and glasses-free? That is all in the set. That is part of the competition between set makers, not 3D broadcast technology. If you're looking for an excuse why DISH hasn't done 3D, don't blame glasses-free.


We don't know if a different technology (perhaps checkerboard) will lend itself better to the rigors of glasses-free.

My point is that most people don't want to watch 3D with special glasses on and that's why so many are holding out for something better.


----------



## inazsully

Not wanting to wear glasses is the biggest reason by far for people not interested in watching 3D followed by people getting headaches because their brain doesn't handle the visual signal. Glasses free 3D TV's are now on the market in Japan but I have no idea what kind of technology is being used accomplish this. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the delivery technology of glasses free 3D. I hope they are a raging success. It will take stunning 3D at no extra cost to convince people that wearing inexpensive stylish glasses is acceptable. By the way, HD DVD blew away Blu-Ray for PQ. I still have my Toshiba sitting under my Panasonic Blu-Ray. My wife made me buy "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1" today.


----------



## Laxguy

inazsully said:


> Not wanting to wear glasses is the biggest reason by far for people not interested in watching 3D followed by people getting headaches because their brain doesn't handle the visual signal. Glasses free 3D TV's are now on the market in Japan but I have no idea what kind of technology is being used accomplish this. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the delivery technology of glasses free 3D. I hope they are a raging success. It will take stunning 3D at no extra cost to convince people that wearing inexpensive stylish glasses is acceptable. By the way, HD DVD blew away Blu-Ray for PQ. I still have my Toshiba sitting under my Panasonic Blu-Ray. My wife made me buy "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1" today.


The glasses-free 3D sets I saw at CES were so-so at best.

And by what measure was HD DVD better than Blu-ray?


----------



## Inkosaurus

inazsully said:


> Not wanting to wear glasses is the biggest reason by far for people not interested in watching 3D followed by people getting headaches because their brain doesn't handle the visual signal. Glasses free 3D TV's are now on the market in Japan but I have no idea what kind of technology is being used accomplish this. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the delivery technology of glasses free 3D. I hope they are a raging success. It will take stunning 3D at no extra cost to convince people that wearing inexpensive stylish glasses is acceptable. By the way, HD DVD blew away Blu-Ray for PQ. I still have my Toshiba sitting under my Panasonic Blu-Ray. My wife made me buy "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1" today.


According to statistics 3D isnt purely failing because of the glasses.
Its failing because the content available is garbage and gimmicky. Gimmicks are great at first but then people figure it out and get tired of it. 3D is plagued with movies that just tack on 3D in your face junk every 20 minutes and none have done anything to actually integrate into the movie and make it part of the true experience.

The current set of channels with 3D integration are not doing a whole lot to change that either.
Until the industry can actually think outside of the box that was crafted in the 1950's this gimmick will continue to plummet.


----------



## inazsully

Inkosaurus said:


> According to statistics 3D isnt purely failing because of the glasses.
> Its failing because the content available is garbage and gimmicky. Gimmicks are great at first but then people figure it out and get tired of it. 3D is plagued with movies that just tack on 3D in your face junk every 20 minutes and none have done anything to actually integrate into the movie and make it part of the true experience.
> 
> The current set of channels with 3D integration are not doing a whole lot to change that either.
> Until the industry can actually think outside of the box that was crafted in the 1950's this gimmick will continue to plummet.


I didn't say purely I said the two biggest reasons for people not wanting to get on the 3D bandwagon were wearing the glasses and headaches. I also said it would take stunning 3D along with stylish and affordable glasses to make 3D. I agree with you that the final piece of the puzzle lies in the hands of the studios.


----------



## inazsully

Laxguy said:


> The glasses-free 3D sets I saw at CES were so-so at best.
> 
> And by what measure was HD DVD better than Blu-ray?


When the two technologies were going head to head almost every review I read agreed that HD DVD provided a higher quality picture. Many of these same unbiased reviewers lamented the demise of HD HDV and alluded to the fact that like the superior PQ of Betta Max vs VHS, HD DVD could not compete with the politics involved in blu-rays eventual dominance. When major studios like Sony, Warner Brothers, Universal etc decided to back blu-ray Toshiba was faced with no studios willing to put their movies on the HD DVD format. I have HD DVD and blu-ray versions of the same movies and to my eye the difference is obvious. To each his own though.


----------



## Laxguy

inazsully said:


> I have HD DVD and blu-ray versions of the same movies and to my eye the difference is obvious. To each his own though.


Sorry, but this latter "test" means Jack. You'd have to know that the best mastering went into both versions of that movie; you cannot know that in all likelihood.


----------



## RAD

IIRC when BluRay first came out their PQ wasn't as good due to the compression method being used but once they moved to MPEG4 then that was no longer true..


----------



## inazsully

Laxguy said:


> Sorry, but this latter "test" means Jack. You'd have to know that the best mastering went into both versions of that movie; you cannot know that in all likelihood.


Why would the best mastering not go into both versions of the movie. Or why would you assume that it didn't? Did blu-ray go meg 4 before or after HD DVD bit the dust?


----------



## Laxguy

inazsully said:


> Why would the best mastering not go into both versions of the movie. Or why would you assume that it didn't? Did blu-ray go meg 4 before or after HD DVD bit the dust?


I can't make that assumption, but my point was your conclusion rested on their being equally well mastered.

Don't know anything about the MPG4 switch.


----------



## olds403

RAD said:


> IIRC when BluRay first came out their PQ wasn't as good due to the compression method being used but once they moved to MPEG4 then that was no longer true..


I would be willing to bet that overall quality has much more to do with the quality of the transfer than it does with the compression scheme. I do remember reading reviews of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray of the same titles where the reviewer was not sure that they both came from the same transfer. I also read reviews where the reviewer did know that they both came from the same transfer and they were pretty much indistinguishable.


----------



## FarmerBob

*Growth of global TV shipments to slow in 2012*
http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/10/growth-of-global-tv-shipments-to-slow-in-2012/

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120210PD209.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Looks like TV's are down as a whole. So this tells me that 3D is not a selling point. More like an expensive novelty.


----------



## Michael1

FarmerBob said:


> *Growth of global TV shipments to slow in 2012*
> http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/10/growth-of-global-tv-shipments-to-slow-in-2012/
> 
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120210PD209.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> Looks like TV's are down as a whole. So this tells me that 3D is not a selling point. More like an expensive novelty.


Not a good assumption.

Over the holidays, sales of 3D TVs were up 100%, while the rest of the TV market was down.

Michael


----------



## FarmerBob

Michael1 said:


> Not a good assumption.
> 
> Over the holidays, sales of 3D TVs were up 100%, while the rest of the TV market was down.
> 
> Michael


Who's assuming? Did you even read the articles. And what about the reports that 3D TV's were down this year at CES? 100% of Nil is still Nil. Who's assuming now . . . . ?


----------



## 356B

FarmerBob said:


> Who's assuming? Did you even read the articles. And what about the reports that 3D TV's were down this year at CES? 100% of Nil is still Nil. Who's assuming now . . . . ?


It is apparent some are not a proponents of 3D, personally I don't understand why the energy is put into this thread, but here I am too. 
This peeve of 3D, the 922 and Dish in general symptoms a more deep seated issue.
I think many assume everything is suppose to be perfect because it's paid for, or services that are new are in some way intrusive or manipulative. 
I've said this before but I remember when color TV was hated by some because it had to be adjusted, and I know a Harvard educated guy who truly believes HDTV is a fraud....no different than SD? 
The market will sort all of this out, but I do see more and more 3D films in the market place. George Lucas is releasing one of his "Star War" sagas in 3D, follow the money.


----------



## Laxguy

Please tell me more about this Harvard guy and his HD fraud theory! Sounds veeeerrrrrry interrrrresting! (Thanks, Arte Johnson)


----------



## FarmerBob

Lucas is just cashing in on the 3D fad. It's being panned already. If he didn't originally shoot the series in 3D, it'll be junk. 2D to 3D = Bad. 3D to 2D, just remove a camera = No difference than if it was shot in 2D originally. 

There are to many inconsistent variables this early in the game for 3D to be taken seriously. Once there is ONE set specification and all the sets are using it and the peripherals become efficient and affordable, then maybe.


----------



## phrelin

I don't really understand the argument.

Color TV was introduced in the U.S. in 1953, but it wasn't until 1965 that over half of the content was available in color and it wasn't until the early 1970's that when people went to buy a TV, the assumption was it was a color TV.

It looks to me like people still can save $300 or more by buying non-3D TV's and there isn't much non-movie content out there. But for a majority of households, HD is still a novelty.

Another wrinkle has entered into the buying choices - streaming TV. When you go to the major manufacturer's web sites finding a "smart with apps" TV that isn't 3D in their current lines is getting more difficult - not impossible, but more difficult. I believe most folks are going to buy their next primary TV "smart with apps."

It looks to me like the move to 3D will be a trend that gains with streaming television. As people gradually accept internet streaming, I think the assumption will become that the TV is 3D capable.

But in the end, there will be an acceptance delay as the issue is glasses. The manufacturers are going to get there, though the headline at Engadget was Toshiba's 55-inch 4K glasses-free 3DTV ships in the US early this year, can we borrow $10k?.

I'm hoping my old 2003 42" Pany Plasma will last until I can buy a 42±" smart glasses-free 3D TV for less than $3,000. But I really would like to get by until the price is under $1,500. And when that happens, there might just be a lot of folks buying their first HD TV because of streaming and 3D.


----------



## inazsully

I read today that some experts are wondering if LG and Samsung may be pricing their new OLED displays too low. If, and a big if here, the PQ is noticeably superior to the top plasma's and LCD's and the OLED's are all 3D capable and they are indeed priced so that the average buyer can afford one, then 3D will get a boost into the main frame. Lot of if's there but the price of OLED could be the biggest factor and the conjecture is that because TV sales (profits) are so low with today's technology that the players may be hungry for minimal profits it there is a lot of it.


----------



## 356B

Laxguy said:


> Please tell me more about this Harvard guy and his HD fraud theory! Sounds veeeerrrrrry interrrrresting! (Thanks, Arte Johnson)


He has a degree in economics, worked for the IRS....as a special agent....Medical issues forced early retirement. 
His feeling is he sees no difference between the two systems. He will admit the screen is larger but from what he says the clarity is the same. 
I couldn't believe it at first, I thought it was some kind of a joke, but no. His wife finally has told him there is a difference and he should contact a eye specialist, we'll see. I think her motive is a new TV with HD programing though since they watch all major events at my house. It's become one of those things people raze him about at gatherings and it puts his Harvard credentials in perspective....


----------



## James Long

356B said:


> He has a degree in economics, worked for the IRS....as a special agent....Medical issues forced early retirement.
> His feeling is he sees no difference between the two systems. He will admit the screen is larger but from what he says the clarity is the same.


It is funny, but back in the day NTSC Analog was fine and somehow we had a decent picture that the videophiles of the time would spend hours claiming was perfect. But before digital we had pictures that were a set number of horizontal lines but undefined in the vertical.

Then someone digitized it - and we ended up with 480 interlaced lines divided into pixels. We have defined widths of 720 or 640 pixels (although some of my local stations are using 480 width, similar to early satellite compression). And taking a closer look one can find that even a 480 by 480 television frame isn't 230400 discrete colored dots. Storage and distribution has killed most of the potential for quality ... unless someone makes the effort to go back to the source and remaster in "high definition". In many ways simply going back to the quality analog was with step better.

HD's best proponent is the further degradation of lower definitions.

3D doesn't have that benefit - although less compression and more bandwidth could be used to make 3D a better HD picture than a standard HD stream. Similar to the trick of upconverting SD on a HD channel. Give a signal enough bandwidth and you will see improvement. The question is how much bandwidth does the provider want to spare.

A 3D channel in the same space as a HD channel is a trade off. One dimension stealing from the others.

The topic of this thread is "Dish Needs to Get Moving on 3D". But one should look at where DISH is with HD. How many of DISH's PPV channels are in 1080p? How many of DISH's preloaded VOD movies on channel 501 are in 1080p? While people can download additional 1080p content via broadband, DISH seems to barely be supporting 1080p ... let alone asking them to go to the next level (3D).


----------



## Michael1

James Long said:


> It is funny, but back in the day NTSC Analog was fine and somehow we had a decent picture that the videophiles of the time would spend hours claiming was perfect.


I've never heard one videophile claim such a thing. In fact, just the opposite, hence, the introduction of S-video, and later component.

Michael


----------



## Michael1

James Long said:


> DISH delayed their launch of 3D in 2010 because better transmission technology and processor chips were coming. DISH did not want to launch a 3D service around 2009/2010 technology and be stuck supporting that level.


What press release was this announced in?

Michael


----------



## James Long

Michael1 said:


> I've never heard one videophile claim such a thing. In fact, just the opposite, hence, the introduction of S-video, and later component.


Perfection has never stopped a videophile from seeking greater perfection. 



Michael1 said:


> What press release was this announced in?


It was on a Charlie Chat back in 2010 when they were having them.

(A live televised discussion show with the founder and then CEO of DISH, Charlie Ergen.)


----------



## Laxguy

356B said:


> He has a degree in economics, worked for the IRS....as a special agent....Medical issues forced early retirement.
> His feeling is he sees no difference between the two systems. He will admit the screen is larger but from what he says the clarity is the same.
> I couldn't believe it at first, I thought it was some kind of a joke, but no. His wife finally has told him there is a difference and he should contact a eye specialist, we'll see. I think her motive is a new TV with HD programing though since they watch all major events at my house. It's become one of those things people raze him about at gatherings and it puts his Harvard credentials in perspective....


Certainly his vision as well as his judgement are in question! Too bad. Or possibly he's one who just likes obstinacy and is gaming everyone.


----------



## jadebox

Michael1 said:


> What press release was this announced in?


I don't have the direct quote, but it was, as mentioned, in a Charlie Chat.

It looks like Dish wants to do 3D the "right" way with full-resolution instead of doing SBS or something like that.

Side-By-Side (SBS) - where the two images for the 3D picture are squished and shown side-by-side within a normal picture - is easy to do and doesn't require a special receiver. Dish could do that now because it would use a normal signal like a non-3D channel. SBS doesn't require a special receiver because the TV decodes the SBS image into two images. But, the channel can't be viewed on a 2D TV (unless you don't mind seeing two squished pictures) and the resolution of the picture is halved in 3D.

Dish's plan is to broadcast 3D like it is done on a 3B Blu-Ray disc - with a full-resolution image for one eye and a seperate channel of data describing the differences for the second eye. The receiver uses the two streams to make the two images for 3D. This has the advantage of allowing the video to be viewed on either a 2D or 3D TV and, in 3D, the images will be full resolution.

-- Roger


----------



## Laxguy

Would then this require active glasses for viewing in 3D?


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Would then this require active glasses for viewing in 3D?


Glasses-free is a function of the set, not the transmission.


----------



## HDlover

jadebox said:


> I don't have the direct quote, but it was, as mentioned, in a Charlie Chat.
> 
> It looks like Dish wants to do 3D the "right" way with full-resolution instead of doing SBS or something like that.
> 
> Side-By-Side (SBS) - where the two images for the 3D picture are squished and shown side-by-side within a normal picture - is easy to do and doesn't require a special receiver. Dish could do that now because it would use a normal signal like a non-3D channel. SBS doesn't require a special receiver because the TV decodes the SBS image into two images. But, the channel can't be viewed on a 2D TV (unless you don't mind seeing two squished pictures) and the resolution of the picture is halved in 3D.
> 
> Dish's plan is to broadcast 3D like it is done on a 3B Blu-Ray disc - with a full-resolution image for one eye and a seperate channel of data describing the differences for the second eye. The receiver uses the two streams to make the two images for 3D. This has the advantage of allowing the video to be viewed on either a 2D or 3D TV and, in 3D, the images will be full resolution.
> 
> -- Roger


Yes and you have a bridge you want to sell us also?  I, for one, am not buying it.  Lame excuse. None of the current 3D channels are done this way. You may have a future working for Dish's PR department. :grin:


----------



## bnborg

I noticed today that Dish is promising *"Dish 3D"* on the upcoming hopper, which will be available "soon".

http://www.dish.com/technology/hopper/#movies


----------



## phrelin

Yeah, it's funny how the Hopper release is being driven by marketing. The new guy, President & CEO Joe Clayton, isn't a tech guy, a typical MBA type. As I understand it the Hopper will do everything perfectly from day 1 - March 15. If so, it will be Echostar's first bug free release....:sure:


----------



## James Long

Beware the Ides of March!


----------



## jadebox

HDlover said:


> Yes and you have a bridge you want to sell us also?  I, for one, am not buying it.  Lame excuse. None of the current 3D channels are done this way. You may have a future working for Dish's PR department. :grin:


Yes, none of the non-existent Dish 3D channels are handled the way I described. I don't know for sure if any will be in the future. But, it makes sense to use 1.5x the bandwidth of a single channel to provide two channels (one in 2D and one in 3D) than to use 2x the bandwidth for separate 2D and 3D channels.

BTW ... There are a few smilies that you didn't use in your post. Be sure to click the [More] link next time. 

-- Roger


----------



## tampa8

Michael1 said:


> Not a good assumption.
> 
> Over the holidays, sales of 3D TVs were up 100%, while the rest of the TV market was down.
> 
> Michael


Not what you think though, as talked about in earlier posts, because often they have the most bells and whistles now. So those looking for that get it _despite_ it having 3D..

Spend some time at Best Buy, listen to people coming in for 3D, there won't be many. Then listen when the saleman talks about the advantages of having 3D now for the future, and all the refinements in picture it has.... That's where people buy it. I would want to know how many of those actually go out of their way to try and watch 3D other than at first as a novelty.


----------



## inazsully

First off I see no problem with the sales person explaining the advantages of a 3D TV over a 2D TV. and I would expect most buyers of a new TV to be very uninformed regarding those advantages. Information like every manufacture in 2012 has included 3D as a feature in their top tier displays. Not just the most expensive but all of the top tier models. Information like Panasonics 3D displays (ST,GT,VT series) offer a better 2D picture than their standard 2D displays because of a different type of screen. So even if you don't care about the 3D feature many will opt for a model that provides superior 2D picture quality. Information like, you need a 3D blu-ray player to watch a 3D movie, and that 3D movies are more expensive than regular blu-ray movies, and that very little is available in 3D broadcast TV, and that Dish Network offers no 3D at this time, and ESPN offers a 3D channel. 

A good sales person should spend some time educating every potential customer in the benefits and drawbacks of 3D in today's market.


----------



## harsh

bnborg said:


> I noticed today that Dish is promising *"Dish 3D"* on the upcoming hopper, which will be available "soon".


3D is available on the ViP722, ViP722K and ViP922. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be available on the Hopper (unless MoCA isn't up to the task).


----------



## FarmerBob

356B said:


> The market will sort all of this out, but I do see more and more 3D films in the market place. George Lucas is releasing one of his "Star War" sagas in 3D, follow the money.


Well the money trail for George's 2D to 3D re-release in its first week was $22.5m at #4 behind #1 a none 3D Chick Flick that brought in $44m and two others all in their first week showing. So I guess the money trail ends at #4. It's original 2D release garnered $458,876,295. And they're only looking at a total gross of apx $500m with the 3D releases additional proceeds. Looks like the trail of money isn't going far. First 2D week was apx. $100 million gross in five days.


----------



## James Long

FarmerBob said:


> Well the money trail for George's 2D to 3D re-release in its first week was $22.5m at #4 behind #1 a none 3D Chick Flick that brought in $44m and two others all in their first week showing. So I guess the money trail ends at #4. It's original 2D release garnered $458,876,295. And they're only looking at a total gross of apx $500m with the 3D releases additional proceeds. Looks like the trail of money isn't going far. First 2D week was apx. $100 million gross in five days.


There are a lot of variables in the equation. Collecting a few hundred million dollars more (plus video releases) makes it worthwhile to do a re-release but this particular series seems to get re-releases. Tweak something then sell the new version to people who already paid for the last version (and versions before).

A theatrical re-release of a popular film is going to have some people going to the theaters just to see it again on a much bigger screen than they have at home ... and to share a common experience with other people who like that film. Having it in 3D could help or hurt the box office - some people may not want the gimmick. But it gives Lucas an excuse to do a re-release and re-re-re-envision the story he wanted to tell a long time ago, in our galaxy.

BTW: Hans shot first.


----------



## FarmerBob

*Star Wars 3D Falls Flat.*

http://www.hometheater.com/content/star-wars-3d-falls-flat


----------



## tsmacro

FarmerBob said:


> *Star Wars 3D Falls Flat.*
> 
> http://www.hometheater.com/content/star-wars-3d-falls-flat


Yeah went and saw it myself, the best thing I can say is that when there's a chance to see Star Wars on the big screen you take it! But as for the 3-D part of it, yeah it was just "ok".


----------



## Jim5506

How can they do that with a motion picture originally shot in SD?

Do they use a computer to define foreground and background items and add parallax for the two-eyed view??


----------



## RasputinAXP

Pretty much, yeah.


----------



## jadebox

Jim5506 said:


> How can they do that with a motion picture originally shot in SD?
> 
> Do they use a computer to define foreground and background items and add parallax for the two-eyed view??


There's a brief overview of the process at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion

-- Roger


----------



## BillJ

inazsully said:


> First off I see no problem with the sales person explaining the advantages of a 3D TV over a 2D TV. and I would expect most buyers of a new TV to be very uninformed regarding those advantages. Information like every manufacture in 2012 has included 3D as a feature in their top tier displays. Not just the most expensive but all of the top tier models. Information like Panasonics 3D displays (ST,GT,VT series) offer a better 2D picture than their standard 2D displays because of a different type of screen. So even if you don't care about the 3D feature many will opt for a model that provides superior 2D picture quality. Information like, you need a 3D blu-ray player to watch a 3D movie, and that 3D movies are more expensive than regular blu-ray movies, and that very little is available in 3D broadcast TV, and that Dish Network offers no 3D at this time, and ESPN offers a 3D channel.
> 
> A good sales person should spend some time educating every potential customer in the benefits and drawbacks of 3D in today's market.


I get a newsletter with reviews of high-end audio and video equipment. They recommend buying 3D displays only because they give the best 2D images. They will compare 3D experiences of one display vs another but I have yet to see any of their reviewers say 3D is more than a gimmick which isn't likely to ever be universally popular.

Seperately I've read business stories noting 3D hasn't been the savior the movie industry expected for theaters either. I would agree. Never been overly impressed with the big screen presentations I've seen.


----------



## Laxguy

BillJ said:


> I get a newsletter with reviews of high-end audio and video equipment. They recommend buying 3D displays only because they give the best 2D images. They will compare 3D experiences of one display vs another but I have yet to see any of their reviewers say 3D is more than a gimmick which isn't likely to ever be universally popular.
> 
> Seperately I've read business stories noting 3D hasn't been the savior the movie industry expected for theaters either. I would agree. Never been overly impressed with the big screen presentations I've seen.


No, it's not a movie industry savior, but it's likely to become universally adopted over time.

Similar things were said about talking movies, color TV, stereo, digital media, automobiles, etc.


----------



## TBoneit

Jim5506 said:


> How can they do that with a motion picture originally shot in SD?
> 
> Do they use a computer to define foreground and background items and add parallax for the two-eyed view??


Movies are not SD. a Movie on film has a higher effective resolution than HD, If movies had resolution rating.


----------



## Jim5506

Should have said 2D instead of SD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> No, it's not a movie industry savior, but it's likely to become universally adopted over time.
> 
> Similar things were said about talking movies, color TV, stereo, digital media, automobiles, etc.


These bad analogies keep being retread. You cannot compare 3D to any of those technologies because ALL of those technologies became adopted over time.

3D, however, has thus far been resoundingly rejected multiple times in history! It keeps coming back, but it has been here before... so until 3D comes and stays around... it cannot be compared to the inevitable adoption of other things like color or talkies.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> These bad analogies keep being retread. You cannot compare 3D to any of those technologies because ALL of those technologies became adopted over time.
> 
> 3D, however, has thus far been resoundingly rejected multiple times in history! It keeps coming back, but it has been here before... so until 3D comes and stays around... it cannot be compared to the inevitable adoption of other things like color or talkies.


I agree that it isn't something that is simply going to become adopted, mostly because we don't have the needed technology at an affordable price. Until there is a standard glasses-free 3D TV under $1,000 (today's dollars), we just won't see much happen.

But when one becomes available for under $2,500 my guess is will start seeing more programming sources, though I suspect it will come from streaming sources.


----------



## HDlover

TBoneit said:


> Movies are not SD. a Movie on film has a higher effective resolution than HD, If movies had resolution rating.


They do, most theaters now have digital projectors that show 4K with higher color depth. That is why I watch 3D movies at the theater.


----------



## HDlover

Jim5506 said:


> How can they do that with a motion picture originally shot in SD?
> 
> Do they use a computer to define foreground and background items and add parallax for the two-eyed view??


My LG DM2350 TV does a great job of converting on the fly. As good as a something shot in 3D, of course not. There is no pop-out.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> These bad analogies keep being retread. You cannot compare 3D to any of those technologies because ALL of those technologies became adopted over time.
> 
> 3D, however, has thus far been resoundingly rejected multiple times in history! It keeps coming back, but it has been here before... so until 3D comes and stays around... it cannot be compared to the inevitable adoption of other things like color or talkies.


Talk to me in 15 years!! 

Point made, point taken; not a great analogy. But not horrible, either!


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Talk to me in 15 years!!
> 
> Point made, point taken; not a great analogy. But not horrible, either!


The point being that people have been playing with 3D for a long time (90+ years). Modern technology (especially glasses free) will help make it a generally acceptable process and not just a recurring fad.

And then (for the purposes of this thread) DISH and other distributors can be concerned with the transmission of 3D over their systems. Right now there are very few "channels" in existence. I don't see anything wrong with offering 3D content ... but I don't see it as a requirement to offer 3D programming (beyond what is occasionally transmitted on currently carried channels).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... I'm not "anti" 3D even though I have very little interest in it myself. I would be fine if it became more "standard" over time IF technology continues to improve and especially if they can do it well without glasses at some point.

As James stated, though, the "need" for Dish to go "all in" on 3D is probably years away given the state of the current technology and frankly the lack of 3D content out there at this point.


----------



## Davenlr

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... I'm not "anti" 3D even though I have very little interest in it myself.


That and they need to figure out a way to send both 2D and 3D on the same channel, as none of the players have the bandwidth to duplicate SD, HD, and 3D on one system without severely shortchanging the channel counts.


----------



## Laxguy

Good points. And none of my posts are meant to confirm or deny the basic premise of the thread title. :sure:


----------



## FarmerBob

jadebox said:


> There's a brief overview of the process at:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion
> 
> -- Roger


Great post. I have read through this before a long while back and the "Overview" speaks volumes.


----------



## inazsully

James Long said:


> The point being that people have been playing with 3D for a long time (90+ years). Modern technology (especially glasses free) will help make it a generally acceptable process and not just a recurring fad.
> 
> And then (for the purposes of this thread) DISH and other distributors can be concerned with the transmission of 3D over their systems. Right now there are very few "channels" in existence. I don't see anything wrong with offering 3D content ... but I don't see it as a requirement to offer 3D programming (beyond what is occasionally transmitted on currently carried channels).


They have indeed been playing with 3D for a long time and I think that a combination of several technological advances have made 3D a viable potential on the near horizon. Granted it is still in the infancy stages but the advances in flat screen technology along with the wide spread acceptance of HD along with the arrival of OLED and 4K screens is the forecaster of 3D's future. Maybe it will flop but I think the youngest generation will see it as everyday normal, probably to be replaced by holographic displays in their lifetimes.


----------



## BobaBird

The lack of industry standards for broadcasting 3DTV programs or transmitting three-dimensional content to mobile devices is hampering the adoption of 3D viewing in the home, according to Insight Media. "When you put a Blu-ray disc into your 3D Blu-ray player, it automatically detects it," Insight Media President Chris Chinnock said. "The problem in the broadcast realm is that's not there. There's no system detection."

Home Media Magazine (3/28)      
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3d/insight-media-standards-still-way-broadcast-3d-26810


----------



## tampa8

" With the flop of 3D televisions and the expansion of Apple's own retail locations, there was no killer product on the horizon that would lift it from the doldrums."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/02/why-best-buy-is-going-out-of-business-gradually/

Obviously much more than just 3D flopping is happening with Best Buy. But it underscores there is no interest with the public for 3D, at least at this time.


----------



## inazsully

tampa8 said:


> " With the flop of 3D televisions and the expansion of Apple's own retail locations, there was no killer product on the horizon that would lift it from the doldrums."
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/02/why-best-buy-is-going-out-of-business-gradually/
> 
> Obviously much more than just 3D flopping is happening with Best Buy. But it underscores there is no interest with the public for 3D, at least at this time.


You may be right about 3D flopping but the TV manufactures are pumping out new 3D TV's and they show no signs of letting up. In 2012 Panasonic's top four plasma models are 3D. That would include the UT/ST/GT/VT line, all of which also provide a better 2D picture than their straight 2D displays. Every single manufacture (Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Vizio, Mitsibishi, LG and more) includes 3D in their top tier displays. In today's paper there is a Sharp Blu-Ray 3D player for $99. There are many reasons that 3D has not taken off yet but it looks like the powers that be still plan on making 3D SOP in the near future.


----------



## 356B

"CBS Sunday Morning" did a piece on 3D movies this morning. The conclusion by the reporter was... follow the money. "Titanic" is coming, "Star Wars" has been, could "Chariots of Fire" be next?


----------



## inazsully

No doubt that 3D technology has a long long way to go to be considered main stream. The quality of the content is all over the map and the actual lack of content is a problem. Glasses are getting more comfortable and more affordable but you still have to wear them and that's a problem to a lot of people. Passive and active systems are not compatible and some brands just do a better job of presenting a solid good quality 3D picture. Lots of hurdles yet to overcome but like was said earlier, Follow the money. That money says that 3D will become main stream, especially if you can't buy a 50+" TV by 2014 that's not 3D.


----------



## PDR

I agree with many of the comments already made. I just bought a new Samsung 55" inch plasma and it really is impossible to get a top tier set that is not 3D ready. NBC is planning significant coverage of the 2012 Olympics in 3D. Hopefully, Dish will broadcast their 3D coverage and that will be a sufficient draw to start pulling in meaningful numbers of viewers.

Paul


----------



## inazsully

Congrats on your new Sammy. I'm planning on getting the Panasonic 65ST50 this Fall so I would sure like to see "E" broadcasting some 3D by then.


----------



## Inkosaurus

I dont get what the big deal is with the 3D olympics.

Im sorry but how is that 
A) even going to be well done?
B) Be anymore entertaining then flat olympics?

If the best they come up with will be discus and javelins flying at the tv screen and silly pop outs of the athletes before a run then I fear this can also be a con to the 3D industry then a pro


----------



## James Long

I don't expect an Olympics 3D channel from DISH, but I wouldn't argue against it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Dish has put up special channels for things like Basketball to cover extra things for the Olympics... so I actually wouldn't be surprised if they put up a 3D channel.

They don't have ESPN3D but that is probably as much about their issues with Disney as it is about 3D... so actually putting up 3D for the Olympics might not be a total shock.

Unless they launch a bunch of channels in the near future, they have the bandwidth.


----------



## 356B

James Long said:


> I don't expect an Olympics 3D channel from DISH, but I wouldn't argue against it.


+1


----------



## FarmerBob

The TV industry has accepted the failure of 3D as a mass-appeal product, even as the sets become ubiquitous.

http://www.electronichouse.com/arti...tm_source=EHWeeklyNewsletter&utm_medium=email


----------



## inazsully

FarmerBob said:


> The TV industry has accepted the failure of 3D as a mass-appeal product, even as the sets become ubiquitous.
> 
> http://www.electronichouse.com/arti...tm_source=EHWeeklyNewsletter&utm_medium=email


Of course that is just Mr. Clausers opinion and he certainly may be correct. But there sure is a lot of new 3D TV's coming out this year and every brand's top tier TV's are 3D. I see the biggest problem with mass acceptance falling at the feet of the studios. 3D will not take off if your only realistic choice of content is via 3D blu-ray players. Now if CBS, ABC, NBC FOX start broadcasting prime time series in 3D?


----------



## djlong

Make 3D without glasses and you'll see it take off like a rocket.


----------



## inazsully

You're probably correct. Japan now has a no glasses TV but I don't remember the make, so it's possible but I don't know if the cost is as low as currently available technology allows. It'll take off when there is enough high quality content from the major studios.


----------



## jdskycaster

3D capable XBOX is coming and mainstream 3D bluray players are readily available and relatively inexpensive but content is always king. The studios have a vested interest in creating the content because it is a new revenue stream. Titanic again in 3D anyone? Paying $12 a ticket instead of $8 to see the latest release in 3D? You can bet your a$$ they are loving 3D in Hollywood.

There is a ton of work going on in the area of glasses free 3D and that is the future of the medium. A majority of new sets are coming with passive 3D technology so expensive glasses are not required. This will help further the mainstream the use of 3D. I am really not a big subscriber of the technology yet but as with anything it has some maturing to do. I do not think it will be going away anytime soon.


----------



## RAD

"djlong" said:


> Make 3D without glasses and you'll see it take off like a rocket.


Only if the glass free set doesn't impose viewing restrictions,like you can be no more then 20 degrees off access.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> Only if the glass free set doesn't impose viewing restrictions,like you can be no more then 20 degrees off access.


I've heard that before... but why would that be a problem?

Traditional TVs have had viewing angle restrictions in the past and that didn't restrict the adoption of bigger screens for the home.

I know my HDTV is optimal when I'm within a certain range of center-dead-on viewing... and that mostly is fine because that's where I sit when watching it.


----------



## RAD

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> I've heard that before... but why would that be a problem?
> 
> Traditional TVs have had viewing angle restrictions in the past and that didn't restrict the adoption of bigger screens for the home.
> 
> I know my HDTV is optimal when I'm within a certain range of center-dead-on viewing... and that mostly is fine because that's where I sit when watching it.


There's a difference between viewing the non-optimal HDTV image, which you could still see, and not seeing a 3D image at all if your outside the viewing range. Right now all the glass free sets I've seen reviews of have a fairly restrictive viewing angle, both horizontal and vertical. Outside those ranges and no 3D for you.


----------



## inazsully

There is a formula that allows for optimum sitting distance for different screen sizes. I think the only majors using passive glasses is LG and Vizio. I'm pretty sure that Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Sharp are using active glasses. Not sure about Toshiba, JVC (Relegated to front projection I think). At the moment Passive is brighter but only sends 540 res to each eye.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> There's a difference between viewing the non-optimal HDTV image, which you could still see, and not seeing a 3D image at all if your outside the viewing range. Right now all the glass free sets I've seen reviews of have a fairly restrictive viewing angle, both horizontal and vertical. Outside those ranges and no 3D for you.


I do understand that... but when big screen TVs were first coming out I remember there not being much viewing at wide angles.

My current DLP set is much better than my original CRT rear-projection... but it didn't stop me from getting that earlier CRT set for a big screen.

What I'm getting at is... I can't imagine people needing those wide viewing angles for most situations. Yeah, I get if you have a bunch of people over it makes a difference... but that has always been true to some extent once we started having bigger TVs. Better viewing angle performance over time, but that didn't kill big screen sets, so I don't think it will kill 3D if people really want it.


----------



## RAD

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've heard that before... but why would that be a problem?
> 
> Traditional TVs have had viewing angle restrictions in the past and that didn't restrict the adoption of bigger screens for the home.
> 
> I know my HDTV is optimal when I'm within a certain range of center-dead-on viewing... and that mostly is fine because that's where I sit when watching it.





RAD said:


> There's a difference between viewing the non-optimal HDTV image, which you could still see, and not seeing a 3D image at all if your outside the viewing range. Right now all the glass free sets I've seen reviews of have a fairly restrictive viewing angle, both horizontal and vertical. Outside those ranges and no 3D for you.





Stewart Vernon said:


> I do understand that... but when big screen TVs were first coming out I remember there not being much viewing at wide angles.
> 
> My current DLP set is much better than my original CRT rear-projection... but it didn't stop me from getting that earlier CRT set for a big screen.
> 
> What I'm getting at is... I can't imagine people needing those wide viewing angles for most situations. Yeah, I get if you have a bunch of people over it makes a difference... but that has always been true to some extent once we started having bigger TVs. Better viewing angle performance over time, but that didn't kill big screen sets, so I don't think it will kill 3D if people really want it.


20 degreens is a very narrow viewing window, which as I said IIRC most current glassless sets have now. IMHO that would be totally unacceptable since anyone outside that window would not see any 3D effect. I agree that we don't need a 180 degree window but even early rear projections (I've had one since 1983 in one form or another) would never had worked if it had only a 20 degree viewing window.


----------



## inazsully

I think you might be right RAD. In a movie theater the screen is so big that your always pretty much in the sweet spot. The sweet spot for home viewing will be paramount because if you can't experience the full 3D effect then underwhelming will be an under statement. Viewing angle may very well be the biggest hurdle to overcome for 3D acceptance.


----------



## inazsully

FYI. Intel has developed a new 3D chip they are calling the Tri-Gate Transmitter which, according to Intel, performs 37% better than the current chips and uses 50% less power. This may or may not be THE break through needed to propel 3D into the mainstream but advancements like this will eventually do the trick.


----------



## jilla

I wish as well (Own two 3D tvs). Also I wish they would come out with recievers that can do 1080P like Direect TV. Even Hopper can only do 1080i


----------



## olguy

jilla said:


> I wish as well (Own two 3D tvs). Also I wish they would come out with recievers that can do 1080P like Direect TV. Even Hopper can only do 1080i


The Dish receivers can do 1080P. Why do you think they offer 1080P movies? The connections from the Dish receiver to the TV, including A/V receiver must pass a little Dish test in order for you to receive 1080P. There are no 1080P broadcasts so it's really not a big thing unless you want to watch 1080P movies, which most of us can do.


----------



## jilla

I heard Direct TV recievers can upconvert to 1080P but dish's don't. I have a video processor which upconverts and there is a huge difference in quality between 1080i & 1080P.


----------



## Inkosaurus

IIRC the DTV receivers broadcast channels in 1080i just like Dish and the only offerings that are in 1080p from both providers is the VoD.

Not that it matters your TV should be doing the upconverting itself anyway.


----------



## 722921

Whatever happened to the olympics in 3D, go or no go?


----------



## tampa8

jilla said:


> I heard Direct TV recievers can upconvert to 1080P but dish's don't. I have a video processor which upconverts and there is a huge difference in quality between 1080i & 1080P.


Can you tell us where you heard that? And I dispute that there is much difference between an upconverted 1080I picture to 1080P and a 1080I picture. In fact I'm not sure most would be able to tell the difference. 1080I and 1080P have a difference, but even then not a smaller screen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I keep letting myself get dragged into these things...

1080i as broadcast is usually 30fps (actually it is 60 interlaced half-frames, thus the resulting 30 fps effective).

1080p as broadcast is usually 24fps.

So... arguably... there are more frames in a 1080i transmission than a 1080p one. The whole argument of progressive vs interlaced would have been a big deal 20 years ago when TVs weren't as good and you could see some flicker in the interlace sweeps...

But modern TVs either are fast enough and accurate enough to overcome that OR convert the 2 interlaced frames into a single progressive frame and display it that way to begin with...

Thus... the actual difference between 1080i 30fps and 1080p 24fps should be very little... and technically the 30fps should be better.

Now... IF we ever are comparing 1080p at 60fps... then you have an argument of smoother motion with the higher number of frames. But until then, it's really a non-discussion.


----------



## James Long

Conversion comes down to the original source. If something was recorded in 1080i the half frames could be half way to the next frame ... converting to 1080p/30 by pairing half frames would not provide 30 full snapshots per second ... and going to 1080p/24 would require losing some of those snapshots.

If the original source was a 24 fps film but it was transcoded and broadcast in 1080i then they have added half frames along the way ... 24 frames converted to 60 half frames. Even if every frame in the feed was an I-frame it would be difficult (if not impossible) to recreate the original 24 full snapshots.

Conversions are designed to make one type of content look good on another type of screen. Personally I'd trust the converter in the monitor more than one built in to any satellite box as the one in the monitor is designed specifically for that monitor. If it is an older monitor/TV a third party converter may be better if it has newer conversion alogrhythms than an old converter.


DISH currently transmits 1080p only as a file ... the only way to see 1080p on a DISH receiver is to view a VOD on channel 1/501 that is marked 1080p or to use the receiver to download 1080p content over the Internet. The "live" channel feeds are either 1080i, 720p or SD. The receiver's output can be set to 1080i, 720p, 480i or 480p. The receiver will automatically change it's output to 1080p when displaying 1080p content. The receiver will also convert between the 1080i/720p/480i satellite feeds and the user's choice of receiver output (sorry, no native pass through).

If DISH ever transmitted 1080p as a live satellite feed (instead of a file) the receiver would probably follow the same rules ... outputting 1080p when 1080p content is being served. But converting 1080i to 1080p is better done by the monitor or intermediate equipment.


----------



## harsh

jilla said:


> I heard Direct TV recievers can upconvert to 1080P but dish's don't.


DIRECTV's receivers DO NOT up-convert to 1080p.


----------



## olds403

tampa8 said:


> Can you tell us where you heard that? And I dispute that there is much difference between an upconverted 1080I picture to 1080P and a 1080I picture. In fact I'm not sure most would be able to tell the difference. 1080I and 1080P have a difference, but even then not a smaller screen.


+1


----------



## BillJ

Back to the original topic: Read an article yesterday where the reviewer lived with a new 3D TV for three weeks. His conclusion: 3D is wonderful for games. Good for animatation. Not worth much for 3D TV channels like ESPN 3D. He also found the restrictions on viewing angles very annoying for normal TV viewing and didn't believe it would ever find wide acceptance with problems like that. His only hope for widespread acceptance of 3D was a glasses free technology. But he was very happy with the 2D picture quality of his 3D TV. Seemed to echo another review of 3D I read some time ago. That reviewer recommended buying a 3D ready TV because they were the top of the line in 2D picture quality.


----------



## RAD

BillJ said:


> He also found the restrictions on viewing angles very annoying for normal TV viewing and didn't believe it would ever find wide acceptance with problems like that.


Did it mention what set it was? I have a Samsung Plasma and no problems with viewing angles for 2D or 3D, or should say the same issues that any set would have. It uses 3D active glasses and I can go all over the room with them and no problems cause by viewing angles. I have heard that for passive glasses that can be a problem.


----------



## FarmerBob

BillJ said:


> Back to the original topic: Read an article yesterday where the reviewer lived with a new 3D TV for three weeks. His conclusion: 3D is wonderful for games. Good for animatation. Not worth much for 3D TV channels like ESPN 3D. He also found the restrictions on viewing angles very annoying for normal TV viewing and didn't believe it would ever find wide acceptance with problems like that. His only hope for widespread acceptance of 3D was a glasses free technology. But he was very happy with the 2D picture quality of his 3D TV. Seemed to echo another review of 3D I read some time ago. That reviewer recommended buying a 3D ready TV because they were the top of the line in 2D picture quality.


Great observation. And I have been reading more and more on that more people are being exposed to 3D and not faring too well. I know I have to wait sometime, depending no how long I have been exposed, to get my ability for "real" world 3D back in sync. Johnny Depp didn't attend the opening of the last PotC, because it was in 3D and he can't see it. Which we are finding out that this is not a small cross section of the population. The current technology is just too archaic and rushed to market.

I'm seeing that more people are discovering this after they purchase without the forethought of any repercussions. It's just not something that one thinks about until after you have purchased, been exposed and are forced to realize. Sales hype is a very powerful thing. And what with the power of just a small amount of highly positive reviews, people jump. Luckily none of my clients want it. They are just not interested. Or if we do go with a 3D set, we don't do anything further on the 3D side. But max it out for 2D and leave it.

I have always known that "artificial" 3D is contrary to the human condition and that we just aren't there yet in the technology. Not saying that we we won't be . . . someday. But not just yet. What is really needed is "one" specification on the format so that development can be focused on it and no Betamax/VHS or DVD/BD squabbling. And the way manufacturers throw stuff on the market just to get the newest and latest out there whether it be try and true or not just adds to the mindset of "we'll work it out later" or "what they don't find out/realize until after the return period is over, won't hurt us".


----------



## Rduce

What has happen to the hue and cry for 3D channels or have we given up hope that the technology is still not ready for prime time and has faded into the mist like many times before?


----------



## clapple

If the Dolby/Phillips glasses free 3D is as reported, it will kick start the entire 3D program!


----------



## Rduce

clapple said:


> If the Dolby/Phillips glasses free 3D is as reported, it will kick start the entire 3D program!


The last article I read, and I forget where, around the beginning of October, states that they had refocused the technology toward out of home media, such as billboards, bus shelters, movie posters and such.

Did not give any indication that they were even working on bringing it to movie theaters or home television. This was the first article I had seen since last spring when they made the initial announcement of their technology break through.

Perhaps they read the writing on the wall and decided to take it toward a media they expect can support their research until the home markets are more tolerable of the product.


----------



## blackhillsjk

Dish can't even get the Locals, ESPNU or full time sports channels in HD, how in the hell do you think they will get 3-D right. :nono2:


----------



## jclangston

blackhillsjk said:


> Dish can't even get the Locals, ESPNU or full time sports channels in HD, how in the hell do you think they will get 3-D right. :nono2:


They could, Dish just elects not to pay for them. ie Charlie


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I hate to say it... but even the 3D die-hards have not been as vocal in quite a while... I'm left to conclude this was yet another blip on the radar.


----------



## Wilf

Stewart Vernon said:


> I hate to say it... but even the 3D die-hards have not been as vocal in quite a while... I'm left to conclude this was yet another blip on the radar.


Folks get excited about 3D every 20 to 40 years. It has been that way since photography was invented. Got a stereopticon or a Stereo Realist in your attic?


----------



## John79605

I have a Realist in the attic. I also have a Viewmaster camera.


----------



## FarmerBob

I have a ViewMaster. Don't even think we can get content for it anymore? All of this new fangled technology needs serious refinement before it's pushed in our faces. Even Peter Jackson's Hobbit at 48fps is said to be giving previewers in NZ migraines. A pig with lipstick is still a pig with lipstick. Unless it's in 4K 3D 48fps, then it's a very crisp, clear pig with lipstick in your face at a frame rate that will fry your brain. I'm seeing profits before practicality and that's what's driving most of this. Other than consumer novelty fadism. To get us to abandon what we just bought for something new and "innovative" even though that innovation is not complete and we pay to be Guinea Pigs/beta testers for these products. And what most people don't realize in their call for networks and whatnot to jump on the fad bandwagon, is the cost of and the infrastructure to implement this unrefined technology. They just want what they saw at Walmart. There are many areas that DISH needs to get working/fixed way before worrying about 3D. Innovation is great, just make sure it doesn't turn my brain to anymore mush than it already is and my pocket book any emptier for untried and true products or services or any undue encumbrances on my service providers for services that will not fully work and I will have to pay the bill on.


----------



## RasputinAXP

And boom goes the dynamite: ESPN pulling the plug on ESPN 3D.

http://deadspin.com/espn-is-yanking-the-cord-on-espn-3d-itll-shut-down-by-512855045


----------



## lparsons21

Well in another thread, it looks like yet another 3D channel is biting the dust. ESPN 3D out by the end of year.

Not boding well for the 3D folks.


----------



## RAD

That rumor has been floating around for over a year, I'd like to see something more official.

OK I guess this time it's for real, https://twitter.com/ESPN3D


----------



## RasputinAXP

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/12/4422874/espn-3d-to-shut-down-by-end-of-2013

Official confirmation.


----------



## tsmacro

Yeah 3-D broadcasts just haven't caught on, it's one of those novelty things, it's kind of cool to watch a movie in 3-D now and then but it seems the vast majority of the people just have no real interest in watching 3-D all the time.


----------



## 356B

tsmacro said:


> Yeah 3-D broadcasts just haven't caught on, it's one of those novelty things, it's kind of cool to watch a movie in 3-D now and then but it seems the vast majority of the people just have no real interest in watching 3-D all the time.


True.....Although most if not all the high end TVs come with 3D. Whether they continue only time will tell. Personally I like the novelty for certain types of movies, everything, everyday...no.
I was hopeful Blockbuster by mail would carry them. They advertise some movies in 3D but when you get them there're not, that been my experience anyway......


----------



## karrank%

3D displays always slightly nauseated me anyway, not that it matters. This was a simple economic decision.


----------



## dpeters11

356B said:


> True.....Although most if not all the high end TVs come with 3D. Whether they continue only time will tell. Personally I like the novelty for certain types of movies, everything, everyday...no.
> I was hopeful Blockbuster by mail would carry them. They advertise some movies in 3D but when you get them there're not, that been my experience anyway......


A large number of people with a 3D TV have no interest in 3D. I know I'm one, I don't even have any glasses.


----------



## 356B

dpeters11 said:


> A large number of people with a 3D TV have no interest in 3D. I know I'm one, I don't even have any glasses.


Well good for you and bully for them......... :icon_cool


----------



## djlong

Until they perfect the non-glasses version of 3D, it'll be a novelty.

The first company to put out a *good* (i.e. bright, wide viewing angle, etc) 3D screen that doesn't require glasses might have a license to print money.


----------



## BillJ

3D is proving to be mostly a fad once again. On our recent visit to the local movieplex we noticed how many of the teenage customers in line at the ticket window were opting for the 2D version of a movie that would have seemed an ideal 3D action flick. This theater usually offers both versions at the same time and the upcharge for 3D is only a dollar. These kids were telling the movie industry they don't like 3D all that much.

I still think someday we'll have popular 3D but it won't require glasses and it won't have the possibility of making you queezy. I remember the first 3D movies in the 50s. Certainly much better today but still more of a novelty than a must have.


----------



## lee635

Before E* invests heavy in 3D, there needs to be more stability in that market. ESPN is pulling the plug on its 3D network. Looking at E*'s current channel lineup, I think their resources would be better spent on upgrading every existing channel to include an HD version of the channel. There are still some multiplex movie channels where E* doesn't offer an HD feed.

_RE: Frankly, most of the people saying they don't like 3D are older._ My middle school son has gotten sick two times in a row watching 3D movies. Now he won't watch them. My high school daughter on the other hand likes the 3D movies.

It's good to be on-time with emerging technology like 3D, but not too far ahead of the wave. With the very limited installed base, this seems like a good niche market for a 3D version of Netflix or Hulu, except those folks are likely also waiting for more 3D to sell.

Thanks, Lee


----------



## gov

Mebbee if the ESPN 3D channel was in the regular lineup area adjacent to channels 206, 207, 208 etc. ??

Just having to hunt for it is a put off.


----------



## James Long

Not much of a hunt ... The 3D channels on that provider were all together in the low 100s. Having all of the original HD channels together in a range (70-79 + 99 on DirecTV and 9420-9467 on DISH) did not seem to stop HD from growing. It made the channels easy to find for those with appropriate equipment.

I agree that channel placement is important ... not critical but important to the success of a channel. But I would not blame the failure of ESPN 3D on channel placement.


----------



## Rduce

The only blame here is that every 20-25 years some genius trots out 60 year old technology and tries to sell it as the latest cutting edge. The powers to be make a few bucks on it before interests dies and it's put in the back of the closet again.


----------



## James Long

The technology is good ... I do not expect ESPN's decision to back away from 3D to kill 3D movies. The technology just need to improved for the average home viewer and content needs to be developed that is so much better than the alternative that more people consider 3D the better choice.

3D isn't dead. HD is just good enough that 3D isn't required to be the next improvement.


----------



## Laxguy

Blame? 

And, yes, 3D has been around for over 100 years, but today's advancements are a far cry from stereoscopes of the 19thC. 

Powers that be? There're all sorts of players in the 3D arena.


----------



## 356B

I guess the manufactures and the studios are just throwing good money after bad......when I bought a 3D Samsung in 09 I read here that 3D was a passing fancy and in a year or two it would be gone or at least a niche market. Since then the Passive format seems to be replacing the Active, the glasses are more user friendly, much cheaper, interchangeable in some cases with other brands....It appears R&D is going into this 60/100 year old technology to make it better and more affordable.
Last I looked 3D is an feature in most any TV over 1000 bucks, like it or not it seems to me 3D is not going away anytime soon. 
Personally I was surprised ESPN featured 3D...why?.... the Syfy Channel.....? now that's a whole different situation. To each their own.......Happy Fathers Day Dads.......


----------



## lparsons21

3D is dying just like it always has. The reason they are selling 3D in any real numbers at all is that the better sets come with it. Little to do with consumer acceptance or use of 3D.

With ESPN3D going away, there's what, 1 channel left and it is mostly demonstration type stuff, hardly compelling. The local video store carries so few 3D titles it isn't worth going there to rent one and of course that is exacerbated by the fact that way too many 3D movies are not very good at all.


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> The reason they are selling 3D in any real numbers at all is that the better sets come with it.


Why do the better sets bother with 3D? There has to be a cost difference ... both in development and in parts. If 3D is useless why do the companies that build these sets bother?

The simple answer is that they see a future in 3D. Perhaps they are wrong. But they still see some reason to invest the money needed to have 3D in their sets.


----------



## 356B

What I find hard to comprehend is this almost bitter, negative resentment of a 3D format, it seems personal.
Is it just debate or does it go deeper? Like I said, to each their own.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> Why do the better sets bother with 3D? There has to be a cost difference ... both in development and in parts. If 3D is useless why do the companies that build these sets bother?
> 
> The simple answer is that they see a future in 3D. Perhaps they are wrong. But they still see some reason to invest the money needed to have 3D in their sets.


The mfgs keep hoping that 3D will catch on in the home despite all evidence to the contrary. I mean come on let's get real here. We'll soon be down to one channel with 3D and that mostly a 'demo' channel. None of the premiums seem interested in it, nor does Amazon or Netflix. So just how is the market for 3D to grow? Certainly not from the mostly 'B' movies done in 3D, nor the cartoons.

I've been sorely disappointed by most 3D movies I've seen that it no longer carries value for me.


----------



## lparsons21

356B said:


> What I find hard to comprehend is this almost bitter, negative resentment of a 3D format, it seems personal.
> Is it just debate or does it go deeper? Like I said, to each their own.


I think you're reading much more into it than is there. While I'm not enamored of 3D as much because of a lack of good 3D content as the damned glasses, I don't hate it. In fact I use the 2D w/depth that my TV has that gives me some 3D effect fairly often.

Well, at least I would if Mitsi would get off their dead butts and get a tech out to fix my set! But that's a story that will be talked about a lot in a different thread....


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> The mfgs keep hoping that 3D will catch on in the home despite all evidence to the contrary.


TV manufacturers are willing to back up their opinion with their money.



lparsons21 said:


> I mean come on let's get real here. We'll soon be down to one channel with 3D and that mostly a 'demo' channel. None of the premiums seem interested in it, nor does Amazon or Netflix. So just how is the market for 3D to grow? Certainly not from the mostly 'B' movies done in 3D, nor the cartoons.


Many of the top box office films have 3D versions. Movie studios are willing to back up their opinion with their money.



lparsons21 said:


> I've been sorely disappointed by most 3D movies I've seen that it no longer carries value for me.


Perhaps not for you ... but the industry is still supporting 3D.



> Despite the buzz around UltraHD and 4K TV models being the Next Big Thing in home entertainment, 3D TV is still plugging along as a TV set differentiator. Chalk it up to content, content, content: as the DVD and Blu-Ray release of Ang Lee's stunning Life of Pi demonstrates, consumers are finding fresh incentives to embrace those silly-looking glasses.
> source





> On Amazon, the number one-selling movie is the forthcoming 3D Blu-ray release of "The Hobbit." And "Life of Pi" is not far behind, at number eight. Both movies are also currently in the top two positions of all 3D Blu-ray sales.
> 
> And the number one movie in the U.S. this weekend was "Oz The Great and Powerful," which was also filmed in 3D by director Sam Raimi.
> . . .
> In other words, it would seem that 3D is here to stay. While the technology has been in place for a number of years, it's taken the market awhile to catch up in an economy where consumers must carefully weigh their big-ticket purchases.
> source


It may have been too early for a full time sports channel. But there is still a place for 3D. Perhaps on the back burner but still on the stove.


----------



## jerrylove56

The people vote with their $BUCKS and 3D at this time is not an option "most" consumers want. Manufacturers will have to devise another "greatest" widget. I just don't think the new enhanced videos now being peddled will work either.

Still think a set that can enhance the most "senses" is the answer. This is probably far-fetched, but a set with technology to radiate scents would sell.


----------



## 356B

It could be a demographic thing. I live in a PooDunk town and the only movie house has movies often in 3D. The kids/young adults are keeping the place open.....? The over 50 crowd...not so much.
Hell, I don't have a "Smart Phone" or a iPad, and my adult children tell me my iMac will soon be a relic of the past.....


----------



## James Long

jerrylove56 said:


> Still think a set that can enhance the most "senses" is the answer. This is probably far-fetched, but a set with technology to radiate scents would sell.


"This movie really stinks" would be a good thing?


----------



## TBoneit

356B said:


> I guess the manufactures and the studios are just throwing good money after bad......when I bought a 3D Samsung in 09 I read here that 3D was a passing fancy and in a year or two it would be gone or at least a niche market. Since then the Passive format seems to be replacing the Active, the glasses are more user friendly, much cheaper, interchangeable in some cases with other brands....It appears R&D is going into this 60/100 year old technology to make it better and more affordable.
> Last I looked 3D is an feature in most any TV over 1000 bucks, like it or not it seems to me 3D is not going away anytime soon.
> Personally I was surprised ESPN featured 3D...why?.... the Syfy Channel.....? now that's a whole different situation. To each their own.......Happy Fathers Day Dads.......


The answer is simple as to why 3D is slow to catch on at $1000+ a 3D tv is past the sweet spot of price benefit for most, IMHO.

I paid under $200 for a 32" HDTV delivered as a cheap gift to replace a 19" HDTV. Under $500 is the sweet spot for many as I see it.

TB


----------



## Laxguy

jerrylove56 said:


> The people vote with their $BUCKS and 3D at this time is not an option "most" consumers want. Manufacturers will have to devise another "greatest" widget. I just don't think the new enhanced videos now being peddled will work either.
> 
> Still think a set that can enhance the most "senses" is the answer. This is probably far-fetched, but a set with technology to radiate scents would sell.


Movie houses had Smell-O-Vision in the 50's. Didn't catch on.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Why do the better sets bother with 3D? There has to be a cost difference ... both in development and in parts. If 3D is useless why do the companies that build these sets bother?


I think you've over-complicated what's going on. In order to be taken seriously as a upper-class TV, it must feature 3D (even if glasses aren't included). A similar situation to the thousands of better TVs that came with the CableCard capability 7-8 years ago. Very few took advantage of it, but many thought they would benefit from it.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> In order to be taken seriously as a upper-class TV, it must feature 3D (even if glasses aren't included).


So 3D is something considered a standard feature of a top of the line HDTV? Not bad for a technology that is being portrayed as useless.


----------



## Laxguy

RE: Cost. While initially there was R+D, and tooling up costs, once 3D was perfected in the manufacturing lines, it's probably cost effective to make all of one run 3D than two runs 75% just HD and 25% 3D HD. 

For many people even if they're looking at two sets almost identical, but for $100 they get 3D, many would choose the latter even if not fully invested in its worth. YMMV, and for some there's 0 mpg.....


----------



## MCHuf

James Long said:


> So 3D is something considered a standard feature of a top of the line HDTV? Not bad for a technology that is being portrayed as useless.


Pretty soon there will be less 3D channels then there are now, this certainly didn't happen with HD. The facts speak for themselves. People just aren't that interested in 3D in the home, despite the good amount of 3D tv's sold. The vast majority of people don't discuss tv on internet forums and really couldn't care less about most high-end features. Just look at bd audio. 5.1/7.1 sounds great and all bd players can output it. But how many people have 5.1/7.1 sound systems? If it doesn't work just by turning on the set and plopping down somewhere in the room to watch it, it just won't catch on. When 3D viewing becomes that easy, then it will become big.


----------



## 356B

I think the 3D market is DVD driven. I'm shopping a new TV now and everything I read about "Smart TVs" performance mentions 3D in a big way. The consumer reviews are the most telling, it's a demographic thing. Older buyers not so much, young adults with a couple of bucks are driving a significant portion of the market. Most reviewers professional and consumer oriented never mention 3D performance positively on Satellite or Cable.....why? because the delivery system is inadequate for their taste. DVDs with 3D capabilities according to the reviews I've been reading are no different and in some cases better then the theater experience.
To each their own.


----------



## SayWhat?

Last I heard, there was only a small handful of actual television manufacturers at the board level. I would imagine that each one of them only has a few basic CPUs and motherboards to which other modular components are added. Say, there's a couple with 3D and a couple without. That's going to lead to quite a few TVs sold worldwide with 3D capability built in at the board level. At that point the branded sellers feel they might as well promote the feature and snag a few buyers that are into certain WOW factor items, whether they really need them or not.

I don't think people are buying 3D TVs in any quantity. They're buying TVs that just happen to include 3D.


----------



## BillJ

As several reviewers have said, if you want the best quality 2D picture available, buy a 3D TV. Their reasoning is not that will even necessily use the 3D feature but that manufacturers are only putting their high tech 2D on their top of the line TVs and those TVs also feature 3D. It would be interesting to know how many buyers of 3D TVs pay additional for the glasses if not included or buy extra glasses if only one or two pair are included. That would give us a measure of what role 3D played in their purchase decision.


----------



## Laxguy

356B said:


> I think the 3D market is DVD driven. I'm shopping a new TV now and everything I read about "Smart TVs" performance mentions 3D in a big way. The consumer reviews are the most telling, it's a demographic thing. Older buyers not so much, young adults with a couple of bucks are driving a significant portion of the market. Most reviewers professional and consumer oriented never mention 3D performance positively on Satellite or Cable.....why? because the delivery system is inadequate for their taste. DVDs with 3D capabilities according to the reviews I've been reading are no different and in some cases better then the theater experience.
> To each their own.


Pretty sure you mean Blu-ray! And have you any cites of sites for those who are saying DVDs with 3D are better than theaters?

[FWIW, I view DVDs with the same distaste as many view SD....]


----------



## 356B

Sounds like whatever folks say you want to pick a debate, fight.....about 3D TV......? come on. To each their own, can I be any clearer?


----------



## Paul Secic

At Target people are buying HD TVS like crazy, but I havn't seen any 3D glasses any place in the store.. Personally I have one bad eye, so I don't need 3D.


----------



## Orion9

James Long said:


> The simple answer is that they see a future in 3D. Perhaps they are wrong. But they still see some reason to invest the money needed to have 3D in their sets.


I wouldn't say it is so much of "a future" in the way most consumers see it (as in I'll be using 3D for years and wondering why I ever bothered with that old 2D stuff) but rather, they can get enough money out if it over some period of time to recoup their investment plus a good/decent profit margin. This can be true if there is "a future" or if it is just a fad or a check-off item that people will pay enough for over whatever time it lasts.

The CE field is very competitive and the usual model is to build the best product that you can this year, then ignore it and build whatever you think is the best product next year... repeat. Whether 3D takes off at a consumer level or not, by the time this is known, the TV makers will be introducing some other new thing to differentiate themselves from the boring old commodity-priced stuff that everyone already has.


----------



## SayWhat?

Based on the votes above so far, about 76% show no interest in 3D.


----------



## James Long

The next thing seems to be interactive TV ... "apps" built in to the set so you don't need separate hardware. Adding technology developed for video games to allow people to control their TVs with hand motions. Cool stuff ... probably just as cool as 3D technology. Whether it is useful or a gimmick will be decided as time goes by.

Glasses free technology with a wider range of seating angles and distances will help as 3D improves over the next few years.

3D will still suffer from the "single camera viewpoint" that all TV is based on. It will never be just like being there live. In some ways TV is be better than being there (one cannot transport themselves around an event in a split second as easy as a director can switch to a different camera) but the viewer does not control the camera.

The concept of 3D ... showing the same scene from the viewpoint of each eye to each eye ... works good for static shots. Keep your head perfectly still and let the camera and screen do the work. But the natural action of a human is to move their head. In real life a few inches of motion changes the scene much more than the difference between the two eyes presented in a 3D film. To make 3D more realistic one must be able to present more than two images (one for each eye). One must allow for head motion and have additional images present to let people interact more with the picture.

It is that lack of realism that is holding 3D back.


That being said, people are looking for more than HD in their TV. Consumers are buying 3D movie tickets. Supporting home viewing of what is available in the marketplace isn't a bad thing.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> It is that lack of realism that is holding 3D back.


Until they move holographics from ScFi to a practical function, 3D cannot be realistic. I would imagine that some form of holographic projection system in in the works in some lab somewhere by now. And I don't mean the gimmicky versions we've seen in some gadget shops.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> So 3D is something considered a standard feature of a top of the line HDTV? Not bad for a technology that is being portrayed as useless.


More that the high-end 2D features of a TV are all there to best facilitate 3D (higher scan rates, better video processing).


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> Based on the votes above so far, about 76% show no interest in 3D.


I'd venture to say "based on votes above so far" is not representative of the consuming public. To each their own.....


----------



## GrumpyBear

With ESPN 3D coming to an end soon, I think the public has spoken pretty clearly that in home 3D isn't something consumers are really interested in. 
Most high end TV's do have 3d built in to them, that's really because all TV makers buy from the same source and then modify the screen to them. 3D is just in its latest Fad state, and will disappear again. Between the needed glasses and how the colors are so muted with 3D, it just wont be taking off. Resolve the necessary glasses issue and make the colors as vibrant, then 3D will be a worthwhile feature.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

This really isn't about any of our individual love or "hate" or apathy for 3D... but channels for 3D seem to be fading or going away entirely.... box-office 3D movies don't seem to be raking in money because of 3D, but rather in spite of it now... by which I mean, people are going to see movies... not necessarily 3D movies...

The "shine" has worn off on this iteration... and outside of the casual interest... there simple are not enough die-hards to support this as a big roll-out for any kind of "standard" right now... Who knows what role the down economy plays in all of this as well.

But love it or hate it... or like me, indifferent to it... it seems the window is closing on this round of 3D... maybe in another 20 years we will see another cycle.


----------



## davejacobson

I think there are alot of us that can say I told you that 3D would fail.The majority of the buying public will not spend extra $$$ or wear those silly glasses to watch TV.A good HD picture is really all most of the general public wants myself included.


----------



## djlong

It occurred to me that 3D has been like the cicada bug. Hiberates for a number of years, comes out and makes a lot of noise, then returns to hibernating for years.


----------



## Wilf

djlong said:


> It occurred to me that 3D has been like the cicada bug. Hiberates for a number of years, comes out and makes a lot of noise, then returns to hibernating for years.


I am in my eighties, and I can vouch that indeed that is the case.


----------



## tsmacro

SayWhat? said:


> Based on the votes above so far, about 76% show no interest in 3D.


And that's on a message board where you'd expect there to be more people pre-disposed to wanting the latest viewing experience, so I'd imagine for the general public that number is probably even higher.


----------



## Chihuahua

I doubt that 3D TV will really catch on quite some time to come.


----------



## Laxguy

Chihuahua said:


> I doubt that 3D TV will really catch on quite some time to come.


For many, but not all, values of "really", "catch on", and "quite some time"!


----------



## Reaper

Orion9 said:


> Whether 3D takes off at a consumer level or not, by the time this is known, the TV makers will be introducing some other new thing to differentiate themselves from the *boring old commodity-priced stuff that everyone already has*.


I think this has been the greatest thing about new technologies like in-TV apps and 3D TV emerging; the commodity-priced standard stuff has gotten pretty inexpensive.

I went to buy a TV for my bedroom about a year ago and did not want apps or 3D (I have a Roku and an Apple TV, and don't care about in-home 3D). I was able to get a really nice 46" JVC LCD TV for just $500. I was pretty happy about that. :joy:


----------



## Rduce

356B said:


> I'd venture to say "based on votes above so far" is not representative of the consuming public. To each their own.....


Actually, I would say that it is a fairly good representation of how viewers around the country and the world feel about home 3D. This past spring the BBC announced that after a two year test they have concluded that viewers were less and less enthusiastic about 3D programming as less and less viewers were watching the 3D programming they were offering.

HBO tech guru Bob Zitter told the TV Connect conference in London that he believes 3D TV is dead. "We (HBO) never thought that 3D with glasses was ever going to get off the ground," he said. "Consumers have shown they do not want to wear glasses in the home. 3D with glasses is dead."

Then with Samsung's announcement that "Considering our current technology, Samsung can make glasses-free 3DTV at the R&D level. However, it can only be viewed from a few viewing spots. To make naturally viewed glasses-free 3D TV, for instance in a living room where several people can watch TV from various angles, the technology needs to deliver 3D to at least 32 viewing spots," the company said in a statement.
"We believe that creating a prototype for lab-grade glasses-free 3D TV, broadcasting system and display will take about five years. For mass commercialization to become possible, manufacturing costs must come down and TV broadcasters will have to upgrade infrastructure, which includes securing transmission bandwidth. Attempts to put glasses-free 3D TV to market within the next 10 years will be difficult."

So, I think that for here and now home 3D with glasses is as it always has been, a gimmick and will slowly fade away just like it did 30 years ago and 30 years before that.


----------



## 356B

Fascinating how much energy is put into a negative.........3D movie schedule making is beefy for 13 and 14.....somebody obviously is watching. Then again the execs at Fox, Sony, Universal and DREAMWORKS could be idiots........right......


----------



## BillJ

This humorous video from Bloomberg sums up the death of 3D TV nicely.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/in-your-face-how-3d-tv-got-killed-R948Bv2MTBG_pCpZk6tVTA.html


----------



## djlong

There's a difference between watching at a theater - an event where you're leaving the house - and watching at home where you're making FAR less of a "commitment".


----------



## 356B

djlong said:


> There's a difference between watching at a theater - an event where you're leaving the house - and watching at home where you're making FAR less of a "commitment".


Depends......on how into commitments one is.......to each their own.


----------



## 356B

BillJ said:


> This humorous video from Bloomberg sums up the death of 3D TV nicely.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/video/in-your-face-how-3d-tv-got-killed-R948Bv2MTBG_pCpZk6tVTA.html


Another Fox Business News wannabe......I like his glasses though, and I think I'll get one of the those 4K TVs, just because I can......calm down...just kidding. :eek2: check that, I think I'll get a 3D printer this summer.......not kidding.


----------



## tsmacro

356B said:


> Fascinating how much energy is put into a negative.........3D movie schedule making is beefy for 13 and 14.....somebody obviously is watching. Then again the execs at Fox, Sony, Universal and DREAMWORKS could be idiots........right......


Yes enough people are watching at movie theaters to make it worth the movie makers money. But at home it seems there's not enough demand for broadcast 3-D for even one of the most popular channels, ESPN, to keep their channel up and running. If more people wanted 3-D at home they'd be offerring more and more 3-D channels, like what happened with HD. It wasn't too many years ago that we were always waiting to see what HD channel would be available next. That hasn't happened with 3-D channels, the day when broadcasters are shown there's enough money in it to make it worth their while it'll happen, but not before and it seems now isn't that time.


----------



## BillJ

tsmacro said:


> Yes enough people are watching at movie theaters to make it worth the movie makers money. But at home it seems there's not enough demand for broadcast 3-D for even one of the most popular channels, ESPN, to keep their channel up and running. If more people wanted 3-D at home they'd be offerring more and more 3-D channels, like what happened with HD. It wasn't too many years ago that we were always waiting to see what HD channel would be available next. That hasn't happened with 3-D channels, the day when broadcasters are shown there's enough money in it to make it worth their while it'll happen, but not before and it seems now isn't that time.


Actually when offered in both 3D and 2D several big name films have had higher 2D sales. This was what I mentioned some time ago from personal observation in the tickeet line. Even young customers were opting for 2D when they could have had 3D for only $1 more. That tells me even in theaters the novelty of 3D isn't selling anymore.


----------



## 356B

BillJ said:


> Actually when offered in both 3D and 2D several big name films have had higher 2D sales. This was what I mentioned some time ago from personal observation in the tickeet line. Even young customers were opting for 2D when they could have had 3D for only $1 more. That tells me even in theaters the novelty of 3D isn't selling anymore.


Ha....! not where I live.....but perhaps our kids in PoDunk are technically challenged.....or can afford the extra dollar.


----------



## Rduce

356B said:


> Ha....! not where I live.....but perhaps our kids in PoDunk are technically challenged.....or can afford the extra dollar.


It might now be happening where you live, but it is happening...

http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/03/23/poor-3d-ticket-sales-could-increase-2d-ticket-prices/


----------



## James Long

djlong said:


> There's a difference between watching at a theater - an event where you're leaving the house - and watching at home where you're making FAR less of a "commitment".


Hmmm ... a couple bucks more for the price of the movie ticket to see it in 3D (if one is in to seeing movies in a theater) vs paying more for a 3D TV and glasses for everyone or a more expensive glasses free 3D TV. To me it seems that there is more commitment in setting up your home to be able to watch anything in 3D than there is to make a movie by movie choice to buy a ticket for a 3D showing.

Is 3D bringing people to the theaters who would normally wait for the PPV / rental? or are they just skimming some of the theatrical audience who would still see the movie in 2D?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Regardless of which side you are on... I think what we see time and again is... the things that people want tend to stick around. It's fine to say things like "beta was the best, but VHS won somehow"... and while beta might have been technically the best, it didn't matter... because VHS was marketed better and got more people to buy-in.

HD took a little bit to get going, but once it did... here we are today with most channels in HD and very few channels left in the wish pile.

3D, on the other hand... has come and gone a couple of times... each time it comes back with better home-technology... but so far it has not taken hold.

IF there truly were lots of fans out there wanting and demanding 3D... we would be seeing more content, not less... and more channels, not less.

This thread now has a misleading title... because it presumes that Dish is falling behind in 3D... when the reality appears to be that other providers are scaling back 3D content...


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's fine to say things like "beta was the best, but VHS won somehow"... and while beta might have been technically the best, it didn't matter... because VHS was marketed better and got more people to buy-in.


The market came to a point where "there can only be one". And the winner was the one supported by more manufacturers.

We had a "there can only be one" point with BluRay as well.

I'm glad we don't have an "there can only be one" point with Apple vs Android vs Windows on phones (although a winner is emerging). 



Stewart Vernon said:


> IF there truly were lots of fans out there wanting and demanding 3D... we would be seeing more content, not less... and more channels, not less.


It is a chicken and egg situation. But as I see the crests of interest in 3D wax and wane the current one is cresting at the top of the seawall. The next wave will likely be the one that makes it over the top and floods the market with a good technology that works.

There is a demand for 3D ... it remains unsatisfied despite decades (lets call it "over a century") of improved technology. People have accepted that we will have 3D in the future. We're just not there yet.



Stewart Vernon said:


> This thread now has a misleading title... because it presumes that Dish is falling behind in 3D... when the reality appears to be that other providers are scaling back 3D content...


The title is ironic ... and the premise has been disputed since the thread started. DISH decided to wait for better technology and while they were waiting the wave receded. DISH still supports 3D on their top of the line receivers ... they are not out of the game. But there is less content to carry.

There are still more important areas where DISH needs to "catch up". The wane in 3D takes the pressure off for linear channels. They can still do VOD and on demand.


----------



## inkahauts

Remember when MNF was on abc in hd for a couple years, then it was gone for another three or four before it came back.. This may or may not be the same thing with 3d (I think its going to be loved on a few particular films going forward, but its not the end all be all for all films. See avatar 2 and 3 in the next few years) , but I still think 4k will be much bigger than 3d in the long run to be honest.


----------



## djlong

What I meant by "commitment" was the incremental commitment of the specific event. Going to the movies? 3D is an extra buck or two and they hand you the glasses on the way in. You're already committed to making the journey (car, walk, subway, bus, etc) and spending money. After the initial purchase of 3D equipment, there's more "to do" for 3D at home. Making sure you haven't lost the glasses - that they're recharged, if it's active shutter, that you have enough for everyone. I honestly wonder if the idea of "I need 30 pairs of glasses if I'm going to have a 3D Super Bowl party?" has soured some on the idea.

Make it glasses-free with a wide viewing angle and I think the last of the barriers will fall. Why? Because we already have lots of source material. Lots of 3D Blu-Ray players and lots of 3D Blu-Ray discs. I know that, when I'm buying movies from Amazon, I pay the extra $5 for the version that includes a 3D disc for when and if I eventually have 3D. That's one reason I did NOT buy "Oz", even though I liked it. They didn't have a Blu-Ray/3D combo pack.


----------



## 356B

inkahauts said:


> Remember when MNF was on abc in hd for a couple years, then it was gone for another three or four before it came back.. This may or may not be the same thing with 3d (I think its going to be loved on a few particular films going forward, but its not the end all be all for all films. See avatar 2 and 3 in the next few years) , but I still think 4k will be much bigger than 3d in the long run to be honest.


4K..? there is no content and several news outlet media critics say you can't tell the difference. No it will be years before 4K is mainstream, similar to what happened in HD tech in the late 90's......very pricy, pretty pictures but no programing or carriers of programing. Hell.... I know a retired IRS agent who thinks HD is a scam, he says he sees no difference......he sounds kind of like a 3D doubter......How would you like him checking your tax return?
3D RULES.......! :rolling:


----------



## TBoneit

I do not think 4k will ever be anything beyond a niche product in the home.

What size screen do you need to be using to see the difference between 1080i (p) and 4k?

My belief is that most TV sets being sold are of size where 4k would minmal at best results.

If I had the Money to build a 20 seat home thearter than I would want 4k content and displays, I and most TV watchers can not afford or desire that.

I have two 32" HDTV sets, a 24" HDTV and a 27" SDTV (Sony) in use. The SDTV gets as much if not more viewing as the HDTVs.

TB.


----------



## Laxguy

I could tell the difference on most 4K sets from ten feet away vs. standared HD sets. Must have seen 30 of them, this at CES early this year. 

But I certainly agree the uptake will be real slow. 

The first media to really pop will be BRDs. 

And never say never!!


----------



## TBoneit

Laxguy, Just curious what size sets?

Thanks
TB


----------



## klang

I saw 4K on display at the Sony store in Vegas. The resolution difference was quite apparent to me on the 55" set. There was a 1080p set right next to it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Remember when MNF was on abc in hd for a couple years, then it was gone for another three or four before it came back..


Wait... when did that happen? I don't remember that happening at all.

I had an HDTV before many (except WRAL, the nation's first) of my locals were broadcasting in HD... but I don't remember MNF being in HD for a couple of years and then not being in HD for a few... that doesn't even make sense... after they invested in HD cameras and ran for several years, why would they have stopped and then started again?

I don't remember that at all... Of course MNF moved from ABC to ESPN years ago... but it stayed in HD the whole time.


----------



## Laxguy

TB-

It was a real variety. Most were ca. 55-65". Some down to maybe 42" and a few were Mega sets over 100"


----------



## lee635

I don't think there is the demand for 3d like there was with HD. There was a point where folks were waiting in line for hours to get a good deal at an after Thanksgiving sale on an HDtv even though their current tv was still working fine. 

What we may see is that as consumers buy a replacement TV for the one that just died, they may opt for one with 3d capability, but we're just not seeing folks stand in line to get a 3d tv. 

Thanks all. Lee


----------



## 356B

We had family over the 4th and with the oppressive afternoon hot weather we cranked up the 3D Blu-ray, turned on the Samsung 3D TV and showed some 3D movies. The kids loved it, the adults loved it and a wonderful time in air conditioning was had by all..........Several had never seen 3D TV home style and spoke of getting one of their own.
To each their own............


----------



## Jim5506

I just read that after Wimbeldon, the BBC is dropping any further coverage in 3D, so, it appears the fad is fading across the pond, also.


----------



## SayWhat?

It's not that it's dying again. It was dead before being trotted out again by somebody hoping to rake in a few bucks on another gullible generation.

It's Dead Jim!!

Until and unless they can do it without glasses from any viewing position, It DEAD and they ain't no Quija board nor Voodoo Priestess nor mad scientist in a Transylvanian dungeon that's gonna resurrect it. Not even Q can make it happen.


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> Until and unless they can do it without glasses from any viewing position, It DEAD and they ain't no Quija board nor Voodoo Priestess nor mad scientist in a Transylvanian dungeon that's gonna resurrect it.


I think it goes beyond that. The technology and mindset on the production side needs to mature a whole lot so that they reconsider how to shoot in 3D instead of just placing 3D cameras in 2D positions.

That, and the TVs that do glasses-free need to have generous viewing angles and reasonable pricing.


----------



## Jim5506

IMHO they will never be able to provide glasses free viewing of 3D content until they develop a totally different way to deliver the image to your eyes.

Current flat panel technology can NEVER offer a glasses free experience to everyone in the room from a wide angle of observation.

Some sort of 3D color laser projection into 3 dimensional space will be needed to provide true 3D , not just bi-optical 3D.


----------



## djlong

They're already demonstrating glasses-free 3D with decent viewing angles at shows (though certainly nothing like the 170+ degree viewing angles a modern 2D set gives). It's just expensive and otherwise "not quite ready for prime time"


----------



## SayWhat?

Jim5506 said:


> IMHO they will never be able to provide glasses free viewing of 3D content until they develop a totally different way to deliver the image to your eyes.
> 
> Current flat panel technology can NEVER offer a glasses free experience to everyone in the room from a wide angle of observation.
> 
> *Some sort of 3D color laser projection into 3 dimensional space* will be needed to provide true 3D , not just bi-optical 3D.


There is an old victim-seeks-revenge sub-B movie called 'Lipstick' that seems to show an interesting effect. There's a scene in a dance club of some kind with a laser light show that makes it appear the lasers are dancing in open space. I'm sure they were reflecting off something like smoke, but I can't remember for sure. It was done before the CG rage took over so it wasn't done that way.

I'd love to see real 3D, but it just hasn't been developed yet.


----------



## hdaddikt

There's a chance I'll have 3D with my next display purchase but it will not be the incentive to have me buy one. PQ over 2D will be my primary objective.
If more high end displays will be available without 3D I would have no qualms getting one if I preferred the overall performance.


----------



## SmokemanGRP

Last year I spoke with a Dish rep who told me they did not have any 3D channels. Is that still true?


----------



## lparsons21

Yes, still true and not likely to change as there is so little 3D content available and soon will be less when ESPN3D drops off.

There is some PPVs in 3d, but not many.


----------



## tsmacro

Here's a whole 28 page thread about Dish's lack of 3-D and the majority of Dish's customers who apparently don't care: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/183191-dish-needs-to-get-moving-on-3d/page-28#entry3160232


----------



## SmokemanGRP

Thanks guys. I'll admit the 3D programming on Direct is very limited but there are still some interesting shows in 3D.


----------



## harsh

DIRECTV alone carries what will be the lone remaining linear channel come next year. DIRECTV has effectively mothballed n3d so only 3net will remain once ESPN 3D goes dark.


----------



## PCampbell

I do not know anybody that uses a 3D TV.


----------



## Rduce

I, unfortunately, am old enough to have seen that about every 30 years they trot this hundred year old technology out and assert it to be the latest cutting edge there can be. Then after a bit it disappears after a few con artists make a few bucks on it. The only difference this time as opposed to the 1981 foray is it hung around longer, mainly I believe the greed factor was much higher and that the foolhardy bought into the sham longer. 

Granted, there are some that what to watch 3D, but the vast majority are indifferent at best…


----------



## dpeters11

PCampbell said:


> I do not know anybody that uses a 3D TV.


Quite a few have 3D TVs, whether they use the feature or not is different. When I got my set, it is 3D but I didn't buy any glasses.


----------



## 356B

My grand kids love 3D, when they come over and after they eat or become bored with the adults that's what they want......3D rules in the under 10 set....... :grin: for them it's a Zen.....thing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Merging with existing 3D thread in the HD forum..._


----------



## FHSPSU67

Watch the Masters Golf Tournament in 3D and you'll all be sold. Magnificent!
You can really see the undulations of the greens and surrounding areas.


----------



## James Long

356B said:


> My grand kids love 3D, when they come over and after they eat or become bored with the adults that's what they want......3D rules in the under 10 set....... :grin: for them it's a Zen.....thing.


They didn't see it 20 years ago ... or 40 years ago ... or 60 years ago. It is new to them. 

For those that did, it is just nostalgic. Now where did I put my stereoscopes ...


----------



## Cholly

I have had a 3D TV in my bedroom for about a year now. It's a 42 inch Vizio with passive glasses.Good 3D TV is spectacular. you are drawn into the scene, beyond a doubt. It's unfortunate that 3D content is mostly limited to 3D movies, as there aren't too many available. My family and I have no problem wearing the glasses, and I find viewers' reluctance to try them is silly (in the case of pasive glasses). I do agree that active glasses can be a real pain despite the fact that PQ is somewhat better than with passive glasses. I just wish that IMax would release more of their 3D documentaries.Under the sea is beautiful. Feature films like "Avatar" and "How to Train Your Dragon" are stunning.
And, let's get off the rants about 30-60 year old technology. The only similarty to today's 3D is the fact that you have to wear glasses. (Yes, I saw "Bwana Devil" back in the fifties).


----------



## harsh

Cholly said:


> The only similarty to today's 3D is the fact that you have to wear glasses.


That and the fact that it began to fade away relatively shortly after it came on the scene.

Remember Quadraphonic records?


----------



## SayWhat?

harsh said:


> Remember Quadraphonic records?


No, not really, but a few episodes of "Behind the Music: Remastered" have mentioned The Who's Quadrophenia as inspiration for other groups of that day.


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> No, not really, but a few episodes of "Behind the Music: Remastered" have mentioned The Who's Quadrophenia as inspiration for other groups of that day.


While _Quadrophenia_ was intended to be released as a Quadraphonic title, it was remixed in conventional stereo as it didn't work out.

Quadraphonic was another technology that came on sounding very exciting but turned out to be more or less a flash in the pan. The equipment (essentially a four-channel turntable or tape player) was pretty pricey. Also like 3DTV (glasses technologies), there were multiple incompatible configurations.


----------



## Laxguy

Right. If stereo is twice as good as mono, quad would be even better, four times better than mono. Hah! Some how this topic reminds me of Scopitone. (sp.?) maybe I have the wrong word, but in the 60's, at least in Manhattan, there was a proliferation of juke boxes with videos. Way before MTV. Pretty short lived, though. 
Anyone else? Name right?


----------



## MysteryMan

Laxguy said:


> Right. If stereo is twice as good as mono, quad would be even better, four times better than mono. Hah! Some how this topic reminds me of Scopitone. (sp.?) maybe I have the wrong word, but in the 60's, at least in Manhattan, there was a proliferation of juke boxes with videos. Way before MTV. Pretty short lived, though.
> Anyone else? Name right?


Yeah, I remember those. Video monitor was on top of the jukebox. Didn't have much of a video selection and like you said, it was short lived.


----------



## tsmacro

It's kind of funny i recently came across a Popular Science magazine from June 1953 and there's an article in there about somebody working building the "first 3-D television". And 60 years later they're still working on it.


----------



## Laxguy

Good find! I bet it took a number of centuries to perfect the first wheel, though!


----------



## Paul Secic

I remember quad sound in the 60's on K101 FM in San Francisco.. Didn't last long though.


----------



## James Long

And yet the modern versions of quadrophonic are a common part of our standard television today. Would you rather watch a movie in stereo or in 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound?

Technology improves. Perhaps some day 3D will be as common as 5.1 or better audio.


----------



## MysteryMan

In the fifties 3D versions of Hondo, House of Wax, Dial M For Murder, and Kiss Me Kate were released by Hollywood to lure customers back to the theaters and away from their new TV sets. The fad didn't last very long. Same can be said for todays version of 3D. What I do think will be the next big thing is Holographic TV but it's still years before it will be available.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Technology improves. Perhaps some day 3D will be as common as 5.1 or better audio.


Perhaps it will, but there will need to be a complete redesign around the production of TV and movies to incorporate 3D. To be effective, 3D needs to be shot considerably closer to the subject matter. This is why 3D sports (especially soccer) is so difficult to pull off.

Multichannel sound is much less of a leap from stereo than 3D video is from 2D and in many cases is at least partially synthesized given what we know about echoes and their phasing. There is 3D video that is synthesized from 2D but it depends on things that aren't always available in the 2D image (relative motion between objects).


----------



## James Long

The point was that for those who were saying "quadrophonic sound didn't last, 3D won't either" that over time the invention improved to the point where the benefit of quadrophonic sound (the surround sound experience) is a standard offering.

There is room for improvement in 3D where it too can become a standard offering. Some day.


----------



## Jim5506

Isn't quadraphonic sound today's surround sound, sort of?


----------



## 356B

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1376292289&newsletter&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Review%3A+Google+Chromecast+-+LG+debuts+cheaper+Ultra+HD+TVs+-+Glasses-free+3D+before+year%27s+end+-+John+Carmack+joins+Oculus+Rift+team&utm_campaign=20130812_m116889583_FlatpanelsHD+-+August+12%2C+2013&utm_term=newsletter_sub1_jpg


----------



## 722921

Well we had our first in home 3d experience this weekend by renting pacific rim 3d and we gave it thumbs up!
Don't know why we waited so long to do so...


----------



## Hunter Green

I just installed my new 3DTV last night, though I'm still doing some of the cabling.

While 3D has gotten off to a slow start, I don't think this is another "fading fad" for one simple reason. With the current HDTVs, 3D is an easy feature for the manufacturers to add. They've already developed the technology, and it doesn't require any significant change in the construction of the display, just an extra few chips and circuits. 3D isn't going to be the reason to buy a TV; it'll be one of many extra features that the TV comes with, of which you will probably only use some.

Right now, they're only putting 3D into higher-end TVs, but they're not charging significantly more for them than TVs of similar size and features. They're using 3D as an extra perk, to try to distinguish their model from others on the market. But they're not doing that in lower-end TVs yet, even though it would cost them next to nothing to do it, because that would cannibalize sales of their higher-end units. But inevitably they will keep lowering the threshold of which model they put 3D into, because they'll have already sold as many of each higher tier as they're likely to sell based on using 3D as a gimmick. Eventually, pretty much every TV out there will have 3D routinely, the way they all have HD, they all have USB ports, and they'll eventually all have Internet and apps; it's just a way to make it look better, but at next to no cost to the manufacturer. The same is happening on Blu-Ray players already.

That'll resolve the chicken-and-egg problem. Lots of people who don't particularly feel like 3D is a premium feature will end up getting a TV that has it anyway, just because the TV that they like happens to have it. Some of those will think "ick, I hate the glasses" and never do anything with the 3D, but more and more, people will start to say "hmm, I didn't buy this for 3D, but I wonder what 3D I can do." They'll rent or stream a 3D movie, or play a 3D game, just to try it. And the demand for 3D content will rise.

But I can sure see why the broadcasters aren't rushing to produce content right now. They aren't committed enough to make it without an audience just to try to foster an audience. But as an audience appears, they'll follow.


----------



## BillJ

Normally we don't even like 3D in theaters. And home 3D has generally been worse. That said, we saw "Gravity" in 3D in the theater and it was like nothing we've seen before. Whatever the producers of the film did that upgraded the 3D quality should be copied by anyone who makes a movie in 3D. And when I can get that quality at home I might consider 3D TV.

BTW, a couple 3D trailers before the feature were so awful I'd be afraid to see those films in 3D for fear I'd be nauseous half way through the film. With "Gravity" we just enjoyed the film and the 3D without being overwhelmed by it.


----------



## harsh

Hunter Green said:


> While 3D has gotten off to a slow start, I don't think this is another "fading fad" for one simple reason.


While your argument may have seemed reasonable when this thread started, it is clearly argued against by history now. 3D content hasn't become any easier to find and in the case of broadcast 3D, it has become a whole lot harder to find.

It was commented in the OP that DIRECTV had four 3D channels and now they have two (and one is a PPV channel).

A lack of compelling content isn't lost on shoppers. There's really no more content coming out now than there was back then.

Glasses remain the order of the day and the economies of scale in manufacturing have not abated the cost as was theorized.

What your arguing is akin to saying that you can go off-roading in a sedan but you have to acknowledge that most probably aren't going to do it as the reward isn't worth the wash job.


----------



## 722921

My glasses were about 20 each...correction- $18.25


----------



## BNUMM

Just bought my 3-D TV. Love it. Didn't think I would ever buy a 3D TV. Bought a Samsung Smart TV. My 4 year old granddaughter loves the 3D.


----------



## harsh

722921 said:


> My glasses were about 20 each...correction- $18.25


Is it safe to assume that you're TV features passive 3D technology?


----------



## inazsully

I have always contended that there are two stumbling blocks for the future of 3D in the home. The first one is the stupidity of the TV manufactures not providing one 3D viewing technology. Passive vs. Active is a choice the buyer should not even be forced to think about. If you are promoting 3D then don't muddle the waters for the poor customer with confusing Passive vs Active technology choices. Keep in mind that the sales persons are now forced, if your lucky, to pass on the correct information and not cloud the issue with their own personal likes. The second stumbling block is by far the biggest. The major players in the Movie Industry and television studio industry ie Sony, Universal, MGM, Pixar, Lions Gate, Panasonic, NBC, ABC/Disney/ CBS, CBS, have decided to take a back seat in the promotion of 3D in the home. If these big boys decided to spend the money to promote and develope and deliver a quality 3D product to the home TV audience you can bet the success would be overwhelming. Why don't they do it? Because success is not quaranteed beyond a shadow of doubt. They like the profits they now enjoy and don't have the #@#@'s to bet on the future. Think about the ability to watch all of your week night shows like Bones, Castle, NCIS, The Voice etc in Avatar 3D quality. Throw in all sporting events in the same quality. Consider this 3D option as a no cost or very low cost option. Consider that there are already millions of 3D TV's in this country. Consider the shopperes in the market for a new TV in the next 12 months. 3D in the home may undeed be doomed, but not because of the venue itself but because of a lack of visionary imagination within the ranks of those that could make it a household technology.


----------



## 356B

There have been many predictions over the years.....about the demise of 3D. In 2009 I bought a Samsung 3D capable TV. Almost immediately I was caught up in the reducible game, let's see... 4 years and counting.

3D is still in the theaters, DVD's are still offered in 3D... and Dish is still offering 3D on VOD minimally, but the sky is failing, 3D is a passing fancy and the end is near......Passive, Active, whatever......

When I bought my TV, glasses were NOT included, you could buy two pair in a add on box, very pricey. Now most manufactures offer 4 pair included with the TV.

Looks to me 3D is moving on with or without the naysayers and doubters. I was in a Best Buy the other day and the young folks working there claim to like 3D and all the top sellers on the shelves had 3D. Screens are getting bigger, better and manufacturers rightly or wrongly are actively promoting the 3D feature.......3D ain't go'in away......bon appetite.


----------



## inazsully

I think what you saw in Best Buy is a perfect example of the 'If you build it they will come" scenario. But you better not build crap or they will leave and NEVER come back. If they want to make the effort they can hook us but a weak effort will make them irrelevent to us forever.


----------



## 356B

inazsully said:


> I think what you saw in Best Buy is a perfect example of the 'If you build it they will come" scenario. But you better not build crap or they will leave and NEVER come back. If they want to make the effort they can hook us but a weak effort will make them irrelevent to us forever.


You have more faith in human nature then I do. I'm not nearly as sure the younger generations know what good stuff really is. They/we have evolved over the last few decades into a disposable society. High standards are debatable and quality is in they eye of the beholder. I hope you're analysis is correct though.


----------



## James Long

I wonder where the division is between new television buyers. How many walk in to the store thinking "my new TV *MUST* have 3D" vs those who are future proofing and saying "it might as well be 3D". If one buys a new HD TV and it isn't 3D that pretty much takes that buyer out of the 3D world until their next purchase.

If I were shopping for a new HD TV I'd probably be an "it might as well be 3D" purchaser ... just in case I wanted 3D sometime in the next decade. (My current primary TV is eight years old. I bought a small TV for the kitchen at about the same time and the rest of my sets are 10-30 years old.)

Are many people upgrading early or going shopping specifically for a 3D TV or are shoppers just future proofing?


----------



## Laxguy

Well, this shopper needed a new TV for his BR, and got a Smart Sammy. I believe it has 3D, but really don't care.


----------



## inazsully

Laxguy said:


> Well, this shopper needed a new TV for his BR, and got a Smart Sammy. I believe it has 3D, but really don't care.


I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you bought a "Smart TV. I believe that every Smart TV on the market is also a 3D TV. If not all then certainly most. I looked at a Panasonic yesterday at Costco. It was a 65S60. That's a 65 inch plasma that is not 3D and not Smart. One step up is the 65ST60 which is 3D and also Smart. If the powers that be (networks) decide that they want 3D in the home in a major way then they have the ability to make it happen. If they do that then the majority of new TV buyers will be much more likely to actually want 3D and many more will say, "why not". I think that scenario is reversed right now. We like to think we have a major role in choosing what we watch and how we watch it, but we really don't.


----------



## 722921

harsh said:


> Is it safe to assume that you're TV features passive 3D technology?


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00562O8U0/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Work great on my mitz dlp.
I just ordered the extended hobbit 3d bluray also.


----------



## harsh

722921 said:


> Work great on my mitz dlp.


If I'm not mistaken, only Vizio and LG are in the passive business now (since Mitsubishi no longer makes consumer TVs). LG's Plasma TVs use active matrix glasses.

For the rest who purchase TVs, it is the somewhat expensive (at least $26 a pair at Walmart) active shutter models.

I'm not happy about the glasses but for the experience of only one or two good movies a year, 3D just doesn't appeal to me. That said, I imagine myself in the James Long camp where having 3D, if not too much more money, will be something to have available. $400 may be too much more though.


----------



## 722921

I suspect we'll be watching at least one 3d movie per month and the selection dish has available for $7/48hours will more than satisfy that. I don't see myself buying several blurays to fill that need.
$1000 for the 73" tv and $60 to enable 3d viewing, worth it. The 3d came along for the ride on my mitz.


----------



## inazsully

harsh said:


> If I'm not mistaken, only Vizio and LG are in the passive business now (since Mitsubishi no longer makes consumer TVs). LG's Plasma TVs use active matrix glasses.
> 
> For the rest who purchase TVs, it is the somewhat expensive (at least $26 a pair at Walmart) active shutter models.
> 
> I'm not happy about the glasses but for the experience of only one or two good movies a year, 3D just doesn't appeal to me. That said, I imagine myself in the James Long camp where having 3D, if not too much more money, will be something to have available. $400 may be too much more though.


Sony's new 550 series is Passive. Available in a 70" which is really nice for 3D. Glasses average $10pr and each set comes with 4 pair. Sony expects Passive to be the best option for the future. Possibly because they feel Passive lends itself well with 4K displays.


----------



## 356B

inazsully said:


> Sony's new 550 series is Passive. Available in a 70" which is really nice for 3D. Glasses average $10pr and each set comes with 4 pair. Sony expects Passive to be the best option for the future. Possibly because they feel Passive lends itself well with 4K displays.


That said the Sony 900A, Sony's best non 4K is active 3D, Samsung runs Active also. Granted the rest of the pack are going toward passive, and a surprise to me was Panasonic's move to go out of the plasma business in favor of LEDs in 2014. Clearly the matrix of the TV business is changing towards new generations headed in the OLED/4K/LED direction, all 3D equipped.


----------



## inazsully

I think the biggest drawback to Passive is the ability to deliver 1080 to each eye. 4K will remedy that and OLED is yet to be determined as long as it's rlegated to 1080. Everyone that has seen 3D on my 70R550A have been jaw dropping awed.


----------



## 356B

inazsully said:


> I think the biggest drawback to Passive is the ability to deliver 1080 to each eye. 4K will remedy that and OLED is yet to be determined as long as it's rlegated to 1080. Everyone that has seen 3D on my 70R550A have been jaw dropping awed.


I've seen a 60", very impressive. Personally I feel they will all go Passive soon. I'm still on the fence... what to get. Panasonic had me reeled in then they dropped plasma leaving me wondering what's next......Apple was rumored to have a new set in 14, now it's 15, according to Euro sources...? I may wait for after Christmas and see what surfaces in Vegas this year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> I think the biggest drawback to Passive is the ability to deliver 1080 to each eye. 4K will remedy that and OLED is yet to be determined as long as it's rlegated to 1080. Everyone that has seen 3D on my 70R550A have been jaw dropping awed.


The only problem I see there is... I would rather see native 4K 2D movies than see 3D movies in 1080p... so if I ever had a 4K HDTV and there was more content, I would rather it be 4K 2D content.


----------



## harsh

inazsully said:


> I believe that every Smart TV on the market is also a 3D TV.


For their part, Vizio's Razor series of Smart TVs is offered with and without 3D capability for a pretty significant price difference (~$400). You know it isn't the cost of any included passive glasses.


----------



## 722921

Funny, but dish's pacific rim 3d looked better than the hobbit 3d bluray.


----------



## 722921

Gravity looked great also...


----------



## HDlover

Stewart Vernon said:


> The only problem I see there is... I would rather see native 4K 2D movies than see 3D movies in 1080p... so if I ever had a 4K HDTV and there was more content, I would rather it be 4K 2D content.


I'll continue to watch 4k 3D at the theater. If we don't support 3D at the theater then we'll have nothing new to watch on our 3D TVs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HDlover said:


> I'll continue to watch 4k 3D at the theater. If we don't support 3D at the theater then we'll have nothing new to watch on our 3D TVs.


I haven't been to a movie theater in probably nearly 20 years. I haven't had any real desire since I got a good quality home setup. I watch on Dish or wait for Blu-rays to release instead of going to the movies.


----------



## CCarncross

Stewart Vernon said:


> I haven't been to a movie theater in probably nearly 20 years. I haven't had any real desire since I got a good quality home setup. I watch on Dish or wait for Blu-rays to release instead of going to the movies.


I dont go to the movies that often either, but IMAX and 4K are 2 reasons you should try it out again. I also have a pretty decent HT setup, but it cant compete with IMAX or 4K, and for some movies, its an amazing experience.


----------



## Grandude

Stewart Vernon said:


> I haven't been to a movie theater in probably nearly 20 years. I haven't had any real desire since I got a good quality home setup. I watch on Dish or wait for Blu-rays to release instead of going to the movies.


I gave up on going to the theater many years ago too. Tired of slipping on the floor from spilled buttered popcorn. Oh, and it is a LOT cheaper to make my popcorn at home.
I would never buy a large TV just to get 3d either. A really interesting movie can be in just about any format once you are INTO it.
Of course alway better in HD if available.


----------



## TBoneit

It has been a long time since I went to the Movies too. Slippery or sticky floor. Slobs that stuck their chewing gum under the seat just so I could get it stuck into my pants legs. High refreshment prices. Buttered Popcorn where the butter isn't real butter. I remember when the Hot butter dispenser would have real butter melting in it.

Thanks but no Thanks
TBoneit


----------



## inkahauts

Stewart Vernon said:


> I haven't been to a movie theater in probably nearly 20 years. I haven't had any real desire since I got a good quality home setup. I watch on Dish or wait for Blu-rays to release instead of going to the movies.


Based in avatar, if I where you, I'd check out the next avatar at the biggest IMAX you can find in 3d. Avatar was just better than any other 3d I have ever seen ten fold. James Cameron is just so darn picky. And I'm glad for that. Easily one of the most visually entertaining movies for setting.


----------



## inkahauts

TBoneit said:


> It has been a long time since I went to the Movies too. Slippery or sticky floor. Slobs that stuck their chewing gum under the seat just so I could get it stuck into my pants legs. High refreshment prices. Buttered Popcorn where the butter isn't real butter. I remember when the Hot butter dispenser would have real butter melting in it.
> 
> Thanks but no Thanks
> TBoneit


Ok the high prices I get, but the theaters I go to don't have the mess that's being talked about here. They keep our theaters up pretty nice. Heck I have a couple that really keep up their theaters, have assigned seating and leather recliners. Theaters have evolved a lot in the last ten years, but that may also depend a little on where you live to.


----------



## Rduce

harsh said:


> For their part, Vizio's Razor series of Smart TVs is offered with and without 3D capability for a pretty significant price difference (~$400). You know it isn't the cost of any included passive glasses.


None of Vizio's 2014 models feature 3D, you can take that for what's worth. Many feel they will return to offering it once 3D without the need of glasses is perfected.


----------



## CCarncross

high prices are pretty easy to counter, go to a Saturday or Sunday matinee....cheap tickets and usually the theaters are empty.....


----------



## Jim5506

Went to IMax theatre Saturday.

Sat 1/2 way back in center of the screen and was surprised that I could see the vertical pixels (vertical lines between pixels) when the image was very bright, white or similar, maybe even 4K is not good enough.


----------



## FarmerBob

jerry downing said:


> 8-Track, Laser Disc, Quadraphonic Sound, 3DTV.


I still have LaserDisc and they still have players on the market. I'm looking at two shelves of discs. And on the same note, people, kids, are realizing that Vinyl is better than CD's. I knew that day one. Vinyl is richer with a fuller sound. Digital Audio strips out a lot. So add CD/Digital Audio in there too.


----------



## FarmerBob

Stewart Vernon said:


> I haven't been to a movie theater in probably nearly 20 years. I haven't had any real desire since I got a good quality home setup. I watch on Dish or wait for Blu-rays to release instead of going to the movies.


+1
Plus the concession stand is lot cheaper and you can have most anything you want. That is if you went shopping prior to. You won't miss any of the movie for potty breaks. You can get as comfortable as you want, first of all, then without disturbing the persons next and behind you. And for the cost of a couple of tickets, you can own the movie. So . . .

I use to hang and do premier advertising for a theater manager here in town and we would get to go to the pre-public pre-roll of the movies and even then all by ourselves, granted at 2 a.m., it still wasn't as good as home.

There was an expose on network news the other night about the decline in movie theater attendance and it was said that the theaters are stepping up. What! Why now? Now that they are in trouble, they step up. Why not since day one so that they would get in trouble? We have many Theater Pub whatevers in my area, some pretty large and others that serve a full meal they are only a one time, been there, done that, home is still better. Commercial novelty, greed, will never beat what you can make for yourself. I've been doing it for decades. Maybe I should start charging admission. My show is far better.


----------



## RasputinAXP

CCarncross said:


> high prices are pretty easy to counter, go to a Saturday or Sunday matinee....cheap tickets and usually the theaters are empty.....


In Jersey, at least near us, there is no significant matinee discount. $11 vs $13.


----------



## Laxguy

FarmerBob said:


> I still have LaserDisc and they still have players on the market. I'm looking at two shelves of discs. And on the same note, people, kids, are realizing that Vinyl is better than CD's. I knew that day one. Vinyl is richer with a fuller sound. Digital Audio strips out a lot. So add CD/Digital Audio in there too.


I put my LD away ten years ago; 1080i is way way better.

And audio: 20-30 years ago, a high quality vinyl set up beat the pants off ordinary CDs, but the situation is reversed now.


----------



## harsh

Rduce said:


> None of Vizio's 2014 models feature 3D, you can take that for what's worth.


The larger Vizio's M series TVs claim "Theater 3D".


----------



## CCarncross

harsh said:


> The larger Vizio's M series TVs claim "Theater 3D".


Lots of companies claim lots of things....


----------



## Rduce

harsh said:


> The larger Vizio's M series TVs claim "Theater 3D".


http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/6/5279150/vizio-announces-first-consumer-4k-tvs-kills-3d-support

2013 yes, not the current models for 2014.


----------



## 722921

Hobbit 2 3d looked good also.


----------

