23:56
iphone3
That depends on who you talk to. I just read an article listing 10 reasons why 3D TV may fail, then a rebuttal citing 10 reasons 3D TV can succeed.
The 3D skeptic—Brian Mitchell, founder and CEO of eCoustics.com—believes many people have relatively new HDTVs that are “good enough,” and they’re not likely to spring for a pricey new set. The 3D proponent—David Modell, 3ality Digital’s chairman—argued back that those TVs seem good enough only until you see something much better. Watching a 3D set for the first time is “always a eureka moment,” he maintains.
Then there are the glasses—annoying, according to Mitchell, but cool in Modell’s opinion. They also differed on the complexity of setting up a 3D system and on the amount of time it’s likely to take for 3D to become mainstream. Mitchell leaned on the health complaints (headaches, dizziness, nausea), while Modell contends that well-executed 3D isn’t likely to cause many problems. I think you’ll find their arguments thought-provoking.
Opinions among my colleagues here at Consumer Reports are somewhat divided, as well. Just about all of us who’ve viewed the 3D TVs in our labs were wowed by the quality of the 3D images, though most agreed 3D was not equally effective or dramatic in all types of scenes.
Some of us found the glasses annoying (especially atop regular specs), but others didn’t. Most did wonder whether we’d find the glasses comfortable for hours on end, say if you’re watching a whole football game or a movie. (I, for one, would not. The shutter glasses are heavier and bulkier than the ones you wear in a theater.) A few folks felt a bit light-headed or queasy, but most viewers were just fine.
The early adopters among us were, not surprisingly, champing at the bit to get a set home. One colleague said his dream would be a 3D front projector (none are available yet) so he could enjoy movies and sporting events on a jumbo screen. Others felt 3D was an interesting novelty, but nothing they wanted anytime soon, especially if they'd have to spend thousands on a new TV and Blu-ray player with 3D capability and use the 3D functionality only occasionally, given the current dearth of content.
Our chief video engineer, Claudio Ciacci, had a unique perspective that takes a longer-term view. “Consumers are still thinking inside the box,” he said. “They’re only talking about 3D movies, but in my opinion movies will only be one aspect of the 3D experience. Two years from now, when 3D TVs have better market penetration, I predict there will be more 3D cameras, camcorders, video games (of course), CAD software, and maybe even websites that will be viewable on 3D displays.
“With 3D photos, you'll have a more immersive experience when viewing images meant to convey information. Imagine house-hunting online, checking out a new car, or bidding in e-bay auctions with 3D images. You could e-mail 3D photos of your new baby or your new car to your friends so they can view them on their big-screen TV, and they'll feel like they saw the real thing. Some people feel 3D is controversial, but in reality it's just a cool new feature added to a normal TV. One day soon, viewers may discover applications that are of value to them.”
Update 4/29/2010: Another colleague, audio/video editor Jim Willcox, is also convinced 3D will succeed. Among other things, he believes the lack of content will slowly become less of an issue; prices for TVs, Blu-ray players, and 3D glasses will drop; and 3D capability will gradually become a mainstream feature on all but the lowest-priced TVs. And at some point, 3D glasses may eventually be unnecessary. Read Jim's full comments here.
Where do you stand on 3D and why? Will you buy now, wait a while, or stick with 2D as long as you can?
The 3D skeptic—Brian Mitchell, founder and CEO of eCoustics.com—believes many people have relatively new HDTVs that are “good enough,” and they’re not likely to spring for a pricey new set. The 3D proponent—David Modell, 3ality Digital’s chairman—argued back that those TVs seem good enough only until you see something much better. Watching a 3D set for the first time is “always a eureka moment,” he maintains.
Then there are the glasses—annoying, according to Mitchell, but cool in Modell’s opinion. They also differed on the complexity of setting up a 3D system and on the amount of time it’s likely to take for 3D to become mainstream. Mitchell leaned on the health complaints (headaches, dizziness, nausea), while Modell contends that well-executed 3D isn’t likely to cause many problems. I think you’ll find their arguments thought-provoking.
Opinions among my colleagues here at Consumer Reports are somewhat divided, as well. Just about all of us who’ve viewed the 3D TVs in our labs were wowed by the quality of the 3D images, though most agreed 3D was not equally effective or dramatic in all types of scenes.
Some of us found the glasses annoying (especially atop regular specs), but others didn’t. Most did wonder whether we’d find the glasses comfortable for hours on end, say if you’re watching a whole football game or a movie. (I, for one, would not. The shutter glasses are heavier and bulkier than the ones you wear in a theater.) A few folks felt a bit light-headed or queasy, but most viewers were just fine.
The early adopters among us were, not surprisingly, champing at the bit to get a set home. One colleague said his dream would be a 3D front projector (none are available yet) so he could enjoy movies and sporting events on a jumbo screen. Others felt 3D was an interesting novelty, but nothing they wanted anytime soon, especially if they'd have to spend thousands on a new TV and Blu-ray player with 3D capability and use the 3D functionality only occasionally, given the current dearth of content.
Our chief video engineer, Claudio Ciacci, had a unique perspective that takes a longer-term view. “Consumers are still thinking inside the box,” he said. “They’re only talking about 3D movies, but in my opinion movies will only be one aspect of the 3D experience. Two years from now, when 3D TVs have better market penetration, I predict there will be more 3D cameras, camcorders, video games (of course), CAD software, and maybe even websites that will be viewable on 3D displays.
“With 3D photos, you'll have a more immersive experience when viewing images meant to convey information. Imagine house-hunting online, checking out a new car, or bidding in e-bay auctions with 3D images. You could e-mail 3D photos of your new baby or your new car to your friends so they can view them on their big-screen TV, and they'll feel like they saw the real thing. Some people feel 3D is controversial, but in reality it's just a cool new feature added to a normal TV. One day soon, viewers may discover applications that are of value to them.”
Update 4/29/2010: Another colleague, audio/video editor Jim Willcox, is also convinced 3D will succeed. Among other things, he believes the lack of content will slowly become less of an issue; prices for TVs, Blu-ray players, and 3D glasses will drop; and 3D capability will gradually become a mainstream feature on all but the lowest-priced TVs. And at some point, 3D glasses may eventually be unnecessary. Read Jim's full comments here.
Where do you stand on 3D and why? Will you buy now, wait a while, or stick with 2D as long as you can?
Posted in: 3dtv flop applications,3dtv flop features,3dtv flop models,3dtv flop overview,3dtv flop specifications
0 comments:
Post a Comment