Showing posts with label 3DTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3DTV. Show all posts

3D TV-- A MASSIVE JOKE



Manufacturers of 3D TV sets are about to suffer a loss. As the hype of 3D moved from the movie screen into the home, its potential was poorly judged and ill timed. This blog has commented on the looming disaster since inception only to fall on deaf ears .... or in this case blinded marketers. The 3D lemmings are approaching the cliff and will undoubtedly go over.

It was a novelty. A fad. They come and go as did the 3D craze in the 1950s. History will repeat itself .... this time in spades.

What follows is a partial lift from an article by TV Predictions.com focusing on 10 (just 10?) reasons why 3D TV will not make it. For a full read, follow this link.

1. 3D TV Interrupts Your Viewing Experience
You can't watch 3D TV for more than a minute without finding your eye focusing on individual elements of the screen rather than the picture as a whole. For example, if you're watching a 3D presentation of a college football game, you find yourself watching the player whose display best showcases the 3D effect. It's natural; you know you're watching 3D so your mind and eye tend to focus exclusively on the strongest 3D elements of the picture.

That makes for an interesting minute or two, but it's not why people watch television. They want to take in the entire picture; to be absorbed by it; to let it take over their entire thinking process so they can relax and lose themselves in what they are watching. 3D doesn't allow for that; it constantly interrupts you to check out some 3D effect. After awhile, you almost forget what's happening on the field or in a movie. If you're a Chicago Cubs fan, that could be a plus. But for most viewers, it's a strong negative.

2. It Makes You Sick
Doctors have estimated that up to 20 percent of the population will get headaches, dizziness or even nausea while watching 3D.

Steven Nusinowitz, an associate professor of ophthalmology at the Jules Stein Eye Institute in Los Angeles, tells CNN that 3D glasses have a polarized filter that separate two images, thereby enabling the 3D effect. However, the doctor adds that the separation occurs so quickly that your brain may have difficulty accepting it.

"The movie is telling you 'Hey, I'm moving around in this scene,' but your vestibular system is telling you, 'I'm not moving anywhere,' and that disconnect will make you feel sick, for some people," Nusinowitz said.

TV makers even warn consumers in their 3D TV manuals that they could get sick while watching 3D; they advise that you should take off the glasses every 15 minutes or so.

How many consumer products have ever been successful with the masses if their makers had to tell you they might make you sick?

3. Millions of People Just Bought New TVs
Because of the federally mandated Digital TV transition in 2009, millions of Americans bought a new TV to ensure they could continue watching when their local stations switched from analog to digital. Even in good times, people tend not to buy a new TV every few years or so; they buy one with the intention of keeping it for years.

And we're now in an economic morass; will people sacrifice the rent money for a 3D TV? When they probably have a TV in their living rooms that's not even three years old?

4. People Hate the 3D Glasses
Just about every objective consumer study has found that people hate wearing those 3D goggles while watching 3D TV. It's an uncomfortable experience, particularly if you wear prescription glasses or contact lenses with different prescriptions for each eye. The 3D apologists say that 3D sans the glasses is in the works, but most analysts say it will take years before the technology is ready

5. 3D TV Is Not HDTV
The 3D apologists like to say that High-Definition TV had a slow ramp-up to success. Well, that's true. But people didn't buy HDTVs in the early days because the sets were cost-prohibitive, with some medium-sized ones costing up to $10,000.

In contrast, the cost of a 3D TVs is just slightly more than a comparably-sized 2D HDTV. People aren't buying them because they cost too much; they aren't buying them because they don't want them.

In addition, when someone saw a HDTV in person, he wanted it, at least eventually when the price came down. The picture added to your viewing enjoyment because it made you feel like you're were there; the picture was that realistic. But 3D is the antithesis of realism; it's a tech trick designed to jolt a response from the viewer. But the response doesn't last long and it's ultimately unsatisfying. Unlike HDTV, watching 3D TV is not relaxing; it's jarring.


As for the "No Glasses Required" sets due to launch .... don't buy the hype. A small 20" set will run you back about $2800 and you will need to "learn" how to watch TV.


No thanks.

3DTV SHORTCOMINGS



It should come as no surprise to my readers that I am not a fan of 3DTV. I've posted several times on the lemming nature of the movement and the costs to the consumer. From the TV itself to the glasses. What surprises me, however, is the blind surge and investments by the set manufacturers to jump on board a ship I don't believe will easily stay afloat.

Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. Michael is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net.

His post below confirms my own perception of 3DTV.

"It's generally a bad idea to extrapolate larger consumer behavior from personal experience and say "if I like it, surely everyone else will as well." It's a mistake that happens all the time, but there's is one case where I will use my personal behavior to at least start the foundation for analysis -- when I don't want a new gadget or technology. Granted, sometimes I'm just not the target audience, but even then I'm usually able to remove myself from the process and say it might not be for me but others will love this. In the case of 3D TV, however, I think my lack of interest doesn't bode well for the market.

I'm surprised by figures, forecasts, predictions and prophecies all showing a rosy outlook for 3D TV beginning as early as this year, because I've seen most of the 3D offerings available and I have no plans to buy -- not now and not anytime soon. I should be a part of the core demographic for 3D: I like TV, movies and video games. I'm am early adopter. I have reasonable disposable income. I'm not afraid of betting on the wrong standard. And yet, I'm not buying. Here's why.

Cost: I'm fortunate that cost isn't the biggest inhibitor for me when I buy things, but I still do a cost/benefit analysis before I make a purchase. To really embrace 3D, I need a new TV, even though my current 1080p set is only a few years old and is wonderful. I'd need a new media player. I'd need glasses -- lots of them, as there can often be five or six people sitting around my set. I'd probably want a new digital camera to take 3D shots. And of course, I'd need some compelling 3D content from somewhere. That's already starting up to add into a significant cost proposition that takes it far out of impulse purchase territory.

Hassle: It's not just the cost to move to 3D. It's the hassle. Moving to HD was a breeze -- you just plugged in a new TV and were wowed by immediately available content. My upscaling DVD player made existing SD content look better than ever. By contrast, just viewing 3D content is a hassle due to the glasses. They're not cheap. They are gadgets in and of themselves, which means they require care and feeding, and everyone in the room needs a pair. Worse, I find 3D glasses very uncomfortable to wear for long periods over my regular glasses. The hassle alone of acquiring and viewing 3D content is enough to put me off.

Benefit: The cost and hassle of 3D could easily be justified and rationalized if there was a superb benefit on par with the move to HD. For me, 3D is cool but at best gratuitous. It doesn't change the visceral viewing experience for most of the content I've seen. I just don't see the value or wow factor that 3D brings to the table in its current format.

Someday technology will advance and 3D will be integrated into every screen. Standards will be deployed and the bulky and costly glasses will disappear. Content providers will figure out how to tell better stories with 3D that wouldn't have been possible before. And if that happens before I do my holiday shopping this year, I'll be on board. Given the low probability of that scenario, I'm going to pass for now. I expect many other consumers will as well."

PREDICTING FLOPS - 3DTV



Several months ago we commented on the lemming effect of television manufacturers running over the 3DTV cliff. Not withstanding the expense, the need to wear glasses (and have extra pairs around for guests), and the cost of the glasses we predicted (and still do) the loss of hundreds of millions by companies the likes of Sony, Samsung and LG among others.

Major motion picture directors and movie critics panned 3D as a "waste of a dimension".

Today, a Japanese consumer survey may have hammered the first nail in the coffin.

Here are the results and a partial lift from website VG247 ....

Sony is preparing to stake its case for 3D gaming at Develop in Brighton this month, despite a Japanese survey today showing that nearly 70 percent of those questioned have no intention of upgrading to 3D TVs this year. Why? Because the glasses are turning them off.

Respondents blamed the need for wear glasses, costly TV sets and scarcity of general content for lack of interest, the survey by Kakaku.com showed (via Reuters).

The numbers aren’t small, either: 70 percent said the hassle of wearing special glasses put them off, 57 percent said prices were too high and close to 40 percent said there was not enough 3D content.

Of those questioned, 67.4 percent said they were not interested in buying a 3D TV while only 31.2 percent were considering or wanted to purchase one, the survey said.

The online survey ran June 10-16, receiving responses from 8,957 people.

Gaming firms such as Sony and EA pushed 3D titles in their E3 press conferences this year, with Sony in particular making big efforts to evangelise the fledgling feature.

Sony continues western 3D push

Unperturbed by the news from Japan, however, Sony said today it’s to showcase PS3 3D at Develop later this month.

Enough said.

OUT FRONT AND CENTER


Mediapost's Outfront Conference on Tuesday held its audience for nine hours filled with nine panels and a star studded cast of speakers to include MSNBC's Chris Matthews and former Vice President Al Gore, Chairman of Current Media.

It was perhaps the only conference I can recall attending that held my interest for a full day.... a testament to the determination of Ken Fadner, Chairman at Mediapost and Joe Mandese, Editor in Chief to maintain a strong presence in key media channels. It signals a trend away from large multi-purpose, multi-channel venues towards more impactful "niche" conferences.

Sessions ranged from Dynamics of the Upfront TV marketplace to Advanced Metrics and a discussion on the acceptance of 3D TV.

Chris Matthews provided a respite from media issues to have a lively chat with the audience about everything from the Tea Party to Immigration, Sarah Palin and Obama. His commentary tonight will focus on "The Real McCain". On media ..."Your judgment about what to watch is driven by what you can learn".

Al Gore, no less entertaining, focused on sustainability in advertising driven by an ad model that should be subtle, targeted, efficient, not expensive and not intrusive. How "not intrusive" plays into the social network equation will be interesting to watch as I consider any commercial insert between the social interaction of two people or a group/community to be social interference or an "intrusion".

All considered the conference gets a AAAA rating.