How awesome is this?

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 10:38:23 AM

LOL! The CEO of Panasonic is on TV RIGHT NOW talking about how much 3D is part of their future business model. They see 30% 3D TV penetration coming, the only hold back to penetration is content, or lack of current content.

Here is some more recnet business news reporting from CES regarding 3D:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40827379

Jobydrone · January 07, 2011, 11:06:56 AM

Yeah Bry, that link talks about the 3DS from Nintendo, which comes out in March, as one of the first products to launch with glasses free 3D at a mass market price point. It's a pretty safe bet that this product is going to be absolutely huge and change the way alot of people think about 3D. When Nintendo unveiled the device at E3 this past summer, people went absolutely crazy for it.

KingIsaacLinksr · January 07, 2011, 11:35:41 AM

How many HD TVs exist that do not have 3-D? Most ppl I talked to that got an HD TV with 3D, only got the TV for the HD part, the 3D part was only, to them, a slapped on benefit they will never use. Its like FaceTime on the iPhone. We have it, but how many people actually use it and how many people actually got it for the FaceTime features? I'm willing to bet it wasn't the first thing on their minds. I use it, oh yes, but FT was not the primary thing I was looking for in my next phone. The same holds true for 3D.

After watching Tron in 3D I will probably never see another movie in 3D. MAYBE Avatar 2 because 3D actually worked in the first one and I loved it. Beyond that? Pretty unlikely. Unlike Blue-Ray, I don't see 3D as an advancement in technology. For gaming, maybe in the future but for movies not much. Even in Disneyland I only thought 3D worked in Bugs life, the other two shows we saw in 3D were pretty meh, being Captain EO and the Muppets show. They could have been fine without 3D.

Maybe ticket sales for 3D are up because it was Christmas, but I have to guess the trend is going to go downhill, especially when you start introducing $20 tickets per person. That's insane. If they go up that high, that is $100 for my family. $100. Not including any sort of drink or snacks. How are we supposed to justify that when we can go buy the blue-ray for $20, get popcorn for $3 and Water for free ( I wish theaters offered water for free). If theaters continue to raise prices, they are going to find themselves with empty theaters. Just going to Tron was expensive enough.

Heck, I'm not even including Netflix, which I can hook up to the TV and stream a movie. $10 a month right there. Can even choose the movie of the night. Sure, its not a new release, but cmon.

King

RickPeete · January 07, 2011, 12:34:56 PM

I have a different perspective on 3D. I have poor eyesight and wear glasses. Because of this, 3D does not always come out looking great because my eyes react differently to the way normal 20/20 eyes do. There are a LOT of people with eyesight issues and they may not pay for a 3D solution unless it works for their eyes in a way that does not cause eye strain and discomfort.

I doubt 3D will go beyond the film buffs and the early adopters until they have perfected 3D without glasses. Then 3D will just be an 'option' in a nice HDTV rather than a specialized TV in and of itself. By the time they figure this out, there will be lots of 3D capable broadcast, cable, and consumer content to view in that format -- the perfect storm for large scale adoption.

The other component to adoption here is he proliferation of affordable 3D home video equipment -- cameras, authoring software, and studio accessories. When the consumer can make their OWN movies in 3D, then the desire to be able to view them on something other than a computer will drive sales. Right now, home 3D is still an early adopter technology. Grandma and Grandpa need to be comfortable buying this technology so they can watch their grandchildren in 3D. We are not there yet.

Until then, it will be the pervue of the gamers, techies, early adopters, and film fanatics who feel they cannot live without it right away. The masses will be slow to fork out the big bucks for little benefit.

Rico · January 07, 2011, 12:51:45 PM

Yeah, Lynn has the same trouble seeing 3-D too Rick. She wears contacts and even with 3-D glasses can't really see it. So, it's currently pretty useless for her. Oh, and for me too. ;)

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: RickPeete on January 07, 2011, 12:34:56 PM
I have a different perspective on 3D. I have poor eyesight and wear glasses. Because of this, 3D does not always come out looking great because my eyes react differently to the way normal 20/20 eyes do. There are a LOT of people with eyesight issues and they may not pay for a 3D solution unless it works for their eyes in a way that does not cause eye strain and discomfort.

I doubt 3D will go beyond the film buffs and the early adopters until they have perfected 3D without glasses. Then 3D will just be an 'option' in a nice HDTV rather than a specialized TV in and of itself. By the time they figure this out, there will be lots of 3D capable broadcast, cable, and consumer content to view in that format -- the perfect storm for large scale adoption.

The other component to adoption here is he proliferation of affordable 3D home video equipment -- cameras, authoring software, and studio accessories. When the consumer can make their OWN movies in 3D, then the desire to be able to view them on something other than a computer will drive sales. Right now, home 3D is still an early adopter technology. Grandma and Grandpa need to be comfortable buying this technology so they can watch their grandchildren in 3D. We are not there yet.

Until then, it will be the pervue of the gamers, techies, early adopters, and film fanatics who feel they cannot live without it right away. The masses will be slow to fork out the big bucks for little benefit.

I agree 100% and that's all I am saying here. To say that it's simply a gimmick and will die off is very short sighted.

Meds · January 07, 2011, 01:36:35 PM

In Blighty 3D has done well but not as well as they hoped. Of course we don't matter because its sales in the US that count. Sony i'm afraid (and this is just my opinion) has dropped the ball in tech over the years. I'm not impressed with their TV's and the hard drive DVD players are slow and clunky. I cant see 3D really hitting home entertainment systems soon, they will if sales go well but its like surround sound, we'd all like it bit not many people have it.

Cinema wise here's my take. Avatar ( i found it boring) was made for 3D, so that is great, brilliant knock your socks off. If a film is NOT made in 3D and just rendered then you are being coned. Its not a true 3D film. Don;t pay a extra £3 to see one scene thats been rendered, its silly.

If films come out in 3D that has been filmed using the unique 3D cameras and the story is solid on its own merit then i think brillinat the future looks bright but so far that is not happening.

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 01:49:27 PM

It's going to be much more than cinema, Meds, that's the point.

Honestly, you guys have gotten so off topic here. The thread was about a pair of 3D gaming goggles. I made the correct comment that 3D is here for the long haul. Tim said it's a gimmick and the movie experience sucks. I pointed out that it's growing so far beyond that but you guys keep pissing and moaning about the movies! :roflmao

Hello!!! Is this thing on?!!!! :old_bash:

Meds · January 07, 2011, 02:01:28 PM

LOL, I'm just throwing in my opinion. I cant stand Sony i'm afraid but hey I've not slipped these bad boy gaming specs on yet and i cant think of anything better than a Meds controlled 3D game.

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 02:42:55 PM

Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on January 07, 2011, 02:01:28 PM
i cant think of anything better than a Meds controlled 3D game.

With naughty bits? ;)

sheldor · January 07, 2011, 03:06:35 PM

Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 08:46:29 AM
I will never turn to the darkside of 3-D. And Bryan, I think you may need to recheck some of those reports. Most 3-D films have not done well in the last year. And the lack of another great 3-D film experience is leaving many people sour on the format and extra cost. "Tron Legacy" is a good example of this. Always been a gimmick and still is a gimmick. Just make a good freaking movie and you don't need gimmicks.

If you do a movie in 3D - take advantage of the tech. Make a 3D movie - don't just add it after market so the theaters can charge another $2.
Despicable Me took advantage of 3D (very funny stuff) and I hope pixar will do that with Cars 2 next year.

Rico · January 07, 2011, 03:15:54 PM

Quote from: Bryancd on January 07, 2011, 01:49:27 PM
It's going to be much more than cinema, Meds, that's the point.

Honestly, you guys have gotten so off topic here. The thread was about a pair of 3D gaming goggles. I made the correct comment that 3D is here for the long haul. Tim said it's a gimmick and the movie experience sucks. I pointed out that it's growing so far beyond that but you guys keep pissing and moaning about the movies! :roflmao

Hello!!! Is this thing on?!!!! :old_bash:

While I certainly commented on the film aspects, I have also commented on the original topic. I actually stay up on computer tech like this more than many. I've even tried a few of these headsets on. They have a ways to go still. And the price is too high and again - no content really right now. Same for TV.

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 03:16:18 PM

The preview for Cars2 in 3D in front of TRON looked terrific. Animation really lends itself to the format. And base don the previews I saw, EVERY SINGLE ONE of next years big even movies has a 3D release. So either studios are
A. Foolishly throwing money at 3D in a desperate hope it all works out.
or
B. Based on previous box office and expensive market research have determined there is money to be made utilizing the format despite the fact that Rico is boycotting.

I actually have no interest in seeing most of those films, 3D or not, they all looked lame.

Rico · January 07, 2011, 03:18:17 PM

Bryan - you should read this thread more closely. I'm not the only one opposed to most of the 3-D films that have been released - or will be released.

Bryancd · January 07, 2011, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2011, 03:18:17 PM
Bryan - you should read this thread more closely. I'm not the only one opposed to most of the 3-D films that have been released - or will be released.

I'm fine if you are opposed! You keep missing the point. I'm not interested, motivated, care if anyone likes them. I don't always like them. I'm discussing TRENDS and where the money is going. All of you were opposed to iPads and iPhones and iPods at one point or another around here! I was the sole voice who was able to look beyond the noise. :) Your opposition is meaningless, it's going to happen regardless, that's all I am saying.