Yeah, I'm going to invite a bunch of friends over for the game or movie night and have them all put on glasses for several hours. fark you.

Pocket Ninja: Perhaps it is wrong of me to do so, but I secretly assume anybody who bought a 3D television is a complete and unmitigated moron.

An unmitigated moron with money.

Is it no longer true that you can buy a 3D tv just to get a better 2D tv? Have 2D tvs caught up or was that just a marketing trick to try to make it look like 3D was getting popular?

FlashHarry: FTA: high prices, a lack of 3-D content, and uncomfortable viewing experiences

so, it's expensive and there's nothing to see - but at least it's uncomfortable? yeah, why hasn't it caught on?

Not to mention that unless you don't wear prescription glass wearing 3D glasses is a PITA.

Unless your current plasma/LCD breaks why would you upgrade to a 3D tv now when OLED is 2-3 from mass adoption?

Tobin_Lam: Is it no longer true that you can buy a 3D tv just to get a better 2D tv? Have 2D tvs caught up or was that just a marketing trick to try to make it look like 3D was getting popular?

I believe so. I think a lot of people that buy 3d tvs don't use them as much as they would imagine after the newness wore off. It's like the Wii of TVs.

I guess projectors didn't catch on because of quality (and price, though now days many people have no problem spending $1,000 for a TV), not just the boxes, but ones shooting on a wall or unattached screen.

Too bad because the consumer's transition would be easier.

What kind of idiot do they think I am? I've been an electronics consumer for years and I know the game. Why should I pay big bucks for 3D now when I can save my money and get a nice 4D set when they come out?

The first and last time I tried 3D TV, I immediately started getting a headache after putting on the glasses, and instead of filling the room it just sort of looked like a diorama within the TV frame. I'd rather watch a 13" Zenith than that shiat.

3D anything is useless unless it's actually immersive such that you can see the front and back of objects, depending on where you're choosing to look. Otherwise it's just novelty popup garbage.

perhaps this...

simplicimus: I wonder how many of us monocular people are out there.

"uncomfortable viewing experiences"

High price and lack of content people will work with, but if it's uncomfortable to do, it's not really entertainment or relaxation anymore.

PAY ATTENTION TO ME, HOLLYWOOD AND TV NETWORKS:

I don't want to watch 3D TV because I don't want to wear glasses over my glasses when I'm trying to relax.

That's all there is to it. Well, that, and I don't think risking a headache is a good way to relax, either.

Why hasn't it caught on? Maybe because it's not 3D, it just stereoscopy. It's basically a ViewMaster at 30 fps.

It's also about as easy to watch and has the same enduring appeal as ViewMaster: "That's kind of cool. OK, let's go outside and ride bikes."

/Was there ever porn for ViewMaster? Seems like the ideal application...

I dunno, watching stuff in 3-D gives my wife a major headache. We went to see Avatar in 3D and she felt sick for HOURS afterward. And apparently that isn't a unique response to 3D images, either. So I don't think it's going to catch on because it's likely there's too large of a market that won't be able to watch 3D movies, TV, or games.

I can't see well enough to see 3D, therefore it's useless and no one should have it
I get migraines when I watch, therefore it's harmful and no one should have it
There's no enough content therefore no one should have it
I'm not used to wearing glasses therefore I feel silly and no one should have it
I have to wear glasses therefore no one should use it
I've seen that red/green 3D in 1960 and it sucked, therefore it's useless
I saw a poorly set up demo at Best Buy and it sucked, let's outlaw it
I'm not going to change my ways for some new fangled thing, therefore no one should

Did I cover everything? Do we have to have this discussion again?

Add those up and it's enough people who won't get 3D any time soon, even if their assumptions are wrong. Properly set up 3D does not require glasses (Vizio, LG), it does not reduce brightness, and should enhance the viewing rather than distracting. If you get a headache, well there's not much you can do.

jmsvrsn: What kind of idiot do they think I am? I've been an electronics consumer for years and I know the game. Why should I pay big bucks for 3D now when I can save my money and get a nice 4D set when they come out?

Best Buy has you covered.



/yeah, right.

chaddsfarkprefect: projector

I think projectors haven't caught on because of their main weakness: they can't project black.

I already wear glasses. I'm not interested in any technology that requires me to wear another pair of glasses over these, no matter how cure or lightweight they are. It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

And what if someone wants to have a dozen people over to watch a movie or the Superbowl? Do manufacturers really hope people are going to buy a dozen pairs of glasses to keep in a drawer just in case?

I have monocular vision myself, but the real reason I can't stand 3D movies is that they're bogged down with too many cheap little effects.

Got a stupid idea for a movie? Is it a sure bomb? Easy fix....just THROW CRAP AT THE SCREEN. That'll get the lemmings packed in the theaters!

I can't watch TV, read a magazine, read emails on the laptop, and talk to others in the room when wearing 3D glasses. Especially, as noted, when I'm already wearing prescription glasses.

It's the eye glasses, the end.

"3D capable" TVs will catch on. It's just a panel that can run at 120 Hz. Most panels are capable of this now, so why not slap the "3D" label on it?

I used to get headaches from 3-d, then I found out I developed an astigmatism and headaches caused by 3-d was likely the first sign. Have not even tried watching 3-d since I got glasses.

Stop whining!

Perhaps it hasn't caught on because the vast majority of people only recently brought a 720p HDTV and it does everything they currently want it too. Most of the cable channels have a HD counter part but not a 3D one. So why go out and drop yet more money on something that isn't that well supported?

That and the only decent 3D setup I've seen was the Nvidia demo unit in a store, the 'Real3D' pap in my local cinema just makes my eyes water and gives me a headache... it doesn't enamour the technology to me in the slightest.

I have zero interest in seeing movies in 3d, and I'm sure as hell not going to sit in my living room with glasses on either.

Hell, I'm still waiting for all channels to be shown in HD. We're not even there yet.

I recently bought a 3d-tv, not on purpose, but as a side-effect of it having the other features I wanted and being on sale. I'd actually intended to just ignore that part.

However, LG has this nifty 2d-to-3d feature, and holy crap, it works. Pretty well actually. It's been neat watching DS9, anime, and old B-movies in 3d. I've even taken to playing games on it to convert them. Though sadly, Skyrim is the first and only thing I've played in it that simply doesn't convert correctly. Borderlands works well though.

The passive glasses are light, cheap, and not much more cumbersome than my perscription glasses.

To be fair, it does spend most of it's time in 2d mode, but the 3d mode still gets exercised pretty often.

As already covered, 3D simply alientates too many people. When the big corps started the push for Hi-Def, basically there was no change in what people had to do to watch the content. Watch your Blu-rays exactly the same way you used to watch your DVD's, just in better quality. That way people eventually warmed up to the idea.

With 3D, you get people who have vision impairments, people who are susceptable to headaches and then those of us who simply don't like the idea cause it changes how we have to watch it. I watch TV to relax. A lot of the time I like to lie down when watching TV with my head on a pillow. Sometimes I'm also on the computer at the same time. Can't really do that with 3D, can I. Plenty of people don't just watch TV sitting upright in a chair doing nothing else. 3D makes the whole experience more 'rigid'.

Another gimmick.

arcas: I already wear glasses. I'm not interested in any technology that requires me to wear another pair of glasses over these, no matter how cure or lightweight they are. It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

And what if someone wants to have a dozen people over to watch a movie or the Superbowl? Do manufacturers really hope people are going to buy a dozen pairs of glasses to keep in a drawer just in case?

Manufactures hope everyone will buy a 3D tv so they can bring their own glasses when going to watch the superbowl.

Tenebreux

"I can't think of a time I've been watching things on a 2D TV that I've gone "You know what, I can tell I'm watching a 2D surface. It's taking me out of the story".

For me, the reverse is true. I've watched a bit of 3D TV in a store demo and the 3D was distracting. It didn't bother me, or give me a headache, but I can imagine if I watched a movie in 3D more of my attention would be spent on the 3D and less on the story. Which is probably precisely why Hollywood likes it. They don't have to write quality material anymore, just crank out any piece of dung in 3D & people will "ooooh & ahhhh" over it. Or at least that's probably what they hope.