Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

MichaelMcGuire

(1,684 posts)
1. In my view the main barriers to 3D Tvs were
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:47 AM
Mar 2012

1) Cost
2) It wasn't that long ago I bought a HD Tv as the cost of them, became reasonable
3) It's still working and I only bought a HD when the last one stopped working.
4) The technology isn't there yet
5) Glasses just to watch the Tv

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
2. It's lack of content . . .
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 04:58 AM
Mar 2012

If 3D movies/shows were worth it, people would watch and would buy. But even the best 3D movies (let's say "Avatar" for example) really don't add much in 3D.

There's no there there.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
4. The problem, I think, is the view, and lack of control, looking at a 3D movie is similar...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:09 AM
Mar 2012

to looking through a window, until you move, then it gets distorted and looks fugly. This isn't a holodeck you step into and can view every character and set from all angles, this limits the utility of 3D in movies drastically. Not to mention that some people can't stand active shutter glasses and/or active shutter screens.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
3. 3D is a gimmick at best...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:04 AM
Mar 2012

yes it looks kinda nice, but is also distracting in many ways, I can see its utility in games more than movies, being active, rather than passive. In addition, 3D has been tried for decades, from coloration(classic red/blue glasses and other color combos) to active shutter and limited view glasses free technologies. It has always been a niche in movies. At least with the old colored glasses, you didn't have people complain too much of disorientation and/or headaches.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. not according to my techie son
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:11 AM
Mar 2012

he says they''re just in their infancy but that they're going to be huge.

Response to denem (Original post)

 

lacrew

(283 posts)
9. I think the glasses are a big drawback
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 08:49 AM
Mar 2012

I don't sit down and watch TV for a straight hour, like I'm in a movie theater. I get up and do other things during commercials...and sometimes even during the program itself. TV in the home is 'in the background', and not the main event. I don't want to wear the glasses all over the house.

And, quite frankly, I'm sure that an electronic device you wear will wear out in a few years.

And then there's the programming...does anyone care if a sit-com is in 3-D? Or a cop drama? You need the blockbuster movie plot to even get to a script where a 3-D effect makes sense.

Somebody down the thread mentioned that their techie son thought it would be huge....today's young people are watching less tv than their parents did. I think the 'home theater' concept will fade away.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
10. I liked 3D at DisneyWorld, otherwise I will not miss it when it is gone
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 08:53 AM
Mar 2012

Some idiot on imdb suggested they process The Godfather into 3d. I have not and will not ever see a 3d movie in the theater. I enjoy movies as art not as a video game. But I did like the little muppets in 3d thing they had at Disney.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did 3D televisions flop?