Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Consumer 3D adoption rates

Interesting, I don't consider 3D a flop, I think is is being adopted slowly, slower than I would like. In my opinion, much of it has to due to lack of content and lack of 3d content being provided by Sat and cable companies. I have a 3dTV and cable but very little 3d content.

HD was also adopted slowly, so slowly, I still have some shoots where I have to protect 4:3!

Prost,
Rich
 
Sony invested many millions in consumer 3D, and lost big-time -- including a complete change in upper management a few months ago. The economy really sucks. Given a great economy, consumer 3D might have had a chance, assuming low unemployment and lots of disposable income for luxuries. But not now.
 
Costco stopped featuring 3D screens about the same time that Time-Warner stopped offering 3D pay per view...Buh bye.
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Costco stopped featuring 3D screens about the same time that Time-Warner stopped offering 3D pay per view...Buh bye.
Click to expand...

And yet Costco just launched their in-store 3D channel and are hungry for 3D content: http://3droundabout.com/2012/08/797...houses-with-dedicated-3d-content-channel.html

While worldwide television shipments are basically flat, 3D television shipments are expected to increase 90% in 2012 to 46M units, with 30% of all TVs estimated to be 3D in 2013.
 
3% of total owners out there with 3D TV's is a small number. Adaption of technology is a lot slower than most would think. DVD's still dominate in households vs. blue-ray, but that's quickly changing. The biggest rise in consumer purchases isn't 3D, blue-ray, or DVD. It's downloads. Seems most consumers are willing to pick convenience over quality.
 
It is interesting that many revel in the “death” of 3D considering it’s been around as long as photography and is alive and doing better than ever. 8 of the top 10 highest grossing films (worldwide) have had 3D releases. Five of them made between 44% - 72% of their money from 3D. Hobbit, Gatsby, Avatar sequels and more are still on the way. While not the dominant medium, it’s far from dead. Glasses-free autostereo, beyond hand held single user devices has no satisfactory technological path in sight. A breakthrough that no one has conceived yet is required. If and when that happens, as3D could take over, but until then we are saddled with glasses.

In the past 7 years, 3D has experienced unprecedented growth in market penetration and profitability. Despite that, it would be hard to imagine any technology living up to the expectations set at CES 2010. 3D TV is being totally blundered by those who championed it most. Why would the major manufacturers not arrive at a standard before rolling out 3D TVs? Why are big box retailers so incompetent at selling it? I was just at Best Buy, they had a corporate branded 3D promotional video playing on a 3D TV. A shopper looked through glasses at a blue shirted actress on screen with a CGI rendered “3D TV” logo. The whole thing was shown in 2D!! Needless to say, the shopper was unimpressed.

LG and Visio have shown us that passive polarized TVs can cost as little as 2D TVs. High end, full resolution models with a polarization modulator on the screen could be offered. $150, or even $20 glasses with batteries that die, lenses that crack and high frequency flicker at the viewer’s eyes make NO SENSE AT ALL. Passive is the only sensible way to mitigate negative aspects of 3D glasses. While I don’t personally mind them, I certainly agree that glasses are a problem for most. Passive glasses, especially when they are free after you pay for them at the cinema, are by far the best choice. It is also unclear why content providers like Sony’s 3net aren’t available on more pay TV providers. By limiting to DirecTV only, they’ve placed yet another obstacle in their own path.

When I attended CES in January 2010, I literally could not believe my eyes or the hype. The technology I’d been working on and championing for over 20 years was finally mainstream. I was cautiously optimistic because that show made it seem like 3D was the next Google. In my heart I knew it was an unrealistic expectation.

However, 3D is far from dead. There is a massive 3D infrastructure in place today that never existed before. According to statista.com, a Dow Jones partner website, as of 2011 there are more than 35,000 digital 3D cinema screens in operation worldwide.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/180465/number-of-3d-cinema-screens-worldwide-since-2006/

That number is exploding in emerging markets like China, Russia, Brazil and others. In 2011, Samsung reported 2 million 3D TVs sold.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/02/22/samsung-claims-2-million-3d-tvs-sold/

While that’s a small percentage of the overall TVs in use, that’s only one manufacturer, and the data is 18 months old. Currently, most TVs, even those not being advertised as 3D, have 3D capability. In the future, the number of 3D TVs in the worldwide marketplace will be extremely large. Every TV I currently own is an HDTV, yet not every show is in HD. As we move forward, most people will have access to 3D if they want it. That was not true even 5 years ago.

It has become our responsibility as content creators to deliver compelling 3D experiences, not phoned in junk, whether it be native photography or 3D conversion. Not every movie or show must be in 3D, but every 3D movie or show MUST BE GOOD! We don’t see major features being released with lots of overexposed or out of focus shots. We don’t see color television programs with wild variations in saturation from scene to scene. We don’t hear soundtracks with pops or dead spots, so what’s up with the massive amounts of technical blunders we are seeing in 3D?

If you don’t like 3D, don’t make it and don’t watch it. But please don’t waste our time spreading negativity and bashing it in 3D forums.
 
Rich Schaefer said:
Interesting, I don't consider 3D a flop, I think is is being adopted slowly, slower than I would like. In my opinion, much of it has to due to lack of content and lack of 3d content being provided by Sat and cable companies. I have a 3dTV and cable but very little 3d content.

HD was also adopted slowly, so slowly, I still have some shoots where I have to protect 4:3!

Prost,
Rich
Click to expand...

Consumer never seen real 3D yet and they will never adopt "Barby" size 3D content.
6 inch "King Kong" will not scare a child, much less an adult.
When it comes to 3D, human brain cannot be fulled.
Even a retarded brain correctly estimates size of objects all the time unless one of the eyes is damaged.
Screen parallax optimized 3D content always projects miniaturized and all depth is limited to a small box around the TV screen.

Realistic 3D is what can be adopted if such is promoted but at the moment there is not a single 3D title with realistic 3D content.

So, I agree that 3D at the moment is a "flop".
 
Jason Goodman said:
If you don’t like 3D, don’t make it and don’t watch it. But please don’t waste our time spreading negativity and bashing it in 3D forums.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think this would mean more coming from somebody who didn't have a vested interest in 3D production. I don't have a problem with big blockbuster 3D movies, and it can be done well (or done badly). I just don't think it's going to take off as a consumer product in the immediate future.

6 Reasons Why 3D Failed

5 Reasons Why Much-Hyped 3D TV's Failed to Click

Has 3D Already Failed?

Samsung Admits 3D TV Demand Underwhelming

To me, the biggest problem to overcome is simply that you have to be an active participant to watch 3D at home. You can't do it casually. You have to sit directly in front of the TV, without distractions, put on the glasses, and pay attention. Many, many people watch TV as a secondary activity -- while lying down on the couch, talking on the phone, eating a cheeseburger, texting a friend -- or while walking around the room, going to the kitchen, coming back, and so on. I think the active involvement works against the experience, and the glasses are an irritant for average people.

The only thing that bothers me is the lack of screen brightness, and I think that will eventually be solvable. But there are other immersive solutions, like Imax and those 80' wide stacked-digital projection setups, that I think draw audiences in nearly as much as 3D -- even more so, if you believe Chris Nolan and other devotees. Peter Jackson may be right, and 48fps may be another immersive step as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top