I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit in the past few weeks and Adam Frucci wrote something that caught my attention, concentrating my thoughts the way a seed crystal builds boules of material in the Czochralski process.
Gaming will make or break 3D. I don’t care if James Cameron sends miniature 3D cameras into Leonardo DiCaprio’s urethra during his “king of the world” scene in the new 3D version of Titanic: there will be no compelling reason to upgrade your entire TV set-up to watch 3D movies. Why will you buy a 3D set-up? For gaming and you’ll probably buy a 3D-capable PC before you buy a 3D-capable TV.
Consider the price differential: a 3D PC kit costs about $598 without graphics card. A compatible card costs a few hundred – up to $400 for the highest-end card you can get. That’s about $1000 if you already have a nice PC and if you’re a gamer you’re probably already running a nice GeForce card.
Want to get a 3D TV? Why not pick up a Samsung 62-inch plasma for $3,400? Oh, and you’ll need a new Samsung (or Sony, if that’s the family you want to join) Blu-Ray player. Want to play a 3D console game? Don’t look to your XBox. You’d better get yourself a PS3 and then find some content.
But, if you have a PC, almost every game made in the past few years is 3D compatible.
Talking Heads – Once In A Lifetime
Uploaded by hushhush112. – Explore more music videos.
3D games are great. I’ve been playing Burnout Paradise for the past month and messed around a little with Batman: Arkham Aslyum and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Best of all, Civilization IV is also 3D compatible so you can see your little settlers and warriors in full 3D. Even for a crotchety old man like me it’s quite a bit of fun.
3D gaming is cheap and will encourage a new generation to accept 3D as a benefit, not a burden. The current generation – folks 25 and above – still see 3D as a gimmick. Kids will see 3D as an extension of the immersive experience gaming has offered them their entire lives.
Mark my words: the vast majority of TV viewers will never have a 3D TV in their home. Maybe some die-hards will buy a few pairs of glasses to watch the Super Bowl in 2015 but you and yours will probably never find any good reason to go 3D. However, if you’re a gamer you owe it to yourself to try a 3D set-up and perhaps upgrade. It’s a lot of fun.
So sorry, everyone. The 3D TV party is over. 3D TV is, in short, the Laserdisc of this era and what comes next – the perfection glasses-free 3D television displays. The current crop of 3D TV is an interstitial technology aimed at grabbing a few upgrade dollars. If TV manufacturers really cared about selling a whole new crop of TVs, they’d try much harder to convince the world that it needs what they’re selling.
“I don’t care if James Cameron sends miniature 3D cameras into Leonardo DiCaprio’s urethra during his “king of the world” scene in the new 3D version of Titanic”"
BEST TECH QUOTE EVAR!! LOL :) I love you John.
“concentrating my thoughts the way a seed crystal builds boules of material in the Czochralski process. ”
Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeease…
Yeah, I agree. For television, 3D seems like more of a gimmick to me than “the next step forward.”
Even without the absurd glasses, 3D still doesn’t look anything like I see the world… not to mention viewing the real world typically doesn’t give me excessive eye strain and painful headaches either.
Until they develop some sort of projection technology that doesn’t rely purely on optical trickery I think 3D remains the gimmick that it is today.
Love the Talking Heads reference John.
Stereoscopic 3D (S3D) is a means to increase ticket sales at the theater and advertising for high-profile television programming. As long as the average US consumer buys the latest gadget and continues their TV obsession, the S3D fad may run longer than you think.
3D TV before 3D PC… Microsoft is going to kill the pig on this one, there was a reason they called it the Xbox 360
A note on the GeForce cards: probably not the best idea to buy one right now. The next-gen cards will be coming out in April.
Not only will they be more powerful/cooler/draw less power, but it will re-introduce competition into the market that ATI has been sort of owning since they released their 5000-series cards.
A couple of ATI’s cards have even gone up in price since launch, since there’s just not an NVIDIA card to compete with them right now.
In short, wait a month before buying a video card.
Wake me when somebody makes a 3D TV that can show two completely different channels to two groups of viewers.
Playing Xbox while my wife watches American Idol seems like a far more useful feature than watching a 3D movie once a month.
Indeed. What a reasonable suggestion.
This has already been done in Japan. The TV set displays different content when viewed from different angles. I was wondering why it hasn’t taken off. It has to really suck because otherwise it makes a lot of sense.
It’s true. Texas Instruments was showing off this technology three CESs ago with their DLP sets. They were touting it as a better way to play multiplayer video games because it didn’t split up the screen, rather each player got their own full-sized screen.
Even gaming is not going to convince people to adopt 3D(TV). It is going to be similar to how youtube/flickr helped drive camera sales up.
It is the user generated content ( created by you and me ) which will drive adoption.
Already people are doing this using the Fuji W1.
There is a complete lack of design for people who wear eye wear already. I suppose if this caught on I would have to spend 300 hundred on a pair of 3d prescription lenses?
3D is a gimmick. I prefer my movies in 2D. I go out of my way to avoid seeing 3D movies. I skipped avatar as there were no 2D shows available in my immediate area.
I have to agree with you. I had to give up going to the movies altogether. First they added this talky thing where people talked on screen. You know they did that so they could charge more. I didn’t think that was necessary but I made an allowance. Then they went and added COLOR. No really, color of all things. I just couldn’t see that being any benefit except to raise the price of the tickets once again. I don’t know what this new 3D is all about because I stopped going to movies when they ruined them with color and sound.
/s (for those who just don’t get it)
Aren’t you completely ignoring the fact that the majority of gamers use consoles, mostly connected to TV?
The current 3DTV prices are an early adopter red herring – they’ll be nearly the same as regular HD TVs in a little more than a year – after all, there’s nothing expensive about this tech beyond 120/240 Hz refreshes.
So you’re right, I’m sure: gaming will drive 3D sales. I think it’ll just be via 3D enabled PS3′s etc.
I’m hopeful that the World Cup in 3D will be something to remember — if I can figure out how I will be able to see it. :/
I am and there’s a place for consoles, but not in the current generation.
Sports in 3D, John. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and it’s mad-impressive. Gaming and sports are going to make or break this.
Color and Surround Sound are gimmicks. I go out of my way to avoid seeing color movies with soundtracks.
I don’t get out much.
I totally agree that 3D setups on PCs will likely have a much higher adoption rate than 3D TV. Content consumption on PCs is much more versatile than TVs. Movies, games, social media content. Can you imagine the most basic websites will have 3D elements.
We might have to redefine what a “pop-up” window is.
Please. We could have had 3-D TV crammed down our throats with Doom back in the 1990s. Why are we still talking about 3-D TV today the way people talked about personal robot servants back in 1930s issues of Popular Mechanics?
John,
First time I have read you so I don’t know if you usually don’t know what you are talking about or just in this instance.
I would refute your arguments but you didn’t make any. Showed no proof, no stats. Just unsubstantiated opinion. Maybe you should be a republican Talking Head on Fox.
I agreed with you all the way until you brought politics into it. My political opinion differs from yours and as such you are automatically going to hate me. That is what “your side” does. It is very difficult to want to agree with someone who, in the same post shows their ignorance. Do us both a favor and keep your political comments in the political discussion arena.
This entire post is full of fail.
Thank you, you are so right. The Screw new tech, let’s just not try anything because I do no like it crowd is getting annoying. I actually purchased a Lazer disc player back in the day. Granted it didn’t last long but I loved it. I also purchased my first VCR for $1,100. Nobody makes these people go to the movies or buy 3D TVs but they all act like it.
I’ve been gaming in 3D for a couple years now on a 67 inch DLP HDTV and PC. Games are in 1080p and 3D. This isn’t a new thing and I really enjoy the tech I have. Nvidia’s 3D vision works great on many games, some of the best being, Batman, Fallout 3, Resident Evil 5, any source game(half life 2, TF2, Zeno Clash), and some really new stuff like Just Cause 2 and Metro 2033.
And the writer is completely wrong about the Mark My Words section.
Eventually all TVs will have a refresh rate of 120hz or higher (the refresh rate needed to do 3D properly). Why you ask? simple, because it’s better, just like how color is better than black/white, HD is better then SD, and how eventually a even higher resolution will replace 1080p. When 120hz or higher is the standard there will be no reason to not support 3D frame syncing.
The idea that there will be a day were we decide to STOP advancing in technology is just idiotic to me.
b/w photographs are better than color… always have been, always will be… for many applications, less is more.
Actually, Senor Biggs makes some very interesting points.
Gaming will make 3d television – but I don’t really think people will necessarily go for the PC first. PC 3d gaming has been around for a while and it really isn’t all that great – smaller screens – limited games – expensive technology.
A nice 60″ 3D setup will cost less than a PC and can pass the wife-factor. I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I spend more time playing games on the PS3/XBOX360 than on my PC. The PC is fast an all – just not as convenient anymore.
Ultimately, porn will decide if this technology makes it.
I remember back when people thought the Internet was just a fade as well. 3D won’t be that expensive and it will be awesome. Maybe it is easier for me, since I’ve been waiting to see what comes next before upgrading my (10 year old) HDTV. 3D is it, action movies (like sports) are going to be sweet.
Well spoken, I couldn’t have said it better myself. You pretty much summarized what I’ve been saying for the past month or two. 3D gaming will be an incredible experience worth considering, but I would never buy a 3D tv / blu ray set so that I could watch movies this way. Sure Avatar 3D was incredible, and there’ll be more like it, but I do feel it is a gimmick that is unnecessary in my home. Though perhaps my opinions biased as I fall just above 25 category (26). For me, an experience like Avatar 3D is best enjoyed in theatre and I could never imagine watching every movie this way, especially so with the requirement of 3D glasses. There are simply too many better ways of spending my money.
Never bothered with 3D until avatar, and bloody hell is it amazing. I can’t believe every film shown in cinemas isn’t in 3D. It makes it so much better and makes it much more worth while to go to the cinema instead of just downloading it. Playing games in 3D would be awesome. It would make it feel like the film Gamer
why does the 25+ set think 3D is a gimmick?
because it is…
best use of 3D was actually in the movie Up. the 3D effect was subtle and added a bit to the atmosphere, and the first sight of the balloons added wonders to it.
in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ it was pretty unnecessary.
Avatar was just a crappy movie about smurfs in space.
caught all 3 movie in both 3D and 2D, only in Up did it made a bit of difference, and you wouldn’t really miss it. That’s why it’s a gimmick.
of course the munchkins set probably didn’t remember or haven’t seen Captain EO at Disneyland, which had much better effects.
So basically your only appreciation of 3D is “Ooh, shiny balloons!”? Well, tell you what, the reason you think it’s a gimmick is because you’re treating it like a gimmick. Wait until you see a movie you actually like in 3D, and then come back and tell us that it didn’t help immerse you in the movie. It can’t make up for lack of a good plot, and it wont fix bad acting either; it’s a tool meant to increase immersion.
It *can* be used to show some things better in a movie, like they have in those educational IMAX films, but directors can’t afford to use the 3D to show anything too central to the plot, because then everyone watching the 2D will miss it, or they won’t play it on 2D screens, and fewer people will watch it, so yes, it can be used in a gimmicky fashion sometimes. But it’s used in a gimmicky fashion *because we can’t use it differently yet*. Once filmmakers start using 3D regularly, and a good majority of people have access to 3D screens at a decent price, then we’ll see it being brought up to its full potential.
It’s always like this for new technology, just give it time, and you will see it being used in really cool ways.
I used to be just like you John – I thought that 3D was a bunch of hype. Then I saw a real 3D TV up close and personal….glasses and everything.
Everything I hate about 3D movies at the theater I love about the TV I saw in person (a Panasonic).
The worst part right now is the price. With the glasses alone costing $100 EACH, it’s gonna be hard for a family of four to be able to get a big screen 3D TV that everyone can watch. I do take it back that it’s going to fail and as a convert I’m just waiting until prices come down so I can justify the expense.
Otherwise I’ll be sleeping on the couch for a while.
http://alturl.com/iq3d
We all have to realize that 3D is a natural progression in TV evolution. First it was black and white, then color, then HD, then what “curved TV”. No, it would be 3D. TV picture can not get any clearer. We may be talking 4k or 8k but in a set less than 55″ it does not matter anymore. It is hard to justify paying hundeds of dollars for hypothetical picture improvements. I am talking about 720p to 1080p, contrast ratio in millions, monster HDMI difference, etc. I am picky about my picture as much as the next guy, but I still can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, never have, never will. If you can, great. You bought into it. If you asked anyone two years ago what would be the next best thing after HD, the natural response would be 3D HD. It just makes sense. It is here to stay folks and it will only get better.
like this article
Yeah, I agree. For television, 3D seems like more of a gimmick to me than “the next step forward.”
The people stating it gives them a headache, or it doesnt look that good, have never seen the new 3D sets in person. The glasses are powered and are completely clear. With them off it looks like you are looking through a very clean piece of glass. With them powered, everything comes out and the true 3D experience is had. It puts the movie theater 3D to shame. As for people owning them, I thing the MFGs are just gonna have it available on all future TVs. This will put one in many more homes. I will be getting one, thats for sure. And since I didnt waste my money on a Xbox 360 I will be enjoying my full HD/3D experience on my already purchased PS3.
Your entire argument seems to be based on cost. If the first gen 62″ Plasma 3d screens are only $3200, just image how cheap they will be a few years down the line.
So you might want to rethink your premise blog-master.
3d movues give me motion sickness and headaches, I can’t imagine spending a whole night watching in 3d.
3D capable TV (technology is not that different) prices drop, so you probably will see people who have a 3D TV but watching everything in 2D. My bet is that the Google setup box is going to play a role.
The laserdisk of this era is blueray. Within a few years optical disks are obsolete, you’ll watch your purchased movie online. As many times as you want. Or you carry a copy on an USB stick.
The interesting 3D part comes with nanotech. Within, say, ten years you’ll have crisp clear screens as if you are looking in a mirror. The material can both display as register, and over a wide range in the electromagnetic spectrum. By then you can feel heat from a distant fire or the sun in Hawaii for instance. We don’t have TV’s or monitors anymore by then, the coating can be put on anything like clothes, walls, furniture, floors, streets etc. You will have a wall in your living room that connects i.e. to the living wall of friends or relatives. And at another wall you look through realistic window and see the Eiffel Tower as if you were in Paris. You probably will have a 360 room as well where you can experience simulations, real ‘footage’ (ski resort, Hawaii beach, Savannah, Space Station, concert, last christmas, …), and mashups.
I experienced the 3D experiments on Dutch TV in 1982, it was neat but ugly. I watched a Philips experiment in the early nineties with a concert in (semi)holograms which was incredible, although the singers were very tiny. Later I spoke to an engineer who worked on the project, it cost a fortune. In the late nineties I got my VR glasses. Gaming was fun, despite the ghost images and disappointing lack of realistic depth (hopefully you can adjust the parallax nowadays). Unfortunately you could not game for hours because of the heavy glasses.
I haven’t seen anything 3D lately, but it is clear that the industry is investing en masse. 3D is going to stay. If you like it or not. It’s not just one manufacturer with a wild idea or an experiment.
@ Zoran Cucuz – March 17th, 2010 at 12:53 pm EDT
3D imaging is very old. The first movies were made in the 19th century. Color TV brought 3D experiments in the 1980′s.
HD TV is nice, but it’s not the limit. Resolution could be much higher, the color spectrum much wider. You would see the difference. LaserTV is for instance superior to common techniques. And speaking of color, 24 bit color as a limit is a choice made by the industry, the misconception is that people cannot see more colors. I’d invite people who think so to take a look around. Personally I think it’s a pity that developments stopped at 24bits (“32″ bits with 8 for alpha). 64bits over a wider range would improve graphics dramatically. Maybe we’re going to see further developments when the “laserTV” becomes the norm since it is capable of showing much more colors and shades.
Within ten years or so the 24/32 bit you are used to now will look as flat as black and white. There will even be emulators showing terrible 2010 graphics on a VR flatscreen.
Disagree,
The tech is cheap, and the companies will figure out that the average consumer isn’t going to pony up thousands of dollars more on an “upgrade” that costs 200 bucks a pop. Once the prices come down it will be ubiquitous.
Sporting events, movies, and games will definitely get the lion’s share of the revenue…no doubt. And people will watch. Is it the greatest thing since sliced bread, no…but there’s a host of tech that people routinely use today that’s just as forgettable.
dont care about your opinion but do like talking heads so i give you props
“Mark my words: the vast majority of TV viewers will never have a 3D TV in their home”
I’m bookmarking this, so I can make you eat them.
The limitations of “glasses-free” 3D TV are that there’s only ever going to be a small difference between what both of your eyes are seeing. Hence the glasses-free solutions only offering very limited depth of 3D, or as this observer notes: it looks a bit 3Dish, but nothing’s popping out of the screen or flying over my head.
Well, I consider myself an early adopter, I like new technology and don’t mind the price premium for getting it first, but 3D tv? Nah, just not interested in that one.
Why waste your time and comment on something you dislike? If you really didnt like it you wouldnt say anything at all, because sales will prove it eventually. Your showing interest in it if your complaining about it, or your just scared of the future! As you can see im a big supporter in 3D tv, and granted the glasses are a bit annoying and why dont they just make conversion kits for pre -existing flat panel tv’s. I understand that they want to make you buy a 3d tv for more profit but whoever comes out with a conversion kit first will be on top of all competitors. Even for the people that dont like 3D tv, will be even more interested in it if the conversion kit was 500 or less rather than buying a 4000 tv.
Ok so like most people I thought that “3D TV is not that great, it cant look very good and who really cares if it is in 3D.” Then I went to Best Buy just to look at one to see what it was all about and let me tell you they are very nice. The picture quality was a million times better then what I thought it would be and the 3D technology was amazing. Needless to say I bought one while I was there. They are expensive but no more then flat screens when they first came out. The only thing that sucks is having to wait for more titles to be release in 3D but the 2D to 3D conversion can turn any movie into 3D. They are sick!!!!!!
Good article. I think 3D games will help out the whole 3D push however, 3D gaming isin’t anything new. It has been around for a couple years now using the active shutter glasses technology using Nvidia’s “3D Vision”. If you are curently looking for a new HDTV check out this article before you buy:
http://www.squidoo.com/hdtv-top-10-features-to-consider-before-purchasing-a-new-hdtv
Yeah, 3D tv shows will never catch on, just like how that stereo sound thing never caught on. Mono is all I need to enjoy my TV programs.