[hugh]

My article in the Globe this week argued that despite the fact that 3D may be a "fad" and that 3DTVs are premium priced, they are something that prospective buyers should consider this season. (note that's prospective buyers, not existing owners)



Please, if you wish to comment in this thread, read the article first so we don't have to listen to the "its just a fad" argument again and again.

 

[Civuck]

Hugh - I'm not sure your article point "Buy quality, It lasts" is really clear in terms of what a consumer should do. Brand-name does not always equate to a "longer lasting" TV. It could be assumed premium brands like Sony always use better quality, longer lasting components but that really isn't the case. I also don't think the "a more expensive TV will be more reliable" argument applies either. Sadly, as with most consumer electronics these days, there are simply no guarantees - regardless of brand/model. In some cases, I've had better luck with second tier brands (Westinghouse) than first tier (Sony). And "back in the day", the off-brand DVD players were far more reliable in terms of playback compatibility than the mainstream brands. (eg. my Aiwa DVD player was far more reliable than my Sony or Panasonic). Unfortunately, we live in a world of disposable consumer electronics these days because the dollar rules and build quality is simply not a priority anymore.

And I'm not sure I understand your second point about "What Makes A Great HDTV" - you seem to be discussing two issues. On one hand you appear to be suggesting that because a TV has 3D components and processing, it will be able to provide a superior 2D picture to a TV without those components. Obviously this is simply untrue. I do agree with you that 3D performance can vary greatly but that's a completely separate point from "What makes a great HDTV". I think some specifics are important and that being, currently, plasma displays provide a superior 3D image to LCDs.

Finally, your last point "Is 3D TV a fad" also seems to cover two issues without really answering the question. On one hand you are discussing types of 3D (eg. anaglyph verus active) and then you are just speculating on the coming years. I think what would be important is to actually provide some details on the current programming growth and trends. How many 3D Blu-Rays are available right now? How many are announced? What broadcast programming has there already been? What's been announced? What are consumer options for 3D programming from carriers? What's trending in terms of box office reports with new 3D theatrical releases. These would all be good indicators of whether "3D TV is a fad" and if it is, as some recent reports indicate, on the decline. Certainly the buzz at the industry tradeshows like NAB and IBC has cooled off somewhat this year versus last. CES may still be hot on 3D but if no one is producing programming, it doesn't matter how amazing the new TV sets are.

I do agree with your point that 3D will likely be relegated to "event" type programming but even then, 3D - at least in its current "glasses required" form - still has a ton of logistical hurdles. People generally hate looking ridiculous with the glasses on, hate having to wear the glasses because they are uncomfortable and hate having to manage the glasses (keeping track of, maintaining condition, keeping enough on hand).

3D is really being "rammed down the throats" of consumers more than any other technology of recent memory. Even speaking to manufacturer reps "off-the-record" and they agree.

So I think the question is simple, if you don't like 3D - don't spend money on it.

Otherwise a decent article Hugh.

 

[Simonizer]

Why do you look so serious in your picture, Hugh? A smile would be nice. It would allow you to reach your readers in a more positive light.

 

[doglips]

..And I'm not sure I understand your second point about "What Makes A Great HDTV" - you seem to be discussing two issues. On one hand you appear to be suggesting that because a TV has 3D components and processing, it will be able to provide a superior 2D picture to a TV without those components. Obviously this is simply untrue. I do agree with you that 3D performance can vary greatly but that's a completely separate point from "What makes a great HDTV". I think some specifics are important and that being, currently, plasma displays provide a superior 3D image to LCDs...

What's the other hand ie. second issue he's discussing?

 

[Civuck]

What's the other hand ie. second issue he's discussing?

The first point is he seems to be indicating 3D TVs have components and processing to provide superior 2D pictures to non-3D TVs - which I disagree with; 3D versus 2D is really irrelevant as to the quality of an HDTV. The second point seems to be more relevant to his topic - he discusses plasma - specifically Panasonic's tech - as having superior performance because of their phosphor decay technology.

It seems he is trying to cover two disconnected issues where as only one is relevant to his sub-topic.

 

[vmpv]

I read the article a few times and find it pretty informative considering the limited space. It may be a touch "techy" but offers a good explanation that an interested but otherwise uninformed person should easily understand.
But do you want to become a shill Hugh? One mistake could come back to haunt you.

 

[zirG]

If I was in the market for a new set I would give 3D a pass. I've always been a late adopter of new technology, so I would never consider it simply based on cost. If 3D is still around and proves itself, without the glasses and with a decent amount of content then I'll consider it for my next TV a few years down the road. I'm quite happy remaining just behind the wave.

 

[TECHNOKID]

I prescribe to why should you stay away from 3DTV this Xmas!

The good news is that all the technological advancements incorporated into 3DTV’s not only means the panel can reproduce a stereoscopic image but it also means that it can produce a superior 2D image. So for the best 2D image, consider buying a 3DTV.

I don't embrace the claim that 3DTV's are to produce better 2D "VQ" resolution. To my knowledge, 3DTV's uses additional components to produce/re-produce the effect but should in no way improve the 2D "VQ" resolution.

In the coming years, I expect Active 3D programming will be used selectively by movie studios and television networks. The result is that the bulk of our viewing will be 2D but there will be times when 3D enhances the viewing experience. Think of 3D as a treat to be enjoyed on occasion but not all the time.

This is key right there, "BULK", "OCCASIONAL". IMHO, 3DTV can be compared to technologies like quadraphonic and the likes that were offered and simply were a big failure. If quality content is rare and pricy the mass of the consumers will simply not adopt it. Face it, when considering the mass of the consumers the majority of the home still hasn't move to HDTV yet and panels are let go at better bargains then ever.

IMO, the majority of people are willing to look for a better "VQ" and resolution of their TV experience in their humble living room. The majority of the mass is not into dedicated HT experience but rather humble living or multipurpose family room. IMO even people with interest in fully dedicated HT room will prefer the experience of a PJ screen rather than TV panel. Face it, can you really consider a TV a theater experience (even if it includes the latest technology gadgets)? I know I don't and I do consider my self part of the majority of the mass.

If you’re buying a television in the coming months, it’s important to remember that you’ll have this television for 10 to 20 years and that during that time there will be plenty of opportunities to watch 3D television, so consider spending the extra money.

TVs used to last 20 - 30 years, sorry but they NO longer do nor people want to keep them for that long with the fast pace of advancing technology. In the industry I work, the panels are put to stronger test which allow you to get an idea of what their longevity is really. Another poin to consider, older TVs could be repaired which is not so much the case with this throw away technology. If your panel breaks, chances that it is financially viable to get it repaired are pretty slim therefore plays a big factor in its longevity!

...the primary reason you should consider buying a 3DTV this holiday season is that 3DTV’s provide some the best 2D video quality available in the marketplace today. Consider 3D playback a bonus that will make for some added fun over the course of the next ten or twenty years.

IMO, the only reason it would be a bonus is if it were provided at roughly the same price.

My final thoughts on this, manufacturers are offering this technology simply in the struggle attempt to get the masses to adopt panel HDTV more quickly but their only way to succeed is to keep the pricing stable with present technology. This should be simply considered as an improvement to the present offering NOT a step up.

My last point is like any other new technology offerings, early adopters are simply opening them selves to potential deceptions;

a Technoligy not being at its prime and being stuck with a product that is not up to par with what it should be at its price point.

b Consumer is stuck with a product that he paid prime dollar for and is doomed to become obsolete within its first few years of birth (again quadraphonic as an example).

My advice, stay still and wait to see were it goes, wait for the product to prove it self, wait for this technology to improve, wait for this technology to be available without the stupid expensive glasses, wait for it to prove that it is NOT only an expensive luxury gadget.

As usual, let the people that have the big bucks adopt and take the chances. If it ever proves to be successfull, then quality will be there, price will go down and then an only then the masses can have a crack at it as it will become the norm and at decent pricing.

Very nice article Hugh but it is a subjective opinion rather than a proffesional one (just like mine ). I would look at the result of the vote with the article and I bet the reason for it to be against is pretty close to the opinions of the nay sayers in this post.

Cheers!
TK