Remember watching “Wolfman” in the theater in 3D when I was a kid. Fun experience, but the little paper red and green 3D glasses, and the seemingly out of focus picture really wasn’t something which lent itself to wanting to do it again.
3D has been around for near 50 years. Until recently it tended to be pretty much limited to the blood and gore horror movie venue, but the commercial success of Avatar seems to have changed all that as TV manufacturers search for the next big thing…
BTx would be a lot happier if they just figured out how to consistently get the picture to fit the screen!
While I have to admit HD is a huge advance over the old non-HD, I’m not so sure I’m ready to trade in my perfectly good HDTVs for 3D.
Historically, in a recession – people tend to spend more money on cheap thrills. Especially if those cheap thrills involve something the whole family can enjoy without having to take out a second mortgage. Parks and free recreation areas have become fun again – especially considering having to drop a couple of hundred bucks to visit the nearest roller coaster…
Which gets us to the fact that this summer was the worst box office summer for the movie business in decades. They apparently killed everyone with an idea in Hollywood, which continued it’s downward spiral in the production of content.
Seems 3D isn’t as exciting as the manufacturers would like you believe…
Consumers Are Excited About 3D-TVs at Home–Until They Try One
3D technology has been around for decades, but it’s only in the past few years that the tech community has really started to push it. That’s partly thanks to a few major blockbusters (Spy Kids 3D, Avatar) that convinced these companies that 3D is now viable, but it’s also due to the general malaise of film revenue since the piracy revolution.
3D films often cost 50% more in theaters than traditional non-3D movies–that’s howAvatar made such ridiculous money–and in a time when piracy is taking a major bite out of revenues, that price differential is incredibly valuable.
On the hardware side, 3D is finally cheap enough and advanced enough to put into home entertainment, including computer monitors, cameras, video game consoles, and HDTVs. For hardware manufacturers (one of whom, Sony, is both a film studio and a hardware company, and is unsurprisingly leading the charge for 3D-TV), this is a chance to get consumers to shell out for another TV, even if they just made the upgrade to HDTV.
Over the past two years, Sony, Panasonic, LG, and Samsung have stormed every tech convention possible with 3D. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the country’s biggest, has been so packed with 3D-TVs recently that 3D glasses are practically required gear. 3D, say these companies, is a revolution of immersion. It will change the way you experience entertainment. You will want it, and want it enough to shell out a few grand for new equipment.
As it turns out, according to a recent Nielsen study, that might not be true. The study measured consumer interest in 3D-TV both before and after being actually exposed to one, and came out with some pretty interesting findings. Though a full 25% said they were “very likely” to buy a 3D-TV set in the next year, after actually using one, that number dropped by more than half, to 12%. And though before testing a 3D-TV only 13% said they were “not at all likely” to buy a set in the next year, after testing that number jumped to a whopping 30%.
The main concerns held by those surveyed include the prohibitively high cost of the 3D-TV set (a premium of anywhere from $500 to $1,000 over an already pricey non-3D set), the lack of 3D content, and, notably, irritation with having to wear 3D glasses all the time. Some of those problems can be fixed–prices will eventually come down, and if 3D is popular enough, the amount of content will go up–but the glasses are here to stay.
More troubling is that less than half (48%–only slightly less, but still less) felt that 3D made them more engaged with what they were watching. That suggests to me that 3D may simply not be more enjoyable than non-3D, that it may not really enhance the viewing experience.