Michael Gartenberg Doesn`t Buy 3DTV

[LowTech]

Original Article Link

[color=yellow]I wouldn’t say that Mr. Gartenberg’s reasons are all wrong when viewed from a historical context when one considers the Quadraphonic sound systems from the ‘70s.

1) Cost:  A Quad system wasn’t appreciably more expensive than many medium ranged stereo systems, but if you had relatively new stereo equipment you were basically duplicating your costs by “moving up” so to say.

2) Hassle:  You couldn’t take it on the road with you (8 track or that newfangled cassette tape).  Quad headphones were large and bulky.  Of course the availability of Quad media and duplicate cost of now having Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon in two versions of vinyl turned some folks off.  (Of course one could argue that the above examples are systematic of all new techs, but it is a factor)

3) Benefit:  Predictably the Quad experience was somewhat limited to a fairly small spot in the room in which the system was installed and that was not really different from the way stereo or todays surround systems optimally perform.  Keep in mind that the average American household at the time didn’t really try to recreate a theater experience with their home stereo and a 25” diagonal TV.  Also, if I recall correctly, quadraphonic sound reproduction was never embraced by the sound purists at the time or by the esoteric equipment makers of the era.  The Quad headphones at the time were enormous, uncomfortable, couldn’t fully match the ambient experience and just plain looked goofy.  In fact those Quad headphones were so big that you could have safely worn them in lieu of a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle.  In the end the Quad system owner was left sitting in his room listening to Dark Side of the Moon over and over again – alone.  Needless to say that didn’t last too long and Quad quietly went away.

Fast forward roughly 20 years and Quad’s successors are everywhere to be found in the form of home surround systems.  It turns out that at the time all of the supporting pieces which would make a multi speaker sound system a desirable purchase just weren’t around at the time.  In that respect I can appreciate Mr. Gartenberg’s point of view regarding 3D TV as it stands today and his closing paragraph sums it up nicely I believe. 
[/color]

[Andrew Van Til]

The point is that there’s nothing in his argument that proves anything – either way (note the LaserDisc mention).  HD was selected as a counter because it succeeded while having the same issues (in most cases to a greater degree at the same time in the life cycle); wouldn’t have been much of a point to do it the other way.

New technologies always cost something, are a hassle, and have limited benefit to anyone but the early adopter.  Those aren’t markers of a failure in the making, just artifacts of a new technology cutting its teeth on the market.

[captain_video]

Quadrophonic sound and current surround systems couldn’t be further apart.  It’s an apples to bricks comparison.  Quad sound was an audio only format that required special hardware and software that was both expensive and did not always live up to the hype.  Couple that with the multitude of quad formats that were being marketed and it was a real cluster f*ck.

Surround sound only became viable with the introduction of home video and didn’t really flourish until digital media became the mainstream.  Even today there is very little audio only material recorded for playback with surround systems.  It was the perfect marriage of audio and video on DVD that brought it to life and into the average household.

Right now, 3D is nothing more than a curiosity.  I think with the current state of the economy and the lack of source material plus the fact that HDTV is still relatively young in the grand scheme of things, it’s going to take a lot of marketing skill and major support from the movie and TV studios for it to hit even a minor level of market saturation.  I’ve seen 3DTV demoed in the stores and thought it was OK, but it didn’t have enough of a wow factor to make me want to own one.  In fact, the thought of being tethered to my TV with a pair of 3D glasses was a major turnoff.  I have a feeling that most people will feel the same way about 3DTV and will prefer to wait until a better method of displaying 3D images comes along.

[phoneguyinpgh]

[quote=”captain_video”]
Right now, 3D is nothing more than a curiosity. 
[/quote]
I completely concure.

[quote=”captain_video”]
…plus the fact that HDTV is still relatively young in the grand scheme of things,

[/quote]

I know many many many people who are still using SD-CRT TVs.  If it ain’t broke, don’t replace it, and the economy is another issue.

[quote=”captain_video”]
…the thought of being tethered to my TV with a pair of 3D glasses was a major turnoff.
[/quote]

That clinches it with me.  If I want to wear the glasses I will go to a theater or Disney World.

[Naylia]

I just had Lasik to get rid of the darn glasses and be able to fall asleep watching tv without something on my head….

[jennyfur]

I find it funny that a site full of nerds who are typically on the bleeding edge of technology seem to generally agree that 3D TV is rather pointless.  😉

[mikinho]

I definitely don’ think it is pointless.  I just can’t afford a new 3D HDTV 🙁

I had no interest in it prior to watching a 3D broadcast of the World Cup at a friend’s house–that was awesome.

[Andrew Van Til]

[quote=”jennyfur”]
I find it funny that a site full of nerds who are typically on the bleeding edge of technology seem to generally agree that 3D TV is rather pointless.  😉
[/quote]

I don’t think it’s pointless at all.  When used properly 3D adds significantly to the experience; there is a lot not to like (cost, content, glasses), but I do think it’s a natural/welcome evolution for TV – especially sports.

[jennyfur]

Perhaps “pointless” was a bad choice of words. All I’m saying is that when numerous people refer to it as a “curiosity” and in other threads have pretty much disregarded it due to cost/having to wear glasses/etc. that’s pretty sad considering we’d typically be the group that would be first to jump all over something like this. If the tech geeks aren’t buying it, is Joe Schmo Public really going to adopt it anytime soon?

[Naylia]

I know…I don’t get the feeling that everyone is sitting and drooling over 3D. I feel like even with the studios pushing it, there isn’t this swell of public desire or even early adopter desire to “have it now”. But maybe that’s just me.

[Mast3rL33]

I can honestly say that I recently purchased a new 55″ television and could not convince myselft to take the 3D leap. The glasses were largely to blame, but the idea of watching things in 3D doesnt draw me in very much. Frankly I am more than satisifed with the vivid picture provided in 2D. I would rather that HD content be provided in cheaper forms more frequently than additional 3D content.

Maybe one day I can see the light, but at this point in time I am not sold.

[George L. Schmauch Jr.]

I realize most of the people around these parts (excluding myself, that is) don’t believe 3D is going to catch on, but it would seem that, every single day, I’m reading a study about the rapid growth of 3D adoption rates in homes, as well as TV manufacturers projecting huge leaps in 3D TV sales over the next few years.

Personally (i.e.  I have no data to back this up), I think 3D is taking a foothold significantly faster than Blu-ray.

[Andrew Van Til]

[quote=”Skirge01″]
Personally (i.e.  I have no data to back this up), I think 3D is taking a foothold significantly faster than Blu-ray.
[/quote]

There’s no doubt that it will.  It’s become a checkbox feature on HDTVs; already leaking into the mid-range.

[captain_video]

If there was a way to retrofit existing HDTVs for 3D, such as an external box to handle the 3D signal and provide an interface for the glasses, then I might consider it.  I wouldn’t go out and purchase a new 3DTV just to have it, however.  There just isn’t enough 3D material to justify such a purchase, especially since my current 60″ Sony HDTV is only a couple of years old. 

For people just now taking the HDTV plunge or those that are looking to upgrade an existing HDTV, then it might be something worth considering if it does not significantly raise the cost over a comparable non-3DTV set.  I just don’t see where most people would go out and upgrade to a 3DTV because they feel it’s a “must have” feature.

If manufacturers start including the 3D feature across the board then I could definitely see it taking a strong foothold in the consumer marketplace.  The one thing that will make or break it will be the availability of program material on 3D Blu-Ray.  The movie studios will have to step up to the plate if they expect the format to flourish and grow.

I would be curious to see if existing 2D titles will undergo a 3D conversion for re-release.  I can see how this would be attractive to the studios as a way to make more money from existing movie libraries.  I’m not even sure this is possible but you can bet the studios will exploit the heck out of it if they can do it.

[Andrew Van Til]

[quote=”captain_video”]
For people just now taking the HDTV plunge or those that are looking to upgrade an existing HDTV, then it might be something worth considering if it does not significantly raise the cost over a comparable non-3DTV set.  I just don’t see where most people would go out and upgrade to a 3DTV because they feel it’s a “must have” feature.
[/quote]

This year’s 3D HDTVs are pretty much the same price as the model they replaced and much cheaper than comparable sets from a few years ago.

[Author]

Posts