/ Technology

Why 3D TV is destined to fall flat on its face

3DTV

3D TV is an exciting proposition for home cinema buffs, yet the technology comes with a hell of a lot of baggage. It demands our attention and the emptying of our wallets, but TV shouldn’t be this hard to watch.

It’s not hard to decipher our love affair with the telly. It welcomes our unceremonious slump onto the sofa after a hard day, demands only half of our attention, but always has plenty to give back (if you’re prepared for a bit of channel surfing).

If, on occasion, our telly does show what we want to watch, then we sit up and pay attention, but it’s still a ‘take me or leave me’ proposition. No strings.

Forget all that with 3D TV

3D TV is an event; an event with so many strings you’ll end up tied in knots. It demands not only your total attention but the attention of everyone else in the room, each wearing a pair of ridiculously priced glasses for good measure (£100 a pop anyone?)

It’s like settling down to watch your favourite DVD with the family but having to ensure everyone is appropriately dressed. No quick crossword, no quick web surf on the iPhone and definitely no sneaking off to the loo. The 3D telly is on and it’s in control.

‘Fair enough’, you might say – for a special event like a 3D movie it’s fine to make that extra special effort. It’s worth it in the end right? Well in a word, no. Sure the technology is impressive, and the first time you slip on the specs you’ll experience the ‘wow factor’. But it doesn’t last long.

The glasses are uncomfortable and heavy, background light flickers in the corner of your eye and the 3D effect is quickly muted if you happen to take your eyes off the screen. In short, 3D TV is a chore and like most chores it doesn’t make you feel good.

3D TV doesn’t match the hype

Don’t get me wrong – I was very excited about 3D TV and love new technologies (no really, you’re never more than three steps away from a gadget in the Briggs’ house). And this is nothing to do with the lack of 3D content (it’ll come) or the high price of the TVs (they’ll fall in time).

3D TV just doesn’t match the hype being generated by the industry. It feels like a gimmick born from TV industry executives gathering in the boardroom, plonking Avatar’s receipts on the table and saying, ‘We want some of this’.

Once the dust has settled, tales of clunky glasses and monster 60-inch screens will get around and 3D TV will be quietly consigned to the canon of expensive technology flops. Only LG’s passive display technology (cheap glasses included) could save the day. But then why bother when you can go to the cinema?

Comments
Guest
Iona says:
1 July 2010

Like any new technology 3DTV is priced really high. I’d wait a year or so until it’s more affordable. You can bet the price will drop massively

Guest

One of the only reasons they introduced 3DTVs was because the price of HDTVs was dropping too low. New tech means they can make them extortionate again.

Guest
Dutchyboy says:
1 July 2010

I think you’re spot on here Mike, television is about escapism and as such the ability flick your brain to the ‘off’ position is essential. Convenience rules in home entertainment, 3D will rule the roost in Hollywood-driven cinema for years to come but it’s not made for the home unless you watch TV alone.

Guest

@Dutchyboy “unless you watch TV alone” – which is perhaps an area of growth. Video games are where 3D is likely to take off. Sony’s pushing it very hard with the PS3 this year – Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 (this will be the biggest win for 3D) and other games. It’s easy and cheap to create as (most) games are created in 3D worlds. It’s also mainly a solitary hobby (not always) with many audophiles already jumping onto the PS3 wagon with Blu-ray. I think we could agree that that console had a big part in getting Blu-ray to win the format war, and could do the same for 3D – it’s cheap and doesn’t require a new investment.

Cost is another area that’s likely to change quickly. 3DTVs are insanely priced because it’s the new ‘technology’ but it’s actually not that expensive to make. Budget 3DTVs will come soon – and it’s really down to reducing the price of the glasses. When all people have 3D TV’s in their houses (they’re likely to become standard) and have a PS3 – 3D will just eventually encroach its way into our living rooms.

And we could be better for it – watching tennis and football is very difficult without depth – and when 3D isn’t used in a gimmicky way we might just get used to it as a natural progression of home viewing. Oh and Nintendo’s releasing the no-glasses 3DS – sure to be a huge hit and grow the world’s appetite for 3D at home.

Guest

Is watching football on 2D TVs that difficult? Tennis? The World Cup and Wimbledon looked fine to me when I glanced up from the newspaper to watch (which I wouldn't be doing with my 3D glasses on). But you're right about games Patrick – that could well be the killer app for 3D. But let's be strictly pedantic about this – gaming and watching telly are two different ball games 😉

Guest

Well, how many times have you cheered a goal, thinking it had gone in when actually it was on the other side of the net? Or thought a ball had just been chipped forward, when in fact it had been crossed to the other side of the pitch? The only way these kind of depth perceptions can be seen on 2D TV is with shadows and often the ball is not close enough to the ground, or the pitch lighting doesn't allow this.

Watching the World Cup on a Black & White TV wasn't that difficult either…

P.S. people who use reading glasses suffer the same problem of having to remove/peer over their glasses when glancing at the telly from their paper.

Guest
Tom Ritchie says:
3 July 2010

No way would I spend £2,000 on a 3D TV – or indeed any other sort – but I’m old enough to remember going into the TV department in Harrods way back when and seeing the first flat screen TVs on sale for £££££s. Now you would have to be some kind of Luddite to not have a flat screen and you are paying zero extra for the privilege.

If Sky goes large on 3D and makes it a lot more entertaining to watch Premier League footie this way, I have no doubt that it will rapidly become the norm over the next 2-3 years, with less clunky viewing options coming on stream and prices of 3D TVs falling rapidly.

Guest

I think with flat screen TV’s it was more about the physical area previous CRT TVs took up. Buying a flatscreen TV makes quite a big impact on people’s living rooms – they’re saving a lot of space and can install them on their walls. You’ll find more people buying HDTVs than are actually watching high-definition content (a waste in my opinion).

It doesn’t look like 3DTVs have an advantage beyond 3D – maybe if manufacturers can add more advantages to upgrade (like internet TVs) more people would make the jump.

Guest
VofEscaflowne says:
14 July 2010

I wonder how long until we see TVs adopting the same tech as the 3DS. I know that right now, the viewing angle sucks on it but the reason it works so well is that it's a portable so those aren't really well suited to having multiple people watching anyway. If it becomes possible to have 3DTVs go glasses free, then this'll make the current ones look so clunky in comparison. I already find it bad enough to have to shell out 50$+ to buy an extra controller for my PS3… but here, you have to buy 100$+ glasses so everyone can "play" with you.

Guest
Chad says:
14 July 2010

I will say this yet again current 3d is a gimmick and until it's glasses free it will stay a gimmick.

Guest

Well the 3DS will be glasses free – couldn't that spur the hunger for 3D? I just don't think glasses free will be any good for years – and it'll be really expensive. 3D with glasses could in theory be very cheap to make and sell.

Guest
Frank Green says:
14 July 2010

"But then why bother when you can go to the cinema?"

The horrible Cinema experience is the reason why so many of us movie fans have 50 inch or bigger screens at home. We hate the line ups, the insanely over priced food and drinks, the talking- throughout-the-movie patrons, the 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts, and the over priced 3D ticket sales.

I will gladly get a 3D TV in my home to avoid the ****** cinema.

Guest
ziggy says:
18 July 2010

Would be best until the price drops considerably though…and really, are you that enthralled by 3D cinema that you'd want it in your home?

Guest
mike j says:
14 July 2010

My professor told me an interesting fact the other day. He was talking about the growth of internet connection speeds. He said that the only reason our connection speeds have grown so rapidly is because people want **** and they want it fast. Back when Compuserve was the only way to access the net **** images downloaded so slowly you would watch as the image loaded line by line for 5 minutes. Now you can stream a 70 minute movies online instantly.

Basically what I'm getting at is if the **** industry goes 3D….3DTV will be the only thing people buy. You can count on it.

Guest

I don't think that's the only reason…that industry doesn't directly fund ISPs.

PS. I like to think that **** stands for cake.

Guest

"But then why bother when you can go to the cinema?"

Because 3D in the home will be good for sport and nature films, which you wont get much of in the cinema. 3D in the cinema will be gimicky and will not last, just like last time. 3D is wasted on film.

Usually with films (the good ones) you get in to them and recreate the experience in your head. After a while, once absorbed in a film, you think you are watching reality and do not even realise you are watching a black and white film.

The reason that 3D will work for sport and nature is not that you will be WoW!d by the 3D effect, but that you will be able to perceive in depth what is happening and understand the game better, or see the animal in its context better.

Guest
ziggy says:
18 July 2010

That's a good thought – I hadn't thought about it for nature programmes. Are there current plans to film them? Attenborough? I've always found watching football and tennis difficult – without depth, you can't tell where the ball is going when it's in the air.

Guest

I'm sure 3D makes sense for the "games" generation and 3D makes for good games and action films but I'm still getting to grips with colour, some of my favourite films are black and white.

Guest
tarbis says:
16 July 2010

Many critics said the same thing with Blu-ray and now they all disappeared while eating their words w/o a pinch of salt. I just wonder when you will too.

Guest
MyNameisJohn says:
16 July 2010

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about….

What makes you so much smarter than Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic and other independent analysts.

This is obv a attempt to get a more hits by stating a bold statement such as this.

you should named it "Opinion: Why i think 3D wont do as well as predicted"
but your title shows me your lack of journalistic integrity

Cya never coming back here again.

Guest
ziggy says:
18 July 2010

Well it's quite obviously a personally opinion…and it's got the debate going. Shame you didn't join in. Doubt you'll be missed.

Guest
TONY says:
16 July 2010

Yet another **** blog site looking for hits via n4g.

Guest
ziggy says:
18 July 2010

That's very unkind. What the **** is n4g?

Guest

Thanks for your supportive comments Ziggy – n4g is a tech site which this story got picked up on. We're open to all comments, good and bad, so long as they stick to our commenting guidelines, but let’s try and get back to the topic in hand now.

Guest
lucky77 says:
19 July 2010

Who needs 3DTV? A great quality 2D LCD is fine by me – life's too short to start worrying about viewing angles and wearing special glasses. I might be more interested if there's a glasses free version on the way, but for now, my wallet's staying firmly in my pocket.

Guest
lucky77 says:
19 July 2010

The stars in my previous post are meant to say 'glasses free' by the way – no idea why that was starred out?!!

Guest

Thanks for letting us know – I've edited the post for you!

Guest

It’s a Gimmick
soon to join the Phillips 2000 video system, betamax, kodak instant film and smellyvision

Guest

The glasses could be going very soon – Sony’s considering releasing a 3D TV without the glasses (better even than LG’s cheap glasses option) Lets just hope they’re not too expensive.

Guest
Sheila Wilson says:
10 September 2010

I have just bought an HD ready TV, a Which best buy . Now I have realised that 3D TV is coming in, on a tide of new technology. Should I send the TV back? It’s still in the box, waiting to be installed by John Lewis.
The reason I am not sending it back and will not be getting a 3D TV, apart from the high price, is that I don’t want to make myself ill or disorientated. I have read up on the health warnings, and as someone with health issues which could be affected by 3D TV, I have decided my peace of mind is worth more.
But good luck to all 3D TV buyers!

Guest

I’m a gamer, a HD video enthusiast and i have NO interest in watching or playing ANYTHING in 3D.

Someone please tell me why i should care about this technology?

Guest

I have an HDTV but only because it was the first 23″ flat screen that would fit exactly onto the shelf instead of my CRT model. I have no intention whatsoever of subscribing to HD broadcasts – I don’t need it. I’ll happily wait until HD broadcasts are standard and free,

The standard TV broadcasts are perfectly adequate for me.

As for 3DTV – forget it.

Guest
Jason Shouler says:
16 February 2011

“Only LG’s passive display technology (cheap glasses included) could save the day”

Never has a truer line been spoken!

If 3D was ever to fail in the home market then it would be due the widespread issues associated with the cheap to manufacture active shutter technology adopted by every major manufacturer along with the heavy marketing that followed.

LG’s 47LD950 little promoted and understood circular polarising screen technology has turned out to be a jewel in the home 3D market. Under promoted (rather bizarrely LG seemed more keen to promote their own shutter based sets) and with an initial firmware bug (related to blu-ray playback but with a trivial solution) together with misconceptions about the technology produced less than favourable reviews.

Aside from a single theoretical disadvantage in outright image resolution (which by most accounts rates as unnoticed or insignificant by owners who have moved away from active shutter sets – which includes myself) this technology shows exactly what good 3D should be.

No headache inducing cross-talk or eye-strain (a caveat here: if you don’t enjoy 3D at the cinema then you wont like this set either). No heavy, bulky or uncomfortable headsets. No concerns about headsets having dead batteries or not being charged. No fiddling with on/off buttons and with the glasses costing typically £1 each it’s easy to pass a few extra around should friends visit (you can’t watch in 2D once 3D is active on any 3D set).

Once experienced in this form then I defy anyone to argue that 3D is a gimmick.

Guest

Sky has a dedicated channel 217 for 3d It is possible to record this channel in 3d on a sky plus box.
Viewing 3d is an occasion why not just watch a choice film consort or football match then switch the tv off .
The concept that tv should be video wall paper is wrong . Getting back to the idea that you should occasionally concentrate on what is on the screen might really increase the enjoyment of viewing.

Guest
Dave Groves says:
27 November 2014

I bought a Sony 55″ 3D t.v. last November along with the necessary player. It’s a passive set. The glasses aren’t expensive or heavy or awkward, the picture is superb and the 3D astonishing. I’ve bought several 3D discs and prefer them to normal ones. Look in the right shops and they are avaiable second hand. I haven’t suffered headaches or anything else untoward. To some it’s an unnecessary gimmic. To me it’s a pleasure. Just keep the discs coming