Is it worth taking the plunge? Will it every catch on as HD has? Discuss...

IMO no, not as long as you have to wear the glasses.....

personally I think the effect of 3D is lost after a while of watching...I think what you gain in the initial effect, you loose in colour clarity and definition...

...i'm open minded though, it just seems like 3D comes along every few years and is really popular, then dies out again, as with most gimmicks.

Yes when you don't have to ware silly glasses and it is a hologram.

I don't think so..

HD took off as it works for everything, Football, Films, Nature, Soaps, all TV got a better picture. Could you imagine watching Corrie in 3D..

However, I do think the porn industry and working hard to get 3D films out

I was thinking of creating some 4d porn!

I should add that I am not intending on starring in it, just creating it!

agreed, and thats the issue, it is a gimmick that lends itself to going to watch a film at the cinema for sure, but HD fundamentally improved everything across the board, and is growing all the time, to watch everyday TV in 3D would not last.....

3DTV is the minidisk of the TV world.

A technology that, although a step forward for the mainstream, is an old technology, that is being pushed by manufacturers who just want to sell more gadgets, rahter than a 'need' for the product.

Also, much like minidisk, it's only been availalbe a very short time and already it's looking like it's being suppased it'll only be a matter of a few years before holographic imaging systems will become commercially viable for the home user.

I was at the IBC exhibition last month, with a stand on Victorian 3-d technology (voted best in show by the Royal Television Society, too!) and had a chance to look at a *lot* of 3-d displays.

My view? It will last exactly as long as the 3-d crazes in the 1850s, 1870s, 1890s, 1930s, 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s.

It's absolutely fine for big-screen cinema, if the directors can be persuaded to ignore the 'leaping out of the screen' effects and learn a new grammar of filming. It's an absolute doddle with any 3-d model animation (i.e. most of them) to move the viewpoint three inches to the right and recompile for a stereo image, so I'd expect you'll see a lot more of those. It's brilliant for games...

But there's a common factor there: it's very highly immersive. You have to *watch* it. You can't just have it on in the corner, you can't slouch and watch it with your head at an angle; it doesn't work unless you concentrate. And all the glasses versions result in a screen at half brightness.

On every TV system, it gives people headaches if they watch it for too long. If it needs glasses, they're expensive; if it doesn't, you need to be in the sweet spot. There is no standardised transmission system but every transmission system sacrifices either horizontal or vertical resolution to fit the transmission in the same data bandwidth - so a mono view is degraded and not really compatible. Couple that to the fact that there is very little capability in the broadcasting world to generate 3-d images; it requires a doubling of every circuit in a broadcasting centre, twice as many distribution amplifiers, new cameras, vision mixers, caption generators, video recorders, stills stores, graphics engines... effectively, all they can transmit in 3-d is existing 3-d films. I remember the switch from mono to stereo audio, from film to video reporting; both were a lot more difficult behind the scenes than it looked to the viewer.

On the other hand, adding 3-d compatibility via active glasses is a zero-cost option to any TV with 120Hz or better refresh rates, with a huge markup to the buyer. And recall that the entire TV sales industry is about making the buyer buy something new: colour, second set, set in the kitchen, wide screen, flat screen...

What I predict is that in a year you will not be able to buy (except old budget ranges) a TV which does not have 3-d capability. Between now and then, you will pay the early adopter's premium (idiot tax, in the trade). By the end of that time, it will be something you use for Blu-ray video and gaming, not broadcast. Unless you watch Sky 3-d, in which case you deserve all you get.

tv is for the most part a passive experience.

i can appreciate that donning a pair of silly specs can make the film watching an 'event' but seriously who wants all that faff all the time?

i dont and wont be going near a 3dtv!

another gimmick, look how long HDTV has taken to take off, and that for the most part does genuinely offer a better viewing experience, even in passive mode.

We have this about once every 8-9 years, for the cinema its ok but Im not that fussed in general, at home I just cannot see me putting on a set of glasses with mates to watch a film

My opinion is yes of course it will catch on and it will become a standard broadcast service and it will be as convincing as 3D can be.

Well thats if the whole digital world isn't wiped out in 2013 when the sun goes into its major active phase

I'm not convinced 2D TV is really going to catch on. I think people are coming to realise that the only thing worth watching is University Challenge, and that would work just as well on the wireless.

My prediction is that in 5 years time we'll all be talking about the re-launch of Round the horne and ITMA and 'TV' will be a dead-end technology. Oh, and you'll be able to go to the flicks, have a fish supper and get the omnibus home for less than 7/6.

Which only leaves us with 1D TV, or "Eastenders".

Some people are already watching them!



I don't think this incarnation of 3D will take off, although the tvs that can do it are good specs so some people will have it anyway A glasses free version is on it's way, but it'll be a while yet...

Unbelievable!! only in America.......

Full immersion huh? Is that where you have a special little device that wafts "eau de con" as the movie heats up and at the end sprays you with....

ok, ok, I'm going

I'm waiting for DD tv. It'll have its knockers, but then thats the point

I'm keeping abreast of developments.

Never mind CBeebies, This will be the perfect format for CBoobies

http://mashable.com/2010/06/19/avatar-porn/

(Safe for work, I think)

Thanks

3D TV requires the viewer to be totally involved with the viewing expeerience. I suspect that's fine for a movie but surely it will not be the way you would always wish to watch ALL TV. The fact you have to wear glasses for it to work is another issue. It would be like having to wear headphones every time you wanted to listen to the HiFi. You would soon get fed up of the glasses, and the headaches, then just end up watching normal TV.

Only good thing I can see about 3D TV's is that they will make normal TV's cheaper.

I honestly believe 3d tv will be ushered in without any fuss and by the time my new 1080p tv could do with being replaced 3D tvs will be being reduced in price as holographic projectors start entering the market place as their replacement.

John, I believe that the talk of holographic projecters is just that; talk. The current systems are frankly disappointing to watch (think Baird's 30-line prototypes) and the massive amount of data required to transmit a holographic image is difficult to compress.

Holograms are obviously still a long away from home use, but it looks like its coming along nicely.

Won't the main driver for 3D TVs be 3D gaming? Or will 3D gaming mostly be done with special glasses/headsets?

Looks like the glasses-free version is now here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8

Brilliant!

Some of the comments are even better than the video.