Consumer 3D adoption rates

[Jack Cooper]

Thought this was interesting perspective on the pace of consumer 3D adoption...

its the last of the 5 "flops" in the segment...

http://finance.yahoo.com/topics/fina...-30266600.html

[Rich Schaefer]

Interesting, I don't consider 3D a flop, I think is is being adopted slowly, slower than I would like. In my opinion, much of it has to due to lack of content and lack of 3d content being provided by Sat and cable companies. I have a 3dTV and cable but very little 3d content.

HD was also adopted slowly, so slowly, I still have some shoots where I have to protect 4:3!

Prost,
Rich

[Elsie N]

Maybe it takes something like no-glasses tv to get the public excited. Link:

http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/re...e-glasses.html

[Marc Wielage]

Sony invested many millions in consumer 3D, and lost big-time -- including a complete change in upper management a few months ago. The economy really sucks. Given a great economy, consumer 3D might have had a chance, assuming low unemployment and lots of disposable income for luxuries. But not now.

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Costco stopped featuring 3D screens about the same time that Time-Warner stopped offering 3D pay per view...Buh bye.

[Peter Chang]

Costco stopped featuring 3D screens about the same time that Time-Warner stopped offering 3D pay per view...Buh bye.

And yet Costco just launched their in-store 3D channel and are hungry for 3D content: http://3droundabout.com/2012/08/7974...t-channel.html

While worldwide television shipments are basically flat, 3D television shipments are expected to increase 90% in 2012 to 46M units, with 30% of all TVs estimated to be 3D in 2013.

[Noel R.]

3% of total owners out there with 3D TV's is a small number. Adaption of technology is a lot slower than most would think. DVD's still dominate in households vs. blue-ray, but that's quickly changing. The biggest rise in consumer purchases isn't 3D, blue-ray, or DVD. It's downloads. Seems most consumers are willing to pick convenience over quality.

[Ivan Kovax]

Maybe it takes something like no-glasses tv to get the public excited. Link:

http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/re...e-glasses.html

Agreed. No glasses, and no headaches would do it.

That being said, I would LOVE to see what comes out of the mind of Terry Gilliam in S3D form... :)

Cheers

Ivan

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Until it goes glasses free, 3D is a dead stick.

[Jason Goodman]

It is interesting that many revel in the “death” of 3D considering it’s been around as long as photography and is alive and doing better than ever. 8 of the top 10 highest grossing films (worldwide) have had 3D releases. Five of them made between 44% - 72% of their money from 3D. Hobbit, Gatsby, Avatar sequels and more are still on the way. While not the dominant medium, it’s far from dead. Glasses-free autostereo, beyond hand held single user devices has no satisfactory technological path in sight. A breakthrough that no one has conceived yet is required. If and when that happens, as3D could take over, but until then we are saddled with glasses.

In the past 7 years, 3D has experienced unprecedented growth in market penetration and profitability. Despite that, it would be hard to imagine any technology living up to the expectations set at CES 2010. 3D TV is being totally blundered by those who championed it most. Why would the major manufacturers not arrive at a standard before rolling out 3D TVs? Why are big box retailers so incompetent at selling it? I was just at Best Buy, they had a corporate branded 3D promotional video playing on a 3D TV. A shopper looked through glasses at a blue shirted actress on screen with a CGI rendered “3D TV” logo. The whole thing was shown in 2D!! Needless to say, the shopper was unimpressed.

LG and Visio have shown us that passive polarized TVs can cost as little as 2D TVs. High end, full resolution models with a polarization modulator on the screen could be offered. $150, or even $20 glasses with batteries that die, lenses that crack and high frequency flicker at the viewer’s eyes make NO SENSE AT ALL. Passive is the only sensible way to mitigate negative aspects of 3D glasses. While I don’t personally mind them, I certainly agree that glasses are a problem for most. Passive glasses, especially when they are free after you pay for them at the cinema, are by far the best choice. It is also unclear why content providers like Sony’s 3net aren’t available on more pay TV providers. By limiting to DirecTV only, they’ve placed yet another obstacle in their own path.

When I attended CES in January 2010, I literally could not believe my eyes or the hype. The technology I’d been working on and championing for over 20 years was finally mainstream. I was cautiously optimistic because that show made it seem like 3D was the next Google. In my heart I knew it was an unrealistic expectation.

However, 3D is far from dead. There is a massive 3D infrastructure in place today that never existed before. According to statista.com, a Dow Jones partner website, as of 2011 there are more than 35,000 digital 3D cinema screens in operation worldwide.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...de-since-2006/

That number is exploding in emerging markets like China, Russia, Brazil and others. In 2011, Samsung reported 2 million 3D TVs sold.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/...n-3d-tvs-sold/

While that’s a small percentage of the overall TVs in use, that’s only one manufacturer, and the data is 18 months old. Currently, most TVs, even those not being advertised as 3D, have 3D capability. In the future, the number of 3D TVs in the worldwide marketplace will be extremely large. Every TV I currently own is an HDTV, yet not every show is in HD. As we move forward, most people will have access to 3D if they want it. That was not true even 5 years ago.

It has become our responsibility as content creators to deliver compelling 3D experiences, not phoned in junk, whether it be native photography or 3D conversion. Not every movie or show must be in 3D, but every 3D movie or show MUST BE GOOD! We don’t see major features being released with lots of overexposed or out of focus shots. We don’t see color television programs with wild variations in saturation from scene to scene. We don’t hear soundtracks with pops or dead spots, so what’s up with the massive amounts of technical blunders we are seeing in 3D?

If you don’t like 3D, don’t make it and don’t watch it. But please don’t waste our time spreading negativity and bashing it in 3D forums.