News - 3D TV sales get off to stumbling start in Europe

[HEXUS]

25,000 3D-capable TVs sold by May 2010.

Read more.

[pollaxe]

3D is not something I'm interested in at all to be honest. The current technology (although I've only seen it in cinemas) looks more like a pop-up book than 'real' 3D to my eyes.

I certainly wouldn't buy anything that would need me to wear 3D glasses either. If it's all done on the screen then maybe but my feeling is this has been pushed out at/on we, the consumer, by the industries without really asking us if we want it.

But, I'm an old cynic.

[Saracen]

I'm with pollaxe on this - absolutely unconvinced. I'm not going for anything that requires me to wear glasses. I'm just not. Period. And I'm not convinced that the 3D effect is either anywhere close to well-enough supported for me to buy a 3D set, or necessarily ever will be, or that I'm that bothered about the effect even if it were fully supported. I find it interesting as a novelty, and no more.

So .... if a future TV purchase happened to have a £D capability built-in, and didn't add to the cost, and that was the best set to select for my other needs, then okay. But I'm not spending extra on a set for 3D, unless it's an absolutely trivial amount, and I'm absolutely not, under any circumstances, replacing a perfectly good existing set with a new one on the basis of 3D. I might but a set that, coincidentally, had it, but I'm sure not buying a set because of 3D.

This is not to say that some, maybe many, people won't pay out just for 3D, or that I think they're wrong. If they want it and are prepared to spend money on it, well, it's their money. But I'm not.

[Nelviticus]

Unless something actually is 3D, you need some kind of trickery to make it look 3D. If you're waiting for a version that doesn't require glasses - and isn't painfully awful - don't hold your breath. We'll have teleporters and hover-cars before we have even passable 3D without glasses.

[jim]

I would get it, I reckon, for no more than a £50 premium - with a few provisos.

• No glasses
• Unlimited number of simultaneous viewers (who all see it in 3D)
• Free 3D content (so blu-rays at no extra cost, or PS3 games, or Sky 3D)
• No need to spend hours configuring it specifically for 3D

If it won't fulfil those criteria, then I wouldn't have it for any more than £0 - I wouldn't use it.

[mark19632]

I can't see 3D TV taking off until it becomes a feature that is in all TV's and 3D content becoming the free\widely avalible.

For me the whole having to wear glasses thing is a show stopper, well at £80 a pair anyway.

I'm interested to see if 3D adds much to gaming.

Mark

[Saracen]

I agree with all that, snooty, except that personally, I'd put the maximum premium at a lot less than £50. £5 or £10, maybe. But even if it met those criteria, I'd not go above that "trivial" level.

@Nelviticus .... I'm certainly not waiting for non-glasses 3D, personally. I just think 3D is a gimmick, a passing fad, and in the way it's currently implemented, of very little interest to me. I wear glasses anyway, and have no interest at all in wearing 3D add-ons, or even replacements. For the minimal benefit I see in it, I'm not prepared to put up with wearing add-on glasses. The odds are, if given a set that had a 3D mode built-in, I'd have it turned off, and certainly would if using it meant 3D glasses to use it.

I guess this is why I see it as pointless. If I can't use it without wearing those glasses, I'm just not interested in using it, certainly not on anything beyond a very occasional basis.

[Saracen]

...

For me the whole having to wear glasses thing is a show stopper, well at £80 a pair anyway.

....

For me, it's a show-stopper at £0 per pair. It's not the cost - it's the wearing of them. They'd have to pay me, and pay me well, to get me to use them beyond very occasionally. For that, I'm really not holding my breath.

[jim]

Exactly. I suspect they will be virtually free at some point anyway - the cardboard glasses at least.

It's just a pain in the neck, that's the issue with glasses. It goes from being a relaxing, passive experience to one that requires effort and concentration, and putting up with something hanging off the end of your nose... I'm not into TV quite enough for that to be tempting.

[pollaxe]

Unless something actually is 3D, you need some kind of trickery to make it look 3D. If you're waiting for a version that doesn't require glasses - and isn't painfully awful - don't hold your breath. We'll have teleporters and hover-cars before we have even passable 3D without glasses.

What about robot wives? I want my robot wives too, dammit!!

[crossy]

I can't see 3D TV taking off until it becomes a feature that is in all TV's and 3D content becoming the free\widely avalible.
For me the whole having to wear glasses thing is a show stopper, well at £80 a pair anyway.
I'm interested to see if 3D adds much to gaming.

You're not the first person I've heard complaining that the glasses are the issue - I wear spec's anyway, so I don't see it as a big-deal. That said, last article I saw said you were looking at adding £200 to the price of a set to be able to use it for the normal four person family to budget for the cost of the extra glasses required. Ouch!

On the other hand the content availability is a big deal to me - I haven't bought into all the hype over BluRay, but then again I can't have the 40"+ TV sizes that everyone says are required for that. So when I can have Discovery 3D as part of my VM package, and I can see that on a 32" or 37" TV then yeah maybe.

Was listening to a US podcast last week and they were saying that (a) the TV folks are pushing this 3D as a stopgap until the next gen of HD (HD+?) is available; and (b) the movie studio's et al like it because it's difficult to record/pirate. I can't help thinking that there's something to what they're saying ...

Bob

[oolon]

I think an advert for a 3D tele said it all. It had avatar playing on it. At the bottom (in small print) it said, "Avatar not currently available in 3D".

[jim]

Was listening to a US podcast last week and they were saying that (a) the TV folks are pushing this 3D as a stopgap until the next gen of HD (HD+?) is available; and (b) the movie studio's et al like it because it's difficult to record/pirate. I can't help thinking that there's something to what they're saying ...

I doubt that to be honest.

Blu-rays have been pirated, so will 3D. Okay, so it might take time before 3D capable video files are distributed, but not that much time.

And HD+ is just silly. What on earth is on TV at the moment where people watch 1080p images and say "Hmm, can't see enough detail on that." Unless everyone moves to 80" panels, I seriously doubt there's any point.

[Lambie]

I don't see why consumers would want to already invest in 3D technology. The digital switchover isn't even completed in the UK, and I don't know when Freeview HD is gonna reach the masses?

I don't want to have to go out an buy another new TV, 3D bluray player, compatible amp for a technology that I don't see taking off for absolutely ages? Is it it true that some of these sets even require the 3D glasses to be charged up? If so, what a faf.

[crossy]

Blu-rays have been pirated, so will 3D. Okay, so it might take time before 3D capable video files are distributed, but not that much time.

Note I said that pirating them was more difficult - not impossible. Anyway, actually I didn't say it - just that I heard that on a podcast.

And HD+ is just silly. What on earth is on TV at the moment where people watch 1080p images and say "Hmm, can't see enough detail on that." Unless everyone moves to 80" panels, I seriously doubt there's any point.

You're preaching to the choir here - heck, apart from a solitary Sharp Acquos in John Lewis and a Phillips in Richer Sounds, I've not seen a new HD set that has clearly superior picture quality over my current manky ole Thompson CRT-based set (although that's more than a decade old it does have 100Hz refresh). Well, that's if you discount the 60"+ stuff - but I want something to watch House, Top Gear etc on, not a spare wall for me house!

But I suppose the time will have to come when I plonk me money down on the table to replace the old Thompson - it's long in the tooth and starting to play up. Think a range-topper 32" Phillips from Richer Sounds is on the cards for Christmas, (usually buy from Comet, but they don't do Phillips, try and sell you a Samsung instead). Not bothered for "LED", "3D", or web browsing, (DLNA might be useful though <grin>), just want something with decent sound and really good picture quality, (100Hz refresh or better).

Bob

[Taurus]

Have to buy new TV/Blu ray etc... Way Too expensive, have to wear glasses no thanks just to watch minimal content available I don’t think so! You also have to buy extra pairs of Glasses as most TV's only come with two pairs, what about families?