CE Pros Weigh in on 3D TV

I am really surprised by the tepid response from so many dealers!  Really guys, this is going to be a huge deal for our customers, but only if we present it properly!

Just as people were slow to embrace HDTV at first, we had a group of early adopters that we cultivated, then slowly the new techology crept into the mainstream.  3D will be no different!

Yes, you will have to get new equipment, (um, isn’t this a good thing for the industry?!) and yes, your customers will have to wear glasses.

That being said, the public at large has whole-heartedly embraced 3D at the movie theater, goofy glasses and all.  This is especially notable because the tickets for 3D movies are at a premium!  So, we have people willing to wear glasses AND willing to spend more for the experience…and in RECORD BREAKING NUMBERS!

To sum it up, we have a customer base fully prepared to embrace 3D, and we have a multi-milllion (billion?) dollar effort by the manufacturers to give our clients a NEW EXPERIENCE in home theater (making us money in the process!)...and YOU ARE GOING TO WAIT AND SEE!?!? 

Get behind this people, and go make some money!

To me HDTV was like a whole new product while 3D is like a new feature.  A very cool feature though and easy for the consumer to understand and ask about.  I don’t think it will drive sales significantly like HDTV did, but it will get adopted as most in the market for a big expensive new HDTV will opt to pay the premium for the feature.  Good thing to demonstrate and show inthe showroom though…  My 2 cents.

As a consumer I’m not really interested in 3D. The occasional sci-fi or action movie might be cool in a theater (although I did get a headache watching Avatar) but I really don’t see a high percentage of movies being made in 3D. Is a studio really going to spend the extra money for a drama or comedy to be made in 3D? Will it really enhance the experience? Does a consumer really want to see one in 3D and pay the up charge?

For TV what is really going to look good to the viewer in 3D? Sports would seem to be the no brainer, but I’ve seen tons of sports in person and there really isn’t a 3D effect to it, because of how you view it. Nothing is really coming at you and most of the time the camera angle is such that 3D wouldn’t enhance it all that much. So unless they can put cameras on the playing surface it makes it hard for me to see a benefit of 3D sports. Besides from sports I can’t think of anything else that would get any added value from 3D viewing. Besides the lack of actual content that would be neat in 3D there is the way that people view TV. People do too many other things while watching that make glasses cumbersome, such as Web surfing, reading and other things.  I seldom watch anything without also doing something else, even when watching my favorite sports teams.

The one industry that you would really think it would take off is in video games.  But the technology has been around for years and it never went anywhere because the average consumer never saw any value in it.

So I guess I’m seeing it as developing into little more than a niche market where a few people are going to want it, but the majority won’t really see any added value or need for it.

If we need “two HDMI 1.3 cables, two to three single-link DVI or one to two dual-link DVI” to make it work, I think that a big flat panel or DLP in a cabinet will work pretty easily if you like giving away TVs or waiting two months for a slim profit, but an existing theater will be some work (read profitable labor and accessories (plus maybe even a new projector from a protected line?)).

There are buyers out there, I don’t see what the problem is, sell it when all the neccessary components are available and have fun with it. If you can’t sell this to someone who wants and asks for it, go buy a Dale Carnegie book.

But I do see 3DTVs alone as a soft focus for a while (or forever) along with all TVs for that matter, if small dealers are strictly relying on traditional TV sales to pay the bills, they have other problems. To me TVs are a hassle at this point anyhow, I have gravitated toward taking them off of my bottom line all together and just having the client order them from Amazon and having them delivered to the site. My GP skyrockets and we don’t need the big trucks anymore (sorry about you poor ba$tard$ with the 5,000 sq.ft. warehouses full of 60 day profit delayers, that’s gotta hurt walking through that to get to your offices). I also see a future with no more free service calls and warranty hassles, as the warranty repair from the BigBox needs us to R&R, that has been alot easier to stipulate upfront in the sales agreement and to help sell service contracts. With the customer saving soooo much getting that TV soooo cheap (along with those coveted CC miles), they are usually very happy to go along with the scheme.

I also don’t see the TV manufacturers making their part profitable any time soon. If market share is their only focus, and BestBuy, Walmart and Amazon can flush as much away as they need, why would they bother helping us? The big guys don’t have to worry about cash flow from just that one part of their business and aren’t as affected by the rebate shuffle. Conspiracy theorists might just see something in this…. Quick, someone call Glen Beck!

Competition with big box stores and internet sales is something we all will have to deal with going forward, however, I would like to point out that some companies are making a renewed effort to protect margins and ensure that only QUALIFIED dealers handle their product.  Panasonic in particular has done a GREAT job with their Premier series in maintaining decent margin for dealers and keeping the sets off the gray market.  I am excited to see them limiting distribution of their “G25” series and “VT25” series.  I am also heartened by Sony’s recent efforts to maintain MAP and eliminate shady internet dealers from carrying their product.  This issue isnt going to be solved overnight, but we are seeing the manufacturers step up to the plate for us!

As a consumer, I have no interest in 3D in any of its current or proposed forms. To require everyone that comes to my home theater to don a pair of hokey glasses in order to what, is in my opinion, ridiculous. What if 6 friends show up and I onlyhave 5 pair of workign glasses? “Sorry. Tough luck.” I will consider it whenthe technology is developed for glasses-less display. I should be ready to replace my current setup by then.

That’s great in theory John, but you do realize this will be a format war just like VHS/Beta and HD-DVD/Blu-ray right?

We’ll have Anaglyphic, Polarized, Alternate-frame sequencing, and Autostereoscopic. There’s a Blu-ray version, multiple gaming versions, and an HDMI 1.4a spec with allowances for most of these versions, but it’s likely each TV manufacturer will pick only one. And any TV without an IR transmitter will have problems working with Alternate-frame sequencing.

Here’s an excerpt from an e-mail I sent to some co-workers a little over a month ago with a crude summary of the different versions (yes I call them versions because there is no “standard” yet:

Anaglyphic 3D
- requires old-fashioned red-cyan glasses (new variations using different colors)
- can be broadcast easily, requires no new electronics
- difficult to watch without glasses
- greatly compromises resolution and color performance

Polarized 3D (RealD, Disney, Dolby, and IMAX use this)
- requires passive polarized glasses
- requires true 144Hz/180Hz (24x6/30x6 - or faster) refresh rate display to look good
- tends to have “ghosting” if lower frame rates are used
- slightly compromises resolution and color performance

Alternate-frame sequencing (Sony’s mall demo)
- requires active shutter glasses
- requires true 120Hz display to look good (some LCD TVs still have issues - there is no such thing as a true 240Hz LCD or LED TV, by the way)
- no ghosting or flicker problems on true 120Hz+ displays
- requires a bright display as each eye only sees 1/2 the light
- glasses must have a “sync” signal from the TV (usually an IR pulse from an emitter on the TV pointed back at the viewer)
- has best resolution and color performance as long as glasses are optically clear (they never are)

Autostereoscopic displays
- requires 2 projectors, but no glasses are needed! (flat panel versions are in development)
- obviously very expensive
- has very good resolution and color performance, but requires both projectors to be calibrated identically, which is tough

Pulfrich effect
- requires funky glasses with one tinted lens (cheap)
- can be broadcast easily, requires no new electronics
- only works when there’s motion, and only with horizontal motion
- pretty much sucks
- has been used several times on broadcast TV (Super Bowl 23, misc TV ads, one episode of 3rd Rock From the Sun)

jbrown, good job listing the different technologies! 

However, anaglyph (red/blue) glasses are old tech and have really nothing to do with the new 3D technologies on offer this year.

The 2-projector polorized lens approach with passive glasses…like what we use in the theater…will probably never see light of day in a home application.

Most manufacturers, including Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, and Vizio, are using active shutter glasses.  This is going to be the “standard” until we see glasses free 3D (years away).

While each approach has pros and cons, the active shutter approach means that existing panel technology can be adapted easily and cheaply to 3D.  The only real expense for the end user will be in the purchase of the glasses (approximately $125-$150 MSRP).  Most of these sets will have either an IR transmitter or Bluetooth for syncing of the glasses with the screen.  Some are opting for an external adaptor that will serve the same purpose. 

As to your talk of “standards”...yes, Blu-Ray 3D is going to be different than broadcast 3D, but both formats are specified in the 1.4a HDMI specification.  We have a standard, and we have manufacturers building products that conform to those standards, so we shouldnt have any problems, regardless of what brand Blu-Ray player you have connected to your set, or if you are using DirecTV vs. cable.  They already hammered all of this out already.

A better way to think of these new sets is that the customer is purchasing a VERY good 2D set, that can ALSO do 3D.
Most people are going to be using the 3D for the occasional movie or sports event, but 90% of the viewing will still be plain ole 2D…the 3D is a bonus, not the main feature.

Also, do not underestimate how attractive this technology will be to gamers!  Many of these sets will be sold, not because Dad wants to watch the SuperBowl in 3D, but because Junior wants to play Madden 11 in 3D!  (thanks Junior!)

I completely agree! @ John Nemesh

I agree with John’s comment.  I could see myself getting a 3D tv in the next year or two but would only don the glasses when the situation requires it.  If I’m sitting down to watch my favorite team or it is Friday night movie night, my wife and kids can put on the glasses.  All other times though I want to just watch regular TV without 3D and without glasses.  Even if a program can be watched in 3D doesn’t mean that I’m going to watch it that way. 

This will be the true test to see if 3D takes off.  If you can watch the TV in 2D without any negative effects (and watching Avatar without the glasses at a 3D theater definitely had side effects) than I’m all for it.  I’ll pay extra for the glasses and the technology.  If I feel though that I’m married to 3D for a specific TV than I’ll take a pass.  I just won’t watch enough programming in 3D.

While I am not adamantly opposed to the technology I just don’t see the strong need for it in the home.

Let’s say you are hosting a movie party or sporting event party at your home.  Now if you want to use 3D you have to have enough glasses for everyone to watch or you will have to ask guests to provide their own provided every display/glasses use the same interface for syncing.

The glasses from my sources are not going to be cheap.  Street prices of $100/pair will be typical.

But still the biggest hurdle is content.  In the overall scheme of things natively produced 3D content still only accounts for a miniscule library in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said I am not opposed to the idea, but as a hardcore home theater enthusiast I am not planning on upgrading my entire setup to accommodate the CE industry and the content providers for this latest ‘must-have’ feature.

I will upgrade my 1080p projector, after I burn through my two bulbs and I don’t really my want to replace my receiver that was one of the best bang for buck deals of the last decade.

Sure I will replace components eventually, but it will be interesting to see if ‘3D’ is still around at that time as a mass market commodity feature or if it has a small niche following like LD did through the 80s and 90s before DVD killed it.

JackB,

If you are watching 3D content and don’t have glasses on (ie. trying to watch in 2D on 3D content) it will be unviewable.  It becomes a blurry mess because a 3D signal basically contains two separate angles of perspective.  Think of it like stereo sound (Left audio channel, Right audio channel) except for vision.  IOW, stereo vision (Left-eye channel, Right-eye channel).  The glasses are needed to filter the left and right visual channels to the proper eye.

Go rent Final Destination part III in 3-D Blu Ray.

Fast forward to the beginning of the swimming pool scene, watch the whole scene…then and only then will you realize the true benifit of 3-D, my little padwans

I am a gen-x and would have to say they are wasting their money producing 3-D TV’s and movies. They already tried to get us to do this in the 80’s/90’s and it failed just like it will fail now. Ever try take your kids to a 3-d movie and have them sit still for 2 hours with glasses on? I can see eye problems rising in the near future. Oh and what are they going to have 25 channels of the same show/movie in all different versions? Come on wake up. If its money you really want and not progress… drop the 3-d and work on the true Virtual Reality you all promised us when we were children.

I really do not understand all the negative wait and see, no content, etc, positions.  Certainly if you’re not currently in the market for an HDTV you wouldn’t want to run out and buy one just because it’s 3D. But if you are in the market, I think you’d be a fool not to consider it.  You’re still getting a great 2D HDTV with a 3D bonus. I have a 46” Sony XBR4 that I love, and feel I got a good price shortly after it came out at $2400.  Today I can buy a 55” Samsung C7000 that has 240Hz, edge-lit LED and built-in internet connectivity for the same price.  Not even considering 3D I feel that is a very reasonable price, but it also has 3D and the capability to convert 2D into 3D.  A bargain I feel, and why would I buy a 2D 55” LED backlit TV for only a couple hundred less without at least considering 3D?  All the negative positing on 3D doesn’t help anyone.