Are current HDTVs soon going to be obsolete like this article predicts?

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#1
Don't know about anyone else but this article sounds a bit off. "Everything" going to 3D? Doubtful, especially with broadcasts whether they be OTA, cable, or satellite. Has anyone heard of any pay TV providers that are going to be launching 3D services within the next 2 years? I haven't....

Just bought a new flat-panel HDTV for Christmas? Enjoying that new Blu-ray disc player? Guess what? They're already obsolete. Everything may be going 3D.

Later this week at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, a slew of companies will be pushing what they hope will be the next big thing in TV: 3D movies and games — even new 3D HDTV broadcasts.
FOXNews.com - New HDTVs May Soon Be Obsolete? Thanks a Lot, 3D
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#2
eh, a little hype there. I'm really interested in the picture quality on those 3D TVs. If they lose any vibrant HD quality at the expense of 3D, I will not be buying one any time soon.
 

rsmliu

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#4
I had the opportunity to test out a Sony 3D TV a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm not sure if this is the future. The brightness of the TV was definitely reduced by having to wear the 3D glasses. And ultimately, no one really wants to wear those glasses. If you are having people over to watch the game, are you going to have to stock glasses to make sure that everyone has one?

Many people JUST made the transition to HD. I severely doubt that they will be willing to make another transition to 3D this soon, even if the prices start falling on the 3D TVs in the next couple of years.
 

BCF68

DTVUSA Member
#5
That's a bunch of BS. Until you can watch 3-D without glasses it will be just a fad. I remember watching a 20/20 story on how HD was soon to be the next best thing. This was back in 1989. It's 2010 and just now we are passing the 50% penetration mark in HDTV. My next TV will certainly not have 3-D capabilities. I'm not paying extra for that crap. I'll get one of the discounted "inferrior" TVs and enjoy the savings.
 
#6
Regarding obsolescence of HDTVs:

I view "HD years" as dog years. If your HDTV is 5 years old, that's 35 years in HD terms.

When 720 was all that plasma came in, no one told us that 1080 was coming out the next year.

When 1080i came out, no one told us that 1080p was on its heels.

When 60 Mhz scan was "standard", no one told us about 120 Mhz.

When 1080p became a "standard", no one told us 3-D was coming...

As I've said from 2006, why rush into things unless you've got to have the latest?

At the current rate of technological change, and the "newness" of digital television, expect many more changes and improvements.

I don't think that 3-d will be standard until holographic imaging has embraced digital imaging. As long as glasses are needed, I expect it to be a fad or niche.
 
Last edited:

Tim58hsv

DTVUSA Member
#7
ESPN and The Discovery Channel will be launching 3D channels in the near future but I don't expect them to find much success because you need glasses to see the 3D. Those things will be the final nail in this technologies coffin again just like it was in the 1950's.

Something else I don't understand is the need for a special tv set to view the 3D. What's up with that? 'Married With Children' had a 3D episode (which required special glasses) back in 1994 and a 3D tv wasn't needed to view that.

Is this the 2010 version of snake oil?
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#9
The articles I've read all say that 3D isn't really a threat. It's the buzz right now because of the Avatar hype but no one is convinced it will make progress forward.
 

thor79

DTVUSA Member
#10
ESPN and The Discovery Channel will be launching 3D channels in the near future but I don't expect them to find much success because you need glasses to see the 3D. Those things will be the final nail in this technologies coffin again just like it was in the 1950's.

Something else I don't understand is the need for a special tv set to view the 3D. What's up with that? 'Married With Children' had a 3D episode (which required special glasses) back in 1994 and a 3D tv wasn't needed to view that.

Is this the 2010 version of snake oil?
It's a newer technology. Basically it's using shutter glasses to present the different images to each eye independently by blocking out all light to the eye not viewing the image. The early versions of it caused severe eye strain because the shutters weren't fast enough. Well now they're putting out 120Hz and 240Hz displays that are capable of displaying the alternate frames fast enough that the eye is usually not affected, and thus no eye strain. The glasses have to be in sync with the display though so they are usually connected via an infrared beam to sync the shutters with the display. Normal TVs are 60Hz...which will cause eye strain if you try to view 3D. You don't notice it in 2D nearly as much as you do when viewing 3D because of the depth perception.

There's also a few polarized displays being developed I believe...which means you have to have polarized glasses as well to view the display when it's in 3D.

3D won't really catch on in the home until glassless 3D is well into production. And even then I bet it won't truly catch on as there's always the problem of having to rely on what the director wants you to focus on. For many who saw Avatar in 3D they got eye strain because as is normal in any movie that is visually stunning...you look around the scene when you have a chance. With 3D though that means you are trying to focus on an area of the screen which the camera wasn't focusing on...so your eyes get strained trying to focus on a scene which will NEVER be in focus unless the director wanted it to be. I experienced this myself when watching it in 3D.
 
Last edited:

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#11
It's a newer technology. Basically it's using shutter glasses to present the different images to each eye independently by blocking out all light to the eye not viewing the image. The early versions of it caused severe eye strain because the shutters weren't fast enough. Well now they're putting out 120Hz and 240Hz displays that are capable of displaying the alternate frames fast enough that the eye is usually not affected, and thus no eye strain. The glasses have to be in sync with the display though so they are usually connected via an infrared beam to sync the shutters with the display.

3D won't really catch on in the home until glassless 3D is well into production. And even then I bet it won't truly catch on as there's always the problem of having to rely on what the director wants you to focus on. For many who saw Avatar in 3D they got eye strain because as is normal in any movie that is visually stunning...you look around the scene when you have a chance. With 3D though that means you are trying to focus on an area of the screen which the camera wasn't focusing on...so your eyes get strained trying to focus on a scene which will NEVER be in focus unless the director wanted it to be. I experienced this myself when watching it in 3D.
Thanks for the explanation. I absolutely hate watching 3D with those goofy blue-red glasses that completely ruin the viewing experience. I have yet to see Avatar too, wonder what kind of 3D glasses they used for it....guess I'll have to wiki that one. ;)
 

thor79

DTVUSA Member
#12
Thanks for the explanation. I absolutely hate watching 3D with those goofy blue-red glasses that completely ruin the viewing experience. I have yet to see Avatar too, wonder what kind of 3D glasses they used for it....guess I'll have to wiki that one. ;)
Polarized glasses...I still have a pair of the glasses from Avatar. Easy way to tell the difference is the shutter glasses will have a battery built in as it's needed for the shutters to work.
 

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#13
It's a newer technology. Basically it's using shutter glasses to present the different images to each eye independently by blocking out all light to the eye not viewing the image. The early versions of it caused severe eye strain because the shutters weren't fast enough. Well now they're putting out 120Hz and 240Hz displays that are capable of displaying the alternate frames fast enough that the eye is usually not affected, and thus no eye strain. The glasses have to be in sync with the display though so they are usually connected via an infrared beam to sync the shutters with the display. Normal TVs are 60Hz...which will cause eye strain if you try to view 3D. You don't notice it in 2D nearly as much as you do when viewing 3D because of the depth perception.

There's also a few polarized displays being developed I believe...which means you have to have polarized glasses as well to view the display when it's in 3D.

3D won't really catch on in the home until glassless 3D is well into production. And even then I bet it won't truly catch on as there's always the problem of having to rely on what the director wants you to focus on. For many who saw Avatar in 3D they got eye strain because as is normal in any movie that is visually stunning...you look around the scene when you have a chance. With 3D though that means you are trying to focus on an area of the screen which the camera wasn't focusing on...so your eyes get strained trying to focus on a scene which will NEVER be in focus unless the director wanted it to be. I experienced this myself when watching it in 3D.
Not to mention the cost of 3D glasses that aren't even included when you buy a 3D TV. I'm sure manufactures will start including a couple pairs of glasses after a few years with TV purchase though.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#14
Polarized glasses...I still have a pair of the glasses from Avatar. Easy way to tell the difference is the shutter glasses will have a battery built in as it's needed for the shutters to work.
------------------------------------------
Thor,
I still have 3-D glasses from a 1970s Grand Funk Railroad record album, the one that had the song Locomotion on it!
Jim
 
#15
Polarized glasses...I still have a pair of the glasses from Avatar. Easy way to tell the difference is the shutter glasses will have a battery built in as it's needed for the shutters to work.
Polarization is used in some sunglasses to reduce glare. Polarized lenses have a kind of horizontal stripe built in that allows horizontal light to pass while light from other angles won't. This reduces glare from reflected light sources.

Some 3D viewing uses a combination of one lens horizontally polarized and one lens vertically polarized. The polarization of the incoming light from the TV determines which eye will see the picture. The result is your two eyes seeing alternate pictures from a slightly different angle. The brain puts them together for stereoscopic vision, which results in depth perception, the appearance of 3 dimensional image.
 

JeepJeep

DTVUSA Member
#16
Get ready for the hype of 3-D TV

....
Soon, they claim, we'll all be watching football players bounce around our coffee tables or watching Jack Bauer wale on a bad guy with realistic blood and sweat flying in your lap.

You'll still need to wear funny 3-D glasses, but if things work out, this summer, Sony could have a 40-inch version for $1,600, and a 55-inch version for $2,800, with new 3-dimensional Blu-ray players possibly around the $500 range. Other television makers are coming as well.

"Those will be for the early adopters," said George Liu, owner of Audio Visions South, an AV boutique in Tampa. "But in that price range, for some people it could be a good excuse to put your current HDTV in the bedroom and put the new 3-D TV in the family room."
Get ready for the hype of 3-D TV

hehe explaining to my wife that I need another Blu-ray player WITH 3D is going to be a tough sell, and a TV and 3D glasses for the family, and dog.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#18
OMG 3d TV..Do we really need it?

Don't know about anyone else but this article sounds a bit off. "Everything" going to 3D? Doubtful, especially with broadcasts whether they be OTA, cable, or satellite. Has anyone heard of any pay TV providers that are going to be launching 3D services within the next 2 years? I haven't....



FOXNews.com - New HDTVs May Soon Be Obsolete? Thanks a Lot, 3D
The consumer has the power to reject this technology, just as I reject trying to keep up with the "Electronic Joneses". Just because they want to sell it, doesn't mean that we have to buy it, and if no one buys it, it will fade into the history books, just like Digital TV is destined to do if the Broadband Robber Barons have their way.
 
Top