Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » 3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: 3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-18-2017 09:12 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They could easily net more in the long run without such a big upcharg
Well you think there should be NO upcharge, so if they had, say 500 people going to a 3-D show in a week, that's $2000 in upcharges. If they got rid of that, and tickets are $8.50 apiece, it would take 235 more people to make the same money. Even more if you figure some of those tickets will be lower-priced children's tickets.

If you read my previous list of the things that turn people off about 3-D, do you really think the cost savings alone is going to bring 50% more people into the theater to make up that shortfall, when all the other cited annoyances are still there? Sure it's possible, but I really doubt it would happen. Especially since (as noted above) a lot of people just go when the showtimes are convenient.

 |  IP: Logged
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

- posted 02-18-2017 11:36 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jesse Skeen
If few people "give a darn" about 3D, how do you explain the "September Storm" restoration in this same forum- that was funded by DONATIONS from average Joes, and I didn't even contribute to that due to lack of funds yet they were able to raise the amount of money needed to do it! Despite the limited audience for older movies in general, Bob Furmanek has said that he's been satisfied with how his classic 3D titles have been selling- I doubt more would be coming out of he or the labels were losing money on them.
I don't think it necessarily works to apply that experience to the mainstream market. He's a small nonprofit, and the audience for his rerelease BDs of 3-D classics is limited, but global. There are enough 3-D fans worldwide to make what he does viable, which is great. The issue here is that there aren't enough people who want 3-D movies in their homes enough to pay the hardware premium, and put up with the inconvenience of wearing glasses, reorganizing the layout of their living room to sit at the correct angle to the screen, etc. etc., to make viable the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of 3-D TVs and players in the numbers that mass-market consumer electronics needs.

If you only need to sell a few hundred units worldwide for your business model to work, that's not the same thing as needing to sell a few million.

My guess is that this will probably shake down into one or two consumer 3-D TV and BD player models from each of the big manufacturers being on the market at any one time, and at a price that reflects the fact that they're a niche market product. The committed fans will buy them and use them, but 3-D movies are never going to be a mainstream, mass market thing in the same way that opera never will be. They'll always be there, but on a small scale.

 |  IP: Logged
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 02-19-2017 02:33 PM      Profile for Jesse Skeen   Email Jesse Skeen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't get what the big deal is about glasses- 3D movies have ALWAYS had them for more than 60 years, it's not like glasses are a new annoyance. I wear regular glasses already and I've never had any problem with putting 3D glasses over them- and if I did, I could get polarized clip-ons.

I've lived in the same apartment for 14 years; when I first moved in I had a 40-inch CRT. My 60-inch 3D set is now in the exact same place, with the sofa and everything else where they were as well. There's been absolutely NO need to re-arrange anything to view 3D. I would say sound is a bigger "inconvenience" as it took a lot of work to install my surround speakers (I've had my 2 main surrounds since I moved in, and added 2 more for 7.1 later) but they aren't eliminating surround sound from movies or equipment even though not everyone has it. Those who don't want to go through the trouble or expense can simply miss out while those of us who care can enjoy it- same should go for 3D. (I've heard it costs VERY little to include 3D in most TVs as well.) If there were only a few models of TVs with 3D then that'd be OK, but the concern now is that number is approaching zero. I think the industry did have unreasonably high expectations for 3D, thinking that EVERYONE would want it right away- while that may not have happened, there are plenty of people who do like it, and more will come on board if it's given plenty of time and better material comes out.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

- posted 02-19-2017 03:08 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I wasn't around for the early fifties incarnation of 3D but I was for the 1983ish one. I don't recall an upcharge. Does anyone?

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-19-2017 05:13 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There wasn't one, because that 3-D didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to implement.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 02-19-2017 07:49 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There wasn't one in typical cinemas. The glasses were provided by studios and the lenses were rented/loaned, not purchased (by and large). The biggest expense to the exhibitor was the silver screen, a 1-time purchase (that ruined the shows in that theatre forever after).

 |  IP: Logged
Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

- posted 02-20-2017 08:40 AM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Amen about the screen, Steve.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-20-2017 11:41 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't get what the big deal is about glasses- 3D movies have ALWAYS had them for more than 60 years, it's not like glasses are a new annoyance. I wear regular glasses already and I've never had any problem with putting 3D glasses over them- and if I did, I could get polarized clip-ons.
The answer to your question can be found in the part I bolded. Since you already wear glasses, you're used to them. People who don't wear glasses don't generally like to wear them, and not everyone has glasses that are small enough or will otherwise fit having the 3-D glasses over them. And some modern 3-D glasses can be uncomfortable and heavy.

Then you have the issue of kids. Most kids will wear their 3-D glasses for about 5 or 10 minutes, then it becomes a hassle to the parents to keep the kids' glasses on.

 |  IP: Logged
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

- posted 02-20-2017 04:05 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike, Although I have been wearing prescription glasses for almost fifty years, I was not wearing them during the Golden Age of 3D movies in the fifties. As a person who was not wearing glasses at the time, I had absolutely no problem with them when I watched 3D movies. With people like Jessie and I and many others who do, you would think it would be much more cumbersome to have to wear two pair of glasses to watch 3D in a theatre or at home but personally, I have not found it to be a problem at all.

The biggest concern I have right now is what I will do when my 3D HDTV 'dies'. Fortunately, my set is less than two years old and I am almost 78 years old and hopefully it will outlast me.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-20-2017 06:48 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't wear glasses (I wear contacts, at least for now) and I have found that the discomfort of 3-D glasses is directly proportional to how good the movie I'm watching is. Really good movie = I barely notice the glasses.

But no matter what, I still find that my eyes tend to dry out after about an hour of watching 3-D. I'm not sure why that is.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

- posted 02-20-2017 09:29 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Is there a difference in weight of the glasses between manufacturers? I have no experience with any 3D glasses other than Real D and those seem pretty lightweight.

 |  IP: Logged
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 02-20-2017 10:00 PM      Profile for Jesse Skeen   Email Jesse Skeen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" at the Chinese Theater in Los Angeles and I think they use Dolby 3D as we had to give the glasses back afterwards- I remember them being a bit tight but still not a big deal. My friend who doesn't like 3D didn't like them though. RealD glasses are virtually non-existant, and the great thing is they're compatible with LG TVs. I have several pairs of them still sealed as I've used the same glasses when going to theaters, so I'll be set when my TV comes. My current TV uses active glasses that require charging and they're expensive, I only have 3 pairs of those. They are a bit heavy but I've watched movies with them for over 12 hours at a time and they don't get in the way too much. The passive 3D using non-powered theater glasses is obviously the most efficient way to do it at home- I chose active when I got my TV because the resolution with passive was halved; but with 4K screens that problem isn't there anymore.

I would've thought kids would love 3D; I certainly did when I was younger even though I hardly got to see any 3D movies then. I remember "Friday the 13th Part 3" coming out but I was too young to see that on my own and there was no way in hell my parents would take me to that! If kids don't want to keep the glasses on then obviously they shouldn't be watching the movie, same goes for those who run around making noise during the "boring parts". I've enjoyed the kids' 3D movies I've seen at home, but I would never have bought them if they'd only been in 2D- more money the studios won't get if they don't release them. "Trolls" came out last week in 2D only, but there's still a chance a 3D disc might come out in another country in which case I'll order it from there; I have a region-free player so that won't stop me [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-21-2017 12:10 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To answer Frank's question - the original Dolby glasses with the glass lenses were heavier than Real D's. The current Dolbys with the "film" lenses are lighter, but not as durable as the originals, so it's a tradeoff. They are about $5 or $6 per pair cheaper. (as of the last time we bought glasses).

quote: Jesse Skeen
If kids don't want to keep the glasses on then obviously they shouldn't be watching the movie, same goes for those who run around making noise during the "boring parts".
The reason kids are bored with 3-D is because of one thing: Modern 3-D movies don't have as much stuff "jumping out at you" as they once did. They're more about depth now. That bores kids - they want stuff to jump out at them.

Every movie has "boring parts" to kids, otherwise known as dialog scenes. If you go to any kid-oriented movie, if there's a scene where the action stops and the characters are advancing the plot by talking to each other...that's when all the kids will be fidgeting, going to the bathroom, throwing stuff at each other, and yes, taking off their glasses. You can't avoid it.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 02-21-2017 06:51 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bad news Mike. the CAT832 glasses (the plastic 3M film ones) are no more. The 3D market has died so much that Dolby has consolidated on just the glass lens version (CAT834). Fortunately, though more expensive, they are the better method. The plastic lens versions would really force you to move your head about if you didn't want your eye to clip the edge of the frames or see color issues at the edges.

The newer 6P systems from Christie and Barco use even larger frames (and different glasses because the primaries are different from the xenon systems).

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 02-21-2017 07:08 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Question: my only 3D experiences have been in movie theatres, using either cardboard glasses (1950s style) or modern Imax or Real-D plastic glasses. Are the glasses that are used for 3D TV sets heavier or more awkward than these?

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.