3D or Not 3D?

As I watched demo after demo of 3D at CES this year, I kept wondering if 3D is something that consumers really want or if it's being pushed on them by the studios and manufacturers in their quest to sell more products. So I decided to conduct a purely unscientific survey here on UAV. To participate, all you have to do is post a comment on this blog with your responses to any of the following questions, especially the first one:

1. Do you want 3D capabilities in your home theater? If so, why? If not, why not?

The rest of the questions are for those who want 3D in their home theater.

2. What type of content do you most want to watch in 3D? Blu-ray movies? Sports? TV shows? Games?

3. How recently did you purchase your current home-theater equipment? How soon are you be willing to buy a new 3D-capable display and Blu-ray player?

4. How much of a premium are you willing to pay for a 3D setup? 10 percent more than a comparable 2D system? 20 percent? 50 percent?

5. How much of a premium are you willing to pay for 3D discs and subscription-based programming?

6. How much are you willing to pay for extra glasses beyond what comes with the display and/or Blu-ray player? $10 each? $20? $50? $100?

I look forward to reading your responses!

Share | |
Richard's picture

1. Do you want 3D capabilities in your home theater? If so, why? If not, why not? No interest in 3D. It is a gimmick that adds little, if anything, to story telling, which is what communication and video in particular, is about. I have no interest in having to wear 3D glasses to watch video. What would be interesting is if we had holographic projectors. The current strain of 3Dtechnology is technology-for-technology's-sake. Not worth much.

@bushwilliams's picture

1. I want 3D in my home for sure, but not until there is a standard in place that will avoid constant upgrades and long term early adopter pricing. If it looks like Avatar did, I'll pay for it, maybe 1K over a 2D display max. 2. I don't see how 3D can be successful many TV shows like Mythbusters/Dirty Jobs where shots aren't perfectly setup, but look forward to HD movies, maybe games, depending on action/eye strain. 3. My home theater equipment is a mix of brand new and several years old, but none of it disposable as its fairly premium. 4. If it gave an Avatar Experience and was plentiful I would pay up to 25% more for content. 5.I would go $35/disc if the players/tech doesn't threaten going obsolete immediately. I pay $100/mo. now for DTV, would bump to $150.00 for 3D 6. If I made the investment to bring 3D in my home, I would pay for the most premium glasses available so long as the benefits were legit, up to $125-150/pair.

Kevin Gamin's picture

I do not have depth perception, so I will never experience the full 3D effect. I also think the current 3D trend is a fad, much like the original. I'd rather spend the money on improving my sound system.

anon's picture

I have a dedicated home theater (1080p projector, screen, 7.1 speaker system, Blu-Ray, HD DVD, high-end receiver, DVR, sat, staggered theater seating, etc.) and no interest what-so-ever in 3D. Even for kids (which we have) and sports (which my husband adores). Wearing the glasses for what is, no question, a gimmick has ZERO appeal. Buying them, even less. My young son feels the same way, despite the glut of 3D movies out there right now aimed at him. The 3D features in Blu-Rays already released, with paper glasses, lie unwatched in our home. He's not even interested in trying it out.

Oscar's picture

I will not consider buying a 3D capable set, as regular content will not benefit or will become gimmicky to "prove" it's 3D capabilty (imagine how the news or sitcoms will change to accomodate to this), also, the social aspect of TV watching will become impractical; Imagine having some friends over to watch a sporting event, would you ask them to bring their own glasses? Specially if for some reason not all TV sets use the same technology.

J's picture

Not interested in 3D at current SOTA. Call me when you can project a lifelike hologram between my Vandersteens. Ready now for SED or FED display. 2 or 4 million nano crts.

marimbadaddy's picture

No, I don't want 3D. It is a gimmick so the TV manufacturers can sell more units and peripherals (glasses, cables, special lenses, etc). Yes, it is being rammed down our throats. Hollywood should focus on better scripts, performances, and the overall content. Does surround sound improve wathcing sports? Not significantly, no. You either love your team or you don't, 3D won't change that. I would think the price increase should be somewhere from 10-20% of the regular D, to be reasonable.

Spark Driver's picture

I hope 3D takes off in the home. Unfortunately, it will most likely take several generations before they finally get it right. Will I get rid of my Sony Bravia now, for a new 3D model when they finally arrive? No way! I will wait until the technology matures.

The Audio Dufus's picture

The option of very occasional 3D would be fun entertainment, which is what this hobby is all about. But a daily network? Playing hours of Fallout 4 in 3D? Not to mention the glasses remove most of the sense of sharing the theater experience with your family. If this is all the executives can come up with, well I'm a little worried. Just had the pleasure of watching the Inglorious Basterds on Blu Ray last night. Talk about involving drama. Never felt the need or desire to see it in 3D. Just give me a great story with a transfer that looks like film and it's ALMOST as good for me as being at the cinema. I'm perfectly happy with the illusion of depth I get with a great 1080p transfer. This sense of presence will only get better as the number of pixels in my display continue to go up and up. My next display will be based on picture performance 100%. If it comes with 3D then it's there. Just like the movie theater. My wife's an optometrist; trust me, eye strain will be an issue. Nanu

Scott Snyder's picture

I do not want 3D in my home theater, nor do I want to see it in the movie theater. The 3D I have seen distracts the viewer from the emotional content of the media, in the same way that excessive and/or poor special effects adversely impacts the filmgoing experience. For me, it is the same with surround sound effects. I know a jet is not flying into my left ear, just as I know the lion is not jumping out of the screen. Virtually all of my theater watching is for the emotional impact and all this gobbledygook takes away from the drama. Sorry to be such a Luddite.

Tony Heron's picture

No I do not want it at home. While I enjoy the odd 3d movie in the theaters, I already wear glasses and have no interest in having to wear 2 pairs at a time with any frequency for an experience that is ultimately a gimmick. We have the blu-ray of Coraline with the red/blue 3d. Managed to sit through 15 minutes of it on the projector at home before tossing in the regular version due to discomfort. I honestly don't believe that this 3d trend is being driven by the consumer at all. I think now that they've hit 240hz 1080p and LED backlit sets they are struggling for a new "premium" to shoot for in the market.

Bryan's picture

No, I don't want 3D. The occasional movie is ok, but I don't need it at home. I don't want to have to wear the glasses or have to buy extra's so friends or family could watch with me. If 2 TV's were identical in every way except one had 3D and the other didn't, I wouldn't pay a premium for it. If they were the same price I would take the 3D, but I wouldn't pay extra for it.

Frank's picture

Yes. I like the affect if it is done appropriately. Movies and sports. I add / upgrade something every year or two. I would be willing to pay 25% more for the equipment and 15% more for the content. The glasses should be like a game controller and should be no more then $50. Most important for me is that the vendors have consistent and open standards. Until they do I will not be interested. Also, people comment on the glasses and I think you need to look beyond the clunky ones that come out initially. If the the TV vendors allow for 3rd party manufacturers it could create a separate industry of designer glasses or glasses that could be made with your perscriptions built in, etc.

John's picture

While I haven't seen a demo of a 3D display or experienced a movie like Avatar in 3D I really can't see this as something I would be interested in. It might be nice/fun on occasion but I can't see it as my primary watching experience as I often do other things while watching TV. And since my gear is relatively current this is not a reason for me to upgrade.

Duncan's picture

I would like it, but it is not a "killer app" that is going to get me to replace my projector now. When I do look to buy a new projector it is a feature I would appreciate, especially if well executed. The fact that I already have a large screen and light controlled room should be ideal for 3D viewing. I would be most interested in playing games as that only requires one person (most of the time, for me at least) to wear the glasses. I think it could really enhance some games, like first-person shooters. It is a little more awkward for movies, which would be the next most appealing use, as everyone would have to wear glasses which can be a little more socially awkward, though people will adapt. For sports etc. it could be fun, but would be an issue when also eating and talking. I'd be willing to pay $40-200, depending on the quality of the experience, for each pair of glasses (the low end being about the cost of a game controller and the high end being the cost of good midrange hea

Oliver S's picture

I only want 3D capabilities because the sets have to be more than incrementally better than the last generation. It should make 2D really good - I am holding off for the Panasonic TC-P50VT25. 1.4 HDMI may also be integrated and would supply some future proofing.

Joe's picture

No, I am not interested in 3D in the least. They still have not got 2D right, what on earth makes anyone think they can execute 3D that is remotely watchable. This is a gimmick.

David Vaughn's picture

I was ready to pull the trigger on a new RS-25, but after CES I decided to wait until CEDIA before upgrading my HD-1, which is getting a little long in the tooth. Do I want 3D? I'm not sure...my kids and my wife want it more than I do. Avatar looked great in Dolby 3D, but I'm not sure how well that will translate to home viewing. Regardless, it stopped me from upgrading until the after Sep tember because I don't want to have buyers remorse if I can get the 3D capability a few months from now, whether I'll use it or not. David

kelsci's picture

1.It does not interest me at all to have 3D in the home. I did see a 3D movie at Epcot center some years back and it looked great, but it was to me a novelty thingy and not something I would care to have and to see every day. A good 2D television is all I care to own. If anything, a decent sound system adds more impact to a show or film. I noticed this way back in the 1950s when some of my friends parents had tv sets that had rather powerful built in hi-fi amps and a large speaker that pushed the tv sound.

Frank M.'s picture

No 3D for me. Quite happy with 2D, were I to upgrade my TV (which I might have to once its extended warranty expires), I'd like to go projector. 3D is a gimmick that hopefully will go away pretty quickly. If they want to make something that's already out there "better", how about working on getting plain old blu-ray mastering figured out (drop DNR for starters).

Alan Jarand's picture

I would like to have 3D for select movies that have good 3D special effects, and some sporting events but I doubt I would use for for most movies or any regulsr TV show. I have a 22' by 24' theater room with total light control. Right now I have over the air, Dish HD, plus BluRay with a 5.1 surround sound system. The projector is an Optoma 720P on a 6' by 10' screen. Would like to go 1080P but not until 1080P projector prices go down. I do not purchase many disks, but use NetFLix. I would pay a premium for projection equipment, and more for disk rental for select 3D. Probably in the range of 20%. Not sure how much I would pay for glasses.

Jerry's picture

3 D? Not now, nor ever. A ridiculous gimmick better reserved for the movie theaters in lieu of real content, bad scripts or kids movies. I pray that avatar isn't the future, because if it is, the apocalypse is truly around the corner.

Anthony Howard's picture

I just spent $1,000 on a television, and I wouldn't even consider spending more than $300 on one, only six years ago. Why? The technology improved, drastically. Screens got outrageously thinner, pictures became significantly better. Would I consider 3D? Not anytime in the foreseeable future. The home technology tends to be cumbersome, ugly, and overpriced. Even without the need for ridiculous looking glasses, it is currently, at best, occasionally amusing. I've only paid the extra price, in a movie theater once. 3D in my own home, is even less compelling. I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jim Liedeka's picture

No interest in 3D in the home. I enjoyed Avatar at the IMAX theater but 3D is mostly a gimmick.

CJLA's picture

While at CES, I went to the JVC pavillion and went into their theater for the presentation. Part of the demo included 3D. I thoroughly enjoyed it. However I don't see people coming home at night from work or on the weekends and wanting to put on a pair of glasses to watch 3D. The other part of the presentation was a 4k demonstration. It was truly just as they say, 'like looking out window'. I would much rather wait for 4k to arrive. I'm pretty sure that when the marketing guru's have exploited Blu-Ray & HD to the max, they will concoct something new like UltraBlu-Ray and UltraHD which will feature the 4k technology.... I will gladly make do w/what I have and wait for 4k to become mainstream to the consumer.

Alan Goldstein's picture

Absolutely not. No interest at this time. Perhaps I'll reconsider some years from now, when they come up with an approach without glasses, and lots of content is normally broadcast. But one is sufficiently immersed in television today. For the short term, I'd much prefer a focus on standardizing content resolution (480p, 720p, or 1080p), display size (4:3 or 16:9), and audio (5.1) so our equipment can work more predictably across shows, events, downloads, and DVDs.

Larry D. Wilson's picture

I plan on upgrading my home theater system this spring (already purchased an Oppo Blue-Ray Player in December) -- I originally at settled on the Panasonic V-10 plasma (after first thinking I'd get the Samsung 8500 LED), but I've discovered that these televisions just aren't availiable (even from the manufacturer) -- so I've resigned myself to waiting for the next wave of 3D sets for 2010 -- I'll purchase a 3D television of some type (right now Panasonic, Samsung, and Toshiba are the brands I'm considering), but I don't have any intention of using the televisions in 3D mode. I've never been a fan of 3D films (even Avartar), because I find the resoluton suffers as an end result to those damn glasses (not to mention the fact that I have to wear them over my own glasses). Didn't enjoy doing that in the theater, and don't plan on doing it in my home.

John M. Gonzales's picture

I have not seen any movies in 3D. The idea of wearing glasses to watch a movie does not appeal to me. Especially since I wear glasses already. So to watch TV in 3D I don't think I'll jump on that money waster. My home theater is complete with out it.

Jarod's picture

I am almost fully blind in my left eye so I can not experience 3D. I seem to enjoy blu-ray movies on my 50 inch Kuro and 5.1 surround enough as it is.

Fred's picture

1) Yes for the better 3D experience (instead of the RED/GREEN glasses). 2) Movies and Games 3) Current TV was purchased 1 year ago. 3D TV might be purchased in two years. 4) 10 percent 5) 10 percent 6) $50 each


Enter your Sound & Vision username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.