Avatar expands 3D TV interest
Making punters keener to buy too?
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Hit movie Avatar appears to be persuading punters - in the US, at least - that it might soon be possible to view 3D films on TV at home. Whether it will convince them to buy into the notion is another matter.
Electronics price-comparison site Retrevo said yesterday that while a mere 39 per cent of consumers were aware of 3D TV in the home before the release of Avatar, that figure rose to 60 per cent after the film's debut.
The movie's benefits for sellers of 3D TV kit is less clear cut. Before Avatar premiered, more than a quarter of consumers — 27 per cent — said they'd buy a new telly to experience 3D at home.
After the arrival of Dances with Wolves in space — surely 'James Cameron's spectacular 3D epic', Ed — the number of potential 3D TV buyers rose, but only to 32 per cent of the total.
Still, even if Avatar hasn't done as much to encourage people to buy a 3D TV as it has to evangelise the concept, that's still a lot of folk willing to part with their hard-earned for a new telly.
Which is good news for Sony, Panasonic, LG, Toshiba et al, though they'd better bundle plenty of the glasses you need to view stereoscopic 3D material.
Retrevo found that a whopping 65 per cent of respondents would only buy 3D specs if the devices costs $10 (£6) or less. A further 25 per cent said they'd be happy to spend up to $25 (£15) for specs but no more. Only ten per cent said they wouldn't object to paying more than $25.
As the company notes: "Won’t consumers be surprised when they discover that an extra pair of active shutter glasses is going to cost around $30 or more?"
Interestingly, while only a small percentage of survey respondents grumbled about the comfort of the glasses they'd had to wear to watch 3D movies, that percentage almost doubled in Avatar's post-premiere period. Vendors, take note.
Retrevo's conclusions were drawn from surveys of its own users, though how many of the the site's 5m visitors were sampled, it didn't say. ®
COMMENTS
people dont watch TV
the problem with glasses is that people dont actually watch TV. most of the day they "glance" at it. -They wake up and turn the telly on and listen to the news whilst getting ready for work.
How many people would put a pair of 3d glasses before they get dressed just so the morning news didn't look strange?.
Then people, sorta like, come home in dribs and drabs from school/work/manicurist; now there would have been no reason to wear the 3d glasses on the way home; apart to look like a dick, so you glance over to the tv to see what junior/missus/sir is watching and your eyes go funny cos you've not put the 3d glasses on.
Silly. Until we polarise everyone's eyes at birth, 3D is a stupid fad.
HD isn't/wasn't such an issue - hellfire its just a better quality picture for gods sake. Whether the picture is B/W or colour or HD - all you just need to do to watch is to turn your head and look at it - not "turn your head, turn it back, find a pair of 3d glasses, then turn back and look at telly". Hmm. maybe radio will have a resurgence.
3d glasses at £25+ a pop will be fine(*) until your mates come round to watch the footie and you tell them they wont be able to watch it without forking out for a pair of fluffing stupid glasses.
(*) cough (**)
(**) actually you know that's not how it goes - Once Murdoch puts out a 3D channel we'll get BOGOF vouchers in The Sun and a multitude of competitions that allow us the opportunity to win a 3D telly and pair of matching his and hers glasses(***)
(***) I can picture them now - they'll have a green stripe along the top where you can put your names...
Still not enough
I'm sure games will play their part but its still not enough. No console is 3D yet, and even if Sony or Microsoft enable some form of 3D it will be patched into games on a per case basis. Some games will get the treatment, some won't, either because their frame rate isn't high enough or other fundamental issues.
I don't consider PC games to make the slightest bit of difference to the situation. I am aware that some solutions claim to 3D-ify older games (e.g. 3D Vision) but PCs are generally speaking not plugged into living room TVs, so the content you may or may not eventually be able to play is irrelevant. Even on the PC some games won't work because they overlay 3D with 2D elements like the HUD, muzzle flash, blood splatters, lens flare, anti-aliasing etc. It leads to some very weird artifacts where the muzzle flash is floating above the gun or the perspective is all screwed, or clipping issues caused rendering from two viewports..
Yes eventually 3D will have content but that time is not now. I think it would be a colossal waste of money to buy a 3D TV for a few years unless its a value add tossed into an otherwise decent 2D TV. Let the early adopters fork out for the half implemented, slow, broken 1st generation of TVs to play a handful of titles. In maybe 2 or 3 years there may even be enough content to justify someone in the mainstream buying a TV for its 3D features.
Now watch all the idiots..
That tried to tell us that Blu-Ray was dead, and that Digital Downloads were the future, concede that they were wrong on that (and in most cases, the HD DVD thing), and their new mantra is that 3D is not worth bothering with..
Oh, hang on, Microsoft have already started telling their droids what to think...
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joystiq.com%2F2010%2F01%2F13%2Fxboxs-greenberg-questions-demand-for-at-home-3d%2F
Obviously, anything they can't do sucks (until such a time, that they can do it, then it's the best thing evah...)
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
