3-D TV Reaches Out to Grab Reluctant Viewers

DailyFinance visited the recent 3D Entertainment Summit in New York City to find out what 3-D television has in store for us. For mainstream consumers, 3-D TV hasn't caught on just yet, but prices are falling and improvements are on the way. Watch below to find out why passive viewing is the wave of the near-future, and get the latest on when we'll be able to watch 3-D without any glasses at all.

Learn about investing from the comfort of your own home.

Portfolio Basics

Take the first steps to building your portfolio.

View Course »

Investment Strategies

Learn the strategies you need to build a winning portfolio

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

21 Comments

Filter by:
thaiorchidsource

Yes the technology exists, and improves quickly, but All HD types including 3D are hampered by no competition in making the Blue Ray CD's, and as long as the price of these movies remains so high, there will be little interest in buying Blue Ray CD's, not to mention the limited availability of tiitles. Ofcourse broadcasts and downloads can alter this comment if those services are in a reasonable price range. Im not crazy about wearing glasses to see 3D, and my kids will make quick work of those costly glasses no doubt. But I think the good news is that the newer technology will force down standard HD sets prices.

June 28 2011 at 12:45 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
J.J.

Think I'll wait until the glass-less 3D TV comes out. . Because if there is a market fot it It will be out sooner and not later.

June 27 2011 at 11:39 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
napoleon0469

I felt the same way as most of you who are skeptical of 3D, but once you watch HD/BluRay in 3D you will want to watch 3D all the time. I've found the glasses not encumbering and the picture is amazing. Long Live 3D.

June 27 2011 at 10:36 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
bfgry484yerhdbv

If Mitsubishi came out with a 3-D projector(not the big ones they sell in stores) that you can hang fromthe ceiling, I would get it. 3-D on a 40-46-50-55-60-65-70 etc. just doesn't do it for me. I saw Legend of the Gaurdians in the theater and it was awesome and sowas the movie. But when I saw it at the store in 3-D on a LED 55inch screen it was not the same. I think 3-D for a small 40-70" tv is just way to overrated and really not worth the money. I bought a Sony 46 LED tv and it looks great and why buy a 3-D dvd for $40 when you can get two or even three for the same price.

June 27 2011 at 9:45 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
AngelElement444

David...We never fell for it. We don't even have a flat screen!....Though it is about time to upgrade. Our DVD player croaked and the new ones aren't compatible.

June 27 2011 at 9:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to AngelElement444's comment
Greg

Angel, I've been happily surprised that the new Blu Ray DVD players do indeed (as a salesperson promised) play every DVD that I have, +R, -R, etc. And, even my older DVDs do look a little better on the Blu Ray player.

Also, I resisted buying a flat screen TV for 22 years, and had used an old-fashioned tube that I bought in 1989 all the way through this year. However, with prices so low, I tried out a low-end LED 26 inch TV on sale for $199 and I love it. However, old VHS tapes look really bad on the new high-def TVs, as the high-def only magnifies the scratches, etc. So, I'm keeping my old tube TV for my own family/personal VHS tapes. Even converting them to DVDs doesn't help the picture.

June 28 2011 at 10:38 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Greg's comment
Greg

But, I won't be buying a 3-D tv for quite some time. The TV itself is expensive, but then you also have to buy the glasses and another piece of equipment to transmit the TV image to the glasses, and all that can cost up to $400 or so, so I feel the 3-D price is way way too expensive, and the technology just isn't good enough yet to provide a comfortable viewing experience. And besides, often the 3-D images distract me from the storyline or the acting, and 3-D isn't really 3-D, otherwise you could look behind, for example, the football player rushing at you to see who is about to tackle him. 3-D is really only 2-D with some images enhanced, and some directors do that anyway in 2-D.

June 28 2011 at 10:41 AM Report abuse rate up rate down
David Gibson

Ya! After they sold everybody flatscreens, then HD flatscreens, now they want us to throw out our TV's for the new 3D. They are playing us can't you see? They had this tech. years ago, but just keep playing dumb while they mill every dime they can from us. Anybody see any deals out there yet? LOL Hipo-Twit! Huh? Dranny?

June 27 2011 at 8:18 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to David Gibson's comment
hey Joe

hey man, technology changes nowadays by the week,. What was made 6 months ago is now outdated, such as a PC and anything electronic so you can wait till the price comes down or not. The choice is up to the consumer. If you have the money get it or wait for the price to come down and then newer stuff will be available for you to buy.

June 27 2011 at 8:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Greg

David, you have a great point. In all probability, the technology for glasses-free 3D televisions, or even the technology for those massive screens that just sort of form the interior wall of a house and serve as computeres/windows/televisions/etc., probably does indeed exist. BUT, as you say, the manufacturers are stringing us along, getting us to buy and buy and buy. And that's capitalism, no more and no less.

I'm keeping my old 26 inch Mitsubishi tube. It's 22 years old now, but the picture is fine and we all know what's going to happen: old-school television tubes and VHS tapes WILL make a comeback, as people will be saying that the old tubes had "richer hues" or something like that. Besides, it's true that if you scratch a DVD, it's done with, but VHS tapes (that aren't left out in the sun to melt) will last and last, scratches and all.

June 29 2011 at 1:20 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
jesuaphn

Ahh, why bother? Too expensive, not enough content, and I rather not wear the glasses.

June 27 2011 at 7:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to jesuaphn's comment
Greg

Agreed, the viewing experience is uncomfortable, it's too expensive, and the technology just isn't good enough yet.

June 28 2011 at 10:42 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
sylvestercds

Glasses STINK!!

June 27 2011 at 7:39 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Milbourne

I saw just two movie in 3D back in 1953 (one was Hondo with John Wayne) in Winter Garden FL. After that, the 3D craze vanished completely and never to be heard of again until just recently. I though it was quite exciting when I almost got hit by a vase or run over by a train. Later in1957 in D.C., I saw movies in Cinerama or Cinemascope, that was 180 degrees using three screens....but it was not quite as real as the 3D.

June 27 2011 at 6:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
fjponia

An ACER laptop I bought about 6 months ago has a 3-d video in the public video folder which looks pretty good. It's a WMV file.

June 27 2011 at 6:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply