I think 3D-TV has larger problems than lack of content...I tried a few systems and I get dizzy...quite unpleasant and unnatural experience...I highly doubt I am special so there must millions people like me who will not ever buy it...I think it is a classic of "let's build it and they will come"...Kris
A large problem with 3D is that too often the technology drives the content with the story being, at best, secondary. 3D has to come to the point where it is just there, part of the background (and foreground I guess)and you are so involved with the story you no longer pay attention to the 3D.
I've heard, however, the 3D sports is a lot of fun, especially golf (go figure). The SuperBowl has sold thousands of big-screen TVs, maybe it will kick-off 3D sales (sorry for the pun, it just kind of fell off my fingers).
I really like the analogy to quadraphonic sound systems. It's here, it works, people like it BUT it's expensive, there's little content and there's incompatibility problems. Likewise, I expect it to go away, people laugh at how the ridiculus the idea was and it will come back in 20 years, like surround sound.
My take is that:
Consumer 3D was at a serious mood at CES-2011 to say the least. Brushing it off on various grounds would be a mistake.
When a 3D camera is available under $500, 3D is certainly poised to take off. It is the user and their own contents that is gonna rule while professional grade 3D contents are in the making. Just think, how much time does an average user spend on youtube vs. TV these days? ...hope you see what I am pointing to.
3D is at a great beginning, I think. With this we have a great opportunity of innovation. Let us get serious folks!!!
The basic problem is that the experience just isn't worth the trouble.
With ordinary 2-D movies, everyone PERCEIVES depth anyway; we watch the action and see things as though in depth. There isn't any need for physical 3-dimensional images. What causes us to like a movie is the plot, the screenplay, and the acting -- and none of these requires physically real depth. As for other forms of entertainment, who cares whether actors sitting around on a talk show are three-dimensional or not?
It's the same with the Sunday funnies: Cartoons are ridiculously unrealistic; but, we understand the activities depicted frame-by-frame in grossly unphysical 2-D, and we read them anyway.
Nice to see that someone in the industry has the guts to say that the 3D emperor has no clothes,that it is a "solution" to a problem the customers don't seem to think they have, that's it's really more of a whipped-up marketing push than a needed or useful product.
You may be barred from next year's CES....
I didn't catch the glasses-free Toshiba 3D at CES, but Sony's little 22.5 inch no-glasses 3D display was impressive. I could still see the 3D effect and no double image from about a 45 degree angle to either side.
But I agree with your conclusion that 3D is a non-starter, at least for the next few years. It suffers from many of the same issues we faced with HDTV in the early years -- lack of content and high equipment prices.
I first saw HD content on an HD display in 1997, but I did not personally buy an HDTV until 2004. I don't know if the lag time will be as long for me to take the 3D plunge, or if the price premium for 3D without glasses will ever be low enough to compel me to make a purchase.
The transition from standard def to high-def was revolutionary, but the same cannot be said for the transition (if indeed it is a transition) from 2D to 3D.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.