Whether or not it will last, 3D is still a growing trend at the movies and with TV manufacturers. However, a new survey shows that most people won’t buy a 3D TV just because they have to wear the required glasses.
According to the Nielson survey, 57% of respondents named the clunky specs as the main reason they wouldn’t purchase a 3D set for their home. And 90% of those surveyed said that the glasses would be an impediment to being able to multitask.
We imagine it must be difficult to watch a golf tournament in 3D while trying to check your e-mail and make sure the kids haven’t set grandma on fire again, all while sporting a pair of chunky specs.
Another concern of those surveyed is both the lack of 3D programming available and also the fact that it’s probably only suited for movies and events that would benefit from 3D. Do you really need to watch Two and a Half Men in 3D? Probably not.
One positive thing that people did agree on was gaming. Of the regular gamers surveyed, 70% said they want to try out their PCs, Xboxes and PS3s on a 3D TV.
What about you? If you take price out of the equation, are the glasses enough of a dealbreaker to keep you from buying a 3D TV?
Glasses a deal-breaker for 3-D TV [ChicagoBreakingBusiness.com]
More From Consumerist
-
Stanton Optical Makes Blurry Glasses For Undercover TV Producer, Blames Doctor
-
Budweiser ‘Buddy Cup’ Lets You Facebook Friend Someone By Clinking Glasses For Some Reason
-
Poll Says Almost Half Of You Are Going To Drink At Least One Soda Today
-
McDonald’s Denies There Was A Physical Altercation With Scientist Wearing Computer Glasses
-
Pizza Hut Driver Claims He Was Demoted For Using Fiberglass Tent Pole To Fight Off Attackers
Why are 3D glasses for at home so expensive, and 3D glases for at the theater so cheap? And why can’t they make the cheap ones work for at home?
Sitting here pondering which three hours of hell I’d choose if no other options existed. 1) Watch a 3 hour movie with these (over my glasses and the ensuing headaches and nausea) or 2) Fly for 3 hours in one of those forward tilting seats with the big lump in the middle.
Exactly! Same goes for the news, all sitcoms, reality TV, documentaries or pretty much anything else that doesn’t feature space ships entering warp speed.
Also…the glasses totally suck.
I have two perfectly good HDTVs that don’t need to be upgraded for quite some time. I have no desire to wear glasses on top of glasses to watch pseudo-3D stuff on what, two channels? Maybe I can watch movies that consist of actors constantly throwing things at the camera so that you get the feeling you’re actually in a bad movie rather than just watching it.
“3D” as it exists now isn’t anywhere near worth the cost. I doubt it ever will be. But hey, if these are the companies replicating the laser disc experience so that future companies can make the 3D equivalent of DVDs, more power to them.
3D with glasses. Welcome to the technology of the 1950s.
Yes, frankly they are.
I’ve been wearing glasses since I was 5, and contacts since I was 18. (And I’ll be 43 in two weeks) The last thing I need is some kind of device to wear to ‘enhance’ my experience. I get my ‘enhanced’ experience everyday– what you blessed people call ‘normal vision’.
And I am getting to the age where I need either reader or bifocals.
And we all live in this 3D thing already…
Anyways, besides– they are to expensive for families- not enough market penetration to make these cheap just yet. Please, please call me back when when it is built into every TV, thank you very much.
No, the strabismus is a deal breaker.
Fuck the glasses. If Nintendo can make the DS 3D without any glasses, then I have no issue whatsoever holding out until TV manufacturers do the same.
I just can’t get excited about 3D. The reviewers cite ghost images as a frequent complaint and I couldn’t live with even the slightest ghosting. A bigger, better 2D is what I’ll get next.
Glasses? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker here too.
I have a Samsung 3D Plasma…only because of an insurance claim on my 7 year old Mitsubishi Projection TV that was settled with the insurance company. My old Mitsubishi was loaded with connections and the Samsung was the only option they could take that even came close to the number of connections and features my old TV had (i.e. pic in pic, composite/component connections, etc. etc.) Their only option was to replace all of my old equipment that is not HD compatible which would cost them thousands more.
The COST of the 3D glasses and the 3D Blu Ray is what has stopped me from dipping into the 3D world at home. My whole family loves 3D movies, but I can’t see $1000 more for 4 sets of glasses and the player. Even if they would drop the cost of the glasses by 50% the compatible Blu Ray player is quite costly.
One thing I do like about the Samsung 3D TV over the others is the option that you can simulate 3D on non-3D movies IF you have the glasses and the Blu Ray version of the movie in any Blu Ray player. We did try this out in the store when we were looking at the TVs and it didn’t do as well as true 3D, but it was pretty good…much more lively than watching the movie without the glasses. But once again $150 per set makes me shutter. The glasses were rechargeable, but the connections were fragile and I could easily see my children breaking them in no time unless I insisted that only the adults recharged them (in fact the glasses we used at the store had been broken from being used in the store and they had to get out another set for us.)
I already see in 3-D and my brain is capable of interpreting the TV image as a 3-D world, so where’s the need?
Seriously? 3-D needs to go away AGAIN. Spend the time/money on better content. This is a revised version of the same stupid gimmick to get more money for the same stuff for the third time.
I’ll wait until they come out with smell-a-vision.
I think the big issue is less that people hate glasses, though many of them do. It’s more that without the glasses, 3d tv is unwatchable. It’s basically only good for when you’re willing to dedicate yourself to sitting down and doing nothing other than watching. Watching something on 3d and someone else in the room is not really watching? The video is unwatchable for them unless they put the glasses on and if you’re wearing the glasses, you can’t really do anything else.
For example, right now as I’m typing this I have a tv running next to the computer. I’m watching, not particularly attentively, a Premier League Match while I do things on the computer. 3d? Can’t do that. You have to uni-task because of the glasses.
Hey, if it was free, that would be fine. I’d put on the glasses occasionally for a blockbuster, the same as right now we turn down the lights and turn the sound up. But buy special and expensive equipment? No.
I just feel it’s a silly gimmick! It’s not really improving my television watching experience if I end up with a pounding headache and thousands of dollars in debt just to buy enough glasses for my whole family to watch! Not to mention what happens if friends stop by! I think this technology is just not up to speed yet.
At this point, the most effort is being put into 3D gimmicky crap (except Avatar), which I have no desire to see. Call me in 5 years, then we’ll talk.
If you wish to view 3d on TV then you are going to have to trade off , multi-tasking or watching 3dTV.
3D is an exacting science that manipulates the picture on the screen and the glasses that you have to be wearing. blacking out one eye at a time in synchronization with the movie on the screen, providing a three dimensional picture on the TV screen Therefore multi-tasking in not going to work while watching 3dTV
Yes, yes the glasses are for anyone who wears glasses.
“Of the regular gamers surveyed, 70% said they want to try out their PCs, Xboxes and PS3s on a 3D TV.”
I don’t
I don’t want glasses for watching 3D TV or playing a game.
In summary, it’s pretty clear people like 3D glasses.
The industry says 3D is the FUTURE of television. I can’t wait to see “Meet The Press” in 3D!!!!
Seeing Avatar in 3D in the theater was fun, but 3D has always been a novelty. It’s just not practical for everyday use. The glasses, the expensive technology involved, the physical effects on some people–it’s all too difficult.
I would like to play games in 3D. I like the Myst games; that would be awesome.
“Blue Skies on Mars, that’s a new one…”
As someone who wears prescription glasses, the answer is yes. License the technology Sharp licensed to Nintendo, for their 3DS, so we don’t need them. Otherwise, stop bragging about old tech.
we already had a wave of this fad in the 50s. It went away then, and it will go away again.
I was looking at HSN (for some reason). They were advertising a Mistubishi 3D TV. It was playing “A Christmas Carol”, the new one, with the creepy CGI people. They paused it right on the closeup of the weird old man and the sales people were looking at it with the glasses.
If not wanting to wear glasses over glasses didn’t do it, imagining that horror in 3D certainly did.
“a new survey shows that most people won’t buy a 3D TV just because they have to wear the required glasses.”
One would think that the TV manufacturers would have held the customary research focus groups to determine whether or not people would want to wear the 3D glasses before they put these products on the market.
There’s the aforementioned issues with 3DTV;
- I have to wear glasses
- Glasses are expensive
- What if I have several guests
- Hey, aren’t they releasing 3D TVs you don’t need glasses for?
I, on the other hand, have one big issue that hasn’t been mentioned as much; proprietary glasses. Panasonic already has 3D glasses out in market that ONLY work with Panasonic 3D televisions. Sony and Samsung are following suit, supposedly, which is even more ridiculous since they’re manufactured in the same damn factories.
All for a technology that’s going to be obsolete next year and — in my opinion — a fad that will fizzle out within the next three.
Let’s face it. We’re all complaining about 3-D TV right now because it’s early technology that’s clunky, lacks content, and costs too much. No matter what we’re all saying, it is NOT pointless…
Of *course* I would want to watch programming and movies if they really looked like real life in front of me and didn’t require glasses! The problem is that’s just not what 3-D TV gives us today.
If I could wave a magic wand and have the 3-D TV of 20 years from now (no glasses, no price premium, no risk of nausea), you can bet I would want to watch everything from Two and a half men to Infomercials on it – and so would everybody else.
Nope. Even if they were $10 a pop, I wouldn’t buy them. I purchased contacts so I wouldn’t have to wear glasses.
I can’t see why the 3D studios won’t develop 3D that works for those of us who can’t use the glasses, or who have one functioning eyeball… oh wait… lets try the working eye… Nope – still can’t see why…
no 3dtv please!
3D movies are just gimmicky. I mean I felt that the 3D in Avatar just distracted from the overall effect of the film, I missed so many of the details in the backgrounds because I was watching the 3D parts.
It’s like subtitles in a Sci Fi flick, it doesn’t work so well because often the visuals are just as or more important than the dialogue. If you have to read the dialogue, you are missing the visuals.
Yes, absolutely. Even without the glasses, 3D is a novelty at best. I really don’t understand this big 3D push. I don’t know anyone who is desperate to watch 3D at home, and I certainly don’t know anyone who is going to care about it if they have to buy special glasses and use them everytime they want to watch TV.
3D gives me a MASSIVE headache (Thanks, Avatar for the four hours of pain I had after I watched!), so I’m staying far FAR away from this.