What turns people off buying 3D?

Try as they might, Panasonic and Sony have yet to convince consumers that a 3D TV is a necessity.

sony 3d turn off glasses

Since 2008, Sony has been one of the main forces behind the 3D TV campaign. But so far, many consumers have balked at the high price and the need to wear glasses. (Credit: Ty Pendlebury )

Released recently, a new study commissioned by the NPD Group in the US found that while people know more about 3D TV now, they're not generally any more convinced of why they need one.

A year and a half into the 3D TV era kicked off by Sony and Panasonic, and since joined by others, 45 per cent of people who said they wouldn't buy a 3D TV said the reason is that it's too expensive. And 42 per cent of people said that the reason they wouldn't buy one is because they don't want to wear glasses. That's an increase in both categories — just six months earlier, only 37 per cent said price was the inhibiting factor in their purchase, and 32 per cent said wearing glasses was. But interestingly, the increase of people who were hung up on 3D glasses was larger than people who thought the TVs were too expensive.

This NPD study follows a survey Nielsen conducted last year that found 90 per cent of respondents didn't want to wear glasses for 3D TV because it would hinder multitasking — like working on a laptop, or other things people generally do while sitting in front of the TV.

And therein lies the main problem with 3D TVs. The prices of the sets will eventually fall — in fact, it's already happening (more on that in a moment) — but we're still not that close to not wearing 3D glasses while watching a 3D television at home. And unlike HDTV, which went from the new must-have feature to a commodity item in less than half a decade, 3D TV still doesn't feel like it's anywhere near becoming as ubiquitous as HD, despite the best efforts of TV makers.

"In the earliest days of HD, price was clearly the number one concern for people who might otherwise have an interest in the technology," Ross Rubin, NPD analyst who wrote the report, said in comparing the evolution of HDTV to 3D TV. "But in 3D we have this added wrinkle of the glasses."

The cost of buying a 3D TV for your own living room is lower than it's ever been — you can get a new 3D plasma TV for around AU$2000 now. Sure, that's still twice what you can buy a regular plasma TV for, but it's a significant decrease from the AU$3500 price tag of a year ago. Plus, there is a wider range of sizes available and more manufacturers making them, which means they all start trying to beat each other on price, bringing down the price tag even further.

panasonic 3d active glasses

An example of the active-shutter 3D glasses those polled say inhibits them from buying a 3D TV.

(Credit: Derek Fung)

So what are manufacturers doing to combat the glasses issue? While they can't make 42-inch 3D TVs work sans glasses just yet, there's a whole group of companies looking at how to make wearing those pesky glasses less painful on your eyes and on your wallet.

Samsung said that, starting later this month, it will include two free pairs of lighter weight, rechargeable active-shutter glasses with its new 3D TVs in the US. And instead of additional glasses being US$130, they're now US$50 a pop.

LG has also announced its Cinema 3D system, which uses passive glasses that weigh half that of active models. In addition, they only cost AU$19 for two pairs.

There have also been attempts at making "universal" 3D glasses that can be bought once and used on TV at home and in the theatre.

Trendy glasses maker Oakley is also trying to get a piece of the action. Last spring, the company introduced a set of 3D lenses that look like regular sunglasses and work with passive polarised 3D TVs — there was even a Tron limited edition! Passive means you don't need to recharge them like battery-operated active shutter 3D glasses. Oakley is charging AU$160 for the standard edition, but the company promises that its optical experts built them so that they won't strain your eyes in the cinema — though it also says that you can't use them outdoors.

However, these tweaks to 3D glasses technology are a short-term solution. The real endgame for all of this is auto-stereoscopic or glasses-free 3D TV.

Nintendo's 3DS is the first real mainstream product that's an example of this. As a handheld gaming device, it's small. But it does produce a reasonable way of experiencing 3D without glasses for AU$350. And some in the 3D industry see it as a sort of gateway for 3D outside of a movie theatre.

Part of the reason people say they wouldn't want 3D glasses is that those people "are not seeing the value proposition of having 3D at home yet," argues Phil Lelyveld, manager of the Consumer 3D Experience Lab at USC's Entertainment Technology Center.

Most people have still not been exposed to 3D outside a movie theatre and can't imagine what that would be like at home or why they need it, he says. "Which is why I see the 3DS as an important gateway to experiencing 3D in the home," and for less than the cost of buying a TV set.

While glasses-free Nintendo may be a great place to start, it's a long way from an affordable glasses-free 3D TV most people would want in their living room.

sharp glassesless 3d

Sharp's glasses-less 3D works well. But right now it only works at a size best suited to mobile devices, not TV sets. (Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)

TV makers are working on it, though. Toshiba started selling a glasses-free TV in Japan in December, but it's at the rather unenticing size of 20-inches. The Japanese TV maker told The Wall Street Journal in December that a 40-inch version would be ready by April, but Toshiba did not respond to a CNET request for comment on that. And there's no expected ship date for stores outside Japan.

Another TV maker, Sharp, is also working on glasses-free models, but like Toshiba's current offering, size is an issue. The 3.8-inch and 10.6-inch prototypes that the company showed in September 2010 worked rather well, but at the current size, they're much better suited to mobile devices than a living room. The same can be said for LG, also working on smaller glasses-free 3D options for mobile devices.

There's a lot of research being done on the glasses-less 3D front. A good indication of how important this area of technology is going to be? Apple is one of the companies researching it, as shown by the patent the company filed late last year. But it's still not ready for prime time. Or mainstream audiences.

"At the screen sizes that are prevalent in consumer living rooms today and in particular for 3D, where manufacturers have been pushing the 'bigger is better' agenda for enjoying the immersion effect, we seem to have some way to go," said NPD's Rubin. "It's probably a few years before we see affordable glasses-free 3D TVs competitive to what (3D with) glasses offer today."

Previous Story

Marantz ER803

Home Cinema
Next Story

Top war-themed movies on Blu-ray

Add Your Comment 7

Post comment as

EdgarW posted a comment   

Most late adopters have recently gotten rid of their old CRT TV's in favour of LCD. Why would people ditch their recently bought LCD for a 3D TV? However, in 5-10 years when glasses-free 3D becomes more affordable, perhaps it will become popular.


correzpond posted a comment   

I think I do quite a good job myself of turning people off buying a 3D TV.

We purchased a Sony Bravia 3D TV at the beginning of the year with 4 sets of glasses. In a family of 4, 2 sets of glasses have never been unpacked as no one enjoys watching 3D TV for more than 20 - 30 minutes at a time, and watching an entire 90 min movie in 3D has seemed like a marathon.

The glasses are uncomfortable to wear and watching 3D with active shutter glasses (even with the relatively high 100mhz refresh rates per eye) provides sufficient 'flicker' to send each viewer to sleep within 30-40 minutes.

Sure, the 3D quality of the images is excellent (I think Sony is probably as good as it currently gets), but the experience is uncomfortable and remains a gimmick.

Fortunately I didn't pay much more for the 3D capability than what I was expecting to pay for 2D, but I don't every expect to unpack the additional pairs of glasses anytime soon. Glasses anyone ?


TomB3 posted a comment   

Great story, I think that we see an improvements among the new 3D TVs in all the ergonomics aspects http://bit.ly/3-dtv


Yoda7 posted a comment   

What turns me off buying 3D is that it is a just a ridiculous over-hyped gimmick and a complete waste of time, effort and money.

3D is just a spoiler for the fact that the TV industry hasn't really done much at all for a few years.

By now we should be watching 21:9 cinemascope TV's like the 2560 x 1080 model Phillips displayed in the UK a couple of years ago. After all, most movies are shot in this format.

A few years ago, I really thought we might be watching a 70 inch or larger, 3360 x 1440 TVs by now.

Instead we have this bizarre obsession with 3D.


munt posted a comment   

does anyone need to open this article to answer the question in the headline?

don't get me wrong avatar was impressive but as far as cinema is concerned 3D is a gimmick at best.
seriously how many quality 3D titles did you think you might be able to collect to make it worth your while?

how much programming on tv besides sport do you really think could really benefit from a 3D option. is it really worth it to have to wear those goofy glasses? what do your friends wear when they come round and wanna watch tele? you fork out for extra glasses? it's a massive cash cow.

you're all sheep baaaa! only good thing i can think of for a 3D tv is playstation 3. download a free patch and you got a 3D game console. would be worth it just to play wipeout HD and gran turismo.


Dann posted a comment   

Spot on 'marsblakmon'. The lack of 3D titles is appauling and is the main reason I'm holding off on buying a 3D tv. A family member bought one recently, only to discover later the full extent to the lack of titles out there. I'm certainly holding off now, at least until there's a decent range of titles available, and some tv programming available. The most annoying part for me about wearing the glasses is how dark everything seems. It's hard to focus on the picture in some movies, and it's hard to stop light seeping in through the sides of the 'dead straight' glasses. Anything much less that a pitch black room affects the whole experience.


marsblakmon posted a comment   

Well high cost of 3d tv may be the focus but I would argue it's the media availability & cost...distributors in oz openly admitted they would hold back releases of 3d until more uptake of the 3dtv's...& that in itself is appalling...why wasn't that in the sales pitch when I purchased my 3d unit last year?! Even to the point of cornering a 3d bluray release to a manufacturer...even tho I bought a Samsung I cant get my hands on titles theyve hoarded for moving stock....in 12mths there's less than a dozen decent movies & retailing for close to $50 even for the earliest releases, it's ridiculous....if I would've known distribution co's were going to be miserly with releases I wouldn't have bought the 3d tv & saved myself 1000's....I feel like demanding a refund for the Samsung...there's still very little content out there when I was told there was going to be a flood of releases @ the end of 2010 for Xmas...never happened!! Cost of media just likes it's been for uptake of bluray itself... I'm always disappointed to live in oz as consumers are left hanging on the b.s.

Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products