Print
It's tough to get a grasp on where the market stands for 3D viewing because different parts of the world have different attitudes towards 3D. According to market research firm DisplaySearch, Western Europe and China are the most enthusiastic regions for 3D consumption, whereas interest in the United States appears to be waning.
"We were surprised to find that 3D appears to be a far more popular feature in China than North America, and the penetration rate was two times higher in the last quarter," said Paul Gray, Director of TV Electronics Research, NPD DisplaySearch. "Our report also indicates that North American and Japanese 3D penetration is lower than the Middle East."
Here in the States, 3D TV penetration spiked at a little over 10 percent in the second quarter of 2011, up from less than 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, but has dropped to around 7.5 percent in Q3 of this year. Western Europe, meanwhile, is far and away the most popular market for 3D TVs with a penetration rate of around 18 percent in the most recent quarter.
What's also interesting to note is that of all the regions examined, including worldwide statistics, North America is the only one to show a decline in 3D TV penetration from Q2 2011 to Q3 2011.
Image Credit: Philips
Comments are closed on this article
Jeffredo
December 29, 2011 at 12:13am
3D makes me sick (literally). Plus it looks like crap. I'll take a good quality 2D film or TV show any day.
pastorbob
December 29, 2011 at 5:57am
"I'll take a good quality 2D film or TV show any day."
I heard that! 3D is totally wasted on me anyhow. I have vision problems that prevent me from seeing 3D. Not that I would use it even if I had normal vision.
Spud
December 28, 2011 at 9:25pm
3-D penetration in the US is probably in direct proportion to the amount of quality 3-D programming actually available...which is minimal. I'd watch my Samsung in 3D all day long if there was anything worth watching.
And there is a real difference in watching a film like Avatar in 3D vs. 2D...well made 3D adds a depth to a movie that normal 2D can't match (assuming they don't use retarded 3D gags like the old horror films).
ApathyCurve
December 28, 2011 at 2:54pm
Those people in China and Europe probably weren't traumatized as a child when their parents dumped them in a stinking mall theater, where they had to wear dorky-looking paper glasses while watching a crappy 3D movie which had only one redeeming quality: it eventually ended.
No 3D for me, unless they can get rid of the glasses and keep HD picture quality.
QuadraQ
December 28, 2011 at 2:50pm
I must say I like 3D TV's. I just got a new TV which came with 3D (passive in this case) and it's really quite amazing. It's a really great match for games. You're playing in a 3D space anyway, so seeing it in three dimensions just makes it more immersive. I also think sports are a great match since it makes it more like being at the live event. Movies can be great (see Avatar), but are few and far between right now.
Eventually 3D will just be a standard feature.
Rooke
December 28, 2011 at 11:09am
I used to go to the movies the first weekend my favorite movies came out.
Not any more. I get a much better picture from DVDs on my LCD TV at home, and my sound system is much better than whats in the theaters. Now I just wait for the movie to come out on DVD, and my wife and I can watch it as much as we want for one low price... Which is usually the same cost as both of us going to the theater at matinee time.
Noisy crowds, sick people, cell phones, sticky floors, crying babies... fugedaboudit!
everettehouse
December 29, 2011 at 5:37am
well said. i totally agree. blu-ray at home with a 55 inch lcd and 7.1 surround beats the movie theater experience hands down.
i saw watchmen at an imax theater three times, which was amazing. however, watching it at home on blu-ray is far better, aside from screen size.
everettehouse
December 29, 2011 at 5:43am
no need for 3d, though, especially at an additional cost. is it not enough that hd has inflated television costs? i will not wear/pay for the glasses, and the experience is just not worth the hastle/expenditure. hd is enough of a novelty.
i remember my first tv being a 13 inch black & white, and i am not forty years old yet.
bling581
December 28, 2011 at 10:34am
3D TV is a gimmick. It's cool with some shows or movies, but overall it's not that impressive. I've seen a few movies in the theatures in 3D and the longer ones give me a headache.
Jox
December 28, 2011 at 10:40am
They give me a pounding headache that I get to enjoy for 3 to 4 hours after the film has ended. Also, if you are unfortunate enough to have only 1 eye (not my case, happily), the 3D effect will not work for you at all, so when all the theatres show is 3D films, you will not be able to see a show.
-Jox
Jox
December 28, 2011 at 10:27am
Hollywood (and theatres) love 3D because it allows them to try to hold onto a dying industry. Given the choice between going to the theatre, waiting in line, listening to people talk during the film, not being able to go to the bathroom when I want to and not, I`ll choose not. Give me a bluray, my 46" screen, a beer and some chicken wings and I'm a much happier person. It's the same reason that hollywood makes their films using an aspect ration of 1.85:1 or 2.39:1. They need some way of differentiating their product. Since most TV's use an aspect ratio of 16:9 they deliberatly don't so that they will seem somehow superior and people will come to the theatre.
Television manufacturers love 3D because it allows them to produce screens using cheaper parts for which they can charge unsuspecting customers greater fees for lesser quality hardware. Have you ever done a side by side comparison of a 3D image to a non-3D version of the same image on a pair of televisions? Try it some time and you will notice that the 3D image is darker and less clear than the standard image.
Have you ever sat in a theatre (or at home, for that matter) and in the middle of a film thought to yourself "Man, this 2D image is not very convincing!" No? That might be because your brain doesn't really notice that you're not watching a 3D image - it fills in the gaps for you.
Finally, anyone old enough to remember the glut of 3D movies back in the early 80's will also remember that VHS (and, to a lesser extent, BETA and LaserDisc) was making a big splash in the market. There was no home entertainment market before this. Hollywood hated VHS with a passion and when they were unable to stop it in the courts (and yes, they tried), they decided to dust off the old 3D chestnut and haul it out in front of the masses again in the hopes of holding onto their market.
Go back even further to the 50's with the Godzilla and King Kong movies which were released in 3D. Why? Because television was becoming more prevalent in the home and Hollywood was scared that people would stay home.
So, those of you who go to the theatre to see these films in 3D are screwing yourselves by paying more for lesser image quality and, perhaps worse, you're pandering to a dying industry.
But that's just my 2 cents.
- Jox
tekknyne
December 28, 2011 at 11:48am
Well said. I totally agree. I'm the stubborn guy that stll hasnt bought a smart phone :)
Archtard
December 28, 2011 at 4:38pm
I hate 3D TV/Movies as well. The picture quality is lacking, they give me head aches, and anything 3D is substantially more expensive.
I am also still using a "data challenged" phone (thats PC for dumb phone), because I refuse to pay for internet on my phone in addition to the overpriced choked broad band I have at home.
