Following up on my post from earlier this week, I just read that Panasonic announced yesterday two new TVs for the American market. Both have a 2D to 3D conversion function, which according to Home Cinema Choice, was absent from the company’s Viera range of TVs. This is something that was already present on Sony and Samsung TVs and which Panasonic had previously stated that they would not provide.
To me, it seems like TV manufacturers are doing their best for 3DTV technology to catch on. Just last week, Samsung released a 50-inch plasma 3D-ready HDTV set for less than USD 1,000, making 3D technology accessible to a much wider market.
However, to assess the viability of 3DTV, we need to look at two distinct markets.
For the seller market (which comprises of TV and related device manufacturers, content providers, etc…) 3DTV makes sense. It’s a way for them to sell new product and also charge more for content.
From a consumer perspective, HDTV still seems like a novelty in many households so with the recession and high unemployment rates, I wonder if 3DTVs are a priority. Especially since to get the most out of the TV, consumers will need to upgrade their cable/ satellite TV packages to include 3D channels. Without the content, a 3DTV is simply not worth it. Initially, I suspect 3D packages will be pretty expensive as HD was a few years ago.
Also, let’s not forget that most of us cannot watch 3D programming the whole day without consequences such as headaches and dizzyness. So regardless of technology availability, most of us will not spend our days watching only 3D content. This just makes 3DTV a little less worth the initial pricetag and ‘upkeep’.
Knowing this, manufacturers and content providers will need to work overtime in order to get the mass market to pay attention to 3D technology. Otherwise, 3DTVs will never live up to their full promise.
Gabi Warren 