Skip to Main Content

Why Your Next TV Should Be A 3D TV

After watching Hugo in 3D, I am now convinced that this technology has staying power.

January 9, 2012

I have been dealing with 3D projects related to movies and TV for about five years and the CEO of RealD has sat on my CES panels twice. I am always impressed by the company's work with Hollywood, but to be honest, I have personally been on the fence when it comes to adopting 3D for my own use.

I have felt that 3D is somewhat of a gimmick and in the pantheon of 3D movies, it is not necessarily germane to the actual plot. The only films I've seen that really seemed to benefit from 3D were Hubble 3D and Space Station 3D at IMAX theatres and various movies about deep sea creatures.

I recently saw a movie, however, that finally made me realize that 3D in movies can be critical to the actual story—Martin Scorsese's masterpiece, Hugo. The story, set in 1930s Paris, follows an orphan boy who lives in a train station and takes it upon himself to wind the massive clocks. This may seem like a boring subject, but in the hands of Scorsese, it unfolds into an intricate story about the technology that birthed silent films. Scorsese's use of 3D is vital to the actual story line and the way the 3D camera probes the intricacies of the technology behind early 20th century clocks and silent movie making actually makes this film come alive.

Hugo was the first thing that turned the dial in my thinking about 3D as a new technology medium for enhancing a story's plot. 3D for personal use finally started to come into focus.

Then, in a rather happy coincidence, my wife decided that we needed a new TV for the living room. Interestingly, when we went to the store to buy a new set, 3D was not even part of our discussion. Our older rear projection TV was starting to go and we used the week after Christmas to buy a new one.

When we first started looking at the TV sets in the store, we were mostly focused on buying one that had vivid color for HD. However, the price of 3D TVs, which I had largely overlooked in the past, now attracted my interest. I still assumed they had at least a $500 to $1,000 premium over standard HD sets, when in fact, for $1,499 I could buy an intriguing Panasonic Viera, a 55-inch 600Hz 3D plasma TV. It even came with two active shutter 3D glasses and a Skype video system and was only $200 more than the non-3D version.

I searched the entire store for anything comparable and found this to be the best buy for me at this time. Of course, at CES there will be dozens of new 3D TVs and . But still, I am quite happy with what I got for the money.

Now, my colleagues at PCMag have done a marvelous job over the years of all types of 3D TVs and I defer to them for greater insight. The big takeaway for me, though, has been that finally HD TVs with 3D have minimal price premiums.

By the way, if I had wanted to get a 55-inch 3D TV with passive 3D glasses, a best buy would have been the , a 55-inch, web-enabled LED 3D HDTV with a 480Hz refresh rate. It uses the same glasses you use in the theaters, as opposed to active shutter glasses, which cost about $100 each. Personally, I prefer the clarity I get with active shutter glasses and to me they are worth the extra money.

Now, when I put on my analyst hat, I look at 3D TV in two contexts. The first is what we call buying for "future proofing." If 3D TVs have truly moved from premium pricing to marginal pricing, then buying a 3D TV set now with the fastest screen refresh rate you can afford makes sense. While 3D content is still scarce, you can bet that over the next five years more 3D content will be released. If you absolutely have to buy a new TV, buying one with 3D for "future proofing" has merit.

Lack of 3D content is the second area that I scrutinize when looking at 3D in the home. While 3D in Hugo and select documentaries does enhance the viewing experience significantly, few other 3D DVDs do much for me. The sports shows I have seen, such as the World Cup in 2010, left me quite unfulfilled, although the Super Bowl last February was visually stunning in 3D. This issue of lack of 3D content is the real drawback that has kept people making the move to 3D TV more quickly. To be honest, I don't see that changing too soon. Although cable vendors, such as Comcast, have stations dedicated to 3D, most of the content on this is pretty weak.

My hunch is that it will be at least another three years before we start seeing enough mainstream shows and movies shot in 3D to really push consumers to adopt 3D TVs in greater numbers. But remember, TVs last on average five to eight years in the home, so with prices coming down, it makes sense to think about 3D now as part of a tech future proofing strategy.

As for me, I am now a 3D convert. The prices have dropped enough so that it was more than possible to buy 3D. Even though content is slow in coming, I feel assured that, especially with a 600Hz model, I have somewhat future proofed my family room TV for at least the next five years.