This year, 3-D televisions are cheaper than ever, yet Americans just aren’t biting. What is wrong with this picture?
Nothing, really. The new 3-D sets are more attractively priced than they were. And they deliver the goods. I’ve been watching last summer’s superhero blockbuster “Captain America: The First Avenger’’ on a new 46-inch Sony LCD set. The movie is modestly enjoyable, and the 3-D effect is reasonably impressive.
But 3-D is also irrelevant to the movie’s limited charm, and would be for everything else on video. Would “30 Rock’’ be funnier in 3-D? Would “Bridezillas’’ be dumber?
This might explain why 3-D sets accounted for a smaller portion of orders from US retailers in the third quarter of 2011 than earlier in the year, according to research from the NPD Group’s DisplaySearch. “I think that at the moment, US consumers are looking for value,’’ said Paul Gray, director of TV electronics research for DisplaySearch. “Essentially, what they want is big and cheap. They’re not necessarily looking for the features and fripperies.’’
Well, it depends on the fripperies. The Sony I tested had one of my favorite innovations: LED backlighting. Older sets, like the three-year-old Samsung at my house, use bulky fluorescent tubes for backlights. LEDs use much less power and are far smaller. The result is a TV that’s less than two inches thick.
The set carried a list price of $1,500, about $300 more than a similar model without 3-D. Then again, who pays list? I found the same 3-D set online for as low as $1,100. Still, that’s hundreds more than you’d pay for a 2D set of the same size. And you’ve still got to pay for the 3-D glasses, which have also come down in price. They ran around $100 a year ago, but I found them online for about $60.
But that’s $60 for each viewer. You’re paying for “active’’ 3-D glasses, with built-in electronics that generate the dimensional effect. And you’ve got to buy the right brand of glasses. A Sony 3-D set won’t work with Samsung 3-D glasses. But they and some other TV makers are planning to introduce a universal standard. Some companies sell sets that work with cheap “passive’’ 3-D glasses, like those used in movie theaters, but these glasses won’t work with the Sony set either.
Glasses-free 3-D is available on a small scale, such as the 3-DS Q handheld video game player by Nintendo Co. But doing 3-D without glasses on a big screen is far harder. Japan’s Toshiba Corp. is about to introduce a 55-inch no-glasses 3-D set in Germany, priced at $11,400.
The Sony glasses were reasonably comfortable, even on top of the pair I already wear, but you never forget you’ve got them on. Their presence added one more layer of unreality to a movie that already had plenty.
I and my colleague, Boston Globe TV editor Michael Brodeur, pulled on our 3-D glasses, punched up “Captain America,’’ and settled in for the show. I thought the 3-D effect worked well in scenes with vast open spaces. It conveyed a fairly plausible sense of depth and distance.
But close-in shots of actors talking to one another resembled cardboard cutouts laid on top of one another. “It wasn’t convincing 3-D,’’ Brodeur said. “It felt like flatness with depth.’’
Exactly. And since the scenes with human beings in them are the ones that really matter, I found the 3-D effect annoying.
It was less so when playing 3-D-compatible video games. Bouts with Microsoft Corp.’s updated Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary and Sony Corp.’s Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception were enjoyable enough. Since everything in a game is computer-generated, the unrealistic 3-D sensation wasn’t disturbing as it can be in live-action cinema. But neither did it make the games any more enjoyable. It was a gimmick, nothing more.
Still, in the long run, 3-D TVs will probably dominate the market, as their price keeps dropping. Even I would buy a 3-D set at the same price as 2D. But I probably wouldn’t buy the 3-D glasses because I’d hardly ever need them.