Is the TV industry ignoring non-3D viewers
by Rafe Needleman
When it comes to 3D television, I don`t see it. Literally. The technology that`s supposed to convince me that a 3D image exists when I look at a 2D screen doesn`t work for me. Nor does it work for a small but significant percentage of the population–4 percent to 10 percent, depending on which expert you ask. Millions of people like me are being left behind by content and hardware companies as they move to 3D.
I don`t mean to complain. It`s not the end of the world. Flat viewers, like me, can watch 2D versions of 3D content. I saw Avatar in the non-3D version. As a bonus, the theater was nearly empty–the 3D showing down the hall was more crowded. Plus, we didn`t have to wear those dorky glasses.
Of course, we are social beings, and not being able to view 3D means that group or family outings to 3D showings are awkward for the flat viewers who may have to sit through a showing that will cause headaches or just look bad to them. But the flat viewer`s experience with 3D imagery can vary. While I find viewing 3D imagery uncomfortable, Daniel Terdiman, another person at CNET who can`t see 3D, saw the 3D version of Avatar and wore the 3D glasses. It looked fine to him, just not 3D.
Read the whole story here: http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2010/01/18/i … d-viewers/
Share your thoughts in our discussion forums.