Some studies show that 3D in the home is booming, other studies show that it is taking a nose dive. Presumably it depends who you ask and how you ask. If you are considering making the leap, the venerable technology website CNET has a very useful buying guide for 3D TVs.
Written by David Katzmaier, topics include:
The guide also has some useful observations:
Unlike Blu-ray, 3D broadcasts on TV currently use a half-resolution 3D format known as side-by-side, resulting in a significantly softer, non-high-def look. We know of no plans to add more 3D channels or introduce a full-HD resolution 3D broadcast, although we expect both improvements to occur sometime over the next few years…
and some interesting insights:
3D Content Has A Chicken-And-Egg Problem That Will Hinder Faster Adoption.
If few people own 3D TVs, content producers have little incentive to deliver 3D programming and games. But lack of 3D content is a big reason people don’t want to get a 3D TV today. We don’t see this situation changing in the immediate future, and we feel glasses-free 3D TVs need to be available at mainstream prices–and work well–before 3D content has a chance to become as common as 2D high-def content is today.
Planet 3D says:
In terms of wide adoption of 3D TV, we are where we were ten years ago with HDTV. The first sets are available at high (but rapidly falling) prices, content is scant and not yet compelling. The difference is that as consumers and media aficionados we are more accustomed to having content at our fingertips when, where, and how we want it. I think the current renaissance in quality 3D content will inevitably lead to an acceleration in demand for 3D-enabled home theatre.
In other words, the question for home theatre impresarios isn’t should you invest in a new television with 3D capabilities, but rather should you invest in a new television without 3D capabilities? Do you want to run the risk of not being able to enjoy the coming wave of very cool content as it was meant to be seen?
Planet 3D 