Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Did 3D TVs and Stereoscopic 3D Television Broadcasting Fail?
dryriver writes: Just a few years ago the future seemed bright for 3D TVs. The 3D film Avatar smashed all box office records. Every Hollywood studio wanted to make big 3D films. The major TV set manufacturers from LG to Phillips to Panasonic all wanted in on the 3D TV action. A 3D disc format called Blu-ray 3D was agreed on. Sony went as far as putting free 3D TVs in popular pubs in London to show Brits how cool watching football ("Soccer" in the U.S.) in Stereo 3D is. Tens of millions of dollars of 3D TV related ads ran on TV stations across the world. 3D Televisions and 3D content was, simply put, the biggest show in town for a while as far as consumer electronics goes. Then the whole circus gradually collapsed -- 3D TVs failed to sell well and create the multi-billion dollar profits anticipated. 3D at home failed to catch on with consumers. Shooting genuine stereo 3D films (not "post conversions") proved to be expensive and technically challenging. Blu-ray 3D was only modestly successful. Even Nvidia's stereo 3D solutions for PC gamers failed. What, in your opinion, went wrong? Were early 3D TV sets too highly priced? Were there too few 3D films and 3D TV stations available to watch (aka "The Content Problem")? Did people hate wearing active/passive plastic 3D glasses in the living room? Was the price of Blu-ray 3D films and Blu-ray 3D players set too high? Was there something wrong with the stereo 3D effect the industry tried to popularize? Did too many people suffer 3D viewing related "headaches," "dizzyness," "eyesight problems," and similar? Was the then -- still quite new -- 1080p HD 2D television simply "good enough" for the average TV viewer? Another related question: If things went so wrong with 3D TVs, what guarantee is there that the new 3D VR/AR trend won't collapse along similar lines as well?
Glasses
3d fails once/generation.
Basically because it sucks.
It doesn't _have_ to suck, but directors are mostly morons.
At least they didn't reissue Basekitball in 3d, ducks.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
???
The stimulus checks arrived and Americans purchased big screen tvs. 3D arrived a year later and people weren't ready to replace their tech.
3D is a generally awful experience for most people. It's disorienting, uncomfortable, and doesn't look good for about 99% of the events that took the effort to record in 3D. It was also insanely expensive for a gimmick. It's the same gimmick that has been recurring every 20 or 30 years since the 50s. It still doesn't look any better than it did when it was first introduced. And, as has already been mentioned, having to wear glasses to watch tv sucks. For those that already wear glasses it double sucks.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Good for movies timing. But not for full time viewing.
For some people 3d can be headache-inducing but I think most can be fine with an 1-2.5 hour movie.
Avatar worked because it was a highly anticipated Big Budget Sci-Fi Action/Adventure. People love that kind of stuff in 3D, since it makes it more immersive
But do you want everything in 3D? Hell no.
Because we're a multitasking generation. The need to wear special equipment to watch TV, then to take it off to check messages on a phone, then put in on again, then take it off to go to a quick piss break during commercials then back on again to go back to the show... Plus, the need for the piece of equipment per person. Plus the amount of media that is more passively consumed vs active (think having a TV show running in the background while doing house chores).
Seriously, 3D missed the mark on pretty much every account of every day modern human life.
Lack of good content, crappy glasses, and the fact that the glasses suck for anything else. When you're in a movie theater, you're WATCHING the movie. When you're in a pub, you're watching the game, drinking with friends, carrying on conversations, etc - the glasses suck for all that. At home, you're looking at your phone, browsing the web, doing 'X' other things that you don't need the glasses for, but you've still got them on... or you take them off and then glancing up at the screen it looks like crap.
Only reason I still go to the theater is because 3D is great in theaters. I dont care for it in my house all the time though
1. The stupid glasses, which make the image dim and give you a headache. 2. It is not 3D - it adds depth, but that is it. Unlike real 3D, you change your position and the image does not change. It was a silly gimmick in the 50s, it is a silly gimmick now. Let's wait for real, holographic 3D as in Star Wars.
Because it was expensive...
Because it required goofy glasses...
Because the vast majority of TV watching won't benefit from 3-D imaging...
Because 3-D content was rare...
Because the various formats were incompatible...
Because it was a solution in search of a problem?
Ken
For me it comes down to story. If the story I am watching (or playing) is good it doesn't need any gimmicks.
While the high res graphics or 3D experience is cool once in a while it gets old fast if the story sucks.
VR/AR is different because it's interactive. You move and what you see changes like would be expected in real life.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
What do you mean the future looked bright? And then go on to point out how it failed spectacularly.
:-)
The future was HYPED. But it was not bright. It only seemed that way because of the hype.
Nobody wanted it then. Nobody wants it now.
If you make a big budget popular movie in 3D then the 3D will ride the coattails of the movie's success.
3D doesn't contribute enough improvement to the story telling experience to be worth the trouble of the glasses. I would dare say for most movies 3D contributes exactly NOTHING to the story experience.
Maybe a better business model for theatres: try making 3D movies cheaper so that people have to pay a premium to avoid 3D. Let's see how that works out for you.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
A display with greater than 100hz refresh rate. You need at least the 100hz refresh so the glasses used to see 3D don't flicker.
Short answer - yes.
Longer answer - For "most" people when they first came out, 1080p was simply a bigger picture and they never even choose HD channels when available... I had several relatives that bought rear-projection HD TVs then simply watched standard definition TV on a bigger screen.
Ken
Content.
I saw the new SW movie at a real IMAX (i.e. not re-branded) with 3D. It felt pretty much identical to watching on 2D. If that happens with Star Wars, imagine how much less useful it is to have the average movie be 3D. Also, 3D glasses aren't great for a movie on in the background.
Although glasses too. 3D will happen a bit when it becomes easy to do without adding another peripheral. For example, watching movies on a VR or AR headset, there should obviously be a 3D option for movies that support it. It's just that the content out there right now isn't enough to push more adoption.
Real lawyers write in C++
Fuck 3D. When they were showing 3D in theaters, I preferred 2D. Even if they had made 3D cheaper than 2D, I'd still prefer 2D.
1. I wear glasses.
2. Wearing 3D glasses over glasses is fucking retarded.
3. Having to swivel my head back and forth to see the screen is retarded.
4. Paying a premium to watch something in 3D is retarded.
5. Reasons: Retarded.
Because it was a gimic to stop cam recording of movies while they were in the theatres.
The one good thing about the long 3d hype is that enough movies have come out that directors no longer feel the need to constantly be throwing things at your face to show it off. Movies are now getting made that are "movies in 3d" rather than "3d movies".
Because in movies like 'Avatar', the 3D is done well. In some other movies, it's a cheap parlor trick ("Let's have something jump out at them, that's worth the 3D tax for this movie"). And in other movies, it's obvious the director doesn't care / doesn't know how to make use of the 3D element: I guess they just film in 3D, keep the existing Z-axis values, and hit upload ("What is the foreground, what is the background, should my actors / characters have very flat Z-values or should I try to 'HDR' that, highlighting what's really impressive").
No capes.
No 3D jump-out scare scenes.
...I gotta wear 3D glasses. Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I'm a grouchy old dinosaur so I've never shelled out for a 3D movie. I've never even really been tempted, I'd rather buy popcorn for the extra $5. So, I never saw a bright future for a 3D TV, it always seemed like a gimmick to sell more TV screens. Frankly, I'm surprised they keep making 3D movies. I thought the fad would peter out years ago.
I did buy a Blu-Ray player which can play 3D movies but since that never got in my way, I didn't care. It plays disks and streams Netflix, that's all I need it to do.
it is 2.5D, stereoscopy that only works when you are sitting in an precisely defined place.
Also it is not immersive, aka "all around you", something that most people subconsciously associate with 3D.
And because most people have seen stereoscopic movies in the past, they will be seriously underwhelmed with '3D' TV.
360 video is here if you have an Oculus Rift
That has the same problem. It may be 360 but it's just 2D. I would say it's 3D only when each eye is at least delivered different perspectives, which NO 360 capture devices I am aware of today do... even then it would be from a very fixed point of view from which you could not shift.
it's nice to be able to look around but it's only ever from a fixed point of view. If you could move even a few feet to either side and see something different, THAT would be full 3D 360 video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3D cameras are expensive. Even the adapters that do the red/blue 3D thing for regular cameras are expensive for what little they actually do.
3D theatrical releases still do OK, but not TVs. That's because for 3D to work properly, the screen needs to eat up a large portion of your view field. That's easy to do in a theater. At home you'd need a gigantic multi-thousand dollar TV gobbling up a big chunk of your living room to get the same effect.
3D on a small screen looks like stuff is popping out of a box at you, instead of immersing you in the image.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I saw Rogue One in 3D, then in 2D. I preferred the 2D presentation primarily because it was brighter... the 3D did not add much value at all to me.
I have 3D glasses and supported projector at home, but it really doesn't work - and I know what the hell I'm doing setup wise. So you can chalk pain of setup to the reasons why it is not more widespread.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I worked for Philips in the mid 2000's and I got to see some tv's which used lenticular lenses which meant no glasses were needed while watching 3d content. It was pretty good. Then I sat down and watched a few full movies in one of the tech labs and was blown away by how amazing and natural the experience was. They were generations ahead and I have not seen a 3d experiance (glasses or not) as good since.
I am so sad this tech never made it into mainstream consumer land. I would have upgraded on the spot.
Does anyone else make a 3d non glasses set these days?
The '3D' they promote is simply the blue and red glasses fake 3D turned up to 11 on the technology meter. It's a great novelty; seeing Avatar the first time was utterly stunning but you get tired of it pretty quickly, your brain adapts and it becomes 'normal' until the inevitable 'throw shit at the camera to show off this fancy 3D' moments.
That's not to mention the issues you have if your eyesight isn't 20/20. Your brain compensates for poorer eyesight a lot more than you realise until you start watching 3D...especially if one is long and the other short sighted.
Nobody wants to sit around a TV wearing uncomfortable glasses, having to get up for breaks to avoid dizziness and paying a premium for a feature they know they'll rarely, if ever, use.
cat videos are the new porn
Price isn't the issue, many TVs come with free 3D or the glasses are very cheap, and this was true even with the early sets. And I never noticed that 3D Blurays were that much more expensive than the regular ones. Content is something of an issue, as it takes effort and know-how to do 3D well. Cameron got it right in Avatar (but also Sanctum), few others really get it right, but if you like 3D movies the content is there. Lastly, the headaches and dizziness seem to affect a relatively small group of people only. None of that is what's stopped 3D TV from becoming a hit.
It's simple physics what stopped it. Look up "depth budget". This is the maximum distance that content can stick out in front of the screen or go behind it, and it is directly proportional to viewing distance. You may have been blown away by the 3D world of Avatar in the cinema, but sadly you will never recreate the same immersion at home with a 3D set, even if you get a huge TV and sit so close to it that it covers the same part of your field of view as a cinema screen does. Because of the puny depth budget.
The good news is that VR doesn't have this shortcoming. And it adds another level of realism that shouldn't be underestimated: the ability to look around in the scene. Provided that cinematographers are willing to deal with the added complexity, VR movies will provide a new level of immersion. Same as in certain types of games (shooters, MMORPGs, etc): 3D didn't add enough to make it worthwhile bothering, but VR probably will... for people who won't mind wearing a VR helmet for hours on end, of which there are plenty. 3D TV was destined to fail, but I bet VR will be viable when affordable, high quality VR helmets will hit the market, with reliable head tracking (and hand tracking for games), and high definition displays that provide a wide field of view.
By the way, please don't lump VR and AR together like that, they may seem similar but they are two very different things, in terms of both technology and application. And AR has nothing to do with 3D TV.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4K TV was a hit because we wanted it. The old stuff was dated and 4K was a big jump forward for us. Manufacturers could not produce them fast enough once that demand hit. Then the market became saturated and manufacturers had all this capacity that was no longer being used. They decided we wanted 3D TV and told us that we wanted it. It was cool and all, but we all just purchased these 4K TVs. 3D was cool, but I didn't need it like I needed 4K.
Then they started making 8K TV because that worked before. They tried to tell us that we needed 8K TV. Same issue, we just dropped a ton on this 4K TV and it still looks good. I don't need a new TV.
Then they started making curved TVs and tried to tell us that is what we needed and it sounds like more of the same and we are not longer listening to the marketing they are pushing. We heard it already.
Now, I think VR/AR is something new and different. Although, I half expect it to crash once before it is real. I love this stuff, but I am an early adopter. The hardware is there, but I worry they are trying to push it too big too quick. They want it be hot like the cellphone craze or the 4k TV craze or the tablet craze. I feel like they are rushing it and talking up artificial demand for something we don't really need and lacks enough content to keep you from putting it down.
Were early 3D TV sets too highly priced?
- Yes, WAY overpriced for the perceived value to anyone but marketeers.
Were there too few 3D films and 3D TV stations available to watch (aka "The Content Problem")?
- No, because nobody cared about the 'feature'
Did people hate wearing active/passive plastic 3D glasses in the living room?
- I'm not sure many people even GOT to this point, but that was certainly the kiss of death.
Was the price of Blu-ray 3D films and Blu-ray 3D players set too high?
- didn't even hit the radar by this point
Was there something wrong with the stereo 3D effect the industry tried to popularize?
- yes, that nobody wanted it and the industry INSISTED IT WAS THE GREATEST THING EVER.
Did too many people suffer 3D viewing related "headaches," "dizzyness," "eyesight problems," and similar?
- Again, didn't even tickle the needle - the so-called consumer had lost interest for several reasons before this step.
Was the then -- still quite new -- 1080p HD 2D television simply "good enough" for the average TV viewer?
- Yes, and largely still is. 4k only sells when the upcharge is nearly insignificant.
Another related question: If things went so wrong with 3D TVs, what guarantee is there that the new 3D VR/AR trend won't collapse along similar lines as well?
- None. I expect it will tank almost completely. cf: Internet of Things.
Oddly enough, consumers are starting to understand that they don't need shit simply because some website, magazine, or tv show says they do.
-Styopa
At least for me, the problem was the studios who pushed tons of post-production garbage as though it were real 3D. After Avatar, I shelled out the extra $4 a ticket to see a couple other movies in 3D, but it ended up being actually being only being a scene or two done in post-production, and it added nothing to the movies. Thay was the end of that! If a movie comes out that is shot in 3D and it really enhances the experience, I'm in, but if it's a cheaply executed gimmick to charge me more, no thanks.
fail.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
My 3D TV works fine. So does my viewmaster. What failed? I enjoy good stereoscopy when I have the time. Bad stereoscopy always sucks. If the TV industry had greater expectations for what 3D was supposed to do for them then what they got out of it, shame on them. They sold me a TV and a copy of Hugo. I'm happy with it. If the TV or movie industry's not happy with it, they are expecting too much. You know...this reminds me of the "failure" of music games. It's like if something can't be turned into a perpetual motion machine cash cow mashup, it's a "failure". Let's just keep making 3D glasses an option, and move on.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Just because a bunch of people in marketing said it was the "next big thing" does not make it true. 3D has been around for longer than I have worked with computers and it's never been a "big" thing even though we periodically go through the hype and marketing claims.
There are numerous reasons why it's a niche market and will remain a niche market. Off the top of my head, little is gained by 3D compared to the costs and negative side effects. Too much depth and people are in discomfort, too little and there is no depth so no visible 3D for people to enjoy. The camera is the only way to see the perspective, so anyone sitting out of center camera view is getting skewed displays. Computer generated 3D is nothing like real 3D so the overall "wow" factor diminishes after a few viewings.
Like the overly hyped Apple Watch and Google glass 3D will remain a niche market. I think it's fair to predict the same for IoT.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... because it was a silly gimmick invented by marketers to get people to stop pirating TV; but which never really worked properly, was too inconvenient to use and nobody actually wanted in the first place?
The good quality cameras are too expensive and the ones in the lower end hardly have any 3D effect at all.
Cost, limited content availability, and it tried to solve a problem that nobody had. This occurred when I was in college, and just a couple of years before, the market was undergoing shocks from the format "victory" of blu-ray over HD-DVD. This was the same timeframe where large ( > 32"), slim LCD and LED-backlit flatscreen TVs were becoming an affordable norm for middle class households. Plasma screens were on their way out. The people most likely to buy a 3D TV did, but it wasn't enough to sustain the up-front investment in dedicated 3D content; content being what draws the "everyday consumer" to upgrade.
This was also the same timeframe when the iphone / smartphone became widespread, and the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video for existing content. Consumers generally were wanting easier access to existing content or everyday content, not a whole new way to experience the same thing.
I disagree with most of the comments so far.
I've got two 3D TVs that use passive glasses, and I like them. When it seemed like every movie was coming out in 3D, I went to 3 or 4 of them over almost as many years and kept the glasses, so I've got a good stock. I can wear them while I'm doing other things and still see other screens just fine. With a 3D program in the background, it can take a second or two for your brain to switch back into artificial 3D mode, but that's not too bad.
Price wasn't a big deal. On one of the TVs, I went searching for a TV with specific features that I wanted, and 3D came along for the ride. The TV was maybe $30 more than a crappy one of similar size.
Content is poor. And not just selection. Tron Legacy is beautiful in 3D and has a great soundtrack, but the movie is just awful. And sadly, there are plenty others like it.
The killer app for 3D TV though, should have been sports. The Canadians did a 3D broadcast of a hockey game at least once, and it is amazing. It has to be seen to be believed. I play that game for skeptics now and then, and they get really, really excited about 3D TV. But then they deflate when the realize that nothing is ever broadcast in 3D, and specifically nothing in the sport they like (whatever that is).
See that "Preview" button?
I know it's got vision in the name. I know we watch it. But still, good tv is more audio than video.
Think about it. You can be watching tv, turn up the sound, and go to the bathroom. You can cook dinner. You can talk to friends. You can eat chicken wings and chips and drink beer. All while the tv is on in the background.
But, mute the audio, and there's very little that you can watch at all. Sure, sports work, but anything else?
The initial attraction was the novelty, as always. Focus on it, and it's great. But when was the last time that you sat down to watch tvision, and stayed focused on the picture? Even when I'm doing nothing else, I'm lying down on the couch, resting my eyes.
As for movies in the theatre, I barely notice the 3D at all anymore -- which is way better than the original dizziness of yore. I can't say that 3D is any better than 2D for any of the entertainment value of it all.
So really, it comes down to just how little 3D adds. Audio vs silent is a huge difference. Video vs radio is a huge difference. 2D vs fake 3D (you still can't see what's behind the car) adds absolutely nothing that my imagination wasn't already doing.
So, it doesn't convey any artistic expression. Movies beat books because I can see what the author wants me to see, which makes in his expression as opposed to my imagination. 3D adds absolutely nothing new.
3D is a gimmic almost entirely geared toward getting people to actually go to movie theatres. It doesn't work at home because of the environmental factors like viewing angles, lighting, glasses, etc.
It works in the theatre because everyone is dozens of feet from the screen, all looking at (nearly) the same angle. I saw Rogue One in IMAX 3D and I was way out in the wings. It didn't look great from that angle.
I think everyone in the industry just finally came to the conclusion that 3D at home basically isn't going to work no matter how much they want it to. Now its all about the most pixels, the most color and dynamic range (both of which are still crap compared to e.g. IMAX at the theatre), the biggest panel, the least power usage, and the most "smart" bullshit they can cram into the firmware.
This is the question which should have been asked. I don't have a room dedicated to a TV wall which would be big enough to justify a 4k TV. I have a 46 inch 1080P TV which as as large as I am willing to go in my living room, and from across the room I seriously doubt I could tell the difference between a good 46 inch 1080P display and a 46 inch 4K display. In a theater the difference would certainly show, but not in the living rooms of most normal homes.
Once you've seen it, you stop caring about it. Then you realize you're paying extra for something that's no longer interesting.
A film is about characters, dialogue, action, and keeping the audience engaged for 2-3 hours. 3D effects can't do that. You get bored with it.
Also - the lighting for films was already poor in 2D. In 3D it's even worse wearing the glasses.
As for VR - it's only interesting until you get bored. If something in VR doesn't engage you, the novelty will wear off again.
Second - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - most people using the current state of the art in 3D viewing can only handle limited exposure before suffering multiple deficits - headaches, nausea, mild visual deficits upon removing the 3D glasses and reentering meatspace. Third - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - the majority of viewers already own reasonably new technology just so they can watch the new digital format broadcasts. This includes technology which can accommodate HD or even 4K resolution as well as natively supporting the now standard widescreen format which modern media are designed to use. Incidentally, this has been partially responsible for the persistence of DVD when Blu-Ray (with Sony DRM) is Hollyweird's current media of choice for home video.
Fourth - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - even if all media were presented in a 3D ready format (preferably one which would auto-detect and smartly select 2D or 3D presentation based on the technology in use on the viewing end of the pipe, rather than requiring user intervention to tune to a different channel), some media simply does not translate well. Only new productions (or those previously mastered for 3D presentation) could even be sent this way, and I can think of a great many things I don't want to see in that much detail in any event. News articles prefaced with the disclaimer "this video may be shocking or disturbing to some viewers" or containing our current PEOTUS come screaming to mind here.
Fifth - those glasses cost money. Sheesh! I already laid out big bucks to make sure my video systems can accommodate all these gimmicks, now I have to spend extra if I want more than a couple of people to be able to watch simultaneously?
Sixth - where's the content? I think this'd be cool for watching football games, but I don't see the NFL going down this road just yet. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing any sports which I can routinely watch in 4K 3D, or HD 3D. Even if all of the above reasons were addressed, it's annoying to have to actively do something - anything - to watch flatscreen, then 3D, then flatscreen.
When full-motion, full-color solid appearing holography is a thing, call me. Until then, 3D is a step along the way but we're not even up to the Model-T automobile yet - current 3D efforts are more along the lines of steam-powered. It's klunky, kludgy, and generally more of an annoyance than a benefit. I know people that own the current state of the art in 3D and even they find it inconvenient. To them, useful and fun but inconvenient (the biggest reason 3D is not catching on, IMHO).
I'm sure someone can look up the exact numbers, but doesn't 3D stereoscopic cinema/TV/whatever boom then bust about every 15–20 years or so, for nearly the last century?
Maybe not fixed period, but was big in early 1980s in cinema, and late 1990s/2000 in cinema/video games, and around 2010 in cinema/TV/games/home video cameras etc?
Also had a few boom/bust cycles earlier in the twentieth century with anaglyphic (red/green)?
Guess it'll be coming around again around 2025/2030 timescale.
I was going to write a long comment, but the short of it is that there's very little film content where 3D provides a significantly better experience. Further, traditional film-making does not always play nice with 3D. VR/AR has a lot more possibility for creating new content where 3D (or just depth perception) is required. Unless content is created that requires 3D, it's resigned to being a gimmick, just like on the silver screen and on the Nintendo 3DS.
... don't give a shit about the media form.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"A gimmick is a novel device or idea designed primarily to attract attention or increase appeal, often with little intrinsic value.[1][2] It is a unique or quirky feature designed to make a product or service "stand out" from its competitors. Product gimmicks are sometimes considered mere novelties, and tangential to the product's functioning. Gimmicks are occasionally viewed negatively, but some seemingly trivial gimmicks of the past have evolved into useful, permanent features." wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gently reply
1) Pornography. Make it good enough quality to jerk off. The Porn industry is dying from home made crap, but good 3d Porn could revive it, especially if making it requires more expensive equiptment than a broker college girl can afford. Expense would be a positive, not a negative.
That said, you also need:
2) No glasses. Can't limit the number of people that can view nor can you give them something that can be lost/break. Especially if your 'hands are busy.
3) Minimum of 180. No requiring people to watch from directly in front. Best if you can put it int he center of a table and watch from all 360 degree.
4) Make it work well in bright light.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Along with a large percentage of people. Next question please.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Without content no interest. Even 3D movies in the theater are never worth the extra money they cost. Plus, having to wear these stupid glasses is not helpful.
Most TVs came with 3D whether you wanted it or not, the issues were: 1) finding the glasses.. setting up.. oh well lets also get the surround sound turned on too.. it was a mission just to get started. ohhh, where are those glasses..? 2) On top of this, it was doomed to fail with stories going around to not let kids used 3D glasses.. serious look of critical mass in building up market share.
Yup, glasses.
and that's goggles.
It's OK when you come to a movie theater and you're given a pair of glasses. Nice and clean, and later you can take them off and forget about them.
It's not OK when you have to inconvenience yourself with 3D glasses at home. Also, unlike a TV remote you must keep them clean and tidy or they become unpleasant to use.
Other minor problems in my opinion are: 1) 3D has a degraded quality (only half vertical resolution) 2) you have to manually enable the 3D mode when you need it (never seen TV sets which do that automatically) 3) the novelty effect wears off far too quickly 4) strictly speaking TVs are home appliances which are often watched in/as background/in quick sessions and people couldn't be bothered with 3D.
Strangely the industry doesn't ask itself why 4K displays slowly replace FullHD panels and 4K hasn't failed. Two many reasons: 1) it only started happening when prices fell 2) 4K doesn't require any additional tinkering on behalf of the user: you turn the TV set on and it just works. It's not that people actually see those eight megapixels - nope, most people watch TVs so far from the screen, there's zero different between FullHD and 4K resolutions for them.
New technologies for home must not be cumbersome and difficult to use. 3D is.
because it's not what people wanted. It didn't deliver the "immersive" experience that the content providers claimed it would. People don't buy crap that doesn't work. This is what happens with corps try to push stuff on consumers. The corps can supply all they want, but only demand produces sales. Ask Sony about Betamax.
Or is this a trick question?
In the opening scene of Avatar, Cameron's DP pulled focus from the actor's face to a CGI water droplet floating in zero-G. Cameron basically said "I will control all that you see and hear. You will focus on this droplet, because your vision isn't your vision anymore, it's MY vision, and my vision is better." That was one of the most jarring, wrenching, irritating things I've ever experienced as a moviegoer. Great film, but some of that stuff is just over the top arrogance.
There are two kinds of stereoscopic 3d: Bad 3d and worse 3d. Bad 3d uses two cameras a slight distance apart, or a single camera with split optics to put two images on the same frame. Worse 3D uses a single camera, then a digital conversion to stereo, using various grabasstic methods of trying to figure out depth of objects in the scene and offsetting the elements in a compositing suite like Nuke or other application. In either case, the results are often manipulated digitally to enhance what those in the biz call "a 3D moment." The bottom line is that it all looks like ass and as mentioned upthread, a significant portion of the population has problems seeing it. Even the best stereoscopic process still gives you bad 3d, because guess what? I'ts not 3d.
A big problem comes from when things break frame 'in front of the window." Something coming out at you that suddenly goes out of frame is a jarring mess. Snow or rain is a particularly egregious example. You can't really help that, so one of the coolest things about game-engine based 3d VR (360 VR isn't really VR, but it's easier to say and market than "immersive spherical projection") is that there's no frame to break, so the illusion doesn't suffer.
To actually answer the question, the reason stereo 3d failed, again, same as in the 50's and the 80's, is that it's a whole lot of extra expense and technical complexity for a mere fraction of improvement to the experience, and subsequently, the bottom line.
Not going to wear additional glasses for when watching TV.
I'll get VR gear to get 3D once the quality is equal to my monitors and the FOV is correct but that will be for racing games .... OK, maybe porn as well but not a full movie
The real problem was timing. They pushed hard to release 3D shortly after the majority of people had just bought an expensive new LCD tv that didn't have support for 3D. When tv's are on the order of ~$1000, its not worth dropping a tv thats only a year or two old for a new one just to get 3D. Then, they didn't wait long enough for attrition to kick in before deciding 3D wasn't desired by the population and dropping it. They were totally wrong in the assumption. I do want 3D. The feature all by itself is not enough though. Maybe 3D + 4K, or other stuff would have caused people to jump sooner. But they didn't plan it that way. They just assumed people would jump and drop thousands of dollars on it then thought people don't want the tech when they didn't. silly.
Honestly, if it cost 150$ for one of them, and the broadcasts were either via internet (I pirate stream everything because I hate commercials like all human beings) or could be received via rabbit ears then sure.
However, they want money like we still have money. These are the same arseholes who pay us barely above minimum wage which is already below poverty level in most places.
Perhaps if they either
a) Paid people better, made a campaign out of it and did their utmost to make sure the people around them were not living in poverty
or
b) Lower the cost to the 100$-200$ range (that would take me, and I am certainly not alone, roughly 10 weeks to save up for).
Instead they lived in an ivory tower fantasy world about the conditions normal people around them exist in. I would much rather be able to eat then give a damn about watching terrible tv shows with some glamor effect. These people are so divorced from reality it isn't even funny and their products failure was obvious since before it was even brought to market.
As is almost always the case, it was a mix of things:
1. Cost of glasses, measured in both money and inconvenience
2. Lack of compelling content
3. Shitty viewing experience
That adds up to a very high perceived cost/benefit ratio, so people stayed away.
During the 3D marketing push, my wife and I had to buy two TVs. Each time, we went to BB, etc., and did our best to give 3D a shot, and it was clearly a way overpriced gimmick. I am very happy we bypassed that non-feature both times.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Anyone else here old enough to remember quad stereo back in the 70's?
Back then speakers were huge, heavy and expensive. I could hardly afford 2 speakers and they wanted me to buy 4? Not to mention the overpriced quadraphonic media like vinyl discs and 8 track tapes.
People finally realized they only had 2 ears and it wasn't worth the cost.
I personally think the 3-D wave happened too soon after the HD wave. Far too many brand new HD sets in the market that didn't need replacing just yet. And everyone was so in awe of HD, 3-D just didn't quite matter.
the glasses and the resulting quality sucked. my tv has the 3d things, some samsung, i never even opened the 2nd pair of glasses because at no point was i like "this is so cool im going to suggest it for date night". to work on my tv, the movies could only be half their resolution apparently, because it was a split screen eye killer.
Just as hype, just as fail, for much the same reasons.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's overpriced, a substandard experience and no 'must have' application...
Oh, and eye strain.
I agree that the glasses are the biggest barrier to entry. TV works because it requires no effort to watch, and can even be social. Glasses require effort and remove the social aspect. Really something like Ultra-D (http://www.ultra-d.com/) is needed to make 3D TV work, but they've been so slow to get their sets out and still have such a high price point.
If you bought a nice 55" or larger 3D TV with decent glasses then it was actually really good and worth it for some movies.
The problem was there were too many smaller TVs with inferior glasses that made the experience not so great. Which do you think the majority of consumers purchased? Combine this with way too many movies that were filmed in 2D then re-rendered in fake 3D.
A novelty I had no interest in. Meh....
price and lack of need to replace existing TVs. nobody cares to be hyped. no one wants to rush out and buy new stuff all the time. the industry thought we would be in to having intercourse with them, so they pre-maturely removed their pants but we didn't want intercourse this time.
people will buy 3D TVs only if they are priced the same as regular TVs, and only then when they are in the market to buy a new TV say when their old one breaks down and needs replaced.
TV is not that hot of content. no one actually gives a crap about it.
obamasweapon.com
The reason Avatar was such a box office success, other than Cameron's genius, was the forking budget. The theatre experience was worth the inconvenience of wearing the glasses because the best 3D tech available was available. It seems like many copycats were looking to play up the 3D angle while not delivering the same quality of goods.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
3D immersion requires the large size of the image; 3D effect on postage size screen is greatly diminished. From that perspective any TV less than 70" at "standard" viewing distance can be considered postage size.
Next, half of 3D movies are shot in "cinematic" aspect ratio. Those movies feature black bars shrinking image size on your typical TV even more.
There is a reason why Avatar has been filmed in 16:9. Hollywood insistence on keeping scope alive even for 3D venues is either arrogance, carelessness, or plain incompetence.
Headache? Try projectile vomiting!
love is just extroverted narcissism
The problem is that it's not "really" 3D, it relies on visual illusion and tricking your brain which we don't really fully understand yet. And the technology that "stitches" the images together is still lacking causing things like eye strain, fatigue and headaches.
The other problem is that manufacturers were playing number games just to get the "best" display. Displays went from specifying 30Hz to 240Hz overnight without any real breakthrough in the technology. That is they stopped measuring black-white-black transitions and just took two neighboring greys to pump the numbers and then back to flickering the backlights (CRT style) to make it look better. Meaning for most displays they are physically only doing ~40Hz transitions on large swathes of the screen and then for 3D you're cutting that in half.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
it doesn't make the everyday experience any better. More specifically, nobody stops watching TV or complains that a TV looks flat and the picture is not believable. Good media is based on good story. How would 3D make Fargo better? To Kill a Mockingbird? NewsHour? Modern Family? The Sopranos? Answer: it wouldn't. As for sports, you do not see the action with any noticeable parallax changes unless you are on the field, and you rarely see a shot that close in play, typically only via the sidelines and in close-ups in-between plays.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
We use a lot of visual cues to determine the distance to an object.
Fixed point stereoscopic vision adds very, very little to our sense of depth at considerable overhead (glasses, reduced brightness, lower frame rate) and with some people finding the mismatch between individual image and eye position actually detracts from the sense of 'realism'.
Like any new film technique it's in the 'novelty' stage and suffers from over-use and a lack of audience familiarity (so that it can be ignored and become just one more transparent mechanism for story telling). It doesn't offer enough benefit to get past this stage (as it hasn't in each of the previous incarnations) and interferes with existing techniques (use of changing focus to direct attention).
They added an extra step to an already established process of sitting down and just turning the tv on.
Having to use glasses has some major flaws:
1. the glasses are annoying to wear for most/some
2. they get lost easy, thus adding way more steps just to watch something
3. do you have enough for everyone? what if you have friends over to watch something?
For home "theaters" like a man cave they are cool but they aren't practical enough for everyday use simply because of the glasses. The content when it isn't executed correctly also looks very turd like. MIB3 is a perfect example.
Most 3D is very subtle and lacks much depth. It's even worse when it's a post conversion. If I'm watching a movie and I have to struggle to even see the 3D, why would I bother? I'll only put up with the glasses and the darker image if the 3D really pops. Avatar, Coraline, Beowulf and The Polar Express were pretty good at that. Most other 3D movies, not so much.
That being said, I do own a 3D TV and projector and I still like to check out the handful of better 3D movies out there, from time to time. IMO, it's not worth watching on a TV, even a 65". It's a much better experience on a large screen that fills your view.
I'm sure it's been said before, but IMHO what went wrong is that nobody fucking cares that much about 3D. I think it's NEAT, but not compelling. Every time there's a choice between seeing a movie in 2D or 3D i pick 3D, and i'm like "mmmyeah that's kinda neat" but then AFTERWARD there's no memory if it being any more compelling than a 2D movie, in fact what i remember most was "it was a little darker (nits) than it should have been".
For me, 3d had a lot to overcome. The experience had to be great. The content, the need for 3D to justify the discomfort of the glasses, and that the 3d isn't exactly right (including content very close to your your head that your eye can tell is as far away as the TV, 3d that is fake and cartoony). The content had to be great to overcome all those things. For 3d TV, there was very little content and it was premium (expensive) content.
Also, the previous generation of TVS taught us to wait for the price to come down dramatically.
In Avatar, 3d really added to the experience. In every show I saw later, it added very little.
Nobody really wanted it. It just wasn't worth anything to people except as a novelty experience. Meanwhile, it required a complete tech refresh and wearing glasses, so it was a damned expensive novelty.
It was a desperate move to try to sell more stuff. 3D has come and gone countless times since the '50s. In the '70s they even tried broadcasting a few 3D movies with free glasses available everywhere for a couple weeks before. No special TV required. The rest was all hype. It never sold big except when they cooked the sales figures. Most of the big sales were people buying a marked down TV never intending to use the 3D capability.
Avatar was the novelty's one big hit this time around and even that was nearly as popular in 2D.
Put another way:
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.
I mean that literally.
"Watch" two hours of TV on a regular TV and over that you hours you can also:
- Fold the laundry
- Sort the mail
- Cook dinner
- Eat dinner
- Wash up
- Tidy the den after a day of use
Turn off the TV, you're ready to go to bed and read a book.
Watch two hours of 3D TV and you can either:
- Sit there and do nothing else, or
- Take the glasses on and off over and over and over again, while still not getting much else done
People in western societies have hours of time to watch TV every week. Unless you create a TV system that prevents them from doing anything else while they watch it. In which case, they have precious little time to watch TV every week.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I have never seen anyone complain about a 4k picture or display looking worse than a 2k picture. Quite the opposite of 3D, which many people (me included) do not favour.
You can watch 2k content on 4k displays just fine, no draw-backs, there. Much unlike putting a polarization filter in front of your display for 3D-ability, which is stealing a lot from your maximum luminance.
Though we do have various surround sound technologies for movies and TV, we don't have surround sound CD music. Back in the early 1970s the latest craze was 4-challen stereo high fidelity music. The technologies were splintered. Record encoding on vinyl had SQ, QS, and CD-4 on vinyl (the most accurate was CD-4). It was possible to broadcast SQ or QS stereo FM. They even came out with enhanced SQ encoding that could make a sound that was supposed to come out of one corner to be less prominent in the other three channels. It wasn't perfect, but it worked out very well. What might have made it mainstream would be a 4-channel cassette tape, as cassette tapes were quite popular back then, but North American Philips corporation had the patent on cassette technology, and they would not allow any company to produce a 4-head, one direction cassette recording system. 8-track tapes were not reliable nor a great technology for great sound but could have been configured with 4 heads and two stereo tracks.. They were noisy, and the tapes were doomed to early wear-out. By the time you were able to get a 4-channel one direction cassette recorder, the desire of consumers for a surround sound 4-channel system had waned. Perhaps it was the extra cost of having a special receiver or amp and preamp that had 4 separate channels, and the additional two speakers needed for the 4-channel sound. We've come a long way from back then, and sound has gotten worse in the digital music processing we have that's popular. Dynamic range in most CDs is worse than on vinyl records when it could be much, much better. try playing a CD disc from Telarc and you'll see what I mean, though they are more for symphony music than pop music (unless they've broadened their offerings since the 80s). Regardless of whether I'm wrong on some of these points, my point is that consumers are fickle, and sometimes downright cheap. Many don't buy into new tech because of the cost of the tech before it becomes cheaper. By the time it becomes cheaper, consumers have given up on the concept and have decided either to not move on or to move onto something else.
paragraphs mother fucker!
What trolls look for however would be in this case, "How dare you say mean things about Linux and take SCO's side!" Lame troll is lame.
When Star Wars came out, it gave us a taste of what real 3D would look like.
Until the day when that sort of thing is available, so called 3D TV is no more than a pathetic attempt at hype by an industry looking to jack up the price on something which is otherwise just a commodity.
Shutter tech eliminates half the frames, so you go from acceptable to below acceptable.
There also is the inability to focus on anything other than what the director/game engine thinks you should be looking at.
All in all it's in the uncanny valley
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Were early 3D TV sets too highly priced?
- Yes! But the content was also ridiculously expensive. Any 3D version of a show is at least $10 more expensive. Manufacturers and content producers thought that they could milk people for 3D and it failed.
Were there too few 3D films and 3D TV stations available to watch (aka "The Content Problem")?
- No, but there were too few who did 3D well. Mostly producers used 3D as a gimmick. Avatar did well because they did 3D correctly.
Did people hate wearing active/passive plastic 3D glasses in the living room?
- I blame Active 3D technology here for being just plain shitty. Most people didn't even know that there was such as thing as Passive 3D. When I tested Active 3D out it gave me a splitting headache within about 30 minutes. It was unwatchable for long periods of time and the glasses were ridiculously expensive. However, when I tried a passive 3D TV/glasses they worked great and I was hooked. I love passive 3D. Any of my friends that came over and watched something in passive 3D also liked it and most of them went and bought an LG TV set. The downside being loss of horizontal resolution. Now I'm waiting for 4K 3D where that will fix the resolution issue.
Was the price of Blu-ray 3D films and Blu-ray 3D players set too high?
- Players no, films absolutely, and they still are.
Was there something wrong with the stereo 3D effect the industry tried to popularize?
- Only to the degree that it generally was not done well. Film makers need to learn what makes a good 3D film and sadly in many cases it is an add on gimmick and the director doesn't spend any time learning how to use it effectively.
Did too many people suffer 3D viewing related "headaches," "dizzyness," "eyesight problems," and similar?
- Yes, because of Active 3D technology, which sucks horribly IMO.
Was the then -- still quite new -- 1080p HD 2D television simply "good enough" for the average TV viewer?
- Yes, but only because they've made 3D so hard for the average person to adopt. Expensive sets, content, glasses and poor Active 3D technology.
Another related question: If things went so wrong with 3D TVs, what guarantee is there that the new 3D VR/AR trend won't collapse along similar lines as well?
- I fully expect this to happen. People complained loudly about 3D glasses and now you expect them to wear a HMD? Really?
In fact you could say it has already failed, everything from sales to available software has been lackluster (even Sony's own VR "games" have been pathetic). The reason it's gonna be spectacular is because of how much money has been dumped on it by wide-eyed investors who went "oooh ahhhhh" at a VR demo and couldn't imagine this wasn't gonna be the Next Big Thing. It's absolutely hilarious.
The issue with "3D" in my home was that only 1 person could experience it without buying more glasses. The glasses were like $30 a pop so I didn't spring for more pairs. And all glasses didn't work with my TV. And even with a 65 inch Plasma tv, the 3d portion felt small and limited, unlike in theaters where the screen was 20 feet across. Then the screen was also dimmed while wearing the glasses...and yes, there was a headache after a while. So unpleasant experience for the little value you got form a 65 inch screen of 3d. It succeeds in theaters because the screen is huge and very bright.
They are '3d'
Actually they are not, they are "fake" 3D in the same way that applies to "3D" films at the cinema. They may provide two distinct images for each eye but the images are always at a fixed distance. In real 3D when an object moves towards you your eyes have to adjust their focus as the object gets closer. In fake 3D the image is always the same distance away. This means that you have to override years of learning and force your eyes not to refocus. While you can do this for some people the strain generates a headache after a while and in young kids excessive exposure to this may cause developmental problems since they may end up training the mind to deal with fake 3D as opposed to real world 3D.
A chunk of the population can't see in stereo, because of lazy eye, and other vision problems. They won't buy 3D tv's. Another chunk gets a headache with the glasses. Another chunk doesn't want to wear glasses, because they already wear glasses, and can't wear two pairs at a time.
There are two primary techs for 3D-at-home. The first is passive glasses, like the RealD glasses at the movie theater. It is polarized. This is the tech used by many LG televisions. The second is active glasses. They are battery powered. They cost sometimes > $100 per pair. This is used by Samsung and other manufacturers.
A single viewing of a 3D movie on an active system is enough to make anyone want to never view 3d again. The glasses are heavy, uncomfortable, and the flickering causes horrible headaches above and beyond anything a person might have had from the stereoscopic effect. However, most users think their headache was from the stereoscopic vision, not the horrible shit tech shoved down their throats because a marketing executive wanted to sell $500 worth of glasses to a family of four on top of their $1500 television.
If you have a high-quality 3d film like Avatar, or anything from DreamWorks Animation, etc -- the stuff intended from the start to be 3d, watch it on an LG system that supports the polarized glasse. The glasses are the exact same polarization as the RealD glasses from the theater -- you can take them home and use them on the tv. The experience is so much better than the active glasses as to be almost incomparable. The only trade-off, and this is only something I have read in articles with samsung adverts and from people spouting what they read in said articles, is that the resolution for passive displays is noticeably lower. That is because on a passive display, half the lines of resolution are used for one eye and half for the other. However, having worked in the industry, viewed by styles of TV, and now owning a passive 3d system, I can tell you with authority that you will not be able to tell a difference in image quality and that most people will report a significantly higher picture quality from the passive system since they don't pick up on the flickering.
I watched Tron in 3D on my buddy's 3DTV with no glasses required. My eyes were comfortable and I didn't have any problems. I thought it was really cool for the first 15 minutes, but after that I totally forgot that I was watching in 3D. I just didn't care and barely noticed.
I even bought a big nice 3D monitor. I don't care for the 3D at all. I won't spend the $100 for nvidia's 3d glasses and instead spent $700 on a Vive and now I get a much better 3D experience.
The video wasn't better from the standpoint of 3D, but the video cards inside the TVs were better than most conventional ones at the time. Playing movies from a hard drive on my 3D TV(I never used the 3D) definitely saw better processing that with my non-3D TV. That was playing .mkv, .mpg/mpeg, and .avi formatted movies. Most of the time it was all in the formatting, but when KAT was around, you get what you get. 3D seemed like a gimmick, and it turned out to be. Now we have 4K TVs and I do think those are way better than 3D TVs.
Stupid gimmick in, stupid gimmick out. Appropriate price point? Zero.
Think that about does it.
Porn. Not quite as embarrassing when you're watching it on VR goggles as when you're watching it on the TV visible through the living room picture window. Why didn't 3D catch on? Too many different formats, and the age old chicken-and-egg dilema: nobody buys the devices unless there is content available, and nobody produces content if there are lots of devices out there to play it. Now explain to me who is buying 8K televisions with zero content for the available...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We don't "just" watch a movie.
We like to read, chat, cook, etc. when the movie is playing. Having 3d-glasses on for all those other activities sucks.
Never bought a 3D TV. Actually, don't have any working TVs left in the estate. We use projectors now. By going that route, we've avoided all the IoT security hassles from "smart TVs".
We never bought into Bluray either. That technology is broken with intolerable DRM. It wasn't hard to NOT buy anything with Bluray.
I still find DVD resolutions amazing.
...who only have one good eye, or an eyes with unequal levels of detail?
Even if we didn't get headaches. Even if it didn't cut the brightness down to nothing. Even if it didn't cost an arm-and-a-leg more and the effect "actually worked."
There are tons of people that can't exploit it because their eyes don't fit the requirements.
MEANWHILE, for the _first_ time in my entire life, I saw mountains and structures that looked like they had depth and felt 3-D. It was Jungle Book in 4K. Not every scene but occasional scenes would pop out and my wife and eye would freak out. It was like being a kid again with a sense of wonder... waiting for the next moment. I never realized what I was missing, and how amazing depth can be.
NOTICE I said a 4K TV, sitting about three feet away. Plenty of scientists/engineers have been saying that at 8K/16 things "feel 3-D" without any need for 3-D at all, and IIRC, LG just patented a technology because their new 11K TV process does exactly that.
Screw glasses. Screw paying more for a movie. Also, screw anyone who thought 4K "doesn't matter" or that the march-of-progress toward 8k "won't do anything." Because they're saying that without ever experiencing what I did. Actual. Depth. from a 2-dimension screen.
We're one step closer to having interactive wall-sized screens in our houses, and our children getting us eaten by virtual lions. (ala The Veldt, 1950)
The First problem is Content. The None 3D focus 3D Movies Content.
There's not enough 3D movies out there that gives the viewers a real meaning for a true 3D experience. Just because they've port the movie to 3D, doesn't mean it is the movie good to be viewed in 3D. Titanic in 3D? It feels just like Titanic in 2D most of the time.
This problem is mainly due to the point of view of most movies are in, camera-on-individual view. You see people interacting by flipping side (full screen with their head on Leo and then Kate, etc.) or plain stationary people interaction, most of the time there's no real reason it needs to be 3D because those scenes are flat (notice the cool things in the background, no? the scene is flat). Flat scenes don't give advantage of where the viewers are, thus it doesn't matter if it is 3D or not.
If the movies are like youtube 360 or at least 1st or 3rd person view, it would have worked out to give the viewers a true 3D experience. This is why games can be 3D / AR / VR, because some of them take place in 1st or 3rd person view.
The Second problem is Cost. Hardware Cost.
The 3D TV cost a lot. For little content with high cost, it is no wonder the viewers don't see the benefit.
Nvidia 3D glasses is a different tangent on the Cost Benefit.
In terms of gaming, Nvidia 3D glasses is plain unfortunate, it cost too much to be practical (Screen cost + Glasses cost + hardware vs Content) just like the Virtual Boy. Even full VR Oculus gear is expensive to be quick in adoption. This result in forcing the developers to make up for the 3D content benefit, which so far isn't at a perfect position (think of a VR game you had played. Will you play it again for 2 weekends? no? it needs more content).
Unlike 3D TV which most content depend on big movie companies (so far very few watch 3D youtubes for reasons...), VR can continue to improve with multiple startups to reduce cost or increase benefit (after all, VR Oculus succeeded with a kickstarter). Based on prediction, it is very like the 3D trend will move onward under a very different form (hololen is a sign).
Other side issue of 3D is movement sickness. Regardless of with glasses or under VR, there are viewers that just cannot enjoy the 3D content without nausea.
tl;dr 3D cost a lot, viewers see no great benefit.
If you think 3D TVs failed badly, just wait for the coming VR hype cycle crash.
3D was poised for greatness, and then 2008 happened, the world economy tanked, and never really recovered. The investments that were going into 3D all stalled, and the market responded by failing to grow. People took a bath on those investments, and now they're timid about reinvesting.
I've heard so many explanations that focus on 3D being bad, or not what people want, or any number of other crazy ideas. It was just the economy! It tanked at exactly the wrong moment. Now the industry has to build all that momentum back up again, and we're not in a boom economy so it's going to take a bit longer.
The good news is that when the industry does lumber back onto its feet, the technology will be a lot better.
Quite a few others said this: Glasses.
I myself don't wear sunglasses or glasses and don't enjoy them. The beauty of a computer and a normal tv is - I don't have to wear something in order for me to see it. And for those of us who already live in a 3d world, to have to wear something to see another world in 3d makes the effect gimmicky at best.
Now look at Star Trek and the holodeck. You provide me an immersive effect like Star Trek and at that moment it will go from gimmicky to must have in a heartbeat. Similarly - with Doctor Who and the TARDIS. You provide something that looks bigger on the inside - that I can walk by and I'm seeing different angles based on my position and angle of observation, I am so there it's ridiculous.
But glasses and peripherals. You're never going to see Virtual Reality or 3d really succeed when you are forced to wear something on your head that obscures your vision in order to invite you into the experience. Just not gonna happen. Look at the Nintendo 3Ds as an example of why even marginal 3d just won't succeed. It's an all or nothing deal to me, the consumer.
Oh. And don't forget. Avatar wasn't successful because of 3D. It was successful because it had a) The highly successful James Cameron's name attached to it /and/ b) it was a well made and well told vibrant science fiction story of an amazing looking world. /and/ c) it had some highly reputable actors in it.
The 3D only made it that much cooler. But it's not why records were broken.
They killed it off early by tying the content to exclusives when you bought a particular manufacturer's TV. One brand got Avatar 3D, another brand got Shrek series 3D, etc. You don't do that kind of thing to attract adoption in the early stages. Also see: Google Plus (invite only!).
Also, if you got Shutter Glasses 3D, it sucked. It was expensive, and even regular glasses could even cause ghosting when combined with shutter glasses.
Neither my wife nor I can't wear 3D glasses; me because I have a hefty prism correction in my glasses, and her because she doesn't perceive 3D in two flat pictures. A substantial minority of people have difficulty seeing 3D movies or 3D television, meaning that they won't purchase 3D TV sets. And even for those who DO see the 3D effects clearly, there isn't that much difference in picture, but a substantial difference in price.
Why Did 3D TVs and Stereoscopic 3D Television Broadcasting Fail?
Same reason virtual reality is going to fail
3D failed because a lot of people had already made the jump to flat panel TVs and were relatively happy with those purchases.
3D basically said take the TV you are happy with, which you just got, and throw it, oh and the 3D sets are more expensive and don't really have any compelling content to watch anyway.
Flat TVs have also continued to improve in quality while also getting cheaper all the time. So for 3D or even 4K to be compelling, they are going to have to offer a tangible reason for someone to choose that over a normal TV. 4K is doing a lot better at this than I would have expected, as there still isn't that much 4K content.
Sig for hire.
I refuse to see anything 3D if I can help it. I am really upset that many good quality theaters are showing in 3D like in Hollyw(eed/eird/ood). I refuse to pay more for 3D too. My old compound eyes can't see 3D even with Avatar in Arclight Cinema's Dome theater! I saw R1:ASWS for $7.29 at a local theater in 2D digital (not good screen, but hey it is not 3D). Go away 3D. If I wanted 3D, give me a hologram like IRL. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Regular 1080p move is $2.99 to rent, 3D or 4K versions are own-only for $34. If you are serious about building a movement, you have to make a wide catalog available for no extra cost for a couple of years. When everyone bought capable TVs and developed appreciation for enhanced content, you will be able to charge a modest premium. At this point you might as well kill SD and make HD version $2.49 and 3D $4.99.
Current marketing strategy puts the cart before the horse. Consumers do not even have capable TV sets and have not gotten used to wearing dorky glasses and you already want them to pay 10x for the same movie. I guess MPAA and RIAA never had any brains and will go out of business in a couple of years when everyone has switched to interactive VR gaming instead of movies that cost twice more to buy.
Both Microsoft and Sony missed a huge opportunity: two player shared / overlayed console games on a single TV. Each player sees their own 2D screen on the same shared 3D-capable TV set.
Take 2 pairs of passive 3D glasses and swap the lenses so one pair has 2 right lenses and the other has 2 left lenses. Each player then sees only one of the two stereoscopic images. The console can then show different content to each of the two players (or two "teams" if playing with more people).
For example, in a setting up your football offensive call, player 1 can make their selection, while player 2 sees their defensive screen. Then each player sees the play from their own side's perspective. It works very well for driving games, where each player sees their own cockpit and HUD, but some content like the map are the same. The best demo was a single screen game (like Towerfall), but each had their own privately visible power-ups, and when a character became "cloaked" player 1 could still see their character but the opponent player couldn't. Cool stuff.
I did some preliminary work on this a long while back, but it became clear neither Microsoft nor Sony was interested. We did some demos on the now defunct OUYA.
At the about same time 3D was introduced streaming became successful. The physical media was abandoned. 3D is not or very limited available on streaming solutions almost solely on physical media.
VR is not anything new. It is something that has been "re-invented" or more like re-hyped.
Back in the 90s, VR was the new greatest thing. In London there were arcades where you could try out VR in games. Gloves was invented with keyboards to make the user more mobile.
https://youtu.be/rVn3H93Ysag?l...
Of course technology has evolved so VR is easier to use today, than the helmet you had to wear in the 90s.
Avatar was the gold standard and nothing has surpassed it since , although I was also impressed by Life of Pi.
3rd rate post processed catch-penny type films make up the bulk of whats out there - the most abhorrent i have ever seen was Tim Burtons "Alice in Wonderland" how that left the cutting room floor is a mystery to me.
Joe six-pack see's the 3rd rate movies and assumes that this is as good as it gets.
3D Blu Ray is the only way to watch theses movies too - knock-off "Rips" from TPB are fine for 2D movies
but somehow a lot is lost in any subsequent transcodings. I've not found any sources for high quality 3D streams (reccommend one to me?)
To sum up .
1) Very few examples of 3D movies actually filmed in 3D and produced by someone who has taken the time to make best use of the medium.
2) Too many examples of poor content with lame storylines filmed in 2D and post processed to 3D. These films are better seen in 2D (if at all)
3) TV Manufacturers, like the bad 3D movies tried to jump on the bandwagon and hence there are a lot of shitty 3D TV's out there.
Conclusion
It still costs too much money to create and enjoy 3D movies the way they were intended.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I have a TV that is capable of 3D. However I discovered that on the connected PC I can't play games in 3D unless I pay nVidia extra for their 3DTV Play software. It is the same deal with AMD too.
They're both now pushing VR which on the software side is pretty similar to 3D (having the game produce left / right eye images instead of a single one) and it seems you can get that for free?! What's the justification for that?
And my TV has HDMI 2.0 which has enough bandwidth for 4k@60Hz but somehow 3D is limited to only 1080p@24Hz / 720p@60Hz.
It makes me feel that both nVidia / AMD and the TV makers aren't serious about 3D and does just enough to make a tick on that feature checklist...
I remember trying NVidia stereo 3D on Half-Life Blue Shift--long, long ago. It sucked because the 30 fps became 15 fps. I thought the effect really showed promise. It was never executed well. As we converted to to LCD monitors will fixed/slower refresh rates, it was simply doomed.
I have tried to run the product several times, but it's hard to collect enough hardware to do it.
For me the movies are too expensive. They are almost twice as expensive as the 2D version. Just release them for the same price, then I might consider the 3D version.
In a cinema you sit down and watch a film. Sometimes you do the same with a TV but a lot of the time some or all people watching will be doing something else. They may be browsing the internet on their phone, glancing at the TV occasionally, cooking but stopping to watch interesting news items, or just coming in to see what the others are watching. If you can't see clearly without putting on some special glasses this becomes anoying
At least, not *only* technical.
Avatar came out in 2009 - which was also the year of that same big marketing drive. But that was also the year when we were in the very heights of the great recession. That meant that the upper middle class buyers who are usually instrumental early adopters of new technology getting sales in until production costs can come down - weren't buying, because they were broke and the markets were struggling and credit was crunching etc. etc.
The stuff didn't sell because whatever the demand may have been - the ability to satisfy that demand was not there. By the time the recovery was strong enough that people would have considered buying it the fad was over, the market budgets spent and it was no longer shiny. I think it just missed it's moment by having the bad luck of coming onto the market just as Bush's chickens came home to roost.
Now it's of course possible that things like glasses were sufficient factors that it would have failed anyway - this may be why it didn't manage to recover when the economy did - but I don't think you can ignore the great recession's impact on why the initial sales were so low.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
There are lots of other reasons others have pointed out, but I think it's also worth pointing out the economically bad timing of 3D TVs. Big-screen TVs got established in part because they were released during an economic boom when credit was cheap. Remember those people mortgaging their house to buy a TV?
3D TVs were released in the aftermath of an economic crash when credit was almost unobtainable. I think if manufacturers had a few more years of patience with the market, they might see a different result.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
People have said most:
- filter glass requirement, bad quality, and the fact most don't work well with prescription glasses;
- even when such glasses aren't physically hampering, a significative no. of people report headaches, dizziness and/or blurriness, especially after extended use;
- to prejudice of the above reasons, 3D that works without glasses is very position-sensitive thus only being usable by a single, centered observer. And people still report discomfort while/after usage;
- there is loss of immersion when the 3D illusion is blended in a real, non-illuminated (and physically tri-dimensional) background - this induces that the only real, immersive experiences you can have with 3D picture, is by dimming all other light sources, effectively "flattening" the real world through darkness. And this is obviously a very narrow use-case except for non-casual movie-watching. This is why 3D in VR headsets is actually usable - the use-case is always sensory-deprivation-like and this helps a lot with making sense of simulated 3D.
But my personal opinion for 3D failure is the same one that makes most movie theatres have dual sessions: some people just never found it beneficial. The implementation is never flawless: tech and quality is highly variable, and rarely above "good". I doubt there will ever be perfect 3D perception that doesn't involve some sort of brain interface other than the eye - the physics of light and space needed for actual 3D-simulation through the eye are a bit more than we can handle with the current universe we live in :P
- Despite what many cynics think the story telling comes first for most people: 3D is a gimmick which at best adds a small delta to the experience of some people.
- It is not even real 3D: it is an illusion (you can not look behind a character by moving your head for example).
- As a reference remember that even colour took a long time to become mainstream in both film and TV. Add the colour is not an illusion.
As opposed to most commenters here, I do not think 3D is inherently evil and doomed to fail. The idea behind 3D TV is limited but solid. We have had the technological know-how about stereoscopic content for a long while but the applicable technology has only recently started to catch up. It was hyped up before it was really ready and has run out of steam before it could actually be deployed en masse.
- Cost was definitely an issue. While 3D TV does not (or would not, as 3D has pretty much been dropped as a feature) cost a lot right now, it used to.
- Add stupid glasses policy to it. The cost of glasses added to the fact that TV meant for viewing in a group came bundled with 1-2 pairs of glasses.
- Polarized 3D is much more convenient (main reason: lighter, cheaper glasses) but for some reason most manufacturers went with shutter glasses. Polarization's half vertical resolution is not that big of a problem for movies as I would have thought. Polarized glasses are what most cinemas use as well.
Worst of all: there is no content.
Stereoscopic 3D TV Broadcast? There is no such thing.
Movies are there but as usual - too little and too late.
Announcing the death of Stereoscopic 3D is premature though. VR is making a new attempt and the two are very closely related.
The cost for 3d is WAY too high.
Even my buds who are still working and making 6 figures balk at $18 for a regular 3d film (they'll kick in for something special like the force awakens) in theaters and not one of them bought a 3d television.
Plus for many people, TV's are an appliance... which means the replacement cycle is very long. You are not going to drop $4000 on a new top of hte line TV every couple years. So are blue ray players. Heck- I have a friend who still has a DVD player and won't replace it.
And then you add the sizable percentage of people who get nausea from watching 3d and the smaller percentage who don't see 3d as 3d (they only process one eye or their brain doesn't merge the images).
But among the people I know- it was the cost. It's just too high for the benefit. To me, 3d is worth an extra 10%. The 3d industry wanted an extra 125% to 150%.
Oh and finally finally... in many cases, the 3d wasn't that good. I've seen some good 3d (snow flakes that appear to drift in the audience pulling you into the picture) and a lot of bad 3d.
God.. and yet another finally... you don't NEED 3d to watch "Everyone loves Raymond". The way 3d was sold wasn't immersive- it was a spice for action, sci fi and fantasy films. Never romcoms, thrillers, dramas, etc.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
First, 3D almost universally makes films worse. Not necessarily because of any viewing issues, but because it encourages clichéd film-making. You know the shots I mean: the snake jumping out of the screen, the explosion jumping out of the screen, the huge great statue toppling over and falling out of the screen. Mostly these shots aren't necessary; they usually get in the way of the storytelling; in film adaptations of books the director's desire to add such a scene often results in plot deviations. Worse still, they STILL look better in 2D. In a cinema, and much more so on a home TV, all you see is an obviously not really 3D projection hanging in an obviously 2D frame. This violates the suspension of disbelief required to engage properly with the content much more than watching a moving, but flat, picture projected onto a 2D frame.
On the other hand, VR is different. I get the potential nausea issues, I've seen the video of Ronnie O'Sullivan falling over when he tried to lean on the snooker table that was only there in the virtual world and not actually in front of him, but the fact that VR actually immerses you avoids the whole problem with a 3D picture in a TV frame looking fake as there is no boundary with the real world - everywhere you look you're in the virtual reality. Even Android Cardboard on a pixelated 1080p display feels more immersive than flawless 4k 3D hanging in the frame of a TV in the corner of the room. Even 2D 360 degree videos feel more 3D when watched through a headset that allows you to look wherever you like than that flawless 4k 3D TV.
So no, I don't think 3D TVs will ever catch on, and I don't think even 3D cinema will really deliver until the screen extends over a 270 degree three-quarters-sphere right over the audience's heads and round the sides.
IMO, the marginal cost isn't worth the marginal benefit. A regular Blu-Ray disc or HDTV broadcast with a decent TV and stereo is plenty of fun to watch. I enjoyed seeing "Mad Max: Fury Road" in the theater with 3D, It was cool to have flaming debris, electric guitars and auto wreck victims flying out of the screen. Yet, when I went back and watched it again in regular HD, I didn't feel deprived. I recognized some of the scenes as being different, but I didn't think that the film was somehow diminished for lack of the 3D effects. Definitely not enough of an enhancement to justify spending significantly more for my home theater.
For the problems mentioned here by just about everyone, semi-3D TV just does not cross the line of "good enough", which 2D TV is. I'm not so sure even if it was true 3D, it would cross the line even then, atleast for just plain movies and tv shows.
I'm sure when true 3D TV arrives, there will be shows where you have to move your ass to find the clue behind someone to figure out the murderer before the final revelation etc. But that'll get old soon.
That's really all that needs to be said. It's a gimmick, and gimmicks are fads at best.
I didn't see any 3D porn advertised so I didn't see the point.
It failed because 3D is a gimmick, a novelty. Putting something in 3D does not make the story better or more compelling. And forcing people to wear stupid glasses to "enjoy" your gimmick does not endear your gimmick to the suckers you're expecting to buy it.
VR "will" fail? It already has. There's no traction for it. No reason for it. It's superfluous, not essential. It has no need for being. Never will.
Augmented reality, on the other hand? That at least has potential.
If we want to see things in 3D with hyperrealistic ultra resolution etcandwhatnot, we can look out the window at the parking lot. We watch movies because we are fascinated by the stories, interesting places and people we get to see, not for cheap visual thrills. For me, 2D in DVD resolution does the trick. 3D simply doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the effort.
Keep in mind, stereoscopy is only a small contributor to construct the 3D impression in our head. We use size, stacking, relative movements and atmospheric effects to interpret the scenery as well, all readily available in 2D movies. We only perceive stereoscopic effects until about 10 m distance anyway! Stereoscopic 3D is simply unnecessary, we perceive 3D just fine without it.
I've got a 3D TV. Had it for about 3 years now I think. I'm a video enthusiast, so I can speak with personal insight into this topic. I'm seeing a lot of posts that contain half-truths and outright falsehoods from people who have no experience at all with the technology.
First of all. 3D TVs were not necessarily all that expensive. I've got a 41 inch VIzio that cost me a little over $500. It uses the passive glasses system, which I think is great. You know those glasses you get at the movie theater when you see 3D films? It uses those. They are cheap. I can buy as many as I want on Amazon for a few dollars a piece. Unfortunately Vizio was disappointed in sales and has permanently dropped 3D from their current TVs, which limits us fans to only a very small number of manufacturers - Sony, LG and Samsung. If I remember correctly Samsung uses the active system of bulky glasses that need batteries. I love my TV. It's great for normal 2D stuff and I can watch 3D Blu Rays on it too.
One of the problems with 3D is that a small percentage of the public, I think I saw a number of around 10%, has some kind of quirk in their physiology that makes them have a bad reaction to 3D video. I suspect these people will also have problems with 3D VR. Another issue is that people with serious vision problems can't see 3D either very well or at all and they invariably make a lot of noise about how much 3D sucks and how they don't understand how anybody likes it because it sucks all the time. I have a friend and a relative in this category and frankly it gets old listening to them complain about 3D. People with vision or physical reaction problems to 3D don't understand that they are in the minority and most people have no problems with it. You can see from some of the comments complaints like if you don't look directly at the TV it sucks to see things outside with the glasses. With the passive ones it doesn't, but there's a lot of variability among humans and some people are just not going to react positively to the technology no matter what you do.
3D is here to stay. Most films won't be in 3D, but there will always be 3D films going forward. Animated films will always be in 3D. Now that they use computers to do animated films, there's no compelling cost reason not to make them available in 3D for those who want to see them that way. The cost of producing an additional 3D master to go with a 2D mater is negligible for animation. BIg blockbuster films will also continue to be in 3D. The vast majority of Disney's movies are in 3D. In fact, if Disney puts out a live action film that's not in 3D, that's a clear sign that they don't expect it to be a hit. This was the case with "The Lone Ranger" for example. In Asia 3D is a winning format and consumers have shown a marked preference for 3D films. Even if the US stopped making 3D films today, and they won't, films in China and Japan in particular would continue to be made in 3D. Cheaper films and films without many special effects will be in 2D, but any big budget film is getting the 3D treatment. A few directors are pretty anti-3D right now. Chris Nolan is a big example. I wouldn't expect anything he does to be in 3D. But even big names like Spielberg and Scorsese have released 3D films in recent years. Spielberg's "The BFG" was in 3D.
Active 3D is a pain, with the need for expensive shutter glasses. But passive 3D is wonderful, with each scan line being polarized in opposite directions. Passive 3D glasses are cheap and the displays don't need high refresh rates.
I'd like to have a passive 3D computer monitor for gaming, but it looks like there aren't any on the market any more. So I figured I'd ask here - anyone know of any that are still being sold?
If the 3D aspect of film-making doesn't add anything to the story-line or the plot of the movie, then it is wasted effort..
Movies are telling stories.
TV shows are telling stories.
I mean, theoretically, visuals aren't required for most forms of successful story-telling.
Until there is a compelling way to add the third dimension to the story, 3D will always be a fail.
The only decent 3D I have seen is the prism ('Peppers Ghost') variety with 4 images projected onto the sides of the prism. This gives a walk-around 3D.
"Quadraphonic audio".
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
next question please
The TV's weren't that expensive once the passive models came into existence. But content...
First, there were few 3D channels available, and they were put into top tier premium packages. Rather than a simple add on $15/month for all 3D channels.
Second, 3D Blu-ray pricing is whacked. They essentially price 3D Blu-ray $5-$15 above the MSRP price of the standard Blu-Ray. But blu-rays rarely sell at MSRP, and with deals, promo editions, often sale far less. So I'd see a Blu-ray, it's MSRP price would be $35. The 3D bundle would be $45.
Except, you'd find that standard Blu-ray for $19.99. And on sale for $14.99. But the 3Ds were rarely discounted similarly, except for some occasional Black Friday deals. So the end result is you want the film on 3D. But when the difference between the standard Blu-ray and the 3D Blu-ray is $15 vs $35, it's nigh impossible to justify buying it. And often, the end result was I didn't buy either version. I almost exclusively buy 3D versions.
But many movies are far superior in 3D. Especially sci-fi space films.
3D means height, width, and depth, and what we labeled 3D since the 50's in movies does that. The viewmaster, and similar experiments since photography started, were popular, but inconvenient. It was 3 dimensions
Feel free to come up with a real reason, but this isn't it.
Also, the lenticular displays in EVO 3D phones, and some LG TVs kinda shoots the glasses argument out.
3D was rushed to market with low frame rates and heavy glasses, wad expensive, and had little content. I want 3D, but buying the equipment and content is cost prohibitive. It would become a lifestyle, not a hobby, and not just an alternate medium.
It will remain niche until it is nearly effortless, which includes glasses, but everything else as well.
When you look at 3D movies that did well, such as Avatar, the thing that struck me was that there was a DEPTH to everything. It isn't about objects popping out of the screen, it is about scenes having a feeling that objects are in front of, or behind others. Things that pop out of the screen are more of a gimick to try to grab the attention of a viewer, and it almost always fails.
When you see 3D broadcasts, do you feel like there is that sense of depth? Of course not, because it takes someone with an understanding of what works and what does not to make a new technology thrive. Stereo when it first came out, it wasn't necessary, but it added to what you were watching. Surround sound also adds, but you may notice that it isn't used well all that often(music gets too loud, you can't hear what is being said over the music in some cases, etc). When done well, you feel that surround sound really adds to what you are watching, from crowds of people and people talking behind the viewer, to the sound of shots and explosions that come from all around, not just in front.
Until those who add 3D to broadcasts figure out that you CAN add depth to ANYTHING to enhance it, without objects needing to pop out of the screen, 3D just won't seem like much of an evolution. Again, it will never be seen as NECESSARY, but if it makes the experience of watching a movie, show, or even news broadcast feel more like you are there in the audience, it won't take off.
Things like 4K definitely enhance the experience. If you go into an IMAX(or IMAX experience) theater, you probably notice that the sound and visuals can be spectacular. Rogue One on the IMAX....it really is worth going out to see, but compare a typical movie theater to having a 55 inch or larger 4K TV with surround sound, and you may wonder if it is worth going out to see. 3D....it has potential if done well, but most of the time, you get something that is very low budget.
I still want one, the only problem is they are too expensive. Manufacturer's need to bring the technology to >$300 27" TVs. I've got a growing collection of 3D Blu-rays to watch, but no affordable TV to watch them on.
Normally new tech needs those early adopters to evangelize the technology, which they do not do if it has major issues.
1. Crossover: imperfect separation of left and right visual channels. Gets worse when your head is not 100% vertical because of polarization. Pretty much anything silhouetted against a contrasting background like the sky (night or day) will have a double image.
2. Improper calibration & personalization: Not everyone in the theatre sits at the same distance and angle to the screen, and not everyone has the same distance between their eyes (IPD). Choosing an average doesn't work, and everyone except a few lucky ones will see everything as slightly off the whole time.
3. Depth-of-field focus: A huge problem, especially in theatres with larger screens. Your eyes cannot focus twice over: once on the screen and once wherever the director wants you to focus, with everything else blurry. Not everyone will be looking at the same part of the screen at the same time. It works in 2D for good artistic effect, but not 3D, and needs to be toned down or removed.
all of which led to headaches and bad quality in first gen 3D systems and all of which lead to headache and nausea for many people.
They lost the early adopter/tech geek crowd. People have learned to ask their tech friends about new tech, and when the tech isn't ready yet, the mass consumers listen.
However, things are different this time around with VR and personal screens. Even the Sony HMZ-T1 (wearable 720p TV) was much better back in the day. I demoed the HMZ and was blown away, and then made the mistake of getting a 3D TV instead based on a well-tuned in-store demo instead of waiting for more stock.
1. With two screens, no crossover. Problem completely eliminated.
2. Work on calibration is getting better. With personalized devices, it is possible to calibrate once then forget it, as long as all media adheres to the calibration. Also, eye-tracking allows for immediate and hassle free calibration: eye separation, distance to the screen can be calculated, and since the angle to the screen is fixed there can be perfect 3D reconstruction. IIRC, the Playstation VR does this.
3. Use of depth-of-field could still be an issue, but at least there is hope that media producers will start to phase out or tone-down the use of depth-of-field cameras (which are expensive anyway).
This is a pretty simple answer. Glasses are the problem.
You have people over? cool. you can't all watch the same thing unless you have a bunch of the glasses.
You want to multitask? Have fun taking glasses off and on every time you want to check your phone or browse the web. Makes things like eating dinner at the same time a lot more difficult.
Can't have it on as background while cleaning the house either.
It isn't like HD or 4k where you can enjoy it completely randomly at small chunks or while multitasking. It's something that you will enjoy every once in a while, and when you're completely focused on only the show or movie that you want to watch. That's why it works in theaters and not at home.
I guess I should have been a fighter pilot. I've never suffered from the extreme nausea that most of slashdot complains about when it comes to 3D or J.J. Abrams shaky cam.
Content is poor. And not just selection. Tron Legacy is beautiful in 3D and has a great soundtrack, but the movie is just awful. And sadly, there are plenty others like it.
In many (most?) new consumer technologies, PORN is the enabling content.
In fact, where would the internet be without it?
I submit that there was not enough 3D pornography. That's why it failed.
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
Lot of hype around it, but Nintendo did research on it and everytime they were asked they gave the same answer, "Long game sessions are a problem." I owned the Nvidia stereoscopic set and got it working with most of my games. It looked amazing. I can game for 18 hours straight and not thing much of it. With the glasses and the 3D setup, it's about 1-3 hours and I'm nauseous. No amount of retraining fixed that. I couldn't just muscle through and wait for my body to adapt, despite wanting that additional detail and feature very badly. Seeing real 3D on a 2D screen is just something the human body doesn't ingest very well.
Mostly, nobody wants eyestrain or headaches over a period of 2 hours. A short 10 minute film is "good enough", but otherwise no thanks.
One of my eyes has near perfect vision. The other is slightly blurry at a distance, but not enough to need glasses. This makes the 3D experience terrible b/c everything appears off... the 3D effect turns into an eyestraining near headache inducing event.
Actually spent last 7 years desert racing (motorcycle) so I am pretty well acclimated to 'real' movement. The sickness seems to come from a disconnect of visual experience vs other sensory inputs.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Flat screen TVs and large screen TVs offered space savings and the ability to live in a bigger house as CRTs consumed too much space and the larger screen TVs became necessary because when moving the TV further away, to achieve the same comfortable angle of view, a larger screen was needed for the perspective.
3D didn't take off because it didn't offer anything the viewer actually felt was a tangible benefit. It was cool to see in the store, but wasn't necessarily improving the experience the user had over a normal TV. So when asked, everyone said they found it interesting, but with a few exceptions, people didn't feel it was worth the cost or effort to own and use one.
Consider that most people are still perfectly satisfied watching films in poor quality or even on tiny telephone screens so long as they can make out the important details... which generally are presented by the film makers by zooming or enhancing colors or blurring the non-important areas of the screen.
So, 3D never took off because it was never something that genuinely offered benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily the technology. It was when the technology hit the market. There are a lot of people I know that buy television sets like me. We buy a set and hang on to it for a minimum of 15 years. Its just not something that you go out and replace every 3- 5 years like a computer. The Standard definition broadcasting deadline was pushed back from I think 2006 to 2009. It had to be pushed back because not enough people had HDTVs in 2006 to warrant the change and lobby groups looking out for low income families pushed for the extension. The deadline finally came. I didn't get my first HDTV until 2011. A large number of people bought TVs in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe. It was a year or two after I got my first HDTV that all of the sudden everything was going to be 3D. It was awful timing. You were never going to convince all those people who scratched together enough money for an HDTV to suddenly upgrade again just for 3D no matter how good the 3D was. It didn't help that the 3D included glasses.
For me 2025 would be a good time to look into 3D just on pure timescale. Technically I wouldn't mind the glasses but would rather see a 3D technology that doesn't require them. When I was doing my Masters project at MIT in 1998 I saw a holographic display made at the MIT media lab. It didn't require glasses. It required a huge amount of RAM for the time like 2 GB and the effect wasn't all that they wanted it to be. We need 3D done right and to roll out the way HDTV first rolled out. (and timed right) High end sets that sell for 15 - 30K will be the first made sold to the rich. Then gradually work down the price.
Another timing factor though is how the economy is doing. You don't want to count on new technology like that as a main revenue stream in the middle of a recession. We might be in one in 2025 depending on how things go from here. If that is the case you'll have to wait longer. But if most people are like me 3D is going to have to wait until they are tired of their HDTVs.
and not about to spend $3-4 grand per viewing station and dump what equipment I have.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
3D TV - An attempt by TV manufacturers to replicate the success in getting everyone to buy HDTVs.
3D Movies - Just an excuse to charge even more for movies!
Neither of these technologies do anything to improve story lines, character development, or pacing. These are the reasons people watch movies.
3D continues to be a gimmick with less quality than the available standard.
Speaking of standards, most of today's TVs are 1080p and many are 4K. More over, the 4K installed base is growing every day. Yet, cable TV continues to put out 1080i. In fact much of it is 720p upscaled to 1080i. So the content is pure shit on high quality displays. Sure, you can get 1080p from Blueray and streaming, and to a vastly lesser extent you can get 4K content as well. But, the majority of the content isn't close to leveraging the present generation of displays.
Further degrading the poor quality content by decreasing luminosity and making everything blurry does not increase its appeal. Thus 3D continues to be a gimmick.
So, am I reading that the overall reason why 3DTV "failed" was because you were expecting it to be holograms? Like, Princess Leia projected by R2-D2? And if that's really what you thought, are you sure you know how holograms work? I just want to be sure I'm right in thinking you're all a bunch of slightly above average intelligence pseudo-nerds, which is what I currently suspect. It really does seem like you're disappointed it wasn't magic.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
And then skirts will mysteriously be lifted by a gust of wind, and we will then know that Scotsmen weren't lying when they said, There's nothing under the kilt, laddie!
TV
1. Fixed point 3D isn't really achievable except for one person. If two people watch something on TV, they both can't look at different things. They still only see the same thing. As a result, all you get is slightly better definition and clarity but not really 3D.
2. Glasses are a big factor - cost, hassle, batteries, vision issues, headaches, etc.
3. The technology was there (ESPN had a 3D Channel) but it required standards and training that most had not acquired. This is also the chicken and egg, content problem.
4. The social problem. People like to watch TV socially. However, you can't have everyone watching the same thing at the same time unless you have multiple sets of glasses. However, this comes back to #1. It really becomes an inconvenience to have multiple people watching the same thing with glasses and that doesn't compensate for a slightly better viewing experience.
Which brings up VR yet again.
The time is becoming ripe for VR to take over from where 3D TV failed. The biggest way is with the GearVR. Many people already have smartphones so this greatly reduced the cost. You only need the goggles. Samsung took care of that by giving them for free with new phone purchases which most consumers make every 2-3 years. That basically left content as the bottle-neck. Now with a captive audience that is only growing upward, it made sense for content producers to make 3D content much more regularly. Several companies have been doing Stereoscopic 3D VR broadcasts and playback of content that has been created for 3D VR. The result is that you can watch NBA Games, Concerts, sporting events, political debates, etc in 3D.
This in turn is bootstrapping the content industry as well as acting for a 3D VR Gateway for users. They get the first taste with very little investment if any (perhaps a few bucks to buy an NBA Game or episode of some TV Show. Sporting events are good initial content investments as people are already accustomed to watching from a fixed viewpoint. However, you can now watch from seats which you can't afford to in real life such as behind the players bench or from viewpoints which may not be viewable at all such as inside a goal or underneath a basket. Once customers see the value in that, they will be more likely to upgrade to higher end VR systems such as Vive, Rift, PSVR, and any other new platform that appears. This should then get the industry going iteratively. More customers equals better content. Better content leads to more refined viewing systems. This leads to higher bandwidth connections which leads to better quality content. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
Wicked headache.
Zero improvement in immersion.
Zero chance of wanting 3D TV at home.
Yes, where is my magic!!
Not to mention you almost had to have PERFECT vision out of both eyes. Now there is more than 50% with good enough vision, but a bulk of people of people with poor eyesight in one or both eyes (i, myself, have monocular vision) are unable to see the 3D ANYWAY. And those with monocular vision have other problems with the showing, anywhere from "flickering" to "deformation" of the picture screen which makes it hard to watch a movie. Current 3D technology completely alienates 1 out of 5 people from the experience. Why should I pay $10 more to see a movie that looks worse to me than the 2D cheaper version.
Being able to walk around and look at the back of an object requires the renderer to know what the back of an object looks like.
I'm not talking about being able to walk around fully (though that would be nice), stage one is simply that each eye is seeing a slightly different video taken by two cameras located eye-width apart.
Stage two for me, would be that I could also move a few feet side to side - basically enough that I could move my head side to side and a bit forward/back and get video from that vantage point, again different for each eye...
Yes at some point I'd like to also be able to walk around something. That is not impossible, using a variety of possible techniques.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3-D is stupid. Nobody cares. No one will ever care.
Anecdotes are hardly proof, but I ran a VR lab with a full size CAVE for about 4 years. I would estimate that in those 8000 work hours I spent at least 20% of it looking at stereo. My vision was 20/15 going in, and was 20/15 coming out. That was 7 years ago and my vision is still quite good. I also shoot shotgun sporting clays, and estimating space is the name of the game. I'm not AWESOME, but that's more of an issue of practice than damaged vision.
My wife and I love 3D. Have had our Sony 55" for 6 years +. Will usually watch any movie we want to see in 3D if available. Love the experience at home ... my wife likes the whole ritual of darken the room and don the glasses. Its more like a theater. But we still have no more than 50 movies at home. Why? Too hard to find, too expensive .... mostly, I think, because they make you buy all versions, up to 4 or 5 discs, in a useless bundle. A $10 film costs up to $50, if you can't find it on ebay or Amazon special.Yeah, just about every reason presented here in /. is right, but most horrible is lack, and price (esp in those damnable bundled sets) of 3D content
1. Glasses or other inconvenient technologies required
2. Not compelling for 99% of all content
3. Hard to create content even for the 1%
The question reeks of "pro-technology-ism" or as religious movements. If you don't have a STEM degree and you are blindly pro-technology, it's probably a religion for you even though you don't think it is or can't imagine being religious - i.e. you consider yourself an atheist. Most technology utopians have merely substituted progress from Christian betterment, and are no different in their irrationality and religious fervor. Just because something is new or possible does NOT mean it provides value or should even be contemplated as a thing. This is the fundamental flaw with progress, the religion - it can't see the forest for the trees and never actually considers if technologies are actually good for anyone. It's progress for progress-sake, just as many Christian shallowly practice goodness for goodness sake. That's NOT why you should be good or favor progress!
I watch 3D shows at my local theatre. Live people and in 3D. I believe the blood and guts story Titus Andronicus pulled then in in the 1500s to make the theatre cast's salaries better than normal - violent 'porn' . I see no reason to spend on electronic devices that do not give me the same realism, and ability to talk to the cast afterwards.
Regards Eion MacDonald
In the long gone '60s, Sony's researchers found out how to simulate 3D as we know it nowadays. A comprehensive study on how it worked and any side effects was ordered. The results were disturbingly negative and social responsibility prevailed over profit & greed. The technology was buried and disappeared. 40 years later someone rediscovered the tech or simply came across the old files. It was the same old dangerous shit. But times, they are a'changing, and the old responsibility was long gone. Everyone jumped on the 3D bandwagon, public health be damned. But it failed in the marketplace as the old Sony researchers had predicted: it was bad for you and the effect wasn't worth the risk.
I guess if true 3D laser holography doesn't evolve to an accesible level, in 20-30 years we'll see this shit rise again like an immortal coackroach. A few links for your enlightment:
http://www.audioholics.com/edi...
http://www.strabismus.org/all_...
http://www.techrepublic.com/bl...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08...
http://www.livescience.com/496...
It has failed before, but the id10t hollywood people didn't remember. Remember old photos of audiances wearing wierd glasses with different colored lenses?
1. Throwing things at people's faces.
2. Clunky glasses.
3. The human bifocal vision is only part of the 3D effect, relative movement (parralax) is already in regular movies. So they are 3D anyway!
4. Human bifocal vision for 3D only works out to about 200 feet, farther than that it makes no difference.
So, a lot of bother for little real benefit.
The impressive scenes in Avatar were at long distance, beyond the range of human stereo vision distance sensing. All of the 3D effect in those scenes is from the relative motion, as you say. So 3D screens would not be able to improve those.
The 3D movies and TVs only make a difference for things that are up close, closer than about 200 feet. That's what always leads to the directors "throwing things in peoples faces". 8-P