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?
???
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.
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.
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
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.
Really? I haven't noticed it. I can focus far, near, between. Sorry to hear you have that problem.