Slashdot Mirror
3D TV Is Dead (cnet.com)
While Samsung dropped 3D support in 2016, LG and Sony -- the last two major TV makers to support the 3D feature in their TVs -- will stop doing so in 2017. None of their TVs, including the high-end OLED TV models, will be able to show 3D movies and TV shows. As a result, 3D TV is dead. The question is no longer when (or even why) 3D TVs will become obsolete, it's will 3D TVs ever rise again? CNET reports: The 3D feature has been offered on select televisions since 2010, when the theatrical success of "Avatar" in 3D helped encourage renewed interest in the technology. In addition to a 3D-capable TV, it requires specialized glasses for each viewer and the 3D version of a TV show or movie -- although some TVs also offer a simulated 3D effect mode. Despite enthusiasm at the box office and years of 3D TVs being available at affordable prices, the technology never really caught on at home. DirecTV canceled its 24/7 3D channel in 2012 and ESPN followed suit a year later. There are plenty of 3D Blu-ray discs still being released, such as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," but if you want to watch them at home you'll need a TV from 2016 or earlier -- or a home theater projector. Those market trends are clear: Sales of 3D home video gear have declined every year since 2012. According to data from the NPD Group, 3D TV represents just 8 percent of total TV sales dollars for the full year of 2016, down from 16 percent in 2015 and 23 percent in 2012. Native 3D-capable Blu-ray players fell to just 11 percent of the market in 2016, compared to 25 percent in 2015 and 40 percent in 2012. As for whether or not 3D TVs will ever become popular again, David Katzmaier writes via CNET, based on his own "anecdotal experience as a TV reviewer": Over the years, the one thing most people told me about the 3D feature on their televisions was that they never used it. Sure, some people occasionally enjoyed a 3D movie on Blu-ray, but the majority of people I talked to tried it once or twice, maybe, then never picked up the glasses again. I don't think most viewers will miss 3D. I have never awarded points in my reviews for the feature, and 3D performance (which I stopped testing in 2016) has never figured into my ratings. I've had a 3D TV at home since 2011 and I've only used the feature a couple of times, mainly in brief demos to friends and family. Over the 2016 holiday break I offered my family the choice to watch "The Force Awakens" in 2D or 3D, and (after I reminded everyone they had to wear the glasses) 2D was the unanimous choice. But some viewers will be sad to see the feature go. There's even a change.org petition for LG to bring back the feature, which currently stands at 3,981 supporters. Of course 3D TV could come back to life, but I'd be surprised if it happened before TV makers perfect a way to watch it without glasses.
3D printing.
Oh god, I put my life savings into Facebook stock after they bought Oculus! And now Zuck is getting sued and acting like a dick in Hawaii. Oculus is my last hope! I *need* this, man!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
is Smell-o-vision.
Was it ever really alive?
But Smell-o-Vision is alive and well.
Eeew, what's that stench, like a thousand cows just dumped a load? I'm trying to watch Donald Trump's latest interview.
I only have one eye, You Insensitive Clod!
...And it's all because of Tron: Legacy.
As for whether or not 3D TVs will ever become popular again
From where I sit 3D was a nonstarter. Why? The glasses. I paid something like $2500 to get my eyeballs lasered so I didn't have to wear glasses anymore. So a new TV standard comes along that requires me to wear glasses? Non-fucking-starter.
It's exactly the kind of thing that theaters need more of... an experience that people don't have at home.
Of course, there are only so many big sci-fi flicks each year.
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: 3DTV is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered 3DTV community when IDC confirmed that 3DTV market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that 3DTV has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. 3DTV is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict 3DTV's future. The hand writing is on the wall: 3DTV faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for 3DTV because 3DTV is dying. Things are looking very bad for 3DTV. As many of us are already aware, 3DTV continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Free3DTV is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Free3DTV developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Free3DTV is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Open3DTV leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Open3DTV. How many users of Net3DTV are there? Let's see. The number of Open3DTV versus Net3DTV posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Net3DTV users. 3DTV/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Net3DTV posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of 3DTV/OS. A recent article put Free3DTV at about 80 percent of the 3DTV market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Free3DTV users. This is consistent with the number of Free3DTV Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Free3DTV went out of business and was taken over by 3DTVI who sell another troubled OS. Now 3DTVI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that 3DTV has steadily declined in market share. 3DTV is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If 3DTV is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. 3DTV continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, 3DTV is dead.
Fact: 3DTV is dying.
Let's bury it so deep no one wants to bother finding the corpse.
3D is for nerds. I've always loved it, since my first cyan/magenta poster from a cereal box when I was a little kid. If you can't take the glasses, you don't get to watch. I've enjoyed the 3D Blurays and I'm sure I'm far from alone in my intention to continue to use the format as it turns retro. Seeya, everyone who thought this was going to bring football holograms into your living room.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
So how will this affect 3D movies? The main selling point for going to the theater was that you can watch it in 3D, at a higher ticket price. But now that the after market will be going away, will they still continue to make 3D movies? When I watch a 3D movie, I see it there, but after the movie is over, it's not like I remember the 3D effect.
I know I am a minority here but I love 3D on my 2015 4K LG OLED. Movies are far more entertaining in 3D _WHEN_DONE_RIGHT_. I understand the hate for the glasses but I think its also a technical and content issue too. People are ok streaming shitty DVD quality let alone HD or 4k streams. They charged extra for 3D options or only provided them in a lower quality resolution even. Plus people had to push a button when starting to play the content which is a non starter for some people.
It's no great surprise 3D TV died, while it was arguably better than the older red/blue system it still was a long shot at best; still at least it probably helped push along other developments during the cash splurge.
What however is looking to stick around and become more popular is the '360 degree' vision videos.
Perhaps if 3D rises again, they might just go straight for the neural implant - we'll see in another 25~30 years I suppose.
2017 was the year of 3D on the desktop!
> I think it's because it doesn't help to tell stories.
> But if you are tempted to use it to "make the image more realistic" then maybe you just don't have a good story to tell in the first place.
Color TV is to "make the image more realistic". Color isn't needed to tell the story. Yet nobody wants to buy black and white. Color is all anyone makes, nobody shoots TV or movies in black-and-white. The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like color.
I got shouted down and ridiculed both here and other places for saying it was a passing FAD like the previous iterations as it just isn't a good seamless experience. I got laughed at when I suggested that 3D movies at cinemas would decline too (locally at least 3D sessions have gone from being more than half of the sessions to just being about a quarter and from what I hear they are only that high because they are contractually obligated to show them.
VR, AR, 3D etc etc are all really cool things but until they are a seamless, pleasant experience for the majority they will remain as FAD's that come and go on a regular basis.
That is all.
What enthusiasm? The fact that when all your showings are in 3D people reluctantly choose it over the 2D showing that you aren't even offering? Sure, that's enthusiasm....
3D is failing because nobody wanted it in the first place. They never wanted it at home, and they still don't want it in theatres. The only reason 3D sells is the lack of alternatives. For several years you almost couldn't buy a TV without it. That wasn't proof that people wanted it, it was proof that people were still buying TVs. My local theatre takes big name releases and does one 2D showing on a weekday at 2pm and 5 3D showings a night, people aren't "choosing 3D" they're trying to watch the movie.
I have in the past, and will continue to in the future, drive across town to find a 2D showing of a movie instead of being forced to watch in 3D.
The only way to do this that I know of is with holograms, but seeing a full color holographic display at any time in the near future seems unlikely.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
>"But some viewers will be sad to see the feature go."
That would be me. I am glad my Samsung TV supports 3D (I had to jump to a higher end/significantly more expensive 7100 series model to get it in August of 2015 because the feature was disappearing on most models). I enjoy watching the occasional 3D Bluray movie. In fact, the only Blurays I own are 3D and I would buy more if more were made (and were decently mastered).
3D shot/rendered correctly does add to the enjoyment of a film for many people. But, sadly, too much poorly shot 3D was released and helped to ruin the market.
I'll let you in on a secret... people (as in the vast majority) don't want 3D in theaters either. The reason it's there is because it's an excuse for even higher ticket prices. Raise your hand if you actually believe people would not see a movie because it wasn't showing in 3D. Anyone? Would you? Would you walk into a theater, and find out that the movie was not playing in 3D, and turn around and leave? Checking my local cinema's showings for tomorrow (it has 8 screens), there is only one movie being shown in 3D tomorrow: XXX: The Return of Xander Cage (PG-13). And that's with a 2D showing mixed in with the two 3D showings.
So when the article says "Despite enthusiasm at the box office", I think that should really say "Despite not utterly failing at the box office".
Better known as 318230.
I think one reason 3D TV never caught on is that the screens generally were not large enough. There is a problem with a finite screen when objects appear near the left or right edges and relatively close to the viewer: the required binocular disparity is such that the image in one eye goes black (blank), leaving the image in only one eye. This is very uncomfortable, even if it happens for a brief instant. The screen needs to be large enough for the left and right edges to be nearly out of ones peripheral vision so that then one eye goes blank it is less noticeable. Most movie theater screens are large enough. But still, the director needs to be aware of this problem and be careful not to place up-close images near the edges of the screen. I think James Cameron knew this in making Avatar. I'm sure that Martin Scorsese did not know this when he made Hugo, as this happens many times during that movie. With TV, especially live action sports, I suspect that this might be hard to control.
Of course, the other problem is the disparate needs for the viewer to focus at one distance (the screen) and cross the eyes at another distance (the object). Most people adapt to this nearly instantly but I suppose even they find it a little fatiguing.
They have a way of projecting 3D on a screen without 3D glasses.
I spent much of 2012 writing SoC drivers for 3D TV. I tried to explain to marketing that the technology was stupid and user's won't buy into the hype once word of mouth gets out. (I'm in the company's bi-weekly marketing meetings representing the engineering department)
Posting as AC because I'm embarrassed that this is an "I told you so" post.
Any of the current or coming VR and AR devices should be able to let you view a 3D movie out of the box. If they haven't got that application yet, someone should make it. Having to sit within a certain area of your room to see the 3D effect is a no-go. I'd think something like a HoloLens with the ability to let me position the "screen" wherever I want it in the room and have it be whatever size I desire would be perfect.
The only time I use the 3D feature of my LG TV is when viewing photos I shot with my Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W3. (Fuji, you are great at making cameras, not so hot at naming them!), or looking at other people's 3D shots with the Phereo app. These 3D sets are absolutely the best way to view 3D photos.
The W3 is maybe the best consumer 3D camera ever made (and it's pocketable!), but it didn't exactly set the world on fire either, and is now becoming a collector's item. So, yeah. . . I'm sad that this technology never seems to catch on with a wider audience, but that seems to be the reality of it.
I will now poke out one eye. That should fix it! I don't know why anyone thought it was so useful in the first place.
There are plenty of televisions that operate at 240hz. Using one of these, it would be trivial to have a separate box that uses glasses to display 3d... or make a system like what made Duck Hunt work, easier. The methods used by the more modern consoles just don't work as well.
No worries it will come back in 8 years. It is a marketing (aka hype) cycle: VR, increase resolution, improve sound, increase color depth, try 3D.
I have worked with a couple of 3D displays for scientific visualization. The university I worked for had a fairly expensive system with an 8 foot by 10 foot 3D display "wall". It was great for demos, but after a year or so of mostly demos, it was largely abandoned. I also got a set of 3D glasses for a 20 inch CRT system and added 3D support to a program I wrote for a physicist friend to display movies of particle simulations. Most of the benefit of seeing the 3D structure could be obtained by simply rotating the scene or movie. Another friend said that chemical display software frequently uses a "wobble" option to add some 3D-like effect to molecule displays. I added a wobble option to my program and it worked pretty well. My experience was that people didn't care enough to walk down the hall to use the big 3D wall and even with 3D glasses in his office, my physicist friend didn't bother. It's not much of a surprise to me that 3D TV is largely a bust. It is cool for a demo, but it seems destined to be used only for demos. Maybe with 3D systems not using goggles or perhaps with lightweight glasses there will be a future for 3D displays. I hope so, even after seeing no one really using it.
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
Does this /. editor not understand the use of paragraphs in English? Has /. stooped so low that its editors no longer care about basic readability concepts?
You felt your eyes twitch and felt that meant something was about to get worse with your eyes as a result. I wonder how many people experience what I experence when I say I have a true depth-perception experience. There are certain conditions required for me to experience true depth. There are actually two different sets of stimuli that can trigger it to varying degrees. Proper shading of a scene can trigger it after a fashion in 2d scenes. Games from the Playstation 2 era can trigger it, but I have yet to see a Playstation 1 game that does. This is actually a newish experience, as my brain didn't use to give me that sense with this stimuli.
Then there is the depth perception in the real world which has been touch and go. I have discovered it has to do with the properties of the lenses in the glasses that I wear and seems to have to do more specificially with measurements that are done for things like pupil distance and not focal power. They have refined in recent years their understanding of the optics system that result in prescriptions for eye glasses and contact lenses, but their understanding is still very incomplete. They have added a red green test to tell if further refinement triggers other issues. They have told me that depth perception remains in the realm of the unprescribable, though those are not the exact words that they use. I believe that such a time will come however, as I currently have lenses that provide me with very good depth perception, though it has other interesting sensations besides the depth perception effect that are physical in the same way as twitching is physical but not really a component of visual perception. So who knows if your eyes would get better or worse as a result of whatever causes them to twitch. So, I guess not risking it may be the right decision for you, but it isn't the whole story.
It added a lot to the immersion IMHO, and is also the best way to experience Virtual Boy and Master System 3D emulation. On the desktop PC, 3D LCD glasses came with many 3D accelerator cards since the 90s and it always blew me away to play games that way.
Twinstiq, game news
3D comes back every couple of decades. They had 3D movies as long ago as 1922. Since then, the popularity of 3D has come and gone several times. Each time, people get tired of the format when it loses its novelty. Then a couple of decades later, manufacturers come up with a "new" angle in hopes of selling new hardware.
Don't worry, 3D will come back. And then it will go away again.
And nothing of value was lost...
Okay, I understand that folks are uncomfortable with the 3D glasses, and the 3D effect is frequently a distraction to the story, and all that, but isn't it just some software on the TV that is producing the image? Is there really much in the line of special hardware on the TV itself needed to produce the 3D effect? Lots of TVs have headphone jacks, but only a vanishingly small number of people use the jack. So, if 3D doesn't involve an excessive amount of special hardware on the TV, why not leave it in as an available, but unmarketed feature.
Alternatively, can a third party settop box do the 3D processing?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
And this is exactly the future of VR.
Another non-problem trying to sell itself as a solution..
The public will soon catch on that today's VR is still crap,if people think 3d glasses are a pain,what do you think most are going to make of VR sets ?
And I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit for personal injury case in the USA from some div hurting themselves while using a VR system.
If the military are not really interested in a technology,then you can bet its going to fail with the public,mainly because they are the only ones with bottomless pockets to bring tech on to a usable state,where as corps just want/need to make money..
Where as VR/AR will take off in industry and fingers crossed for education as well..
VR as it is being sold to the public now and for the foreseeable future is a con/fraud.
VR is dead before it even gets going,no-one has a decent system anywhere near ready,we don't have the compute power yet or display tech that can make a good system..
Invest at the risk of watching yer money vanish..
Went over like a lead balloon back in the 50's. (without a special tv) No clue why they thought it would go today.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
I have Samsung stereoscopic TV, and I only tried the feature once and not even all the way through whatever we were watching... The image didn't just alternate perspectives between eyes, but it alternated perspective AND frames so your eyes were never seeing the same moment in time and is the first time I've ever gotten a splitting headache from viewing anything! I didn't mind a lower frame rate at the expense of stereo, and I probably could have enjoyed it then.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
> I've seen so far (which I admit isn't much) never looked natural, it looked gimmicky.
I've seen some really gimmicky, some a bit forced, some good, and just a couple of good gimmicks.
Some stuff isn't a movie, shot in 3D, it is a bunch of "oh cool, 3D" scenes stitched together and they call it a movie. I've seen some that wasn't as gimmicky, but just as they insert sex and cleavage into movies for no apparent reason, they randomly stick in a couple of 3D "effects". Then I've seen a couple that were decent movies, shot in 3D, without "featuring" 3D. Just as filmmakers no longer exaggerate color just because they can, a few don't do exaggerated 3D shots just because they can.
A separate genre are the short ones where you're flying through the Grand Canyon or you're on a roller coaster or something often seen at Imax. It's all about the 3D, Surround Sound, Imax experience, no pretense of a story. I enjoy some of those. I guess it's similar to how I don't care for random sex scenes interrupting a movie, but I don't mind a good porn every so often, for a few minutes. ;)
The best use of 3D "effects" I've seen is one of the Spiderman rides. You're in a roller coaster like car traveling through a building. It blends actual motion, live action, and 3D film all together in ways where you don't know for sure what's real and what's projected. At one point you fall, you're dropping down 100 feet or so. I haven't been able to figure out how far you actually fall, if at all. I *think* it's a real roller coaster drop, a significant distance, enhanced by 3D video of scenery going past to make it feel like you fell twice as far. Or maybe you don't actually fall at all. I can't tell if it's real or just effects, and that's pretty cool.
i needed subtle 3d like i need subtle porn. good work hollywood.
The GREEDY hardware manufacturers wanted the punters to have to buy new boxes/players to accompany their CHEAP 3D TVs, so opted for a new 3D encoding CODEC for 3D data. The side effect of this was broadcasters could NOT broadcast a 3D channel that was backwards compatible with a 2D set-up.
Now had the industry used SIDE-BY-SIDE for the 3D, all digital boxes and players could trivially have used one half of the image zoomed for people with traditional 2D set-ups. This would have allowed major broadcasters, like NBC CBS ABC Fox etc, to have made and broadcast shows in 3D that 2D viewers could also receive.
Back in the day, colour TV took off ONLY cos B/W TV users could also watch the same signal. Now while specialist mega-expensive 3D boxes/players can output 2D, 2D users do NOT want to own such boxes. But every cheap digital TV box could easily zoom into (say) the 'right' SBS image to make 3D appear 2D.
SBS is the choice of 3D film 'pirates'- cos 'pirates' ALWAYS choose the right format (see MP3 vs everything else). With SBS most current soaps and sitcoms would have tried 3D. But with the industry opting for the specialist H264 3D CODEC, mainstream 3D was doomed. Greed killed home 3D- and not the greed of the 3D TV makers, cos passive 3D is cheap, compatible with 2D TV, and excellent quality.
Porn is needed to save 3D TV
aaaaaaa
When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?
By all means, stop packing 3D glasses in. Make them a separate purchase for those who want them.
But why not offer the feature for those who want it when the hardware already does everything you need and it costs essentially nothing more?
If anything, the moment for glasses is finally here. Yeah, they still suck to wear. But the next major complaint was that they darkened the picture. Yet Samsung's doubled picture brightness this year. You can have each eye blacked out half of the time and still have as bright a picture as last year's glassesless version.
So, sure, most people don't use it much. But when it's essentially free, why not check that box for the 1% who do want it?
In the future we will all go back to black and white crt wooden tvs.
The problem is that 3D, when it's done well, is an enhancement to the experience, but not an essential part of it.
In the theatre they hand you a pair of 3D glasses when you come in, you sit down silently facing straight forward to watch the movie, and then you drop the glasses in the box on your way out. The 3D is worth while because it's really convenient to do.
But at home? You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D, then you need to move around to make sure the viewing angle is right, then you need to take the glasses on or off when you wander around to do something else, then at the end you need to find a place to store the glasses again.
The enhanced experience just isn't worth the hassle.
I stole this Sig
Until they make a Holodeck, like in Star Trek, these are all a waste of time and money.
Some day someone will produce a 3D TV that doesn't require glasses and supports multiple angles and multiple viewers. At that point it might experience a resurgence.
The studios only have themselves to blame. Just like they always do, they tried to gouge the public through charging exorbitantly premium prices on things that either didn't cost them a penny extra, or which should have been part of their general operating expenses anyway. Trying to make people pay £30 (RRP) for a 3D Blu-Ray when the 2D is next to it for £20 is just asking to fail. And now they're trying to do it with the 4k Blu-Rays too. Exactly how does it cost you more to produce a 4k Blu-Ray?
and the occasional 3d-movie was fun too, as long as the 3d was halfway decent. with vr/ar/mr glasses approaching the mass market, i don't think that we'll have to forgo 3d for long.
https://www.walmart.com/browse...
Check the JVC and Sceptre out. https://www.walmart.com/browse...
Probably the same Sceptre again and an Avera... a Changhong. Not top name brands but they do exist.
Some Playstation VR titles use the regular PS? controller and some use the Move controllers. The Move camera is required in either case apparently, but all the Move accessories appear to be the same ones from the PS3 era.
Count me in as one of 3D TV's few fans.
We bought our current TV a few years back (2012 or 2013 IIRC). We weren't specifically aiming to get a 3D (or even Smart) TV, however we lucked into a Cyber Monday deal that had a Sony KDL-46EX720 TV with a Sony 3D BluRay player for $750 (CDN) -- only one of three being offered in all of Western Canada. We scooped it up -- and for the most part it has been an excellent TV.
A year or so later we were able to pickup two pairs of 3D glasses while in the US (where they were half the price we could buy them in Canada for). I dove into as much 3D content as I could. Sony had at the time a great Internet "channel" in its Internet Video section which features all 3D videos, most of which were of UNESCO World Heritage sites. They were short, but those were great to watch. I'd watch 3D YouTube as well from time to time, and of course I own a bunch of 3D BluRay movies.
Unfortunately, first they shut down their 3D online channel, and then they decided not to update the set when YouTube changed its API (as I had predicted when we bought the TV, the "Smart" features wouldn't last all that long. As I said, I wasn't looking for a Smart TV. We don't use the Smart features at all anymore in favour of using our PS4 or Apple TV instead). There was never any regular 3D TV content available here in Western Canada (i.e.: no 3D broadcasts on cable or antenna), so the choice was between short Internet clips, or full blown movies.
I unfortunately missed the PS3 era; 3D doesn't work over PS Now, and there have been only a handful of 3D TV enabled games on the PS4. That was one area where 3D TV would have really shined; I regret never having had the opportunity to play ICO and Shadow of the Colossus in 3D.
My wife never got into the 3D viewing, so I'm the only one in the house who ever uses it. About the only time I get to use it is when I'm home alone, or after everyone else has gone to bed. Still, I did get Star Wars VII on 3D BluRay when it was released back in November, and have been enjoying watching it again in glorious 3D. I'll probably still buy our movies in 3D BluRay packs while I can (the 3D packs generally also come with the 2D BluRay, a 2D DVD, and a digital download copy, so they can be a really good deal), and will probably have to keep our current TV somewhere in the house for as long as it continues to function to watch them. Ultimately what did 3D TV in was the lack of content (particularly TV shows in the 30 mins - 1 hr range), the cost of the glasses (the TVs should have come with two pairs each, and not sold them as $100 each add-ons!), and general apathy towards wearing the glasses. Oh well -- it was fun while it lasted.
Yaz
China will add every feature they can to their china made TVs, so they can say, look USA/JP/KR TVs suck, they remove features, we add every thing we can, and 50% more ram, coz you guys suck.
Sony LG you suck, why remove a feature that is 100% software. Bunch of morons, and you charge too much for bluray 3ds, idiots.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I love 3d.
A lot of shit in 2d is a blur, 3d rocks.
Go enjoy your over sugarated crap food, fake cheese, 2d, shitty 4g, crap NTSC, shit coffee.
Typical consumers, like subpar shit, coz they are cheap scum who want $3 movies.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
So why do women wear bras, they are worse than 3d glasses, but they still do.
Fact is, makers want to push 4k + HDR, so thats why they are removing 3d.
Even you tube arsholes removed 3d options from the html5 player, where the flash player had it.
WANKERS, call your self, high tech and mighty, nahhh, just a bunch of loosers who cant code for shit.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
we sit watching movies many times a week in the dark, 2d and 3d, and netflix.
heaps of stuff on youtube and torrents.
TV is in the middle not corner like a 80s 17"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
implementing 3d is virtually free.
off/even frames synced to glasses, thats $1 tech.
I am sure you could retro fit a PC HDMI output with software on non-3d tvs at 100hz, and if synced to glasses by the PC would work fine as 3d, on NON 3D tvs.
The other format is polarized glasses, which just requires a thin $5 filter on top + software to filter frames to odd/even lines.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Lots of TVs have headphone jacks, but only a vanishingly small number of people use the jack.
And in fact, you could output 3D image purely with a software upgrade by outputing the "alternate frame" pulse signal over the audio-out jack.
So 3D can be 100% software solution, no hardware required.
(Most of the headphone users are probably anyway getting their audio over bluetooth for the convenience of avoiding cable accross the living room.
And for the last 2 geeks that are interested in 0ms audio latency provided by analog AND want to use 3D, we will probably get entirely fine using one of the other outputs of the TV - cinch, scart, etc.)
Now I come to think about it, I'm sure that during the last craze around VR glasses on PC (late 90s, early 2000s - when glasses started to use standard connectors) there should be at least 1 geek who attempted to hack such a contraption to get around lacking VESA DDC pin support with soundcard output instead.
(I personally went for parallel port hacks and later auto-flipping + interlaced output abuses).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If anyone would like to sign the petition mentioned here's the link:
https://www.change.org/p/lg-pl...
3D is not a feature. It's an attempted implementation of a feature.
The feature that people want is 'lifelike' video or immersive video.
To get that at home, I do see two potential technologist that are making headway. 4K TVs (for the color gamut, not the screen resolution) and virtual reality glasses.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?
- The weird proprietary connector, that goes to the weird proprietary array of infra-red emitters that needs to send the signal to sync the eyes.
or
- The integrated IR emitter in the TV that emits the sync signal to the 3D googles.
or, for TV that don't use active glasses
- A weird structure in the pannel that makes sure that every pixels emits light in a different polarity than it's neighbours
(either alternating horizontaly in scanlines, or vertically in column, or in a checkered pattern... whatever, as long a "left image" and "right image" pixels emits different light polarities that will subsequently get filtered by the passive 3D glasses)
(BONUS point : this setup gives dual-viewer capabilities (viewer A and B get to watch 2 different channels thanks to the glasses) which might be popular in some market with cramped living rooms ? Japan ?)
or, for display that do not use glasses at all (e.g.: Nintendo 3DS)
- an even more complex lenticular filter that makes sure that 2 different images are sent in 2 different directions (a little bit like a privacy screen, but viewable from 2 different angles, each showing only half of the horizontal resolution).
and starting from New 3DS, an even more elaborate viewer's face tracking technology to make sure that each of the view eyes get the correct image at the correct perspective.
So, in short : only the most clusmy 3D glasses are those that require the less hardware.
Out of them, only the first variant (proprietary connector) is the easiest to remove (say that the 3D pulse can be sent of the almost-never-used analog headphones jack),
and will still require a clunky setup (an IR emitter bar and active glasses) that will be quite off putting.
Meaning that even less people are likely to try the 3D, except to the 2 geeks at the back over there.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D
and make sure their button batteries didn't die since the last time you used them,
if your 3D googles are of the more popular active variety.
(as opposed to passive glasses with polarized lens [like the cinema theater ones] and the TV screen itself is a polarized emitter).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When they can show 3D using a holographic projector that uses no other hardware then it will be cool. Disney World had something like that in the Kodak pavilion once - without the assistance of any glasses, etc. We saw a gold ring materialize out of thin air and a unicorn fly toward the audience - it was verry cool. That was the one and only time I ever saw anything like that. The next thing that comes close is the immersive environment in the free movie at the top floor of the Native American museum in DC..they have a projector system that includes something like a planetarium projector on the ceiling.
In real life your binocular vision doesn't give you any depth perception beyond about 10ft. If you're 10ft from the screen, that's 20ft max into the stage to make it feel lifelike. So all the actual 3D effect has to be amped up to massive proportions, with your eyes 10ft apart to get any hint of 3D stereoscopic effects.
Which isn't realistic on a human head.
The other problem with realism is that the depth of field is buggered. When you look into the background, the foreground blurs because our eyes evolved under water, so they can no longer, unlike a fish's, focus short and long ranges at the same time. But that happens at your whim, not the DoP's. And everyone does it at different times. So this effect DOESN'T happen. Not forgetting that the background will be out of focus because cameras have a depth of field too. So you will try to focus on the background, fail to find focus because the image itself is out of focus, yet stereoscopic effects still apply, where you SHOULD be able to focus. And so your eyesight gets tired quickly and your brain processes a lot of incorrect data. Watching a 3D movie where the depth means something is like not wearing your glasses if you have a necessary prescription. It can only work while you watch it like it was 2D, focusing only where the DoP expected you to.
Have I you to blame for not making menus in 3d too ?
3d is good and should always be an option, just like MFR or DNR is, or 200hz options.
No options = cheap shit.
Just wait, China will add it and make cheaper sets. Just like how they are pushing android with 6gb ram, where stupid everyone else for years was 1-2gb max, which makes them unable to run the next gen OS. If you have more ram than you need, you can upgrade to the next gen OS, who cares if its $4 extra cost.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
VR soon to follow.
Here is the petition.
Here is the part that made me laugh:
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of us across the world with large 3D Blu-ray collections who have paid literally thousands of dollars / pounds / euros for these disks which we paid a premium for over 2D Blu-ray do not want to lose access to these when our 2016 OLEDs bite the dust.
Yes...I'm sure the manufacturers are going to jump right in and support those HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of people AROUND THE WORLD who want this feature.
Only for old console gaming. I am a bit sad that I never bought one of those 120Hz slim CRTs at the end of their life. There is a huge and heave Sony still at home, but cannot watch its flickering.
But not for the reason you might think. I'm really not that into 3D games, however full screen co-op, "dual play" or something, is a really great idea. I just don't like split-screen gaming and I wouldn't mind wearing glasses to achieve it, if needed. The drawback of course is frame rate, it should be (game_rate/2). Anyway never did and I'm not sad because of it.
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
For demanding a small fortune in order allowing you to view their meagre 90 - 120 minutes worth of 3D content on any Blu-Ray disk. For such a hefty amount of coin one would be much wiser buying any suitable 3D video game, providing 3D entertainment lasting 10 to 100 times longer than any of the aforementioned 3D content provided by greedy CEOs. Not mentioning currently rising wave of fresh and exciting HD VR content.
We have 2 x 3D TV's in the house, both get used in 3D mode at least 10% of the time for watching Bluray content. :(
I was planning an upgrade later this year. I'm disappointed
sorry, but some scientists are very monpolic in view and dont see the big picture, else they would be rich.
There are many applications of 3d views for science, hell it gives a better view than boring 2d, or do scientists brains cant compute dual 3d displays, and only monochrome math scribbles.
Did they also wear brown patch pants, and use old school slide rules?
3D isnt easy, but its damn useful, and hell, even russia used it for rovers in the moon but they still screwed up, in one second I could have designed better, but they limited FOV and vertical angles. tsk tsk, so smart, but also so bloody stupid.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
ps4 valkyrie , awesome in VR.
Even Driveclub is very good, I dont know why people dont like it, its awesome.
You wankers especially americans have too high expectations, no wonder you take so much drugs and need therapy.
Go back to your substandard Starbucks.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
my god you are so lazy
Do you also go, OMG where is my knife and fork, using a knife and fork at home is so hard, I have to go find it, and use it, and keep it clean too, OMG, just eat with your fingers like a sloth animal.
Go back to your 17" CRT lazy boy.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I love 3D in my home. My issues are the cost of a disc is $40 if you want 3D. The second is availability at movie rental level. RedBox don't carry them and the local Family Video brings in very few.
the popularity of 3D has come and gone several times
That's what gimmicks are for -- to boost sales for a short time until the lemmings figure out that the gimmick is useless. My personal favorite is the tacky fake chrome trim you saw on nearly all new cars a few years ago -- even luxury cars. (Nothing is funnier than a $100,000 mercedes looking like it was just decked out at Pep Boys for 50 bucks.)
Beer also gives people fuzzy vision and head aches after too many, yet you dont see, BEER IS DEAD.
Try 3d porn next time, better than 2d. Or are you a one eyed monster
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Golf? seriously, who in hell would even want to watch golf in 2d, in black and white, in 15" in SD.
Utter shit sport
try F1 or E1
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I'm a little depressed by the level of pleasure in others' misfortune that's being exhibited in some of these comments. Can someone explain the logic of saying "I personally am not interested in feature X, therefore I am going to celebrate when it is taken away from people who do care about it?" That's not only selfish, it's rather short-sighted: it sends the TV industry a clear message that it's okay for them to ignore what an appreciable subset of customers want, and there will be no negative consequences when they do. So, what's going to happen when they decide to abolish a feature that you *do* care about?
Link: https://www.change.org/p/lg-pl... It's asking LG to include just one 3D-enabled TV in their 2018 OLED line-up. (LG is singled out because their 2016 OLED range was easily the best implementation of home 3D there has ever been).
$45 for a 3D version, $15 for regular Blu-ray.
So sad... I actually liked 3D TV. Glad I managed to grab a 2015 Bravia a while ago before they become extinct. At the very least, I can use it to watch the superb 3D photos I take with the LG Optimus 3D (which btw is evolving into a collective piece, can't find one on the internet below 200 dollars in good condition despite being an ultra-low-end Android device).
It was a fad. Everyone knew it. It wasn't a matter of if but when 3D would die. Good riddance. 3D debacle delayed work on OLED and better picture technology.
Maybe hopefully this will help kill 3D at the cinema as well? One can dream.
There's an old saying in the visualization community: "3D is just bad 2D"
-Chris
This will be the fate of consumer VR and AR, too. It's just a novelty, also known as a fad, by its nature ephemeral. Hell, let's throw AI on that pile, too. One day it will again just be an advanced algorithm rather than 'consciousness'. People aren't as stupid as some would like to believe.
Not that that's saying much. This was an entirely predictable happening.
Everyone forgets projectors, which any real movie enthusiast uses anyways, continue to support 3D and will continue to do so long into the future.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
Early adopters paid the costs of being early adopters on this one. I was starting to ponder the idea of purchasing a 3D TV for my next set but I couldn't really justify buying a new TV of any sort recently. Not everyone has that kind of disposable cash lying around. It wasn't so much that 3D costs that much extra (it generally didn't, especially if you didn't need extra glasses), it was that I just wasn't interested in a new TV beyond my 42" plasma.
This is much the same as when I find myself discussing consumer electronics purchases in general; while some people say they buy a lot more stuff online than in physical stores, I find I'm just not buying that much stuff in general. I used to average $1,000 or so a year at best buy, now I spend closer to $200-300 a year and the difference goes to pay for things that are not consumer electronics at all. In other words, in my case best buy isn't losing my money to amazon they are losing it to nobody.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I *really like* the 3D feature for short things. But back in high school I suffered a minor eye injury, which today means I can't use contacts. I have to wear glasses. I have never seen 3D glasses that fit comfortably over my regular glasses, and that means 3D is mainly just an annoying distraction when watching anything more than 5 minutes long. Get some actual comfortable glasses, and it might be a different story.
If the industry wanted to still offer 3D, the red blue kind can be done on any screen. Too bad it is the most notorious kind for causing headaches.
How ya like dat?
3D is a great feature for appropriate content, like kids movies, horror movies and console video game. But it's not so great if there is no content. Pretty much every major movie was released in 3D in theaters, but very few got to streaming and then for exorbitant prices. Now the same thing is happening with 4K. MPAA will never learn.
The problem as I see it with home-based 3D technologies was quite simple: the hardware vendors attempted to implement a rather clumsy variation on the classic Razor Blade business model, by attempting to turn those required 3D glasses into a cash cow. (The clumsy bit being that their 3D TVs were by no means cheap.)
The thing is, people go to the theater and they get to use cheap passive glasses to watch a 3D movie, and after the movie they are encouraged to "recycle" the glasses... but nobody really bothers to police this because, well, they're cheap and everybody knows it. Then these same consumers go out to buy a fancy new 3D TV, only to be told that they also have to spend anywhere from $30 to $100 per pair for decent quality active glasses... which are virtually guaranteed to wind up broken in short order, resulting in unreasonably high ongoing replacement costs. Thus, many consumers never even bother to buy the glasses to go with their new 3D setup, much less the overpriced 3D versions of their favorite movies. (I certainly haven't.)
Or to put it more simply: Most people don't like to feel like they're being gouged.
If I wanted to where classes to watch a 3D movie, we have been able to do that on normal TV's since the 1980's. I remember doing it on normal , over the air systems. I forget if you had to ajust the contrast or something. Given that, why did we ever need special hardware and standards for this?
If there was demand for it and content that was useful it might be warranted , but there has never compellingly been either.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
1080p 3D TV needs at least a 120 Hz screen refresh rate. 60 frames each second are used to show the left image, 60 frames each second to show the right image, 120 frames per second total. (If the set is designed to eliminate judder when displaying 24 fps movies, it needs a 240 Hz refresh rate to do it in 3D movies shot at 24 fps (48 fps for both views).
The problem is, every 120 Hz or 240 Hz TV I've seen has made this refresh rate internal-only. They only accept a 60 Hz input signal (which is 120 Hz for 3D-only). Probably because HDMI only supports a maximum of 60 Hz (120 Hz for 3D-only). A few times a week, I run across a gamer asking if they can hook up their 120 Hz TV to their PC and play games at 120 fps. And I have to tell them it's not possible - the TV isn't designed to accept a 120 Hz non-3D input signal.
If they had designed the 3D TVs to accept 120 Hz non-3D input, you'd have gamers tripping over themselves to buy 3D TVs to use as 120 Hz monitors, with the 3D stuff being a "free" added capability. A few of them would then probably experiment with playing their games in 3D (where the depth perception can actually be advantageous), and that might have been enough to make 3D displays catch on.
Wake me up when I can walk to the other side of my display and see the back of the actors heads.
When you can do that it is real 3d.
3D TV is dead...again. There have been numerous attempts to foist 3D upon the public and each attempt has failed. Maybe if someone can up with a way to do it without the goofy glasses it has a chance. Other than that...it joins Betamax on the trash heap of tech.
"I don't shoot my mouth off without knowing what I'm talking about" - by raymorris (2726007) on Thursday December 31, 2015 @09:29AM (#51215379)
Raymorris you shoot your mouth off f'ing up in 2 security fuckups https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5351503&cid=47379233/ & https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5351503&cid=47374033/ + raymorris = scriptkiddie https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8895203&cid=51726265/
&
Tell us how ONLY 'newer script kiddie tools' have stringlength built in (when PASCAL had it for ages - my fav tool) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8472509&cid=51114383/ YOU BLUNDERING WANNABE!
APK
P.S.=> You like to talk behind others' backs like the gossiping bitch TROLL you are raymorris https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9880997&cid=53312265/ well, here I am letting YOU TALK in those links, showing your FAILS wannabe ... apk
that's crap, as I really like 3D, I won't buy a TV which doesn't have 3D capabilities (passive or active). I'd rather have 3D than HDR or even 4K (although 4K is excellent for FullHD passive 3D).
The future is not 3D TV.
The future is not Virtual Reality.
The future is near field power devices.
(caveat: I was one of the IPO participants in startups for both 3D TV and Virtual Reality companies in Hong Kong)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3DTV used the wrong 3D, the "fake your eyes into thinking you're there" kind of 3D. What would be far more useful and likely adopted quicker is the free viewpoint 3D, where the user can choose their own camera perspective, not being locked into what the director chose.
So plan a career on being a 3D eyeglass maker. You can either specialize in RED (Left lens crafter) or AZURE (blue or right lens crafter).
it's just that the implementation has sucked and still sucks.
get rid of accessories, IQ degradation, headaches, etc., and then youve got something.
a more communicative z-axis is cool.
When will movie theaters, digital rides, etc. drop their 3D?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
3D was just something that was shoved down people's throats too soon. 1080p screens with active glasses were flickery messes that were also clunky and expensive. 1080p screens with passive 1080i 3D were simpler, but had poor quality. Combine that with the emergence of acceptable VR (3D with head tracking) goggles, a new 4K 3D format had no chance.
Now don't even get me started with "curved" screens... something that had no advantages for a TV, a display with multiple viewers sitting at relatively close distances to the screen, that was rammed down consumers' collective throats right after 3D.
Please 3D cinema be next.
It's funny reading all the reasons on various places about why it died. People saying they didnt like having to wear lame glasses; instead they'd rather wear even lamer VR headsets... Just because people didnt want to watch 3d all the time didnt make it a failure. It was rolled out poorly. It should have only been included in TVs more than 55-80 inches. Its potential isnt realized on anything smaller. In the past people said 60-80" was too big. Thats only because we're still used to the old days of 37" Tubes being considered "big". But as people get more used to it, larger TVs will become the trend.
They tested 3D in sports and called it a failure. It should've only been used in select action shows and movies.
People talk about gimmicks, as if 4k isnt a gimmick on all less than 60" TVs. I remember when 1080p was called a gimmick on TV sizes they're now selling with 4k. Talk about lacking content as if 4k isn't lacking content.
If it's a gimmick then we're just moving from one gimmick to another.
Sad to see every manufacturer abandon it. You'd of thought at least one would want market dominance. They're claiming the past excuse was, "every other company is doing 3d so we have to to remain competitive". Now it's "every other company is subtracting features so we have to subtract features to remain competitive". Doesnt make sense.
Water is wet.
It is also comprised of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom.
It also has a Ph of 7 and is considered a Universal Solvent.
It Also has a MSDS for it. That's right. There is a Safety Data sheet on WATER because the government felt a need to inform people that you can't breath in it.
In other news: 3D TV, a commercial gimmick for people to buy expensive shit, has finally kicked the bucket. Reports are also coming in that the Virtual Reality fad is also following suit. VR, as you know, has been a fad that both the Game Console and Electronics companies have been trying to shove up people's ass like 3D TV, but has failed every time.
Captain Obvious reporting.
I totally understand most people don't like watching a 3D movie on TV. But I'm not one of them. I love it.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Most are waiting for 4D TV. Yeah, extra dimensions.
Why would I pay $ 7,777 for 3D TV?
It's best to survey the customers about possible future purchases. That's if the retailer was kind to them.
My TV is going to integrate more into the TV. Security Camera, Kids gps(Watch, Cell Phone, Tablet), house environment, apartment environment, REAL OS like full featured Android or Linux.
* With all the companies leaving people unemployed, where are they going to get the monies to pay for a TV that costs more than $3k?
My understanding is that it's for videogames, where two players can sit on the same couch and each will see the game from their own perspective. I don't know how many games actually support it, though.
It boils down to "Hey, I can display to HDMI inputs, who can I play a game with 2 HDMI outputs) ?"
If you just plug two gaming consoles each into a different input :
- absolutely any game with networked multi-player will support it.
If you use a PC with 2 HDMI outputs, that you hook respectively to 2 HDMI inputs, you need a game that :
- either let you play 2 player seats on 2 different screens (some games, not all)
- or let you play 2 concurrent sessions, each maximized to a different screen, and each using different inputs (some games, not all)
- or have horizontal (or vertical) split-screen, and you can coerce the driver to consider the 2 outputs as one huge virtual screen across which you'll maximize the game (and so each half of the split-screen end up on a different HDMI output)
(any random split-screen game, combined with the majority of graphics card drivers. BONUS point if the game can adapt its image ratio to the extra-wide horizontal resolution).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Sure lots of people don't want to wear them, but I don't think that's really the issue - I think it's that the quality of the viewing experience is, well... crap. It's nothing like seeing things in real life.
We have a long way to go before 3D is good enough where people will actually prefer it, glasses or not.
That tech will probably be lightfeild, which will only incidentally not require glasses.
It WILL rise again... ONLY if it does NOT require goggles
In the 1960's, the "obvious" future was "picture phones." In the 1980's the "obvious" future was "picture phones." Now everyone has a video-capable telephone, but do we use them? Sometimes, yes, but we never got to the "obvious" future where every single phone call was a video call. 3D Television is the same way. The technology exists, anyone who wants it can have it, but it's just not something the mainstream market has any interest in.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!