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.
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.
Was it ever really alive?
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.
I'm hoping "Smart TV's" are the next to go.
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.
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.
The preferred alternative of pure monitor plus streaming box could be marketed as 'modular TV'.
2017 was the year of 3D on the desktop!
Something like this?
> 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.
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.
I'm hoping 3D cinema are next to go.
Yes, it was fun in Avatar and all, but nowadays it only makes everything fuzzy and dark.
The last movie I watched in 3D was "Star Wars Rogue One", and I had no option for 2D (movie theaters here in Brazil are doing this dirty practice). In some scenes it was so dark I could barely see anything... I liked the movie, but 3D almost ruined it for me.
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.
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.
My "smart TV" is a standard TV with Remix Mini connected to it.
As for 3D TVs, I think the only way they would catch on is if they were autostereoscopic with wide viewing angles and affordable prices.
I would very much prefer a moniter and a roku! "Smart" TVs need to DIE along with all of the IoT crap! Its all a very bad idea!
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.
Smart TV's while many of them are horribly painful to use actually have some legitimate ongoing use cases, the problem their is that they suck rather than not addressing a legitimate issue. I have no smart TV's in my house as I didn't see the need since I can do it all with media center machnes that are faster, better featured and more customisable than a smart TV ever will be,
More like this:
Kentucky Fried Movie predicted this in 1977:
FeelAround
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
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
To my view, much of IoT is a solution looking for a problem, and is compounded by ignorance on all levels. Corporations that are seeking it thinking it's the future don't understand Information Technology or Information Security. Developers have proven time and again that they're terrible at policing their own code for exploitation (and tech companies already have a hard enough time with this, non-IT firms won't have a chance) and consumers don't have any idea how it works by and large either.
Most of the "IoT" market that's actually relevant is already addressed through SCADA and other building management or energy management systems, and these systems usually don't require connections outside of the building or outside of the organization in order to work, and there's a better chance that the organization using them has staff responsible to maintain them, and that staff usually understands the ramifications of not maintaining them. Most of the new buzzword bingo stuff is fluff and will probably cause a lot of long-term problems when appliance manufacturers don't want to spend the money to patch security vulnerabilities in software for durable goods.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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...
You don't really want that, especially not in some movies like Pr0n, splatter, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory or in newscasts from war zones.
I actually have one of the Samsung 3D TVs and I did look at it once - Men In Black 3, but the 3D revealed with ease all the CGI because it was flat while the actors were in 3D. Another disadvantage is that the glasses aren't that comfortable.
So 3D is a cool feature for special applications like Virtual Reality where you simulate an environment where people will work but it's not really anything more than a fun thing in movies - and after about 10 to 20 minutes you will get bored and mentally overloaded by the 3D effects.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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'm more surprised that people pay money to see trash like Star Wars.
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.
The SCADA market is exactly where IoT hits its stride. The home automation market is hot garbage waiting to be exploited.
Now also having worked with SCADA systems for a long time. Most are rather poorly done. The software is usually bubblegum and duct tape with a shiny coat of gloss to make it look nice.
I supported several of these devices for about 10 years. Guess how many are supported now? None. They sit out there waiting for someone to exploit them. They will never see another patch. Ever.
3D TV's always seemed stupid as hell to me. I can't say I'm surprised they're gone. I never got the point, even before you factor in the need to wear special glasses and their tendency to induce eyestrain/headaches.
Good riddance!
I'm hoping 3D cinema are next to go.
Why hope for the death of something people enjoy? I was given the option of a 2D Rogue One screening. I chose the 3D one because I actually like it when done properly. What we really need is more choice rather than a battle of what people like.
To my view, much of IoT is a solution looking for a problem, and is compounded by ignorance on all levels. Corporations that are seeking it thinking it's the future don't understand Information Technology or Information Security.
If we must have smart tvs, then just making a slot for something like this:
Intel compute card(I'd also prefer to get rid of hdmi in favour of display port, but that is not happening.)
Basically this would be my ideal tv.
1) A few hdmi (or display port)
2) dot for dot displays in at least 24bpp color at at least 60Hz non interlaced, or better yet supporting that variable sync rate stuff graphics cards are supporting now to prevent tearing.
3) A single optical digital audio output, because do we really need to run speakers wirelessly and introduce those security issues?
4) A spot for a single replaceable compute card or similar. The card may connect to a lan port on the tv, but that just just wire routing. Basically you could swap the cards out in the mail if newer security was required. The card would also be used to help decode any video standards, and may actually be what decodes all compressed video.
5) A TV should not have a microphone, unless it goes to a closed system that can only be used to do trivial tv functions that clearly can never be routed to the internet. If you want to give up your privacy then you can add an additional microphone to the compute stick.
6) Similarly a tv should not have a camera. If a game absolutely needs one, it can add it on later
7) For add ons the compute stick may route wires to usb ports, but again these are just wires and have no security implications. Examples for USB would be game controllers, wired or wireless keyboards, direct connections to tv tuners, connects to portable blu-ray players, etc.
Over the air broadcasts, if used should be provided over the local network, wireless or wired. There is no point in dragging coax everywhere
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?
I have no smart TV's in my house as I didn't see the need
That by definition means you don't have a 4K TV, or any non projection TV larger than probably about 40-50" less than 3 years old. It's pretty much impossible not to buy a "Smart TV" these days unless it's basically a computer monitor.
Not saying you can't get a better experience with a big monitor + STB/etc, just that you can't actually buy a high end 4K monitor that isn't also Smart TV (whether you use the software or not).
I still have a T-shirt from the 2001 CGDC from this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It was a horrible idea, and equally horrible implementation. And I will cherish the T-shirt forever...
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.
In the future we will all go back to black and white crt wooden tvs.
With people listening to vinyl and cassettes nothing would surprise me anymore
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.
Star Wars Rogue One was also the movie which made me realise how much the 3D glasses affect the colour of the picture. There were lots of scenes that looked very dull and dark - taking the glasses off for a moment, the colours were much brighter and "normal". I've now started noticing that in other 3D movies as well... surely the studios should master the 3D videos with brighter/lighter colours to compensate for the darkening of the glasses?
I wouldn't call for 3D cinema to go though, I enjoy watching movies in 3D at the cinema... but as the summary/article states, despite having a 3D capable TV at home for 2.5 years, I think we've watched a total of 4 movies in 3D on it, despite havingÂthe option to watch many more in 3D.
My Panasonic 50-something in TV is *not* a smart TV, and it's about 2 years old. I specifically shopped for a "dumb" TV. The features of smart TVs will quickly become outdated and cumbersome, and I hope to keep a TV for a good 10+ years. It was cheaper than the smart versions.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
that's what they do - when you put on the glasses, you see the colors as intended, otherwise you get oversaturated colors (like the crappy look some TVs produce out of the box, or your typical oled-phone screen). rogue one had a very muted/washed out palette because it was supposed to be a war-film.
Too many films aren't really shot in 3D, which (in my and many others' opinions) results in shitty 3D which makes people think 3D is shitty. Rogue One was fake 3D.
Films shot (or rendered) *natively* in 3D are still worth seeing, IMO.
http://www.realorfake3d.com/
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.
I watched the golf on a friend's 3D TV and the experience was pretty awful.
I don't know what I expected, but with the glasses on it just seemed to be layers of 2D, rather similar to an episode of Captain Pugwash...
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
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
As a non american, always looking at american bitches, you complain too much, enjoy it.
If you cant hack it, suck it up. They are NOT uncomfortable.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
A bit offtopic, but that's not quite true.
A neighbour - utterly non-technical - brought back a cheap cam from the hardware store the other day; she plugged it in, followed the instructions and a few minutes later was round my place showing me live streams of her kids playing in the garden on her iPhone.
Probably unbelievably insecure, but for her, very convenient.
As long as people can get this "instant convenience" they'll uptake IoT.
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 ]
I doubt most "3D theaters" here in Brazil are really capable of displaying 3D properly. You need a much more expensive projector
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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 ]
Nope. VR, before it even gets started. Smart TVs are too easy to embed, and end users use them or not. Unlike 3D or VR, Smart TVs aren't the reason you buy the device, it's a nice extra. Well, not nice, of course. VR as a mass market device will be gone before Smart TVs.
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.
I have bought a 55" TV just to watch movies and the like. I however do not have cable. I just use it as a big monitor as they are way cheaper than a monitor of the same size and for the quality I need.
No, I do not use ANY of the features from the TV. Not the channels. Not the Internet. Not the apps.
So I already have a 'modular TV'.
To be more specific. I have 3 monitors. One monitor goes through a splitter and that goes to 3 other screens. One on my desk as monitor 3 (24"). One to the kitchen to a 22" and one to the 55" TV. Those have thus the same image and as I run XFCE with separate screens, I can keep what I watch on those monitors.
Disadvantage of a TV to a monitor is that a monitor will turn itself off completely and the TVs I have need to be turned off and on, so I have to press the button on the remote.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
A pure monitor and multiple streaming boxes. A master media player, and all other media player/cable boxes able to operate as a slave to the master. Any box can assume the role of master, but the master controls which channels I watch, not the the slaves. I want one remote control that lets me flick between all the channels and adjust the volume on the audio system, also a slave. And I can have many of them connected also. If there is one thing I can't stand about the entertainment systems of today is the need to have 4 (my brother has 7) bloody remote controls. And having to set the TV to one input and watch a channel over there. Then switch to another channel on another entertainment device. Oh, and I want to be able to listen to a "CD" off an MP3 player while I watch the football on the monitor.
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.
The overproliferation of black box special purpose devices is concerning. The technology controls us rather than we control it. I would much prefer to watch an record programs using open source software on Linux rather than a smart TV. Ever try to find DVR tuner hardware for Linux, especially when you want 5 tuners? It is difficult and damn near impossible. Open source desperately needs to go mainstream in everything so that we dont become slaves to machines and that people can control the devices that they purchase.
I saw Rogue One in 2D. The colour palette is very dark, intentionally so.
3D reduces the amount of light that reaches your eyes by about 30% IIRC, It would be obvious, therefore, for the studio to deliberately make the image brighter, and it sounds to me, from your description that they have done exactly that in this case.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
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.
The preferred alternative of pure monitor plus streaming box could be marketed as 'modular TV'.
Better yet they could just make the screen with a whole load of different inputs and a built in tuner and call it a TV
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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).
DR3DD. The 3D was great, and the set was perfectly setup u for 3D action, which added to the film.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
$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 has never been done properly.
Then you've never seen "Coraline."
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.
+1 Google "dumb TV". We are not the only ones who just want a big screen to display content captured by hardware of our own choosing that can be swapped out, mixed, matched, and replaced at our whim.
Sheesh. Have a lovely weekend, yourself!
I don't think there's any need to call me a dick head - have we met?
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
There's an old saying in the visualization community: "3D is just bad 2D"
-Chris
Too much money to be made by telemetry and data sucked back for it to go away. That, and the ability to have another method to throw ads at people.
Or are you a one eyed monster
No, that was in the porn...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's exactly what I mean by not understanding it. It's relatively easy to follow checklists to get something to operate. It's another matter entirely to get something into a secured network segment with only limited access to the rest of the internal network and basically no access to or from the outside network except where relevant.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Not that that's saying much. This was an entirely predictable happening.
"WANKERS, call your self, high tech and mighty, nahhh, just a bunch of loosers who cant code for shit."
Of course, writing in English is a type of coding. Tell us again about the losers who can't code?
Wow, you're really bitter that this has failed, aren't you?
Now also having worked with SCADA systems for a long time. Most are rather poorly done. The software is usually bubblegum and duct tape with a shiny coat of gloss to make it look nice.
I supported several of these devices for about 10 years. Guess how many are supported now? None. They sit out there waiting for someone to exploit them. They will never see another patch. Ever.
But those older SCADA devices were not dependent on being cloud-connected, were they? There are probably a thousand SCADA devices on the network I deal with and they're all internal-only. They don't reach out to the Internet nor can the Internet reach into them. There's no need, so they don't get the option. Even if they are vulnerable to exploitation, the vectors that would allow for exploit are far fewer.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I watched Avatar on a friend's system. It admittedly was pretty badass, but as I understand it, Avatar is possibly one of the best 3D movies ever made, where 3D wasn't cobbled-in for just a few effects scenes (thinking of the snake in one of the Harry Potter films sort of thing) or where as you state, looking like cardboard cutouts placed at various intervals.
If they could get 3D TV to work without requiring glasses then perhaps they'd really have something. Until then it's just too cumbersome to be more than an interesting toy.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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!
"Smart TVs" are dumb.
Crappy interface that will receive updates for 6-mo if you're lucky.
I love my Insignia ROKU TV though.
The preferred alternative of pure monitor plus streaming box could be marketed as 'modular TV'.
My monitor is probably close. It's a vizio 42" UHD TV, but has no tuner. So it's not really a "TV". It does have "smart" stuff built in - hulu and such, but I can also go on my phone and open netflix, choose a movie, and then tell it I want to watch it in 4K glory on the monitor. It rocks.
It doesn't have a microphone or camera, but it does directly connect to the internet. But it actually does what I want a TV to do, which is to allow me to watch netflix and amazon content at high resolutions.
As a comparison, comcast just added netflix to the cable box that they insist I use in order to get 300mb internet, but they only show in 720p. Bastards.
Do you have ESP?
Shut up, hipster. Go back to Starbucks and type on your MacBook so you can show everyone how creative you are.
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.
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.
F1? How many green passes for the leed last year?
Golf and racing are kind of lame to watch, go out and play. SCCA/Autocross/NHRA isn't THAT expensive. Neither is golf, unless you _need_ to play pebble beach. How much, per month, can you afford for this round of golf?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The codec can still be decoded as a SBS frame. In fact, the base stream is for one eye and the second stream essentially "adjusts" this to the right-eye view with a difference encoding. Far less than double the bandwidth required, too.
I'd like to see Basskitball in 3d, in a theater. Just to watch the audience duck during the locker room scene. Bet someone would hurt themselves.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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 enjoyed Tron in 3d. Properly, in my opinion, is subtle and doesn't stand out as 'was made for 3d with stuff constantly flying at the audience' when watching it in 2d.
With the death of 3d television sets, i can't see why the cinema wouldn't follow. It probably doesn't make sense from a business perspective to film a 3d movie just for the cinematic release. Cinemas won't install the hardware when so few movies are coming out in 3d.
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).
I'm hoping 3D cinema are next to go.
Yes, it was fun in Avatar and all, but nowadays it only makes everything fuzzy and dark.
The last movie I watched in 3D was "Star Wars Rogue One", and I had no option for 2D (movie theaters here in Brazil are doing this dirty practice). In some scenes it was so dark I could barely see anything... I liked the movie, but 3D almost ruined it for me.
Yep. Had exactly the same experience in Australia. Dim, fuzzy.would have been better in 2D.
46137
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.
I love 3d.
You appear to be the exception that proves the rule.
The fact is that 3D TV manufacturers are scrapping all their 3D offerings, and it's not because they're wildly popular and are selling like hotcakes.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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).
Is it 4K? If not, irrelevant to my post.
And while I agree with the general principal of "buy the best monitor" and plug in good sources, you obviously didn't, since I bought the best Panasonic from 2 years ago and it had (really crappy) smart features.
In general good luck keeping *any* TV for 10 years. I really hope yours lasts that long, but there is a reason the warranties are 1 year.
I agree with you completely. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Though "4K" is not really the real advantage of the new TVs coming out, the main benefit will be HDR. I guarantee you could be blind as a bat and if the TV can push 1000 nits you will notice it.
And I have heard this strategy totally failed in terms of sales... let's see what they do in 2017...
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.
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.
It's not 100% software. LG had been doing passive 3D, which requires polarizers to be built into the TV.
Supporting active 3D also requires additional hardware, the IR emitter that triggers the glasses. That's a smaller added cost, so I'm surprised that companies that were using active 3D are dropping it.
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.
You talk reaaaal purdy there.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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!