VR I put in a very different league. Filmmakers aren't going to jump into that. I see it for YT uploads, simulators, training, theme parks. I think there is a market for it to tell a story but then you're better off with 3D or 180 where the focus is in a certain area and not a 360 video where you're looking all over. VR would be best for interactive setups between the viewer and the media. Not going mainstream anytime soon. I haven't pulled my VR Box out since I bought it a year ago. The gimmick of 360 videos just didn't impress me much, also having to take the case off my phone each time, low resolution, poor toggling of videos via phone etc..
It's hard to predict what will happen with 3D tech. It's been around before and gone though it never had a resurgence like the current one. I think they need to get the standards of 4K down first and then maybe 3D can come back in a 4K 3D standard. People seem to think that 4K is the answer that 3D couldn't solve so the answer is to remove 3D. I don't understand that because they're still two very different experiences. One is still 2D just with higher resolution, the other is stereoscopic viewing, the same as we see the world with two eyes. I think 3D will be back because it has a long history of use before Avatar or LG or Sony had anything to say about it. IMAX had been using 3D since the early 90's already.
The other reason is there are forward-thinking pioneers that use 3D, like Cameron, Jackson and Scott who understand that 3D is more immersive and are always looking for ways to make the experience better. The standards for home theater and even the theaters aren't able to keep up so it's no wonder we're so far behind what is possible. For instance a standard Blu ray's limitation of 24 fps for 3D (unless you want to drop to 720p). HDR, while I still think it looks a bit awkward in films like The Hobbit, do solve some problems for 3D like judder and motion blurring, though sometimes they use those elements to hide background anomalies.
We're at a point where 4K is going to be the main focus for awhile. For how long, I don't know. I know the answer isn't 8K. They're going to try it, just wait and see. 8K is 32 megapixels of resolution, way more than your eyes can see seated in a living room with a 50 or 60" display. But Avatar is supposed to be released next year, 3D movies releasing to theater remain consistent. I think by now if studios saw a decline they would pull the 3D conversions. Although I have noticed that 3D showings are now limited, usually only one smaller theater.
The cause of all of this was the unnecessary hype that came from Avatar. It drove the industry wild with 3D expectations into every market, like phones, games, printers, broadcast, movies, some of those worked, others didn't. Then everyone blames a lack of consumer interest for home 3D for whatever reasons, glasses, headaches, on and on. Well, 3D isn't for everyone or everything, that's certain. As soon as they realize that it will be better for everyone. Make the technology there for those that want it, if you don't: don't use it.
3D monitors, if they're 1080p, which I expect they are, are also getting left behind with the transition to 4K. Gamers like the best resolution and the game manufacturers will make them highest resolution possible so 3D will be gone from that too. I booted up my old computer from 10 years ago and loaded up a game called Nanosaur I had installed on it. It has a anaglyph 3D mode, not exactly the best graphics but 3D just keeps coming back.
This line intentionally left blank.