4 Reasons the 3D TV Movement is Already Dead - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 01:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
2013 has seen the further decline of the 3D television industry. For example, Disney recently announced the discontinuation of its ESPN 3D channel by the end of the year. It appears that this technology has gone the way of Livestrong bracelets and Friendster, but none of this should really come as a surprise. After all, 3D TV was never a good idea.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/#ixzz2YIX1BpoJ

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/



Happy days are here again!!biggrin.gif:D. So glad this is over!! Now they can get back to improving display technology. Its amazing how crap like 3-D TV can get any run at all and SED got canned. SED got shelved in favor of PDP, LCD and 3D-TV, just have to SMH.

Next on list and let start countdown and failure of 4K TV, which is another attempt at fleecing the consumer.

BTW, I will never forgive the industry for shelving SED for this stuff. Now having said that, I will go back to enjoying my dithering PDP and my flashing LCD's. Nice job display technology industry.
Auditor55 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
BBC shelves 3D too; Head of BBC 3D, Kim Shillinglaw, says the Corporation needs to take three years away from 3D which the viewing public find too "hassly".

3D really needs a lot of resolution an huge screens to really work, Some half HD par eye isn't good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Now they can get back to improving display technology. Its amazing how crap like 3-D TV can get any run at all and SED got canned. SED got shelved in favor of PDP, LCD and 3D-TV, just have to SMH.

Next on list and let start countdown and failure of 4K TV, which is another attempt at fleecing the consumer.

BTW, I will never forgive the industry for shelving SED for this stuff. Now having said that, I will go back to enjoying my dithering PDP and my flashing LCD's. Nice job display technology industry.
I think you are completely off on the notion that SED was shelved because of 3D.
It was a patent license dispute where the patent holders got too picky and/or tried to squeeze more money out of the licence. The result was that they where given the finger and SED was shelved and the patent owner got nothing and SED is dead for ever.

You can thank Applied Nanotech for killing SED.

-
coolscan is offline  
post #3 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 02:08 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Wow, gloating over the decline of 3D is giving you SED vindication? When will this odd spell be lifted from your personage? Who really knows what flaws would have been inherent to the technology in comparison to the victors? Certainly not any of us, without an actual working model to view. Chances are there would be flaws that videophiles would nitpick about had that tech made it to market. OLED, heralded as the display tech to end all display tech, can't even get launched due to aging and yield problems proving their is no display technology panacea. Pick your poison and quit bellyaching about what never was.
GlenH and Hip2bSquare like this.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #4 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

2013 has seen the further decline of the 3D television industry. For example, Disney recently announced the discontinuation of its ESPN 3D channel by the end of the year. It appears that this technology has gone the way of Livestrong bracelets and Friendster, but none of this should really come as a surprise. After all, 3D TV was never a good idea.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/#ixzz2YIX1BpoJ

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/



Happy days are here again!!biggrin.gif:D. So glad this is over!! Now they can get back to improving display technology. Its amazing how crap like 3-D TV can get any run at all and SED got canned. SED got shelved in favor of PDP, LCD and 3D-TV, just have to SMH.

Next on list and let start countdown and failure of 4K TV, which is another attempt at fleecing the consumer.

BTW, I will never forgive the industry for shelving SED for this stuff. Now having said that, I will go back to enjoying my dithering PDP and my flashing LCD's. Nice job display technology industry.
Wow!. I may never be able to take any of your posts seriously again.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #5 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 03:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

BBC shelves 3D too; Head of BBC 3D, Kim Shillinglaw, says the Corporation needs to take three years away from 3D which the viewing public find too "hassly".

3D really needs a lot of resolution an huge screens to really work, Some half HD par eye isn't good enough.
I think you are completely off on the notion that SED was shelved because of 3D.
It was a patent license dispute where the patent holders got too picky and/or tried to squeeze more money out of the licence. The result was that they where given the finger and SED was shelved and the patent owner got nothing and SED is dead for ever.

You can thank Applied Nanotech for killing SED.

-

I know the legal reasons why SED was buried. However, Panasonic, LG, Samsung etc. was coy when all of that stuff with SED was going on. They could easily revived SED. Pioneer came out with the so-called SED killer, the set we know as the Kuro, but it wasn't really a SED killer. Pioneer, in their attempts to kill SED (how laughable was that anyway), killed themselves and the Kuro was gone from the market. It took Panasonic and other display manufacturers 5 years to catch up with the Kuro. Panasonic supposedly have the Kuro killer in the VT/ZT, which is highly debatable, but Panasonic days as PDP manufacturing are quickly coming to an end. We predicted this sometime ago. Oh let me not forget the Sharp Elite LED TV, that was the Kuro killer before the VT's and ZT's, however they are dead now, gone from the market. Its seems every time some set is supposed to be some killer of another set or display technology, those sets die themselves.

As for 3D, I'm not saying that it killed SED, however what I'm saying is that if the display manufactures had gotten behind SED like they did with 3D-TV and seem to be trying to do with 4K TV, we would be in SED heaven by now. But no, they had to fleece the consumers into believing that 3D is so awesome, however millions headaches, nausea and eyestrains later, people realize that 3D, in all of its gimmickry, isn't the be all end all in display technology.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #6 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 03:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Wow!. I may never be able to take any of your posts seriously again.

I don't know why, I don't think I have written something that was untrue.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #7 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 03:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Wow, gloating over the decline of 3D is giving you SED vindication? When will this odd spell be lifted from your personage? Who really knows what flaws would have been inherent to the technology in comparison to the victors? Certainly not any of us, without an actual working model to view. Chances are there would be flaws that videophiles would nitpick about had that tech made it to market. OLED, heralded as the display tech to end all display tech, can't even get launched due to aging and yield problems proving their is no display technology panacea. Pick your poison and quit bellyaching about what never was.

I guess I am belly aching here, but not nearly as much as the folks that complain and belly ache over the current display technologies.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #8 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 03:50 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Well, vent away as you like. Still, I'm not sure it's any better (or productive) to lament what never was. smile.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #9 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 04:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 184
You must consider that it cost the manufactures almost nothing to get behind 3D. It was an easy and very inexpensive way to offer something different than what was currently available. 3D= very little $$$$$. SED = multi millions.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #10 of 398 Old 07-06-2013, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 208
3D was good for everyone, whether you used the displays in 3D or not - it meant that manufacturers were forced into improving the motion handling of their displays in order to use active shutter glasses.
And 4K is not "fleecing the consumer" either - have you compared Apple devices with and without Retina displays? Same thing.

While not perfect, motion handling, color rendition, and contrast are good enough on my HX900 that I don't care about upgrading to OLED or anything else to improve them now. I will absolutely upgrade as soon as 4K is affordable, and I can get a 4K set with equal or greater performance in those areas. (which likely means waiting for 4K OLED)
SED had plenty of problems to overcome. But considering they were never released, you can keep believing that they were some kind of mythical perfect display if you like.


And 3D isn't all bad. When it is done well, 3D is amazing, and absolutely something I want companies to eventually figure out. The problem is that it's hard to do well.

Active 3D sucks because current displays aren't able to use it without reducing bit-depth and the quality of other processing, crosstalk is a problem on most displays, it dims the display significantly, and it flickers badly.
Passive 3D sucks because it halves your resolution, and 1080p doesn't have that resolution to spare. 4K is a lot better, and 8K would be better still. But you still have crosstalk to deal with, and you need to wear glasses.
Autostereoscopic 3D sucks because it requires you to sit at a specific distance from the TV at a certain angle, and you have a very limited number of angles you can view 3D from. For every position they add, it cuts down the resolution of the display. Even 4K wouldn't be enough to look good, and it affects the quality of the image in 2D mode as well. Crosstalk is still a problem too.


The best 3D presentation I have ever seen is easily the Sony OLED head mounted displays. With one display for each eye, 3D is completely natural and effortless. There's no dimming of the picture, zero crosstalk, no flicker etc. It's everything 3D should have been.
The problem is that the optics were poor, the resolution was too low (720p) and the headset itself was very uncomfortable to wear, even for short periods of time.
The Oculus Rift is another product that goes along this path. The ergonomics seem a lot better, and it fills a much wider view, but you're looking at low resolution LCD panels rather than an OLED display.


For gaming, where scenes are rendered in real-time and convergence/depth are able to be adjusted to suit the individual, 3D is definitely something I want to see more of in the future.
For films or other content where it is pre-recorded and the depth/convergence is baked into the video file, it just doesn't work for me at all. The depth/convergence for a "standard viewer" makes it look like am peering into a diorama, where everything is on distinct planes of depth, and everything just looks "small" rather than looking more realistic. I vastly prefer 2D for films, no matter what it's shown on.


Part of the problem as far as gaming is concerned is the HDMI standards. HDMI only allows for 720p60 in 3D - it doesn't allow for 1080p, so it already looks worse than 2D content for that reason alone.
And trying to run 3D on the current generation of games consoles that even struggle to play games at 720p with a target of 30fps in 2D, rather than a high-end PC, meant that most people's impressions of 3D gaming ran at shockingly low resolutions and framerates, with a lot of details turned down.
It's no wonder that 3D gaming hasn't impressed more people.


I recently picked up a 3DS XL, and that has reignited my desire for 3D. Yes, it's not perfect - it's autostereoscopic 3D with a very limited viewing angle, there's crosstalk at times, and it's a low resolution device... but after using it for a while, you get used to those limitations and only focus on the content being shown to you. When you're in the sweet spot, it's generally a very natural looking image, and 3D adds a lot compared to viewing in 2D. Even with 3D at its minimum depth setting, it's a big improvement in most games. Something I thought was quite interesting as well, is that even though the horizontal resolution is halved in 3D mode, it's actually less apparent to me that the screen is only 800x240 when running in 3D than 2D.
But I can see why people would dislike it, if the comfortable position for you to hold the device at is not the right distance for 3D, and some games handle 3D better than others. Unfortunately you can only adjust depth and not convergence on the device. And it's a good reminder of the issues that autostereoscopic 3D has - you would never want a television like this - it only works because it's a handheld device and you can reposition it with ease.
But when it works right, it's still better than any 3DTV I've used, and makes me wish they could have figured it out. They shouldn't have tried pushing 3D on us yet, and waited until it was actually ready. Now it will probably end up dying off.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #11 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 12:30 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
I don't notice flickering but yes, the first thing noticed with the Panasonic implementation (using active 3D) is it being notably dimmer than without the glasses. Those other listed problems are obvious to quite a bit of a lesser degree, but I have no doubt they exist.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #12 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 01:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
nickoakdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I don't know why, I don't think I have written something that was untrue.

I think it's the tone of your post. The unbearably obnoxious tone.
tgm1024 and megdagooch like this.
nickoakdl is offline  
post #13 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 03:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I don't notice flickering but yes, the first thing noticed with the Panasonic implementation (using active 3D) is it being notably dimmer than without the glasses. Those other listed problems are obvious to quite a bit of a lesser degree, but I have no doubt they exist.
Sony's original implementation of active shutter 3D was the best in my opinion. They used polarization so that only the display would shutter, rather than completely blocking your eye so that the whole room would flicker. I don't know that they do this any more. The downside was that if you tilted your head, the color of the display would shift, but it was preferable to everything flickering, rather than just the TV flickering.

But I still see flicker clearly on any active shutter display.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #14 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 01:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickoakdl View Post

I think it's the tone of your post. The unbearably obnoxious tone.

The matters addressed are not to be taken personally, unless you had or have some kind of vested interest in 3D TV. My complains are directed at the industry and again I say it serves them right, they have cake in their faces for trying to shove 3DTV down our collective throats.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #15 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,127
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 481
1) SED was "killed" because it was never able to be manufactured. Keep believing that legal battles undid some great TV technology if that helps you sleep at night, I don't really care. If Toshiba had ever figured out how to mass produce TVs based on it, you would have seen SED TVs.

2) Some of us (cough, ahem, me, cough) called this 3-D thing here more than a year ago. Not because we want to bury 3-D, but rather because we see people rejecting it for numerous reasons. I've actually seen Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3-D this summer. That's a huge amount of 3-D for me and mostly it was due to movie times and who we went with, not any actual desire to see the movies in 3-D. All had good "3-D moments". None was "OMG, that was amazing" in 3-D with the possible exception of one scene in Star Trek. I think I'm common here: It's OK, but it doesn't make me want to put on glasses at home to watch TV.
CruelInventions likes this.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #16 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Some of us (cough, ahem, me, cough) called this 3-D thing here more than a year ago. Not because we want to bury 3-D, but rather because we see people rejecting it for numerous reasons. I've actually seen Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3-D this summer. That's a huge amount of 3-D for me and mostly it was due to movie times and who we went with, not any actual desire to see the movies in 3-D. All had good "3-D moments". None was "OMG, that was amazing" in 3-D with the possible exception of one scene in Star Trek. I think I'm common here: It's OK, but it doesn't make me want to put on glasses at home to watch TV.
Are you a gamer at all? Gaming is the only application that adds anything worthwhile in 3D, in my opinion. But I still don’t think any of the current 3D technology is any good. They should have waited for 4K before making their 3D push, for passive 3D with acceptable resolution.
barrelbelly likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #17 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked: 354
What was SED? I can't find anything.
ambesolman is online now  
post #18 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
If market research indicates that people want it, and the mfrs can deliver a decent RTO, they will offer it. And because a lot of people believe smoke and mirrors marketing (and are willing to pay for it), it becomes the latest, gotta have it to impress my friends, technology. Whether it's good technology or not, is irrelevant if it sells. The marketeers will just come up with something else that's "revolutionary".
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #19 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 06:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

1) SED was "killed" because it was never able to be manufactured. Keep believing that legal battles undid some great TV technology if that helps you sleep at night, I don't really care. If Toshiba had ever figured out how to mass produce TVs based on it, you would have seen SED TVs.

2) Some of us (cough, ahem, me, cough) called this 3-D thing here more than a year ago. Not because we want to bury 3-D, but rather because we see people rejecting it for numerous reasons. I've actually seen Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3-D this summer. That's a huge amount of 3-D for me and mostly it was due to movie times and who we went with, not any actual desire to see the movies in 3-D. All had good "3-D moments". None was "OMG, that was amazing" in 3-D with the possible exception of one scene in Star Trek. I think I'm common here: It's OK, but it doesn't make me want to put on glasses at home to watch TV.

Wasn't SED a Canon Corp project, a firm that had never been in the TV manufacturing business in it's entire history, who were attempting to develop a jump to the top of the line product, with their first effort ever to enter that market, and did they not turn to Toshiba for help, after they ran into trouble trying to get the production of the panels started?

At least with OLED R&D we are dealing with corporations with a good deal of prior experience in the manufacturing and distribution of TV sets. I never had any faith that Canon could make that giant leap into the business with SED. Of course odds are that it also would have suffered from the possibility of image burn in, perhaps even more than Plasma ever has, because of how they would be charging the phosphors? Toshiba was already in trouble, and we do not see them providing much competition in the HDTV market these days!

I am holding out until 4D is perfected so I can time travel back to watch the Honeymooners live in full color 3D. I expect that gaming is where 3D will sustain and grow most, rather than in home TV passive viewing.
greenland is offline  
post #20 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 08:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Tazishere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Broadus, Montana
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Wasn't SED a Canon Corp project, a firm that had never been in the TV manufacturing business in it's entire history, who were attempting to develop a jump to the top of the line product, with their first effort ever to enter that market, and did they not turn to Toshiba for help, after they ran into trouble trying to get the production of the panels started?

At least with OLED R&D we are dealing with corporations with a good deal of prior experience in the manufacturing and distribution of TV sets. I never had any faith that Canon could make that giant leap into the business with SED. Of course odds are that it also would have suffered from the possibility of image burn in, perhaps even more than Plasma ever has, because of how they would be charging the phosphors? Toshiba was already in trouble, and we do not see them providing much competition in the HDTV market these days!

I am holding out until 4D is perfected so I can time travel back to watch the Honeymooners live in full color 3D. I expect that gaming is where 3D will sustain and grow most, rather than in home TV passive viewing.

A lot of fine technologies don't make it, usually due to competition. Remember Sony Betamax, Mitsubishi Laservue, DVD-Audio, SACD, Laserdisc, etc. Now you can add 3D and SED to the pile.

It didn't help that we were fighting two wars, If you believe in the competition theory of guns vs. butter
Tazishere is offline  
post #21 of 398 Old 07-07-2013, 11:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Wasn't SED a Canon Corp project, a firm that had never been in the TV manufacturing business in it's entire history, who were attempting to develop a jump to the top of the line product, with their first effort ever to enter that market, and did they not turn to Toshiba for help, after they ran into trouble trying to get the production of the panels started?
It was a Canon and Toshiba joint if I recall correctly. There was also FED which was (essentially) a variant on the same principle, developed by Sony. AUO bought FED and claimed they were continuing to develop the technology for broadcast monitors, but nothing seems to have come from it.

From reading Wikipedia, both SED and FED were designed to use pulse-width modulation, which means they would have had a lot of the image quality problems that Plasma displays have.
Back then, the talk was that each pixel was a "miniature CRT" which implied that they would be able to vary the brightness of the pixel similar to how CRTs did, and LCDs do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazishere View Post

A lot of fine technologies don't make it, usually due to competition. Remember Sony Betamax, Mitsubishi Laservue, DVD-Audio, SACD, Laserdisc, etc. Now you can add 3D and SED to the pile.
Betamax may not have survived, but Betacam is still used in production today.
And funnily enough, SACD sales are on the rise again now that they can be ripped via the PS3, download services are starting to provide DSD files, and new DACs are coming out with native DSD support.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #22 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 02:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
This is how it went down.
Quote:
SED – or Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display – had a lot of hype back in 2004. The technology worked by using a network of tiny cathode ray tubes, with each tube representing one sub-pixel on the screen. It promised the benefits of CRT TVs, like high contrast levels, brightness and fast response times, while offering large, flat screen sizes like an LCD and drawing a lot less power than LCDs as well.

In other words, Canon and Toshiba would smash together plasma, CRT and LCD technologies, and after ditching all the crappy bits of each one, they would be left with SED.

But it was not to be. Originally slated to begin production in 2005, that date got pushed back to 2007. Both companies showed off prototypes at CES in 2006, which were lauded for their amazing picture quality.

But then in December of 2006, a company called Applied Nanotech – which holds several patents for SED production – claimed that Canon had violated its licencing agreement by entering a partnership with Toshiba to build SEDs. To counteract the lawsuit, Canon bought out Toshiba’s half of their partnership company.

The court case raged on until December last year (2009), at which point Applied Nanotech decided the legal costs weren’t worth the effort. But by that stage, the economy had changed. The GFC was in full swing, and the chances of SED TVs going into production had reduced to almost zero.

Sure, there’s still a chance that one day we’ll all play Duke Nukem Forever on our glorious SED displays, but it’s not a bet I’d be willing to put money on…

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/sed-the-tv-that-never-was-and-probably-never-will-be/

What a compleate waste of action by Applied Nanotech that killed the momentum and thereby SED for ever.
coolscan is offline  
post #23 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 08:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazishere View Post

A lot of fine technologies don't make it, usually due to competition. Remember Sony Betamax, Mitsubishi Laservue, DVD-Audio, SACD, Laserdisc, etc. Now you can add 3D and SED to the pile.

It didn't help that we were fighting two wars, If you believe in the competition theory of guns vs. butter

You're probably right. I think we will be adding 4K TV to the list pretty soon. We can never forget the monumental failure that high resolution audio (SA-CD, DVD-A) was.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #24 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 09:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

1) SED was "killed" because it was never able to be manufactured. Keep believing that legal battles undid some great TV technology if that helps you sleep at night, I don't really care. If Toshiba had ever figured out how to mass produce TVs based on it, you would have seen SED TVs.

2) Some of us (cough, ahem, me, cough) called this 3-D thing here more than a year ago. Not because we want to bury 3-D, but rather because we see people rejecting it for numerous reasons. I've actually seen Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel in 3-D this summer. That's a huge amount of 3-D for me and mostly it was due to movie times and who we went with, not any actual desire to see the movies in 3-D. All had good "3-D moments". None was "OMG, that was amazing" in 3-D with the possible exception of one scene in Star Trek. I think I'm common here: It's OK, but it doesn't make me want to put on glasses at home to watch TV.

You may have called it on 3D TV, however some overly optimistic folks around here thought it was here stay. I rejoice at its demise in the home market, its OK for the commercial cinema, here and there, but should have never been pushed on the home market.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #25 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 10:27 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
It hasn't met its demise yet, and since I have a 3DTV and blu-ray player, I'll be buying up the best implementations when I can (and for the right price). wink.gif
David_B, old corps and megdagooch like this.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #26 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 10:44 AM
Senior Member
 
JSUL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I will continue to enjoy Dial M for Murder, Jurassic Park, and Titanic, in 3d glory on my Sony 40hx800....and look forward to the release of House of Wax, in October.

My 3d viewing, just like my dvd/bluray library, is very selective, but enjoyable just the same.
old corps likes this.
JSUL is offline  
post #27 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 190
I don't agree that 3D is dead. Far from it. Almost all TVs include 3D playback abilities. The majority of new movies have 3D Blu-ray versions available.

As far as ESPN 3D being cancelled...
I don't think it was because of lack of demand for 3D, rather it was because of poor content. It wasn't the ESPN channel in 3D, it was random old sporting events filmed in 3D. Things like Washington vs Washington State football from 2 weeks earlier. Even when they showed the London Olympics in 3D, it was the previous days broadcast. If they showed the same content in 2D, the ratings would have been 0.0.

If they showed the super bowl live in 3D, I bet they would get a huge bump in ratings.
David_B and Hip2bSquare like this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #28 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

It hasn't met its demise yet, and since I have a 3DTV and blu-ray player, I'll be buying up the best implementations when I can (and for the right price). wink.gif
+1
ambesolman is online now  
post #29 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Another vote for 3D.

There are a number of films that I've seen where 3D added a level of involvement that deepened the experience for me.

I think 4K Passive will help adoption.
taichi4 is online now  
post #30 of 398 Old 07-08-2013, 11:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,127
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Are you a gamer at all? Gaming is the only application that adds anything worthwhile in 3D, in my opinion. But I still don’t think any of the current 3D technology is any good. They should have waited for 4K before making their 3D push, for passive 3D with acceptable resolution.

I game only casually Chron. I doubt I'd want to put on glasses to play, to be honest. I think gaming would be cool in 3-D, but I think that's still a niche-y application. Less niche-y perhaps than home-moving watching of 3-D, but still niche-y.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Wasn't SED a Canon Corp project, a firm that had never been in the TV manufacturing business in it's entire history, who were attempting to develop a jump to the top of the line product, with their first effort ever to enter that market, and did they not turn to Toshiba for help, after they ran into trouble trying to get the production of the panels started?

So Canon of course didn't make TVs before or since. Toshiba was to be the TV manufacturer. They never developed production processes to make SED TVs possible, however.
Quote:
At least with OLED R&D we are dealing with corporations with a good deal of prior experience in the manufacturing and distribution of TV sets. I never had any faith that Canon could make that giant leap into the business with SED. Of course odds are that it also would have suffered from the possibility of image burn in, perhaps even more than Plasma ever has, because of how they would be charging the phosphors? Toshiba was already in trouble, and we do not see them providing much competition in the HDTV market these days!

So yeah, that's a good historical summary. The problem with the current OLED hype is that despite the experience of these people, they have no credibility.

* Samsung builds OLED displays by the millions, has promised their TV now for more than 18 months... is not close to mass production. (Has also been teasing OLED TV for a decade.)
* LG built a 15" OLED TV several years ago. Never released it in the U.S. Promised a 31". Never released it. Promised a 55" 18 months ago. Nowhere close to mass production.
* Sony shipped an 11" several years ago. Has no follow-ups. Has not made money in TVs in the flat-panel era. Has never manufactured panels above small sizes in the flat-panel era.
* Panasonic has never shipped an OLED larger than perhaps a tiny camera display. It is, like Sony, planning on outsourcing all production of displays with respect to OLED.

Why should we believe any of these people given these track records?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I don't agree that 3D is dead. Far from it. Almost all TVs include 3D playback abilities. The majority of new movies have 3D Blu-ray versions available.

As far as ESPN 3D being cancelled...
I don't think it was because of lack of demand for 3D, rather it was because of poor content. It wasn't the ESPN channel in 3D, it was random old sporting events filmed in 3D. Things like Washington vs Washington State football from 2 weeks earlier. Even when they showed the London Olympics in 3D, it was the previous days broadcast. If they showed the same content in 2D, the ratings would have been 0.0.

If they showed the super bowl live in 3D, I bet they would get a huge bump in ratings.

ESPN 3-D was canceled for lack of demand.

Even though the many new movies are released in 3-D, it's simply in error to claim that's a majority. It's also simply the case that the 3-D Blu-Ray versions are out-sold by 2-D versions by anywhere from 10:1 to 100:1 or more. Consumers are voting very loudly: Thanks for the "free" 3-D in my TV and BluRay player; I'm not using it.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Panasonic , Lg , Samsung

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off