3D is Not Dead...

For skeptics they need to make movies like the Prometheus and Under The Sea
available widely. I believe just Prometheus on 110" converted me forever. The
problem is that on the very same movie they did a pxxx poor theater implementation
per viewers reports here.

I LOVE my 3D set and eagerly await new 3D releases. I'm checking out Dredd this weekend, already saw it in 2D and loved it. I cannot wait for glasses-free 3D around 80"-85" to become affordable - that would be perfect.

If the industry really wants 3D to catch on in the home TV sweet spot (40" to 60"), then someone needs to perfect the glasses-free screen. Last couple of years have seen some prototypes, but seems to be proving difficult to accomplish. I think Phillips had one at CES this year that was behind closed doors, and word of mouth said was promising. Even without needing glasses, 3D will probably end up being a value add rather than a sales driving feature.

I couldn't agree more! I, too, heard many people say that this CES proved that 3D was dead because no one was talking about it (except LG), but that doesn't mean it wasn't there; in fact, virtually all mid-line and high-end TVs at the show had 3D capabilities. And Panasonic will be including 2 pairs of active glasses with its ZT60, VT60, and ST60 models, rather than just the flagship models as they did last year. Plus, the studios continue to make 3D titles for theatrical release, which will make their way to Blu-ray. 3D is here to stay, and it will only get better with UHD.

I agree while 3D is not for everyone we truly enjoy 3D over at our place. Nothing like 3D on a 150" screen. It was more cost effective to get a decent projector with 3D than it was for a TV with 3D. I dont see 3D dying anytime soon as mentioned above there are still 3D movies being as well. Its an enjoyable feature for sure.

I watched Dredd 3D on my 3D set last week you will love it!!!

3D is an option... and it is becoming increasingly available, not just limited to the high end flat panels and projector systems available for consumers. To say that it is "Dead" flys in the face of reality... just as it is inappropriate to say that it is a only a "Fad". Sure, there are many who don't want it for various reasons, but that does not mean that 3D will go the way of the dinosaur, never to see the light of day again.

How much hype/advertising/marketing does one see for 120Hz or even 240Hz refresh rates on LCD/LED sets? There are several who don't like or appreciate the increase in refresh rates some sets now offer. Does that mean that they are simply a fad, or worse yet, dead?

CEM's are in a very competitive and cut throat business, and survival of the company can literally hinge on what they add or don't include in their products. 3D is relatively inexpensive for them to include, and may be the difference in the manufacturers survival.

I'm looking forward to the increasing content availability as well as increasing quality of 3D (in both display technology (think 4K) and content (think Avatar/Hugo/Prometheus)).

To quote Mark Twain, "The report of my death was an exaggeration."

Current you have some studios that will milk the 3D bandwagon for all that its worth, but 3D only has about 3 years interest left is my guess. When 4K and OLED displays become more economical and mainstream, 3D would have been all forgotten by the marketplace as a money maker.

3D is just resting.

As long as Hollywood believes in 3D (filmmakers (yeah!) and for-profit studios (not so much yeah)) there will be a consumer electronics supporting it.

What the 3D pushers did not take into consideration is that 3D works by sending a different signal to each eye. There is a large segment of the population that does not see equally out of each of their eyes, particularly the older generation, who would have the necessary money to buy good quality 3D viewing equipment. I am curious if the companies who are developing 3D equipment that does not need glasses have overcome this problem.

I agree that until 3D is glasses-free and isn't limited to viewing position it will remain a niche market. For the record I have seen 1 movie in IMAX 3D and it made me feel like I was car sick.

I may not use 3D very often, but it is nice to know the option is there. For this reason, with new releases I'll usually pick up the BR set that includes the 3D version 'just in case'.

Sure, the glasses free thing would be great. I'm not denying it. That said, I don't get the animosity around having to wear glasses either. Is it really that big of a deal? Surely most people wear sunglasses and don't complain too much about that. In both cases, after about five minutes I've forgotten I even have them on.

Aw c'mon. 3D has passed the cultural and market saturation tipping point. It's here. Relax. It's here. It's not going anywhere.

Guys like me who are "ehn" on 3D are buying it/own it merely because the price point drop has made the "to have or have not" debate irrelevant. I haven't used the crazy sound filters on my AV Receiver in 15 years, but I just bought a new one and... Damned if those settings weren't still there. Stadium. Sci-Fi. Blahbity-blah.

Stop proselytizing the concept of 3D and go back to arguing over passive vs. active vs. no glasses vs. the next version.

It's like debating the relevance of the remote. It's here. If the manufacturers aren't actively trying to sell you on it, it's because they've mainstreamed it to the point where they think you are already sold.

My point exactly. So why hash out the market relevance of 3D once more just because the manufacturers have moved on?

.
I think the above is an assumption, not a statement that is backed by facts. In a discussion with my ophthalmologist, most people have a difference in vision between the two eyes. I certainly do but not enough to make it difficult or impossible to see stereo / 3D. I can see it just fine. My wife's vision is such that hers is even worse difference and she can see stereo fine too with corrective Rx glasses. Only those people who have vision issues that cant be corrected will not be able to see 3D, on a TV or in the real world. These would be those that are blind in one eye!

As for "the older generation" what is it that makes you think older eyes have more trouble? There are a few older generation eye issues that have little to do with seeing 3D. Glaucoma, may increase eye fatigue with long periods of viewing with active shutter glasses but does not affect ability to see in 3D. macular degeneration and cataracts may also affect ability to see altogether but lets see if surgery can correct those. I see 3D fine and have been diagnosed with early stages of all three! These affect 2D vision the same. There are no age related eye diseases that prevent specifically 3D. Amblyopia or lazy eye can develop into the brain ignoring the bad eye, causing it to be brain blind and prevent 3D. But this can be usually corrected during childhood. If left untreated it becomes permanent. Again, being blind in one eye whether at the eye or in the brain, will prevent 3D vision.

As a general observation, when I go to the 3D cinema, I see many seniors in the early matinees watching 3D but in evening shows, much less. I suspect we seniors like to avoid the many obnoxious young people in the theater who, like to text and chatter during the movie as opposed to can't see 3D when over 60.

Companies who are doing 3D glasses-free are knowledgeable of the facts and know they don't need to be worrying over a myth that does not exist. The myth that slight variations in the two eyes prevent 3D or the myth that a TV can make a person blind in one eye see!

Absolutely dead on. They aren't bragging about 3D anymore just like they aren't bragging about wireless remote controls or color anymore. Everybody's got it now. It's not a differentiator. It's not new. Why would they still be talking about it?

Understood.

There are people on the interwebs who think Cher is a great actress. To paraphrase Holden Caufield, "If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn't rub out even half the 'Cher is a great actress' blogs in the world. It's impossible."

Suddenly I realize that I am "That Guy" on the internet, the one who is sifting for engaging content and then complaining when I find it.

Sorry. Carry on. Godspeed, L'il Doodle.

I love 3D and I don't mind the glasses.

-Brian

Edit- By the way,.. it helps if you suffered through paper glasses with colored lenses before .... the new tech is so very better.

I have a 3D TV in every room but I will say its useless. I watched dredd and it wasn't that great in 3D. The movie on the other hand was amazing. The 3D took away from it. I think people just want to convince themselves that 3D adds something to a movie but it just doesn't. It adds distraction that's all. Watched it again in 2D and much better. So yes I agree with the mass media in a way that 3D is dead in the sense that it does not sell TV's at all and no one is getting excited about it at all any more and most likely never again.

Interesting that Dredd didn't work for you. My opinion is that most of the 3D content that's out there is crap. I think that's a major part of why it isn't more popular than it is. But in my view Dredd was an exception. It was one of the few that really did a good job of making the 3D worthwhile. For me I'm not sure the story alone gave it that much re-watchability, but the 3D visual and auditory feast does. It's a seriously hot sound mix and about the heaviest workout my whole sound system has had in a while. Clearly it comes down to preference, but for me that one worked in 3D.

The 3D in Dredd was excellent IMHO. I prefer the use of 3D for depth, not in your face pop-out stuff (more for the kids). They did that with the initial Dredd title, but afterwards, the movie was more about depth and added dimensiality, like when taking a nosedive on the time-perception-altering drug. Very cool. I also suggest watching the extras on how they did that at super high speeds and their use of 3D.

Movies like Avatar, Prometheus, Dredd, and now the Hobbit, make use of 3D's depth to give you a "window" into their world instead of intruding into ours.

I have terrible vision in one eye 20/200...GREAT in the other, gave up on correction a long time ago. I was very surprised with my perception in active 3d viewing. I am not a huge fan of 3d. but it was cool and i could see the effects. Its possible my vision has an impact on this but i was able to clearly see the effects on the movie I watched. The best part to me seemed like the lighting...it was much more dimensional it truly looked as though i had a hole where the screen was that went into another world. What I did not like were the effects that came WAY out of the screen. I guess i want to watch it..not be a apart of it.