3D is Not Dead... - Page 4

a) there is around a 10% of population who cannot enjoy plano-stereoscopic 3D ANYWAY. That's usually the people that leave the theater 10 minutes after the 3D show started. My sister and her boyfriend are in that group, and they are young.
b) those who can see 3D 'fuse' the two different images and include those folks like myself who do not see equally sharp with both eyes but wear glasses. so it is not about seeing 20/20
c) even if both images have different quality most people would fuse them anyway because the brain chooses the sharpest 'pixel'. there are some 3D BDs that are actually encoded at different qualities for L and R. BD 3D spec allows for it.

there is a bunch of academic work proving the 3 points above. people developing 3D are really smart people ranging from psychologists, to physicians, biologists and, yes, engineers and businessmen.
the comment from coffeeguy57 proves my point...

the problem for older folks is that they do not have the capacity anymore to converge both eyes onto one plane (=the TV screen) and focus the gaze into a different one (the 3D plane as result of 'fusion') - that is something that some smart people have figured out by detecting where the eye looks at and placing an artificial lens (still wearing glasses!) in front at the right moment and with the needed dioptres. I think it hasn't come out yet but it was said a year ago some 'Asian CE makers' were licensing it....

My Dad lived through the black & white 3D craze of the '30s (red & blue lenses) in theatres and watched it die. I lived through the colour 3D craze in the 1950s (polarized lenses) and watched it die too.

The movie and home theatre 3D craze (shuttered lenses) of today is no different. It is a fad that will soon become stale, especially considering the many poor quality 3D movies have been released just to jump on the bandwagon. I expect that theatre attendance statistics for 3D and 2D versions of the same movie will bear this out. Most people won't accept the glasses as normal at home and even if glassless 3D technology succeeds (it doesn't look likely), the extra dimension it adds to the experience is not sufficient (even for hockey or other sports) is not enough to make it catch on as mainstream technology.

Just my humble opinion.

That's a good point; however, I see the same issue with HDTV/Blu-Rays. My parents and other older folk tell me that they cannot see the difference. However, in that case they were practically forced to make the transfer, with HD being the only kind of TV they can buy and with Digital TV now mandatory in the US.

But they sure as heck would never bother putting on glasses etc.

Finally, I have even other young friends that see better out of one eye or have astigmatism or something else that makes them not enjoy 3D.

Personally, as an Audio-file/Video-file, I am not yet going to give-up my Pioneer Kuro for 3D, and I do not like having the image "filtered" in any way. However, for some movies I can see a place for it as an option.

I was rather disappointed that we didn't see some big improvement in passive 3D for TV. I want to see passive TV look just as good at home as it does in the theater, whatever it takes to make that happen.

I was never a fan of 3D. The glasses were too heavy, too expensive and they gave me headaches. In addition about the only content were children's types of animation.

Then my 60 inch SONY died and a friend of mine turned me on to LG's "passive" 3D. I bought one of their 55 inch "smart TVs" about a year ago for around $1300. They have come down in price since then. It uses cheap lightweight Polaroid sunglasses that do not require power and don't give headaches. It also has the best picture I have ever seen on any TV.

The LG eliminates two of my three objections, but there still isn't much 3D content. However, my LG can create 3D out of any input. This solves the not enough content problem.

Its not quite as good as "real" 3D. But, its much better than 2D. We use it all the time.

Hopefully 3D will finally "catch on" and a lot quality non-children 3D programming will become available. Until then, I'll make my own 3D.

Ill always pay extra to have 3D options and I support it in every iteration. My flatscreen is 3D (LG LW5600), my projector is 3D (Epson 3010), my laptop is 3D (Fujitsu Lifebook), I own the Nintendo 3DS. I cant wait for VR motion tracking 3d headwear. Its not something I always use but its something I enjoy very much when Im in the mood for it. I still have my Elsa 3D glasses!

I was never a fan of 3D. The glasses were too heavy, too expensive and they gave me headaches. In addition about the only content were children's types of animation.

Then my 60 inch SONY died and a friend of mine turned me on to LG's "passive" 3D. I bought one of their 55 inch "smart TVs" about a year ago for around $1300. They have come down in price since then. It uses cheap lightweight Polaroid sunglasses that do not require power and don't give headaches. It also has the best picture I have ever seen on any TV.

The LG eliminates two of my three objections, but there still isn't much 3D content. However, my LG can create 3D out of any input. This solves the not enough content problem.

Its not quite as good as "real" 3D. But, its much better than 2D. We use it all the time.

Hopefully 3D will finally "catch on" and a lot quality non-children 3D programming will become available. Until then, I'll make my own 3D.

the hobbit seems like its going places with 3D

For me 3D is alive and well. Look at it this way, whenever a 3d movie title comes out, it's priced equal or less than the BD version. Usually included are the 3D,
BD, DVD and mobile version for a great price. You can always sell the other versions you don't intend to keep. May be where in the end works out.
Another factor is 3D gaming. Play COD Black Ops 2, Uncharted and other 3D titles like my son does, it's amazing.
Even my 3 multi-monitor set up includes a 3D. Besides playing 3D movies, got 3D PC games to boot.
Be great when glasses free Tv's are out. Even better will be holographic movies blowing all video media out there.

There may be 3D movies still trickling to the movie theater industry but as for mass market television 3D is a no show.

I agree, 3D in TV's has been pushed mostly by companies trying to increase sales. They have false reports of 3D TV sales as you are forced to buy 3D TV if you want the best picture. I myself and almost everyone I know hates 3D tv's and pray for the day it goes back to the theaters and stays there.

I always find when people try to proclaim something is not being dead...that's usually a sign that it is dead. Personally I don't think 3d is dead, but I do think it will be many many years before it eventually catches on with the mainstream.... especially when glasses are no longer needed!

Hope you caught the lengthy article on vinyl in Wednesday's USATODAY. Still a niche perhaps, but a 500% rise in sales over the past few years.

3D is pretty easy to implement in a TV, at least non-passive, that most sets has it says very little IMHO, most sets does have the capability of analogue input of video too, but HDMI has "won" nevertheless. 3D just doesn't work very well imho, it looks very faske, but thats just one guys opinion, what about some solid facts, how does 3D sell on cinemas compared to 2D, and what are the trends? Buying a 3D bluray usually gets you the 2D as well, if people where even slightly interested in 3D one should think most would by the 3D-version for that reason. do they? Thats numbers that can cast some light on the issue, the number of sets with 3D-capability does not.

LG had an impressive 3D display at the CES. It made me a believer!

If the public truly thinks 3D is better than 2D, then you will see all channels and all video games in 3D as the standard. CD's took over cassettes and DVD took over VHS as the standard. Movies are still made on DVD even though Blue Ray is better.

I didn't read the thread closely, but I'm pretty sure no one has mentioned VR using an HMD. Stereoscopic 3D makes sense there, but is a pointless gimmick otherwise. I hope this whole monitor/TV/projector thing eventually dies out, anyway.

I have always loved 3D, even back in the bad old days of anaglyph, and while it did always look pretty good on my original 120" 4:3 screen, since upgrading to a 138" 16:9 screen, the 'reality' and immersion feelings of 3D is now is simply mind-blowing. Regular movies are equally enveloping but good 3D really brings out the best of a huge screen at home.

Nowadays, I only go to a cinema (to watch a latest release and this is not often), if the movie is shown in either Vmax (a Village super-huge screen), or Imax. My home experience puts other cinema experiences to shame.

I love good (& some bad) 3D and so far my collection is up to 73 BD's. I need to add at this point that while I loved Prometheus, I don't think it is as good as the (I think) a-wee-bit-over-the-top praise it gets. Avatar still gets my vote as the best 3D movie to date, with Hubble 3D running a close 2nd. Of course some of the Imax presentations are pretty darn good too. My picks for a good 3D experience....

The Avengers
Transformers:Dark of the Moon - a big surprise. Picture was great and the sound simple staggering.
Megamind, good fun and good 3D.
I, Robot - a good conversion (but I like the movie anyway)
Hugo, of course.
How to Train Your Dragon, another surprise, at home, I didn't think too much of it at the cinema (with the grandkids).
Caroline - I have had 3 versions of this now, the DVD 2D and 3D anaglyph (dreadfull) versions and "true 3D" on BD, - best and good.
Cirque du Soleil - Journey of Man - interesting, (shame the show gets a little boring)

Maybe 3D at home is getting too familiar because some, like G-Force and Despicable Me, don't seem out of the ordinary as 3D, apart from the weight of the specs on the nose.

There are movies, like Gnomeo and Juliet, that you enjoy as story lines, with the 3D simply adding the 'realism'.

Just imagine if Star Wars (Ep I & IV-VI) or Bladerunner or ALL the Star Trek movies (well maybe not Nemesis & a couple of others) were made with current technologies, awesome.

Some movies, like The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (if you could call it a 'movie'), Drive Angry (ugh!), Hybrid (double-ugh!), Conan, Close to the Edge and Gulliver's Travels, are a waste of money, from a 3D and story/directorial/movie experience point of view, but Disney animations generally are great. And who can forget Piranha? we all should, immediately. After the 1st, I couldn't contemplate even looking, at let alone buying Piranha 3DD.

I Love 3D. I am always waiting for the next one to be released and thank the gods that more often now, the better directors and story makers are getting into 3D. Just wait until Bladerunner 2 is released, it has to be Wow!

Making a specs-free 3D direct-view device is not as hard as some think, in fact it is already here and has been for many years. A technology (originated in Australia but couldn't get financial backing so they went to China), use a lenticular overlay screen (like they do with photo prints) and it works. So far as I am aware, to date the TV's (around the 40" size) have only been employed in a shopping Mall in Shanghai as advertising displays.

I have seen them and yes the tech works and is fun to watch (but not many do, other than tourists). But how good would it be at home? Tiresome I think. Just like the 3D holos or prints, a slight shift of the head and the vision goes a bit weird. I am pretty certain that a lens overlay will probably be the only way to make specs-free 3D work and it may be a while before it is as good as a polarised image..

I don't know whether 3D in the home is currently worth the effort, but the first time I saw Avatar in a theater my impression was that I was witnessing almost a new kind of entertainment. It was that powerful. Hugo, the same. So for some movies it has a dramatic effect on my viewing enjoyment. In my home theater, even though I have an Epson 6010 projector, it's still a little dark and the effect isn't quite the same - but it's still fun. Technology will, of course, get better and better and before long it will definitely be worth the trouble.

I've just finished watching Megamind on a 95" screen, and then coming to this article, it raised several points.

Glasses Free - Couldn't care less... I wear glasses anyway, so even 2D viewing is not glasses free.. Whether I wear one pair, or two pair, makes absolutely no difference to me.

Glasses free only applies to TV, and I really have no desire to have 3D on my TV. For me, the thing that makes it more special, is that I can watch 2D TV all day long, and confine 3D to the seperate act of watching it on my big screen. It's in effect like going to the cinema, as it is a totally different viewing experience. I don't want to just watch 3D in the same way as I watch 2D "everyday" TV, I want it to be distinct and rewarding... and that's what it is... for me anyway. My current setup is a 40" 2D LED TV, and my 95" projector screen... no amount of TV tech, is going to change that.

20/20 Vision - My right eye is terrible, it really is, and they can offer no means to correct it. If I cover my left eye, I cannot see what this webpage says... but my 3D viewing is still fine. As people have said, if your brain can work things out in normal, everday life, 3D should (in theory) be the same. I struggle with stereograms, but 3D films are no problem.

I think 3D is like the introduction of colour TV in a way. Once it's been announced, beyond the way it's presented, there's not many ways you can keep introducing it. So it came, got accepted into the collection of TV features, and now it simply exists, along with other standard TV features.

I just wish it had all arrived 15 years ago. My wife had to have her eye removed during an operation almost 9 years ago, and that's something that tech cannot make up for. She passed away just over 18 months ago, and every time I watch a 3D movie, I can't help but regret, that it is something she would have loved, but never got the chance to experience.

3D till 2020 when 8K OLED replaces everything (including the Kuro).

3D had a rough start, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. At least that's what they tell me.

"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."

Don't write off the oldies just yet. I am 68, going on 69, with eyes that are not so good anymore, inc. one that is much worse than the other, yet I still get the full effect of 3D and absolutely love it.

Just like stereo/multi-channel sound. I have been almost totally deaf in one ear for about 40+ years, yet I have been a music studio engineer, front-of-house mixer for many bands, create 5.1 tracks at home and can hear directional sounds in movies. The brain is a marvelous thing and seem to adequately compensate for deficiencies in our senses.

I think everyone is missing the point. Its the content stupid.

Put the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB in 3-D and watch the stuff fly off the shelves. This is one case where sports not porn will be the driver of new technology.

This requires networks, satellite and cable TV providers to step up and the manufacturers cannot control that.

Until we have sports in 3D, it is just a byline. I personally would like to see auto racing in 3D.

3D kicks major ass on my 135"!! Woo hoo!!

I said it before and I'll say it again. 3D is like Betamax and has no future!

There are a lot of issues to cover here!

I think you have to look at how people use tv to judge how useful 3d is. For movies and sport it really adds - no pun intended - an extra dimension. For other things I would question its value. While glasses and viewing angles are an issue one is limited in how they watch. A lot of tv is watched quite casually while one is doing something else and even if glasses are not required the viewing distance and angles will be less than ideal.

Introduction of new tv technology is usually a combination of consumer demand and the industries (content and equipment) trying to create or encourage that demand to sell more product. In a relatively short space of time we've had widescreen, digital, hi def and 3D - possibly with ultra HD just around the corner. Although there are plenty of early adopters the bulk of purchasers are not and I think we are approaching a point where people don't want to keep shelling out for something new when their old eqiipment is still doing OK, for what is essentially a novelty.

Then we come to the content. A time will come when production costs are as cheap for 3D equipment as for 2D (a standard def broadcast lens is now more expensive than a hi def one because mass production reduces the costs of the most popular equipment). I believe what will hamper the quality of 3D productions will be the talent and expeience of the programme makers. It takes much more skill and effort to shoot good 3D than 2D and these skills will come at a premium cost. I think low budget productions in 3D will show poor production values much more easily than 2D. Unless all tv media displays are to be 3D - unlikely - there has to be a degree of backwards compatibility (which you could interpret as 'dumbing down') or programmes will look odd. I already see some 3D content on a 2D device and lose concentration on the narrative or editorial content because it screams like it's been shot for 3d (think characters reaching out of the screen towards you for 3d effect - just looks odd in 2d).

A lrgely unexplored area is non-tv use. I don't think it'll be long before PCs and mobile phones will be 3D. Both will gain from it (3D photos or video on a mobile will be popular and windows will be enhanced with some extra depth perception) and the issues don't arise with viewing angles and glasses as the tech is aleady available to make this work (nintendo 3DS).

In summary, I think 3D is here to stay because both content providers and equipment manufacturers have invested too much to let it go. I think it has some obstacles to overcome, particularly in the lower budget programming where visual production values will suffer (i.e. not premium sport and movies) and with backwards compatibility of material. But in the end it's how we use it and what value we place on it as end users that will dictate its place in our lives. My personal feeing is that we'll be enjoying it for sport, movies and premium programming and on other delivery devices such as mobiles and PCs but for other programming it will have little importance for us and may not be worth the extra cost and effort to produce, consequently all devices will need to be backward compatible.

Went on a bit there - sorry.

The reason it will and is dying is because for some, like me, it causes motion sickness. The other problem is that we have come all this way for high definition television to go backwards in quality for an added effect of 3D-ism???

I'd admit when I demoed 3D on a PS3 playing a baseball game it looked really cool. I then started feeling sick within a few minutes.


As cool as I thought it looked on a video game there was a loss of quality. I can live with that on a video game, I refuse to for any sporting event(super bowl) or movie I choose to watch.

To each his own, but I personally couldn't care less about 3D. Maybe when it becomes glasses-free, but even then, I am not all that excited about having to go with a significant chunk of new equipment for the privilege.