Lots of wishful thinking above.
3D for the home is "dead" because Hollywood has made it so. No amount of religious belief that people will rise up against the machine that is corporate America will change the outcome. No amount of pleading with movie studios or TV manufacturers will result in more product. Besides, what good does it do to only have the "top model" have 3D? If you want 3D to succeed, you MUST have it on every 1080p capable model above 40" or so. Otherwise, you will NEVER EVER achieve market saturation "potential" (i.e. you can't sell a 3D disc to someone that doesn't even have 3D capability, never mind if they don't like it even if their set CAN play it) which is why Hollywood and the industry has killed 3D for the home market. It simply isn't selling in quantity. PERIOD.
Like it or not, 3D is effectively DEAD. Yes, 3D titles will be probably still be made for very top "must have" titles like Star Wars in the US and will continue for now to be made for for Asia and Europe (where there is an actual market for it as well as new model TVs that support it there), but the fact they are NOT going to release Terminator 2 on 3D Blu-Ray (the entire reason for it being released in Theaters on Aug 25th is for the James Cameron personally supervised 3D conversion) in the US on October 3rd says EVERYTHING. Europe, South America and Asia? Yes. The US? Not a chance in hell. THAT is how badly they believe there is no market for 3D in the USA home. 100,000 crazed 3D enthusiasts does not a "market" make.
I've already read that 3D sets will be made for Europe, but not US models. Even if it's just a software switch, the industry has told them to turn it OFF because they want it DEAD here so it does not compete with 4K. And I mean DEAD. They want 4K to sell and nothing else. Then they will want 8k to sell and nothing else. It's the new world condition and it's called GREED. There is no money in 3D anymore so it will no longer be supported.
Quote from: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1484739987
"Most manufacturers buried 3D last year. LG gave 3D another year before announcing at CES 2017 earlier this month that it will be excluded from all 2017 OLEDs, despite OLED delivering the best 3D picture quality.
At CES, FlatpanelsHD asked LG about the decision to drop 3D and despite some chatter about it being related to display brightness LG said that the decision has very little to do with technical concerns. The decision was taken because 3D as a format is dying. There is no 4K 3D standard and other brands as well as studios have already abandoned the format.
Quote from CES Article: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1485148372
"At this year’s show, 3D was dead and buried, and it did not seem to trouble participants one bit. Perhaps because several manufacturers had had one year to lick the wounds (and write down investments). Samsung abandoned 3D last year. At that time, it felt like a dramatic event and when FlatpanelsHD broke the news many readers refused to believe that it applied to the high-end models, too. It did. Shortly after, Philips announced that it would no longer include 3D in any TVs.
LG and Sony will follow suit in 2017. 3D will not be available in any of the two brands’ TVs. Panasonic also unveiled a new flagship TV without 3D. Sony’s decision was met by a dismissive shrug where LG’s decision garnered a little more discussion, primarily because the combination of OLED and passive 3D technology arguably represented the best 3D experience.
3D will live on in the cinema and on home projectors but this will not change the fact that the entire eco system is close to collapse. A 4K 3D standard never emerged, content providers have abandoned 3D channels/streams, and the content industry in general is scaling down. The glasses-free 3D technology that we were promised is far from ready. At CES 2017 we once again witnessed the usual demonstrations of glasses-free 3D tech, and once again everything that we saw was insultingly bad.
The history repeats itself. 3D failed again.
The one thing they DON'T say in those articles is that 3D failed because they HELPED MAKE IT FAIL. Too much more money for the movies and glasses over the initial TV investment. Not all BD players even supported 3D (so shock, some people had to put out even more money to watch it). Most sets came with 1 pair of glasses at most (many zero). Two competing formats (active/passive) added confusion. And even the best sets could still get at least some crosstalk on bad 3D movies (on my Epson, it's night and day between some releases; Beauty and the Beast is almost cross-talk free, while Pacific Rim has it everywhere).
I think the real question I'd like answered is how much more does it cost the industry to add 3D support on a given model TV? Are we talking about firmware/programming support or do they have to have extra hardware internally (i.e. high extra costs) to make it work? It would be sad if it's simply a software option at this point for something like active and they're just killing it to be rid of it.
How many sales make would make it worthwhile to support? You see special release BDs all the time (limited/collectors editions with x amount of copies made only, but they can't be bothered for 500k 3D BDs world-wide when the films are already made in 3D for the theater? It's all rather odd. I think it's that they want to push 4K where 3D hurts 4K since there is no 3D 4K home standard to sell and clearly some of us are choosing 3D over 4K, particularly when the industry is taking so long to make reasonably priced 4K projectors (only ones that are "reasonable" are $2500 DLPs that can't do 3D, which is a deal killer for people that want 3D so that leaves a $7000 Sony as the cheapest available option for both unless you count that "sorta kinda (almost like interlaced) 4K' stuff Epson sells).