Why does Gene say 3D is a failed tech?

[MidnightSensi2]

I think where 3D failed was they promoted a technology rather than how people use a technology.

Sonos advertisements show how you can use Sonos to make distributed audio easy. 3D just seemed to overlook how we watch TV. The perfect example was when 3D first came out and people said "um, I watch TV in groups.. what am I supposed to do, buy glasses for my superbowl party? or even my family of 5?"

3D also promised immersion, but, you need a screen that fills your field of vision first - then 3D might be icing. Otherwise, even on a 70" TV, it just looks like stuff popping out of your TV because your living room is in the peripheral (and that's best case..). Would I rather watch a 3D 60" LCD, or a 120" projector in 2D? Which would feel more immersive? heh.. perhaps personal preference, but, for me.. the big screen. If you can have both, great, but, make sure 2D is optimized since the majority of viewing will be in 2D for now.

 

[xboxweasel]

It's like film mode on TV's that have it: Everyone I have ever bumped into has it turned off or begging me to turn it off for them.

What is film mode?

This is true. It failed because even though it CAN BE good, it generally wasn't and also wasn't really brought to a price point where consumers were going to wholeheartedly adopt it.

That's really too bad. I think it was too much over a short period of time. He had wide screen TVs, HD TVs, Blue-ray, HDDVD, then 3D, and now 4K and curvy screens. Never mind the audio. In what? 7 years? 10 years? Consumer electronics are changing way too fast. And the Tv's I purchase are not the $1k variety. Both my last two sets were $5k each. Not something that I will be replacing any time soon. The plasma displays half life is going to be over 60 years based on my usage level. If the rest of the electronics don't fail then I won't be buying a new TV. Ever. Panasonic just put themselves out of work.

I hated that soap opera effect. Took a bit of research to find out what I was seeing and how to turn it off. I remember watch Hobbit Part I with that on. It was horrible.

 

[gene]

What is film mode?

That's really too bad. I think it was too much over a short period of time. He had wide screen TVs, HD TVs, Blue-ray, HDDVD, then 3D, and now 4K and curvy screens. Never mind the audio. In what? 7 years? 10 years? Consumer electronics are changing way too fast. And the Tv's I purchase are not the $1k variety. Both my last two sets were $5k each. Not something that I will be replacing any time soon. The plasma displays half life is going to be over 60 years based on my usage level. If the rest of the electronics don't fail then I won't be buying a new TV. Ever. Panasonic just put themselves out of work.

I hated that soap opera effect. Took a bit of research to find out what I was seeing and how to turn it off. I remember watch Hobbit Part I with that on. It was horrible.

Yep it is horrible. My parents have it enabled on their TV and they won't let me turn it off. Its painful to watch when I visit so most of the time I have them visit us instead

 

[MidnightSensi2]

Check out Google Trends for 3D TV and 4k TV searches...
Google Trends

It's like right as 3D TV was dying off.. 4k was launching. Google Trends isn't exactly comprehensive of the market, but, it can be interesting for quick comparisons.

I hated that soap opera effect. Took a bit of research to find out what I was seeing and how to turn it off. I remember watch Hobbit Part I with that on. It was horrible.

Ugh, yeah, and most TVs come with their contrast and sharpness absolutely jacked. Then when satellite or cable is being used you get compression artifacts on top of hyper-sharpened display settings and jacked up contrast.... and...YUK...haha.

But, I've learned to just smile and nod. Unless someone is into it, it's just better to let them be happy. hehe. Smile and nod, just..smile and nod.

 

[xboxweasel]

Just for future reference, film mode is displaying movie content at it's native 24 frames per second. Or any integer multiple of that frequency.

On my TV set I can select 48, 60, and 96hz. At 48hz I get a lot of flicker. I have it currently set to 96hz unless someone can tell why I should be using 60hz. I also have a setting called 1080P pure direct. Or something similar. That's also enabled for certain video modes.

Is there a person or website I can visit where I can get an explanation as to what my TV settings actually do?

 

[jinjuku]

Read up on inverse Telecine and 4:3 pulldown.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

Just for future reference, film mode is displaying movie content at it's native 24 frames per second. Or any integer multiple of that frequency.

On my TV set I can select 48, 60, and 96hz. At 48hz I get a lot of flicker. I have it currently set to 96hz unless someone can tell why I should be using 60hz. I also have a setting called 1080P pure direct. Or something similar. That's also enabled for certain video modes.

Is there a person or website I can visit where I can get an explanation as to what my TV settings actually do?

Short answer: Your setting at 96 is likely best overall. 48Hz you could have been watching TV or a movie at 60fps, causing flicker or teardropping:

Frames per second is 'how many still images (frames) can be shown per second.' Refresh rate (measured in Hz/inverse seconds) is how many times the display is able to write new screen images per second. So, your frame rate and refresh rate, actually don't need to match necessarily.

For example, if a movie is filmed at 24-fps, and your refresh rate is 60Hz, the screen will refresh, but since a new 'frame' isn't there, it'll just rewrite the same frame until the next comes along from the video processor - no harm done. Now, if your frame-rate exceeds your refresh rate, then you can run into glitches because the screen is not able to re-draw itself as fast as new frames are being given to it.

24fps (actually, 23.976fps, heh) is the long accepted standard, which comes from film. Most movies are digital now, but, to give a film-like feel 24fps isn't uncommon for a drama or animated movies (gives it a more majestic feel). Action movies and sports tend to be filmed at higher frame-rates, commonly 60fps. This allows the camera to be moved faster without motion blurring, and gives an edgier feel to the movie. Now some animated movies are looking at, or are using, 48fps, so its starting to vary more. Video games can be higher, although not sure what a typical game console game is (computer versions can be 100fps+!).

Hope that helps!

 

[BMXTRIX]

3D as a means to turn growth in the sale of televisions is an extremely failed concept. People just don't want the glasses, and really don't want 3D at all. Not ALL people, but 'people' as a collective general prejudiced statement. People don't want the hassle, people don't like how it looks, people don't want to have to pay more for it, people don't get it.

Moreover, the technology is confusing and doesn't always work correctly. Painfully complex at times, and certainly a desert of non-information out there. Try to research different format types, and what any TV is actually capable of. Talk to all the people who download 3D content, then compare that to those who are watching on Blu-ray. Try, for a bit, to figure out passive 3D content... Then try to ask a sales associate for help.

4K is easy. It generates sales, and if properly implemented, at the right size, from the right viewing distance, actually can improve the viewing experience.

Still, at the end of all of this, viewing 3D on my 161" screen, with good 3D glasses, is a heck of an experience which easily surpasses the 3D experience which I get in movie theaters and has actually made me more excited about using the technology. It will get me buying a few more discs which I would not have considered, and with the significant price drop in glasses, it's no problem having a few extra pairs around for friends as needed.

Failed? Yeah, in most regards I agree completely. But, anyone who enjoys 3D in a theater and wants to recreate it at home does have that potential and option, and is truly capable of exceeding that experience, which is the one part of the tech that is not a failure, but seriously cool.