The Death of 3D TV

[j_garcia]

In the upcoming 4.5 firmware update, the PSV4 headset will be adding 3D movie viewing.

 

[bruin62]

I watched a NHL game in 3D which was pretty good

 

[mdanderson]

Well, anti-3D Audioholics must be happy. Yes, it appears that we might be witnessing the demise of the format. Or are we? I wouldn't be tapping your champagne glasses together just yet. Sure, most TV manufacturers are not supporting 3-D in their 2017 lines, but it continues to be included in their UHD players (and will likely always continued to be by King OPPO). I regret that studios hastily released a few bad post-conversions and manufactures many poor displays and clunky glasses, but times have changed. Post-conversions, while not true 3-D, have improved tremendously since Clash of the Titans. 3-D Archive continues to churn out quality restorations like 3-D Rarities and, most recently, September Storm. For every one bad Blu-ray 3-D disk you point out, I can list several that are good. Technology has greatly improved over the past 5 years to deliver us a cleaner and more immersive home video experience particular now with object based audio surround formats ATMOS and DTS:X. I'm optimistic though. As history has shown, 3-D will be back and probably better than ever. Long live 3-D.

Good post. I have over 25 3D bluray titles and I really enjoy watching them. I really like the way they look on my LG 65C6 OLED. The most recent one I watched was Passengers and it looks really nice. I still try to buy 3D whenever I can.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I doubt anyone is happy that 3D is dying. Most of us just couldn't care less either way.

Almost anything not backward-compatible is destined to fail.

The main reason ATMOS and DTS:X will live on is because they are backward-compatible to DD/TrueHD and DTS/DTS-HD.

The main reason 4K and probably later 8K will survive is because they are backward-compatible to 1080p.

 

[Auditor55]

Its amazing how people are anti 3D TV, but pro 4K, Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. That same arguments about about 3D TV can be made about them.

3D TV didn't need to be backwards compatible since you were getting a non-3D disc in a 3D Blu ray disc purchase.

How useless is 4K? The human eyes, for at least 98% of us, can't make out the extra resolution anyway, unless you're sitting very close to super large screen. Also the TV's are super expensive, most of them (with the exception of OLED) have poor black levels and viewing angles, something that increased resolution does not solve, which is why I can't understand how true videophiles bought into the 4K marketing hype.

We have lots of 4K TV's on the market today, I've even seen a 47 inch off brand TV touted as 4K, so for that reason alone they expect us to purchase it. OK, I get it, 4K TV is the new standard, so when I purchase my next TV (which will be an OLED set), it will be 4K. However, that will not be my reason for purchasing one.

3D TV didn't get the hardware or software support to make it a success in the market place, whereas every TV manufacture are making 4K sets. However, software support is seriously lacking, in fact its eerily reminiscent of 3D software support. For example:

I took this picture of the 4K Blu ray section at a popular B&M. Minuscule, lacking, and a joke!! Looking at it reminds of the failed 3D Blu Ray section. 4K Blu Ray is headed towards the dust bin failed consumer products.

 

[Pogre]

I'm not pro one way or the other. I got a 4k tv because there's a ton more content for it.

 

[panteragstk]

3D could have worked if manufacturers implemented it better. Some did a great job, others didn't even try.

OTOH the new Sony 4k projectors that are coming out still support 3D. It isn't dead, it just isn't the marketing gimmick that's popular right now.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

3D TV didn't need to be backwards compatible since you were getting a non-3D disc in a 3D Blu ray disc purchase.

But they have to make 2 different discs - one disc for 3D and one disc for 2D.

They only need to make 1 disc for 4K or ATMOS or DTS:X because even the old AVR with only DD or DTS and 720p could play the disc.

I think the main reason is those 3D glasses.

 

[Hobbit]

Good riddance. I never thought much of it at the theater or at home.

 

[andyblackcat]

Phew!!! I'm glad I dodged that bullet by not investing in 3D BluRays.

I have the odd 3d bluray only because that was what was on the shelf and no I don't make a habit of buying 3d bluary at the extra money cost. Nor do I own a 3d tv.

2D is fine its a tv show or a film its not real life its nice photography of the 2D and I can easily picture the film crew standing behind a camera I don't need 3d. I don't want to ware sunglasses indoors at nighttime.

HAIL 2D. Live long and 2D prosper.

I doubt anyone is happy that 3D is dying. Most of us just couldn't care less either way.

Almost anything not backward-compatible is destined to fail.

The main reason ATMOS and DTS:X will live on is because they are backward-compatible to DD/TrueHD and DTS/DTS-HD.

The main reason 4K and probably later 8K will survive is because they are backward-compatible to 1080p.

I don't even care less about buying more bluray's I have the odd 3d only because that was what was on the shelf. Funny thing is I don't watch them no more. Lousy colour for starters what is it with muted colours and all these LENS FLARES today?

Last bluray I brought was May. I brought more Laserdiscs before and after that I don't care for re-mix home near field sound mixes on bluray no more.

 

[Foxrox]

I don't think this is "the industry" or "experts" telling consumers what they should and shouldn't like. Quite the opposite. It's lack of consumer interest driving manufacturers to cut a feature that costs money in order to stay competitive.

In my opinion, the technology just isn't there yet for 3D video. I went to a few in the theater, including the ones that were meant for 3D, and I just didn't feel it. The optical illusion just isn't convincing. It is very cool that it's even possibly to create those effects, but the lack of realism ends up detracting and distracting more than immersing.

That being said, I highly doubt the technology is "dead". The industry will continue to strive to make cinema more and more appealing. The leap from 2D screens to a 3D experience is inevitable. They might be barking up the wrong tree with 2D screens and light tricks to simulate 3D, but 3D isn't going to just go away. It will eventually prevail in some way, shape, or form.

As for Atmos, I can't confidently speculate whether it will survive, but I fail to understand why some people want it to fail. By nearly all accounts, Atmos creates a more realistic, more immersive experience for the movie viewer. It has essentially achieved with sound what 3D failed to do with video. Unlike 3D video, the technology is well-developed and convincing.

I can understand people holding out on the upgrade for fear of wasting money, only to have another gimmick go by the wayside. I can understand people being totally happy with their current system and not caring if there is an upgrade available. What I can't understand is people actively rooting against a technology striving to make audio better, especially on this forum. Audio preferences are a subjective thing, but by my logic, any self-respecting audiophile should be pulling for Atmos and other similar tech to become the standard.

 

[ATLAudio]

I'm not on-board with 3D because I don't want to wear stuff. I just want to watch the TV.

Correct, with normal viewing distances and normal panel sizes, you want notice a difference with 4k.

HDR is where's it's at. It exists, and it makes things better. OLED, does too, but less so. Atmos is also an incredible experience.

 

[Cos]

• 4K Discs are competing against 4k Streaming. Pretty much every Major Streaming Service, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, even Apple are getting in on 4K streaming, its here to stay.
• Sad to say my new TV Sony does not support 3D. In the same respect I only have a handful of discs that are 3D. It's funny how movie theaters are hanging on to the idea of 3D, but their attempts really seem 1/2 assed.
• As for 4K TVs, Yep Viewing angles are an issues, TN Panels and the ones that use IPS trade off lighter blacks for better viewing angles
• As for viewing angles, pretty much everyone sitting on my sectional has no issue viewing my 65in Sony. Agree that 4K does not play much importance as HDR.

Pricing on 4K has come down a long way and are more in line with 1080P TVs. I paid roughly 1350 for a 4K Sony 900E. I would love OLED, but not for 3k+

 

[PENG]

If it is still available I would still have bought one only because it is better to have it than not. I think it could not survive because 1) need glasses, 2) not truly 3D, just different/slightly better than 2D. It looked too fake when compared to real 3D.

 

[Auditor55]

But they have to make 2 different discs - one disc for 3D and one disc for 2D.

They only need to make 1 disc for 4K or ATMOS or DTS:X because even the old AVR with only DD or DTS and 720p could play the disc.

I think the main reason is those 3D glasses.

I wouldn't complain if they gave me two disc.

 

[Auditor55]

• 4K Discs are competing against 4k Streaming. Pretty much every Major Streaming Service, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, even Apple are getting in on 4K streaming, its here to stay.
• Sad to say my new TV Sony does not support 3D. In the same respect I only have a handful of discs that are 3D. It's funny how movie theaters are hanging on to the idea of 3D, but their attempts really seem 1/2 assed.
• As for 4K TVs, Yep Viewing angles are an issues, TN Panels and the ones that use IPS trade off lighter blacks for better viewing angles
• As for viewing angles, pretty much everyone sitting on my sectional has no issue viewing my 65in Sony. Agree that 4K does not play much importance as HDR.

Pricing on 4K has come down a long way and are more in line with 1080P TVs. I paid roughly 1350 for a 4K Sony 900E. I would love OLED, but not for 3k+

No cable or broadcast TV 4K content means that 4K is still niche. Most so-called 4K TV's will be pretty much glorified upscalers for the foreseeable future.

 

[Cos]

No cable or broadcast TV 4K content means that 4K is still niche. Most so-called 4K TV's will be pretty much glorified upscalers for the foreseeable future.

Niche for your, but as I stated above, it is gaining support more and more.

https://www.directv.com/technology/4k

I don't know, direct TV is kinda small though LOL. Yes no broadcast TV, and limited options in 4k, but in a world where broadcast TV is dying in favor of streaming services that do 4k, I would say it is a little more than niche.
- Netflix user base is growing, at least according to their latest financial results and is putting on some quality programs I watch

• Stranger Things
• Daredevil
• Ozarks

etc. Hulu is having some success in this arena as well as amazon. You get the idea, IMO it is going beyond Niche.

It's not full mainstream, but for a niche product, everyone has an upgrade path to it

http://4k.com/news/meet-comcasts-new-x1-4k-uhd-hdr-dvr-box-its-finally-coming-19842/

If Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Vudu, all support it, it does reach a rather large audience

 

[Auditor55]

Niche for your, but as I stated above, it is gaining support more and more.

https://www.directv.com/technology/4k

I don't know, direct TV is kinda small though LOL. Yes no broadcast TV, and limited options in 4k, but in a world where broadcast TV is dying in favor of streaming services that do 4k, I would say it is a little more than niche.
- Netflix user base is growing, at least according to their latest financial results and is putting on some quality programs I watch

• Stranger Things
• Daredevil
• Ozarks

etc. Hulu is having some success in this arena as well as amazon. You get the idea, IMO it is going beyond Niche.

It's not full mainstream, but for a niche product, everyone has an upgrade path to it

http://4k.com/news/meet-comcasts-new-x1-4k-uhd-hdr-dvr-box-its-finally-coming-19842/

If Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Vudu, all support it, it does reach a rather large audience

When the NFL, MLB, NBA, Fox, ABC, ESPN, NBC, HBO etc. start broadcasting in 4K, then and only then, will 4K be more than niche. Also, with net neutrality, for get about quality streaming.

Everyone has an upgrade path from a Toyota Corolla to a Lexus (those that own Toyotas), however just because you have a path doesn't mean you can walk or should walk it.

Also, it not about the hardware, its the software. Comcast can have a 4K box coming, however does that mean I will able to watch the Superbowl or the NBA finals in 4K?

 

[Cos]

When the NFL, MLB, NBA, Fox, ABC, ESPN, NBC, HBO etc. start broadcasting in 4K, then and only then, will 4K be more than niche. Also, with net neutrality, for get about quality streaming.

Everyone has an upgrade path from a Toyota Corolla to a Lexus (those that own Toyotas), however just because you have a path doesn't mean you can walk or should walk it.

Also, it not about the hardware, its the software. Comcast can have a 4K box coming, however does that mean I will able to watch the Superbowl or the NBA finals in 4K?

Everyone has an upgrade path from a Toyota Corolla to a Lexus (those that own Toyotas), however just because you have a path doesn't mean you can walk or should walk it.

/Agree, but I will say that a Lexus handles better, looks better, has or may have additional safety and technology features that drivers might find useful, so all things being equal, I would rather have a Lexus. As 4k TVs have come down in price significantly to where 1080p was just a year ago and given the visual benefits of HDR, etc) Price is becoming less of an issue.

My point is that the car analogy is a poor one.


The only thing obvious to me is that your definition of niche and mine are completely different. It doesn't always have to be at one extreme or another, but some people only see black and white. I never claimed it was full mainstream, but to pigeonhole it to one extreme doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Auditor55]

Everyone has an upgrade path from a Toyota Corolla to a Lexus (those that own Toyotas), however just because you have a path doesn't mean you can walk or should walk it.

/Agree, but I will say that a Lexus handles better, looks better, has or may have additional safety and technology features that drivers might find useful, so all things being equal, I would rather have a Lexus. As 4k TVs have come down in price significantly to where 1080p was just a year ago and given the visual benefits of HDR, etc) Price is becoming less of an issue.

My point is that the car analogy is a poor one.


The only thing obvious to me is that your definition of niche and mine are completely different. It doesn't always have to be at one extreme or another, but some people only see black and white. I never claimed it was full mainstream, but to pigeonhole it to one extreme doesn't make sense to me.

When I say niche I mean a small segment of the market or targeted to a select demographic. 4K sets are no longer niche, they are now mass market items. However, 4K TV is still niche, not a lot of 4K content. Those that have content usually own a few dozen or more Ultra Blu Ray disc. Ultra Blu Ray disc are still niche. That is why I previously stated that most 4K TV's will be used by the masses as gloried upscalers. Also, it is my belief that optical disc is one its way out. I don't believe that Ultra Blu Ray will revive a dying optical disc market. So the future of 4K TV(movies) is reliant upon streaming. I know there's Netflix, Roku, Vudu, however their 4K offers are minuscule at this time. There is a possibility that Cable companies might start providing 4K content, thereby advancing 4K TV into the mainstream, however that possibility is greatly problematic.

I was reading a post by gentlemen on another forum who offered his insights on the 4K streaming and cable companies ability to provide 4K content, he made some great points. Here's some of what he had to say.

" Streaming cannot support widespread 4k adoption in the US. Yes, it can for the moment because there aren't a lot of 4k displays being sold. However, as the price of 4k displays drop, and they will, they will begin to replace 1080p displays on the shelves. Just like 1080p gradually replaced 720p units over time. Once 4k displays start heading off of Walmart shelves, which they will, there is going to be a large demand for 4k content. Streaming will not provide this. As it is now, cable sends a highly compressed 720p stream because of the bandwidth restrictions they have. Most of the cable companies infrastructure is copper, not fiber. Cable companies will not be able to support 4k content on their current infrastructure even if they try to compress the signal. To many elephants trying to go through the proverbial garden hose. OK, no problem we can just use Netflix or any other streaming flavor. Once again, we are back to a copper infrastructure because most home ISP connections are provided by the same cable companies. Once ISP/cable companies see their bandwidth being crippled by 4k streaming, they will cap it. Comcast has already gone this route. With caps, you are in overage territory after a couple of movies. Before everyone jumps my premise, I am a senior network architect who worked at one of the largest carriers in the US and globally for that matter. It is a reality that the current infrastructure in the US cannot handle widespread adoption of 4k media with those users expecting media to be delivered across copper paths. Europe is better poised for this because they have a lot more fiber in the ground. Customers with Google fiber, FIOS, and U verse are fine. However, those services are a minuscule subset of the total broadband subscribers. Dish network and DirectTV may be the answer for streaming 4k. The irony is that 4k may actually drive people back to physical media" [2016]