3D TV: Not Dead Yet, and Getting Better

[dfergie]

And so it is with 3D TV: It’s not dead, and it is getting better. 3D TVs were actually quite in evidence on the CES floor, though they’re no longer hyped. Several TV makers have concluded that there is no point even trying to promote 3D TV with glasses. They are focusing on autostereo (glasses-free 3D) TV, which continues to improve.

variety.com

 

[mike123abc]

I have to agree, 3D without glasses would probably be a big hit with consumers. The whole concept of having to have 3D glasses at home probably turns a lot of people off the technology.

 

[lparsons21]

I don't think so. Originally I had thought that the key to 3D success was to get it glasses free, but since getting a 3D TV and finding out that there are few really good movies that also have good 3D in them, I doubt it.

Today it is mostly so-so movies with great 3D effects or really good movies with so-so 3D effects.

 

[tigerfan33]

Glasses free 3D is the only way I'll watch 3D again.
The concept of 3D is really great but losses everything when needing to wear glasses to make a tech work.

 

[Kraven]

Am not a fan of the format and not familliar with the technology but I noticed I had way less eye strain at home (powered Sony glasses) then at the Cinema.
I actually found it enjoyable.

 

[dfergie]

We didn't get to look at all the glasses less TV's but what I saw I liked, much better than last years versions... I watch a little 3D almost every day when off.

 

[navychop]

I'll say it again: UHD TV may breathe new life into 3D.

Monty Python: "I'm not dead yet!"

 

[TheForce]

The desire to have 3D in glasses free is what I feel a huge colossal FUD ( Fear- Uncertainty - Doubt ) This is especially true for people who have no problem watching the real world in 3D with sunglasses, or Rx glasses. For those who never wear sunglasses, don't use Corrective glasses, then you may have a valid claim that 3D with glasses is the main reason you won't watch s3D until glasses free version is out and affordable. People who don't like seeing TV as a real world depth presentation just will never like 3D and should also be annoyed having to see with 2 eyes. The reason I feel it is FUD is because so many who finally get a passive glasses 3D TV have no problem enjoying a good 3D program and the glasses become the least of concern. The FUD factor simple goes away with actually owing the Passive screens.

I think the case is different with active shutter glasses since these are often heavier, require power and the shutter effect does actually bother some people with headaches and in rare cases can trigger epilepsy, especially with the lower frequency refresh rate screens.

Passive glasses are the easiest to adapt if you need Rx to see. However, it is also possible to add active shutter glasses to Rx lenses. My wife needs glasses to see in focus at 15 ft so her active shutter glasses are prescription. For passive she just uses the small passive clipons. My daughter and SIL uses contacts and has no problem with the active shutter glasses.

 

[TheForce]

I'll say it again: UHD TV may breathe new life into 3D.

Monty Python: "I'm not dead yet!"

Maybe...

UHD can offer full HD resolution to otherwise halved resolution of the LG Film Pattern Retarder technology. But this will only be possible with 3D programs rendered in 2160p vertical resolution. This will produce a 1080p 3D passive vertical resolution and eliminate the fine black horizontal lines. Most people never see these and sit too far back from the panels to notice. I have several relatives and friends who own these FPR passive sets and never complain about the fine black lines. Even those with 65" panels.

For those who are dead set against 3D, UHD will not change that. The loudest complainers on 3D will remain complainers regardless of resolution or glasses. It actually is a rather small group.

 

[mike123abc]

The desire to have 3D in glasses free is what I feel a huge colossal FUD ( Fear- Uncertainty - Doubt ) This is especially true for people who have no problem watching the real world in 3D with sunglasses, or Rx glasses.

The problem is that I wear sunglasses outside and the lighting is constant, but if I am watching TV I do not want to take them off every time I get up. People can run around their house and do things while watching TV (like reading and surfing the internet). It is not the same experience as the theater where you sit without distractions and keep the glasses on the whole time.

 

[king3pj]

The glasses issue was more of a problem for me when I first got my set and had to buy them at $150 a pop. A passive or glasses free display would have been a much more attractive option back then. Now that I have 4 pairs of them it isn't an issue anymore.

I still wish I would have spent more and went with a passive display though. Occasionally I will notice the flickering in my glasses and it can cause slight eye strain when I watch a long movie or try to watch two in one night. I don't have near the problem with this that some people do though. Another plus would be not having to get a tiny screw driver out to replace the battery in each pair every few months.

 

[harshness]

The Variety article paints a rather grim picture for 3D for the next few years. I'm not sure the contention that it is truly "getting better" is supported if:

• The current 3D technology is largely unacceptable in terms of popular uptake.
• A practical glasses-free replacement is years away
• Interesting 3D content didn't happen on the scale sufficient to support adoption (and I'm not convinced that is going to change)
• 3D was overhyped and that has jaded some of those on the fence and reinforced the detractors.

There may be chicken and egg issue with glasses in 3D movie theaters would need to be addressed or the production houses won't commit more seriously to the production of 3D movies. I don't think the production companies are anywhere near a point yet where making blockbuster movies intended bypass the big screen is an sustainable model.

If this thread was intended to be another 3D fanboy megaphone, I apologize. Analysis of the article (and the conclusions drawn from it) seemed appropriate.

 

[mike123abc]

3D movies in the theater have died down quite a bit because audiences demand a reason for a movie to be in 3D. Movies that present an excellent 3D experience still do well in the theaters (i.e. more see in 3D over 2D). If a movie does not give the great experience, word quickly spreads and the 2D version is the only one people will go to see.

The overplaying of 3D in the theaters is what I think really hurt 3D at home. People got burned too many times in the theater with bad 3D that they do not see it as a priority for the home theater. I think as the theater 3D releases improve and if Hollywood can resist bad 3D, home theater 3D will pick back up.

 

[navychop]

I think what we're all skirting around is, "3D" isn't very realistic. It's a nice effect, at least some of the time, maybe MOST of the time, but it isn't really very true to life. Perhaps UHD will bring more realism. Perhaps "4K" will keep enough interest until "8K" which might bring the full package to the table.

Or perhaps we could appreciate it as an art form in itself, and not look for a complete duplication of "real life."

I'm on the fence. I wouldn't pay a noticeable premium for my next set to be 3D, but I'd lean toward a 3D capable set. My wife is opposed to it (vision concerns). But I definitely plan to see another 3D movie in a theater, perhaps an IMAX, when I get there early enough to get good seats. And I HATE going to theaters. But I want to see a good 3D production. But I could not sit thru Avatar. Cheesy plot.

 

[dfergie]

I guess I live in a region where 3D rules as all the neighboring cities as well as here play 3D movies longer than their 2D counterparts and we only have 3 screens ...

 

[harshness]

I'll say it again: UHD TV may breathe new life into 3D.

You seem convinced. What about UHD is going to make it look "more real"?

I submit that the highest display resolution can't fix something that was poorly captured/synthesized. Much like viewing poor SD content on an HDTV, UHD may amplify the artifacts that diminish the viewing experience.

 

[TheForce]

I find it amusing that those who don't have 3D stereo in the home have it all figured out. What will save it... as if it needs saving??? And what will make it real as if 3D isn't real.

3D doesn't need UHD to work. Take it from one who actually watches 3D, shoots 3D and edits real stories in 3D. 3D doesn't need pop out to make it work. Some people need to be shocked to be entertained and popout often shocks them.

What ruins a 3D presentation, IMO, is when the video lacks depth, has ghosts, is out of focus, or difficult to see. What ruins the program is when the story bores me. 3D never will fix that. I have a couple of Blu Ray's here that the 3D is excellent technical quality but I can't sit through it. It's Opera and I really don't enjoy opera. I'm sure UHD won't fix those.

UHD in 2D is still flat. No getting around that.