
Sony and LG stop making 3D TV sets - walterbell
http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/3d-tv-officially-dead-as-sony-and-lg-stop-making-sets
======
grandalf
I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm.

I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the
expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced.

In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended,
which often involves focusing on the foreground _or_ the background... once in
a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare.

The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it
even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all
objects in the shot appear in focus.

In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was
immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that
good 2D shots can often attain.

3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's
ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual
system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range
of distances.

In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an
illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the
narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze.

So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain
picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by
offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back
and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the
increased acuity we get in normal vision.

3D film is _unreal_ in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of
discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we
must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial
cue.

~~~
jt2190
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain
> picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by
> offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce
> back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the
> increased acuity we get in normal vision.

Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the
viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)...
Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue
really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of
experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D.

Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to
date.

~~~
grandalf
Great points.

> Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen
> to date.

I'm going to have to watch it, do you know of a way to see it in 3D using a
normal laptop or TV?

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Google Cardboard?

~~~
erklik
You probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.

------
akmarinov
Yeah, if you can do away with it in the cinemas as well, that'd be great,
thanks.

~~~
stronglikedan
Yeah, no - it wouldn't be great. I love seeing movies in 3D. Every 3D movie is
also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. This "stop doing
something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be
done away with.

~~~
derrickdirge
>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is
what should be done away with.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show]
should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary
beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking
that Adam West was the best Batman.

And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which
3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love.

There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything
creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.

~~~
debaserab2
> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show]
> should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that
> [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion.
It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace
the mona lisa with a more modern version.

We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things
not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and
diluting its history.

~~~
derrickdirge
I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building
on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas
diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's
really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve
something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to
create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and
wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been
done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more
like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a
concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa
in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists
before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa
arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that _da Vinci himself_
contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within
which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for
two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to _a particular individual_ is
likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to
consider that alternate meanings are even possible.

~~~
debaserab2
Agreed, not all sequels or reboots are bad.

Derivative work is a little different than building a sequel though. A sequel
_may_ stand alone on it's own, but it also can take away from the original
intention of it's prequel because it usually further builds out the universe
or plot that took place in the original.

Movie producers often reach for sequels because they are guaranteed cash grabs
and prop them up with nothing more than a shallow plot and a few A-list
celebrities. To many, this takes away from the intent and meaning of the
original.

~~~
jerf
I _like_ a well-done sequel. As much fun as it is to step into a movie world
for the first time and find out what's going on, there's a certain sameyness
to the requisite beats to establish origins, establish personalities,
establish locations, just a whole lot o' establishing going on. Again, that's
great and all, but it limits the amount of time for the story itself, and
limits the range of stories that can be told.

Look at all the superhero origin stories that have come out lately, and
summarize to yourself the _story_ in the movie, without including any of the
establishing. Even in the best ones... in fact, to some extent, _especially_
in the best ones... the story itself is quite simple.

The sequel will have a chance to spread its wings much more. The fact that so
many fail to do so is... well... an interesting discussion on its own. But the
really _great_ sequels are often movies that _had_ to be sequels, because they
told a story too big to also have 45-75 minutes of establishing in there with
them.

------
l1ambda
Over 5000 3D Fans Petition LG to add the 3D hardware back, and it sounds like
LG may reconsider since it doesn't affect picture quality and the hardware
isn't that expensive: [https://www.change.org/p/lg-please-
revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-...](https://www.change.org/p/lg-please-
revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-tv-model)

I have seen a lot of 3D movies on LG OLED sets (Gravity, Mad Max), and it's
remarkable. Much better than 4K UHD. With the latest LG OLEDs, you get 1080p
per eye, bright smooth motion, and the passive glasses are cheap, lightweight,
and you don't have to charge them.

~~~
codazoda
Where can I read about this "hardware"? My understanding was that it was
simply TV's with better color clarity and then marketing fluff. I've never
heard about this "hardware".

Edit: Here's a decent resource. Still doesn't talk about a hardware chip but
rather about multiple LCD screens or blacking glasses that are synced with the
TV. Both options sound rather expensive.

[http://www.3dtvguide.org/3d-tv-
technology.html](http://www.3dtvguide.org/3d-tv-technology.html)

~~~
BoorishBears
Active 3D required an emitter that synced glasses to the TV's output, and the
glasses themselves.

I assume passive 3D required some hardware to support it too, and both
required hardware with firmware that could support the formats and settings
required

~~~
mxfh
It requires a polarizing filter/film that's aligned with the screens dot
matrix.

In theory that could also be added as aftermarket modification.

If the screen is fed with an interlaced 3d stream and the screen
firmware/hardware allows 1:1 pixel playback it doesn't need to know if the
content is 3d or not.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kg-
dFSE2IY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kg-dFSE2IY)

~~~
BoorishBears
I was aware of passive 3D being done with aftermarket filters (mostly as a
joke, printed on laminate), but proper consumer 3D had to support the same
formats that Active 3D did, which usually meant side-by-side and top-bottom

------
Animats
It's about time.

VR is hard for most directors to handle. Steven Cameron (Avatar, Titanic)
likes pans over detailed backgrounds. His 3D is done with a light touch -
nothing ever appears in front of the screen plane. That looks good, which is
why "Avatar" launched the 3D boom. Cameron wants higher frame rates so those
long pans don't have strobing.

Too many other directors use 3D to pretend they're doing a roller coaster
simulator. They put stuff in your face to make people feel they go their
money's worth viewing the 3D version. That's just painful.

Next to go down: VR headsets. The technology has been working for years now
and there's still no killer app beyond 3D shooters.

~~~
dsugarman
James Cameron*. No one since has put in the amount of time into getting the
details right, Avatar was an unbelievable experience and it is 8 years old. He
really deserved to win best director, he really pushed the boundaries of what
is possible in film and it went somewhat overlooked.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
He didn't win best director because he failed to push the boundaries of what
is possible in storytelling and basic cinematography. Take away Avatar's
"unbelievable experience" and all you're left with is a very subpar, watered-
down Science Fiction rip-off of Dances With Wolves, but with worse acting.

------
zenkat
But just wait ... VR is going to be HUGE!

~~~
seibelj
Before downvoting this commenter, think about how he or she is making a fair
observation about technology hype, and the stomach consumers have for
consuming entertainment while wearing awkward equipment. It did not work for
3D TV or Google Glass.

~~~
sgift
Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes
will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR,
two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise.

Edit: There's also little proof that 3D TV failed because wearing the glasses
was awkward. I can only compare it to 3D cinema, which is basically worthless.
Avatar is still the only movie I've seen where it worked, for every other one
it was just money paid for nothing.

~~~
coldtea
> _Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and
> sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D
> TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it
> 's just noise._

They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're
fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).

~~~
mustacheemperor
There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current
position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but
dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous.
You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific
applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?

~~~
apathy
Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for
example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by
constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly.

Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some
cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want
to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be
necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to
prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the
surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a
tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for
colleagues of mine)

Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle
before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.

------
joeax
IMO 3D killed itself. I personally think 3D is great, and have invested in a
3D TV and a bunch of movies. But they had a marketing problem with active vs.
passive. I would tell people that I have a 3D TV, and their response is "I
would hate to spend $250 on glasses." I would remind them that a passive model
uses the same glasses as the movie theater and we would just bring the glasses
home.

Nowadays 3D movies are harder to find. Force Awakens came out on 3D six months
later and only after a fan revolt. Let me tell you the 3D was better on my TV
than in the theater.

The only saving grace at this point: VR. Samsung is making VR cool and
hopefully Apple comes out with their own VR set. VR will bridge the gap until
they build a no-glasses 3D TV.

------
nr152522
I believe to be in the minority, but I actually enjoy watching movies with
passive 3D glasses. The problem for me was lack of easily accessible content.

------
smeyer
Out of curiosity, did anyone here regularly use the 3D features of a
television? I've seen them used to good effect for various demonstrations and
interactive displays and such, but don't know any regular end-consumers who
used the features regularly (despite knowing people who owned the
televisions).

~~~
lloeki
No, but somehow I hoped the following would happen that _could_ have made the
tech useful: instead of having a pair of glasses each one with left+right
filters, have two pair of glasses, one with "left" filters on both eyes and
one with "right" filters on both eyes, with "left" frames coming from one
input and "right" frames from another one, so that the TV can be used by two
persons simultaneously (obviously without 3D). Basically that's interleaving
two input sources and demuxing each one to each corresponding viewer with the
glasses. For audio headsets would be fine.

Of course watching a romantic movie next to someone frantically playing a BF1
match probably wouldn't fly.

~~~
BoorishBears
It did (kind of) happen with LG's Dual Play:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbRG-
KfWyVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbRG-KfWyVc)

And other 3D TVs could replicate the idea:

[https://www.tweaking4all.com/video/gaming/split-screen-
game-...](https://www.tweaking4all.com/video/gaming/split-screen-game-full-
screen/)

Both took advantage of the fact most 3D formats were just two images side by
side, so if you took something that could put two separate streams side by
side like this:

[http://www.kvm-switches-online.com/splitmux-hd-2lc.html](http://www.kvm-
switches-online.com/splitmux-hd-2lc.html)

You could do exactly what you described.

One problem I could see would be any cross-talk. Normally cross-talk makes
things look blurry, any cross-talk would result in seeing fringes of something
completely unrelated to what you're viewing. But with active glasses (or high
quality passive displays) I don't think it'd be much of an issue.

~~~
lloeki
> LG's Dual Play

That's exactly it! The "no more split screen" use case is also something I
thought of but forgot about :-)

~~~
Keyframe
The Playstation TV from Sony had that feature as well:
[http://kotaku.com/5809230/the-playstation-tv-a-cheap-3dtv-
fo...](http://kotaku.com/5809230/the-playstation-tv-a-cheap-3dtv-for-
everybody)

------
drzaiusapelord
Not sure who this market was intended for. It lacked the convenience of a
regular TV set and also the "wow" factor of VR. I've started watching youtube
and Netflix on my Vive and the difference between that huge virtual screen and
what a 3D TV can do is enormous, even if the videos themselves are just plain
2D videos projected onto a virtual space.

The more I think of it, the more a lot of last gen technologies were stop-gap
measures until we had VR. The Kinect, and to a lesser extent the Wii, are also
in this category. You lost all the convenience of a controller to kinda, sorta
have a virtual experience where you avatar is closely tied to your body but
projected onto the screen. Now you're really "in the game" or "on the set"
when you consider what's possible with VR and movies/tv/machinima.

I also hope this is the end of 3D in the movie theaters. It not only looks
completely wrong via the false exaggerated 3D effects typically in use, but
most implementations kill the lighting levels and color fidelity. The cost for
me and my wife to see a movie with parking, babysitter, and basic concessions
is nearly $100. Selling me a sub-par experience with a grainy and dark screen
is not how you beat Netflix, Amazon, and Google.

~~~
BEEdwards
I know VR is getting all the hype right now, but I honestly just don't think
it's going to catch on.

VR is lonely, you sit with a helmet on and ignore anyone in the room with you.

For the single 20 something male this may be fine, but for friends, couples,
families, this is a deal breaker.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Oh, I don't see it replacing TV. I think TV is here to stay because we've
built our lives around it. We surround it with couches and put in our most
prominent rooms, for example. Or we have TV on our phones, laptops, and
tablets ready to be consumed at any time, anywhere.

I do think people craving big or 3D experiences will migrate to VR. That was
the point I was trying to convey, that a lot of the whiz-bang stuff marketers
have been trying hard to sell this past generation really are just poor
imitations of what VR can do and if you really want that kind of experience,
you should consider just buying VR. VR can simulate a theater experience
nicely and without the crowds, hassle, etc. I think once the resolution issue
is resolved then cinephiles will naturally migrate to it.

I was just looking a the Windows Holographic lineup and thought that this is
probably going to break through to the mainstream of mostly non-gamers. The
killer app may be movies and TV seen on a huge and bright screen before your
eyes. I can certainly see a $299, or less, VR set being big this xmas for this
demographic.

~~~
pmontra
The HoloLens could make it because it doesn't lock people into their own
display. However it's still a long way from being ready for prime time. Two
big problems:

1) a very narrow field of vision, about the same my 15.6" laptop screen at the
distance I use it. It's very easy to miss virtual objects and having to look
for them it's not a great experience compared to the peripheral vision we
enjoy in RL.

2) Objects are always transparent so colors are weak. Unfortunately I don't
see a way out of this, especially outdoors. There can't be black unless in a
dark room.

#1 can be fixed, I don't know about #2.

------
joeblau
Next step. Get rid of all of the "Smart" TV features.

I just wanna 4k dumb TV.

~~~
toxican
You mean you don't like the unsupported Netflix and Hulu apps that have a half
second lag between button pushes?

~~~
jonknee
Only a half second lag? Look at the guy with a fancy smart TV!

~~~
CaptSpify
Youtube on my roku has gotten so bad. I just timed it and it takes 26 seconds
to start the channel. Each click on the menu takes 1 second to register, and 2
seconds to pause a playing video. I never even use rewind/fast-forward because
they never work.

And that's on a relatively supported device. I can't imagine how bad smart
tv's are.

~~~
jonknee
I would prefer on screen instead of a mobile device, but Chromecast "just
works" and the mobile apps are all leagues better than smart TVs and boxes
like Roku.

~~~
CaptSpify
Could you clarify what you mean by "on screen instead of a mobile device" ?

~~~
wmf
With Chromecast you have to choose what to watch on a phone/tablet and only
the video is displayed on TV; there's no UI on the TV.

------
ipunchghosts
With the extra depth dimension they should've seen that coming from a mile
away....

I'll show myself out.

------
stevewilhelm
“I live my life in 3D, I go to movies for the 2D. If I want to see something
hurdling towards [me], I’ll just stay at home with my son.” - Paula Poundstone
[1]

[1] [http://variety411.com/article/a-night-of-high-spirits-for-
ar...](http://variety411.com/article/a-night-of-high-spirits-for-art-
directors-3941881/)

------
BoorishBears
I loved 3D TVs because I got into it at the end. The story of home 3D in
general is a little sad, the first attempts on both computers and TVs were
mediocre but somewhat expensive (really expensive on PC), which burned people.
Towards the end attempts improved, but it was too little too late and 4k was
the new "must have" feature.

------
novafaen
I wish they would use this technology to show two different content at the
same time. Example, the kids could play their game on mute while the parents
watch another show.

~~~
yabatopia
Or buy a different tv set for the kids. No glasses needed!

------
king07828
Stereoscopic 3D that requires glasses or separate displays is not interesting.
True 3D, e.g., by using phased arrays in the optical spectrum without glasses
or separate displays, that will be interesting.

------
taylodl
I believe the same fate awaits VR headsets. AR (augmented reality) has the
potential to be be the game changer, especially AR contacts, whenever they
become available!

~~~
exDM69
I would cautiously agree. The overall quality of VR - the headsets, the
displays, the content - is just not good enough on current-gen devices
(especially considering the price).

Unlike 3D TVs, VR might be here to stay for the enthusiast market but I don't
see it becoming a mass market must-have gadget for every household.

And because the current generation is so underwhelming and overhyped, there
might be a 5-10 year period of relative silence before the next-next
generation comes out - hopefully with much improved quality as the technology
improves.

But the next year will tell... and it's up to the content side. If there will
be a mega hit game, movie,other entertainment experience or even a serious
application coming out I might be wrong.

~~~
joehart42
Yea it's very much in the enthusiast market for now. If in the next 5 years
they can get it down to £350 for the whole system and it all fits on your head
it'll break into mainstream I think.

~~~
exDM69
Price won't be an issue unless there will be content worth that £350 coming
out in the next 5 years. If the VR hype fizzles down in the next year or so,
it won't happen.

Don't get me wrong, I've tried most of the VR gadgets out there and I kinda
enjoyed using them (except the first Oculus devkit which was awful) and so did
my friends. But they don't really keep me entertained for more than an hour or
so. And I usually like to play with friends (in the same room) and having only
one guy wearing the headset isn't really social.

------
emodendroket
My TV is technically 3D but I watched the demo once and never did anything
else 3D. It's neat but it's just a gimmick and it gives me headaches.

------
sssparkkk
"Purchase process research showed it's not a top buying consideration, and
anecdotal information indicated that actual usage was not high."

Anyone else surprised they're making this decision partly based on 'anecdotal
information'? Or would it be explicitly phrased this way to prevent people
from suspecting spyware in their TV sets?

~~~
twoodfin
Maybe. My guess is that the TV divisions of these companies just don't spend a
ton of market research effort on post-purchase usage patterns. You've bought a
big TV and likely won't buy another one for years. It's the next consumer's
level of interest in various features they'll spend money to learn.

------
mtgx
Kill "smart" TVs, too, please! It's mostly unnecessary (set top boxes exist),
confusing (for many), and they don't get updated nearly long enough as the
TV's 10 year life span. So you may get yourself some ransomware through it.

~~~
nix0n
I've got an LG dumb TV and it's terrific. Mine's lasted a few years already
but they probably still make them.

------
georgeecollins
This is sad. Film makers are shooting movies in 3D. If you don't want to see
films in that format, that is fine. But it will be too bad if there is no way
to see a 3D movie on a TV.

VR will not be a substitute because it is a different medium.

------
js8
I had 3D TV from LG, and I am kinda sad to hear this. I used it to play Skyrim
on it, which was very nice, even though I had to reduce quality to maintain
reasonable FPS. I didn't watch much movies on it, though, but I greatly enjoy
good 3D ones in the cinema.

What I missed the most was Minecraft (actually, I found some older mod and it
was kinda weird in 3D, so maybe that's for the better) and porn. If this was
available, I could still use it, but as it isn't, I gave it to my parents to
replace their TV.

------
rossjudson
I never saw the point in 3d TVs. But I built a home theater with a 140 inch
screen and a 3d projector to recreate Avatar at home, which worked
fantastically well. I hope that technology doesn't go away.

------
trapperkeeper79
RE HDR ... I saw a side-by-side setup recently and could not tell the
difference. I think you can only tell the difference if you turn the
brightness way up. Or maybe it is just me.

~~~
jerf
If you literally could not tell the difference, then something may have been
wrong with the demo. It is true you do need the brightness turned up, since
you can't get the range if you cut the top end down too far in the first
place, and I've seen it said you really can only get it in a dark room because
of that.

If that makes you less interested in getting HDR because you don't always
watch TV in a dark room, well... yeah, it's definitely a more niche feature.

However, IMHO the more interesting thing about the HDR standards is the
improved color gamut. That is quite noticeable when you get content that uses
it properly, but there's precious little of it right now. However, I do
occasionally commit videophile sin and turn on my TV's "fake up a guess about
how the color gamut might look" mode even though my media isn't technically
mastered in that, and there are some things that it does make beautiful, even
if it is technically inaccurate. Inside Out in particular is jaw-dropping on
my TV in Fake-o-HDR mode. (Which isn't entirely implausible, as I understand
it the original movie is in an expanded gamut, but there's no Bluray that has
the expanded gamut version AFAIK.)

------
astrostl
Jan 23, 2018: "Curved screens were never really universally embraced in the
industry for home use, and it's just not a key buying factor when selecting a
new TV"

------
ascagnel_
I just hope this isn't the end of 120Hz TV sets -- no more 3:2 pulldown, and
native support for 30Hz (TV broadcasts in the US) and 24fps (most films).

------
kin
3DTV has always been too much work for the consumer. You have to pay the big
ticket price of getting a 3DTV. Then you've got to get a pair of glasses for
each viewer. What if you're one pair short? Plans ruined? Then you've got to
get the 3D version of the movie. What movies do you even consider watching in
3D? Personally, I can only think of Avatar, Gravity, and maybe Dr. Strange.

------
yalogin
3D was dead for a while for home viewing. There was no content that was easily
available to watch on the 3D TV. Cannot rent or stream 3D movies from
anywhere. The only way to watch 3D at home is to buy and that is twice as
expensive as HD DVDs. So the content industry marked it as dead a long time
ago, the TV companies are just now catching up.

------
Corrado
Honestly, if the streaming services don't support a technology, I probably
won't either. I haven't purchased a physical copy of anything media in quite
some time and I can't see that changing anytime soon. Either
Netflix|Amazon|Hulu start streaming 3D or it just isn't worth it to me.

------
anjc
I have a 3d TV and it's really excellent. I think people have associated the
annoying extra cost of 3d in cinemas, for not much benefit, with 3d on TVs. I
don't know why. It's very immersive at home.

The only annoyance is that there aren't enough 3d films available. So I guess
this will just cement that issue.

------
vuldin
I can't wait until they start making displays that just show stuff when you
connect another device to it.

------
Unkechaug
It seems like the same thing as the wireless companies trying to avoid
becoming dumb pipes, except it's dumb boxes. They have to pretend they're
creating value with "smart" functionality, HDR, and for a time 3D.

But all it really does is keep prices high and creates no real value.

------
cryptozeus
If anything should take off, it should be AR...thats the technology I am
looking fw to. We have this amazing real life 3d environment, why do i have to
put on dumb glasses to experience something.

------
digikata
It seems to me they missed out on trying a partial-VR experience with good 3D
interface devices (e.g. Vive hand controllers). In particular it might be less
awkward for some than the full-up headsets.

------
Sophistifunk
All we need now is the ability to buy a quality panel without "smart" bollocks
adding delays (and reporting your viewing habits back to home base), and we'll
be sweet again.

------
Neliquat
I wonder what, if any, effect this has on the VR market. I could see investors
getting spooked. Sure they are different, but enough to differentiate them
with non savvy folk?

------
wnevets
I have never bothered to use the 3d part of my tv and I have yet to enjoy a 3d
movie at the theaters. I'm kinda surprised this fad has lasted this long.

------
Aardwolf
I assume what kills it is the need for an accessory and the need to press
various buttons on the remote to ensure 3D is enabled with sometimes
frustrations.

------
mtw
It's happening! I always thought 3D was a gimmick. Great for Disneyland or
planetariums but otherwise a distraction for the story or the visuals.

------
simooooo
Good. But will the panel prices drop as a result?

~~~
degenerate
HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

No

~~~
trapperkeeper79
Haha .. I really wanted to pick up an active shutter system to play with. The
price had kept me away. I was hoping that eventually the prices would come
down.

As an aside, it seems 3D projectors are still around. A friend showed me his
setup just the other day.

~~~
ergo14
Active shutters are crappy and IMO one of the main reasons why 3D never took
of. If you can get a passive 3d 4k panel from LG - great experience and no
"half res" problem that full hd lg panels had.

------
alistproducer2
Why all the 3D hate? Does no one remember watching Avatar for the first time?
3D, when done right, is AMAZING!

~~~
lotyrin
Avatar was a poorly composed 3d experience in my opinion. The combination of
depth-of-field effects with stereoscopic vision was really off-putting, I can
see shapes nearer to me than the focal point, and can look at them, but can't
focus on them.

The only 3d experience I enjoyed - well enough as I wouldn't dissuade someone
from viewing the film in 3d, at least - was Gravity, since the small-aperture
space cinematography was very suited to a 3d presentation, 3d contributed to
the feeling of the film - helping acheive a sense of contrast in scale between
the personal experience of the main character and the very large catastrophes
around them, and not just a fancy way to produce distractions.

------
Hydraulix989
'Smart' is not a noun; it's an adjective.

------
spullara
Next year they will stop making the curved TVs. Thankfully they haven't come
up with a new gimmick yet.

------
Unbeliever69
I consider not watching Avatar in 3d blasphemous.

------
SaaSAddict
It was bound to happen...I think VR glasses will see a similar future.

------
andrewvijay
Thank you

------
SomeHacker44
Good riddance.

------
Unbeliever69
I consider not watching Avatar in 3d as blasphemy.

