VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn and record Netflix! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 71
Thread
  1. Shambling corpse of 3D TV finally falls down dead... LG and Sony, the last two major TV makers to support the 3D feature in their TVs, will stop doing so in 2017. None of their sets, not even high-end models such as their new OLED TVs, will be able to show 3D movies and TV shows.

    Samsung dropped 3D support in 2016; Vizio hasn't offered it since 2013. Other smaller names, like Sharp, TCL and Hisense, also failed to announce any 3D-capable TVs at CES 2017.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-corpse-of-3d-tv-finally-falls-down-dead/
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    The only way 3d shows to be successful is that it doesn't require glasses or a special tv,just a 3d effect that can be done watching normally.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    sad news
    Quote Quote  
  4. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    good news
    Quote Quote  
  5. Good. I hope those gimmicky curved screens are next for the chop.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Well, I signed the petition.
    Silly to REMOVE a feature that made some consumers happy. Had the stupid science-averse mass media not constantly regurgitated the mantra of "but you have to wear glasses..." and other whining, and had Hollywood not UNILATERALLY abandoned continued 3D dev after 2012 just because they want to move on to the Next Big Thing, consumers wouldn't have been so dismissive either. I am still working in 3D and am STILL steadily adding converts with demonstrations (of GOOD material - that is the key).

    Shame on the rest of you naysayers...

    And johns0 I have over 30 examples that prove you wrong about what can & cannot be experienced in 2d vs 3d.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  7. Bazinga! MJPollard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wixom, Michigan, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Guess you sure told us, eh, Cornucopia? What would we have done without your peerless wisdom?

    In my opinion, 3D is, always was, and always will be a novelty. After a while, consumers become jaded and it simply fails to impress (and consumers will refuse to shell out the extra bucks). The tiny handful of examples of films that make good use of 3D (such as Avatar) don't outweigh the rest that use it simply to pad their box office receipts. My stepson is someone that absolutely must see films in 3D, but he's 15 years old, is easily impressed, and most importantly, doesn't (usually) have to pay for it.

    3D came and went in the 1950s, the 1980s, and while it's taking longer, it'll eventually fade away this time around as well. The studios want to push 3D to pad their bottom lines, but the utter failure of 3D TV shows that consumers will be led by the nose only so far.
    Don't sweat the petty things, just pet the sweaty things.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member hech54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Yank in Europe
    Search Comp PM
    I own two or three Blu Ray discs (just bought Jason Bourne....on DVD), bought my first Blu Ray player about a year ago. NEVER had an interest in a 3D TV.
    Quote Quote  
  9. It's death had more to do with buying a whole new television in order to view it rather than anything else. It was a sort of company "rake in the profits scheme" that backfired. I say this because they could have made a device (similar to the old 3d boxes razor made for field sequential on crts) that permitted the conversion and glasses control with the set itself being as it should- just to view the output. It would have been a cheaper method and it would have avoided issues like what we are seeing with the dropping of 3D support

    I love 3D but I was not going to buy a new television set in order to view it

    I should have also added that many may not have been too keen on buying a new Bluray player for 3D especially if they already had a normal Bluray deck. Also part of the scheme since it could have allowed the 3d content to pass through a normal player when the TV is the part in the chain doing the actual work
    Last edited by mazinz; 18th Jan 2017 at 09:17.
    want to see some true 3d clips, custom figures, some hardcore music and other crap?? Check out my youtube page www.youtube.com/mazinz2
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by mazinz View Post
    It's death had more to do with buying a whole new television in order to view it rather than anything else. It was a sort of company "rake in the profits scheme" that backfired. I say this because they could have made a device (similar to the old 3d boxes razor made for field sequential on crts) that permitted the conversion and glasses control with the set itself being as it should- just to view the output. It would have been a cheaper method and it would have avoided issues like what we are seeing with the dropping of 3D support
    The flicker from 25 or 30 Hz per eye is unacceptable. And doing it this way requires LCD shutter glasses which aren't so cheap.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I like seeing 3D movies at a movie theater, but it was never a practical option for me at home. Beyond the additional expense and the large TV that is required (there is no good location in any room for a 55-inch or larger TV), I rent most of the movies I watch from Redbox, and they don't stock 3D Blu-ray titles.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by mazinz View Post
    It's death had more to do with buying a whole new television in order to view it rather than anything else. It was a sort of company "rake in the profits scheme" that backfired. I say this because they could have made a device (similar to the old 3d boxes razor made for field sequential on crts) that permitted the conversion and glasses control with the set itself being as it should- just to view the output. It would have been a cheaper method and it would have avoided issues like what we are seeing with the dropping of 3D support
    The flicker from 25 or 30 Hz per eye is unacceptable. And doing it this way requires LCD shutter glasses which aren't so cheap.

    I wasn't suggesting trying lcd shutter on an HD set. I was suggesting the mechanics used in a current 3D set could be made for a "box" as a go between when playing out of a bluray deck, since most 3D Blu is parallel (or crosseye or top/bottom). The box would display the image as well as work with the glasses and the set used for viewing. It could have been done, but a company can make more money having the consumer buy a whole new set for this rather than take a practical method for it
    want to see some true 3d clips, custom figures, some hardcore music and other crap?? Check out my youtube page www.youtube.com/mazinz2
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    I just hope VR doesn't suffer a similar fate.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by mazinz View Post
    I wasn't suggesting trying lcd shutter on an HD set. I was suggesting the mechanics used in a current 3D set could be made for a "box" as a go between when playing out of a bluray deck, since most 3D Blu is parallel (or crosseye or top/bottom). The box would display the image as well as work with the glasses and the set used for viewing. It could have been done, but a company can make more money having the consumer buy a whole new set for this rather than take a practical method for it
    Such a box has to live within the constraints of what current TVs accept as input. They don't accept 100Hz or 120 Hz as input so the box would have to output 50 or 60 Hz. The resulting flicker of 25 or 30 Hz per eye would be unacceptable.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Silly to REMOVE a feature that made some consumers happy.
    The hardware, software, and support adds to the costs. Obviously, they've decided there are too few buyers to justify those costs.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Silly to REMOVE a feature that made some consumers happy.
    The hardware, software, and support adds to the costs. Obviously, they've decided there are too few buyers to justify those costs.
    Another point you could add is the lack of quality films over the last few years that have used the 3D process. Many of them I had no interest in seeing in 2D much less wanting to see it in 3D. Sad part being a few companies finally trying to properly restore older 3D films and now because of this it may cancel future endeavors that might have been planned
    want to see some true 3d clips, custom figures, some hardcore music and other crap?? Check out my youtube page www.youtube.com/mazinz2
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mazinz View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Silly to REMOVE a feature that made some consumers happy.
    The hardware, software, and support adds to the costs. Obviously, they've decided there are too few buyers to justify those costs.
    Another point you could add is the lack of quality films over the last few years that have used the 3D process. Many of them I had no interest in seeing in 2D much less wanting to see it in 3D. Sad part being a few companies finally trying to properly restore older 3D films and now because of this it may cancel future endeavors that might have been planned
    Have you forgotten that making movies is a business? 3D is used for special-effects filled block-busters with thin plots and minimal dialog because it enhances their appeal for the target market, children, teenagers and young males, who are likely to care more about about the visual impact of what they see on the screen than anything else. Plus, those are the sort of movies that tend make the most money and are able to justify a larger budget to cover the expense of 3D filming.

    The subject matter for quality films is such that the wow factor from 3D would do little to enhance their appeal to the people who come to see them. Quality films do not tend to make a ton of money either, so they don't often have huge budgets. The filmmakers responsible for producing these movies don't want to waste any of what they get on the cost of 3D filming.

    Old 3D movies would only appeal to older film buffs, which is a very small potential market and many of the people who would want watch them would probably prefer the original anaglyph 3D technology for a more authentic experience. There is little financial incentive to restore them using modern 3D technology.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 18th Jan 2017 at 15:53.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried
    Quote Quote  
  18. I wish 3D would die in the cinema as well.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by usually_quiet
    Have you forgotten that making movies is a business? 3D is used for special-effects filled block-busters with thin plots and minimal dialog because it enhances their appeal for the target market, children, teenagers and young males, who are likely to care more about about the visual impact of what they see on the screen than anything else. Plus, those are the sort of movies that tend make the most money and are able to justify a larger budget to cover the expense of 3D filming.

    The subject matter for quality films is such that the wow factor from 3D would do little to enhance their appeal to the people who come to see them. Quality films do not tend to make a ton of money either, so they don't often have huge budgets. The filmmakers responsible for producing these movies don't want to waste any of what they get on the cost of 3D filming.

    Old 3D movies would only appeal to older film buffs, which is a very small potential market and many of the people who would want watch them would probably prefer the original anaglyph 3D technology for a more authentic experience. There is little financial incentive to restore them using modern 3D technology.
    Have not forgotten films are a business and that's part of the problem more so now than ever before, but this can evolve into an entire other discussion... So just wanted to add that you are not entirely incorrect with older anaglyph 3D films (they were shot this way very early on), but a good 98% of them at roughly the start of the 1950's on have been shot as polarized 3D which means a left and right image for the 3D. If the material still exists restoring these older films to fit the current 3D bluray standard works very well.

    What I do not like with 3D bluray is not allowing you to just view the SBS/X/TB on a disc without ripping it. There are many ways to view or convert those formats without the need for a TV to do it for you.
    Last edited by mazinz; 18th Jan 2017 at 19:11.
    want to see some true 3d clips, custom figures, some hardcore music and other crap?? Check out my youtube page www.youtube.com/mazinz2
    Quote Quote  
  20. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post

    And johns0 I have over 30 examples that prove you wrong about what can & cannot be experienced in 2d vs 3d.

    Scott
    You can't prove that 3d can't be shown without glasses and on regular tvs by showing examples,it might happen in the future where anything can happen.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    And at that point, it is no longer 2D, nor is it with "regular" existing equipment.

    Autostereo, or any other similar tech such as Integral imaging or Holographic video: sure those are awesome and vastly improved vehicles for imparting visceral depth to images, but they haven't made it beyond the lab except for special ($$$$$) applications, so for consumers that means the future.

    But for the present, there are plenty of examples of depth-specific attributes to a scene that is IMPOSSIBLE for 2D to replicate or even closely emulate:

    Particulate/plasmic volume (fog, fire, rain, snow, smoke, ghosts?)
    Patterned /partial obscuration & revelation (picket-fence effect), with or without dithering
    Similarly, Visual c*cktail-party effect
    Angle-of-reflection light scintillation (twinkling), or alternately, volume solidity
    Size-vs-scale-vs-distance optical illusions (incl. true gigantism & lilliputism)
    Eye-ear dissonance via canted image moves
    ...along wth the usual in-your-face/out-of-window and "deep-depth"/in-window effects.

    S3D (and likely those mentioned newer tech) can convey these imaging features accurately, greatly increasing image vocabulary. Which, in the hands of artists & earnest professionals (and not just get-rich-quick hacks), can greatly enhance the impact or sculpt the tenor of the story. Beyond what 2D can.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    @mazinz, 3dbd discs rarely if ever utilizes std sbs/ou layouts as it it inefficient bitrate-wize and 1/2 quality. Almost all (maybe actually all, I haven't tested every one) are 2x2DfullHD views encoded to MVC (2d AVC + depth difference) and decoded to "frame-packed" superframes (1920x2205 frames w 2x FHD images contained in ou layout and 45 pixel height inter-image buffer).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  23. Renegade gll99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canadian Tundra
    Search Comp PM
    3D televisions may be dead but not necessarily 3D. There are now and will be other options to view 3D content. Glasses-free 3D is possible but there are distance and position limitations and it's just not universally viable yet.

    In the meantime:

    If you own a PS3/PS4 you don't need to buy a 3D BD player you already have one in your home. I bought a 3D enabled DLP BenQ TW523P projector on sale for $400ca at Staples and ordered 3 cheap compatible 3D shutter glasses from Amazon.ca. I can't recall the cost but it was less than $100ca total for the 3 pairs. 2 came in a set and the 3rd by itself. The pj is only 720p but watching at under 80" diag from 10 feet away it's perfectly fine. A 1080p version is only a couple of hundred dollars more. Because the glasses dim the image the pj will run at higher brightness so it will impact lamp life although this model has an excellent lamp rating to begin with.

    Another new kid on the block is VR. A friend bought a PS4 and VR glasses/headset bundle a few months ago. I'm supposed to go see it but we've both been pretty busy. It cost about $1100ca total. We haven't discussed it in detail much but he told me that he can watch his BD 3D movies on the headset using the PS4 so I'm pretty interested to see if it's something I'd like. Playing 3D is a nice feature of the PS but what put me off is that the PS4 won't play 4K BD discs at all. Since I bought a cheap 4k TV set (non-3D) I want this option in my future console. The Xbox One S apparently can play 4k discs but I don't know about 3d support. BTW, I don't mean 4k-3D that doesn't exist. Supposedly that isn't in the works since so far the 4k-3D standard has not been defined. In any case, I'd prefer a PS console and VR bundle so I'm waiting for the next gen PS console hoping they add BD 4k and continue to support 1080p BD 3D playback to kill 2 birds with one stone. I'm not really a gamer and don't want to buy multiple devices if it can be avoided. My PS3 has served me well that way, playing stored content on the internal hdd, videos on usb drives, DVD, BD and BD 3D as well as playing the few games I own.
    There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    4k3DBD not likely to happen: too high bandwidth requirements.
    (150-200Mbps, possibly higher). And that's using h265 with MVC s3d efficiency.
    There would be question as to the proper form factor at that point.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    The only way 3d shows to be successful is that it doesn't require glasses or a special tv,just a 3d effect that can be done watching normally.
    Not at all. Just use plain red and blue glasses without power to watch any color TV/monitor.
    You can 'sense' 3D effect within one minute – just don't focus too hard!

    Virtual? Yes
    In real? No.
    Quote Quote  
  26. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    I disagree,no glasses at all.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  27. It was a suggestion.

    As it is, 3D technology is not satisfactory at the moment – and thus nonviable. The PD (pupillary-distance) varies from person-to-person and has to be dealt with technologically and optically with glasses.

    The plain RED-n-BLUE glass produces virtual (not real) 3D effect.

    Our brain 'tricks' us to see upside-down images formed on retina correctly (maybe the brain does it by some NOT–ing). Looks like the brain plays another 'trick' to create 3D effect.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    4k3DBD not likely to happen: too high bandwidth requirements.
    (150-200Mbps, possibly higher). And that's using h265 with MVC s3d efficiency.
    There would be question as to the proper form factor at that point.

    Scott
    I think that beyond lower demand, this is the other reason for the demise of 3D TVs. 3D TVs are high-end products, and manufacturers have determined that from now on, all their high-end products will be 4K/UHD TVs. ... but there is no UHD 3D material for them.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 19th Jan 2017 at 13:00.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried
    Quote Quote  
  29. I do not want sound ridicules, but it used to get my wife feel sick in the stomach, watching 3D, tried couple of times, andwe always had to leave theater screening room for the other 2D projection or something. I just vividly recall thinking, it cannot be future permanent thing if folks can get sick watching it.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    I do not want sound ridicules, but it used to get my wife feel sick in the stomach, watching 3D, tried couple of times, andwe always had to leave theater screening room for the other 2D projection or something. I just vividly recall thinking, it cannot be future permanent thing if folks can get sick watching it.
    You do not sound ridiculous. Many people can/do get a headache/feel sick after a bit and its recommended to remove the glasses for a while. However the cause from the 3d can be from a number of factors (ex fast movement, etc) but usually when the deviation is too great (distance between the left and right images) this can cause some nasty eye strain and headaches and so on.
    want to see some true 3d clips, custom figures, some hardcore music and other crap?? Check out my youtube page www.youtube.com/mazinz2
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads