Why are TV Manufacturers Ditching 3D?

[Midnyte_Sun]

Am I the only one who likes 3D Movies at Home? I understand it causes motion sickness for some, but how silly is it for ALL of them to drop 3D movies considering they still make 3D movies in the theatres and 3D capable 4K Blu Ray players?

 

[Micromind]

Why are TV Manufacturers Ditching 3D?

Yes, a very valid question, two years back.. they were selling 3D enabled TVs everywhere, now there are very few (and expensive) models left in the market, most of the TV's now are only android TVs without 3D. I wonder why ?

I have some great 3D Blurays and a 3D Bluray player but cannot get a 3D TV within my budget.

 

[Teelie]

Why? Because fads don't last and 3D is still a fad. No one was buying them, they required glasses to view them and they just aren't there yet for the mass market in making 3D viable.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I just bought a 4K, 3D-capable OLED from LG. It's kind of ridiculous that they are dropping it. James Cameron's 4 Avatar films will all be in 3D, as well as re-release of Terminator 2 in 3D. Furthermore, most action movies have a 3D option when watching in the theatre. I love 3D.

Dr. Strange in 3D was one of the best 3D movies I've seen!

 

[Teelie]

Yeah but a tiny handful of movies does not justify the cost.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

The technology has been out for 7 years now, I doubt the cost of 3D capability has risen, in fact, it should go down.

 

[Teelie]

There are not enough movies for it I mean. The list of movies that benefit from 3D just isn't high enough for it to go past the gimmick stage. How many people will sit through a movie multiple times in 3D, wearing 3D glasses or some other extra requirement when a traditional viewing is just as good most of the time?

 

[NHawk19]

People wanted Ultra-HD and thought of 3D as a gimmick probably because you needed all the other stuff (3D player, 3D compatible movie) to make it work. You couldn't just pop in a normal movie and have it be 3D.

Or you could go with it's a conspiracy to keep theaters relevant.

 

[Micromind]

3D Bluray players are available, most of them are not that expensive either, also, 3D movies are not a rare thing nowadays.

So, why are TV manufacturers moving away from giving buyers a choice ?

 

[Havok83]

Bc they never made it the standard. It was an extra more expensive feature that consumers abandoned and therefore manufacturers had no choice but to as well

 

[Teelie]

They gave consumers a chance and most of them passed on it. Short of forcing people into it exclusively (which would be marketing suicide) there was no way to get people to adopt it.

 

[Havok83]

They gave consumers a chance and most of them passed on it. Short of forcing people into it exclusively (which would be marketing suicide) there was no way to get people to adopt it.

no it wouldnt. If every TV produced had 3D, it would be more adopted. Smart functionality became standard and now we are seeing it with 4K. People have this not neccesarily bc they want it, but bc they have no choice as the options without are rather limited. That never happened with 3D.

 

[Teelie]

Making every television 3D would incur more costs per television (not to mention those awful glasses) meaning people would have to pay more for one and that leaves open the market to someone who doesn't force 3D onto the consumers and they would profit, not the 3D market.

 

[Havok83]

Making every television 3D would incur more costs per television (not to mention those awful glasses) meaning people would have to pay more for one and that leaves open the market to someone who doesn't force 3D onto the consumers and they would profit, not the 3D market.

hence why it never took off. In 2017, the cost should negligible. I bought a 3DTV in 2013 and it was actually cheaper than the equivalent SmartTV model (which I wish I had gone with at the time). Those Smart TVs have gone down considerably since then. Every piece of tech goes down in price over time, just as 3D would if they were still manufactured. Including 3D now wouldnt result in TVs much more expensive. Its just not worth it bc consumers didnt flock to it.

 

[Teelie]

And thus there is the answer: No money in 3D because consumers did not want it.

 

[Smurphftw]

The stupidest excuse for avoiding 3D has got to be the supposed cumbersomeness of the dreaded glasses. I have an LG 3DTV and the passive glassss are so light and comfortable I literally forget i am wearing them sometimes.

The bottom line for me is the day 3D blu rays stop being produced is the day I stop buying movies. I have about as much interest in watching movies in 2D as I do watching them in black and white.

 

[Teelie]

Another thing is 3D glasses and the effect does not work for everyone. It barely works for me and not consistently. Not a lot of people want to have to keep track of then wear glasses just to watch a movie.

 

[Havok83]

I had a Samsung TV and didn't find the glasses comfortable. It was annoying as the thing often desynced and was more of a hassle than it needed to be

 

[ComicChick]

^ was it active 3d or passive?

 

[Havok83]

^ was it active 3d or passive?

active but I dont think it matters. I didnt like the design of the glasses. It was straight against ahead my head instead of curved to rest to my ears like normal glasses. It was a minor thing but bothered me. Outside of that Im one of the people that feels sick with long exposure to 3D so that also made it not worth it for me

 

[Micromind]

Not everyone enjoys 3D but there are those who do like 3D, consumers should be provided with a choice, since technology is available and movies are still being made in 3D.

Passive 3D glasses are lightweight and have no problems in synchronizing with the image, the bad rep for 3D was mainly due to earlier usage of active 3D glasses, which were bulky and caused headaches in some people and had synch problems.

3D is less of a 'gimmick' compared to 4K.

 

[ComicChick]

active but I dont think it matters. I didnt like the design of the glasses. It was straight against ahead my head instead of curved to rest to my ears like normal glasses. It was a minor thing but bothered me. Outside of that Im one of the people that feels sick with long exposure to 3D so that also made it not worth it for me

so the discomfort bothered you too. thanks

Not everyone enjoys 3D but there are those who do like 3D, consumers should be provided with a choice, since technology is available and movies are still being made in 3D.

Passive 3D glasses are lightweight and have no problems in synchronizing with the image, the bad rep for 3D was mainly due to earlier usage of active 3D glasses, which were bulky and caused headaches in some people and had synch problems.

3D is less of a 'gimmick' compared to 4K.

Active Shutter 3D (or Active 3D) works by very quickly alternating pictures displayed on the screen. The glasses control which of the two pictures is seen by alternating between opaque and transparent.

This technology is called “Active” because the glasses are powered (using batteries) and they actively control which picture is perceived by which eye. The glasses need to be synchronized perfectly with the television screen and because of this, the glasses are expensive ($20 - $100). Also, active 3D TVs cause some people to become dizzy from to the constant flickering.

The perception of the flicker can be reduced if the television panel has a refresh rate of 240Hz (instead of 120Hz), which is a feature available on more advanced LED TVs. The faster the TV flashes, the less our brain notices the flashes.


passive
This method is very similar to the 3D technology used by movie theaters - you can even use glasses from a theater with your passive 3D TV. Instead of displaying one picture at the time like in active 3D, both are shown simultaneously; one with a horizontal light polarization and the other one vertical. The glasses have a different filter for each eye: one that cuts the horizontal light, and the other one the vertical light. The glasses are passive: they are not powered, so they are a lot cheaper than the glasses required for the active shutter technology.

So how can a screen simultaneously show two distinct pictures, each with a different polarization? In theaters, two projectors are used, both with a different filter. Both pictures can superpose on a theater screen because the light is additive. This isn't possible with TV screens, however, because the screen itself is the source.

To solve this, half the pixels are used to display the left picture and the other half the right one. The current technology interlaces each line.

The screen alternates each line of the picture. One picture gets the even ones, the other the odd ones. Each line has a predefined polarization applied to match the glasses. The downside of this approach is the reduced resolution apparent to a single eye. On a 1080p TV (with 1080 lines), only half (540) are used per picture. The horizontal resolution stays the same (1920 pixels) - only the number of lines is affected.

from http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/3d-tvs-active-3d-vs-passive-3d

ive heard of more people having problems with active 3d along the lines of vision problems, headaches etc

 

[Iceman]

The tech for 3D was way too young when it was released to mass market and nearly all the films following Avatar charging much higher prices for not very much more put most people off. I think it will be back in the long term future when they have it a mindblowing level, although VR is also going to have a say (and it is a similar concept).

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I recently watched Star Trek Beyond as well as Dr. Strange in 3D (at home with my LG OLED 4K) and they were absolutely perfect. No headaches, no fuss, and no problems with syncing. The technology had gotten better since they were first released. I got the last 3D TV LG made (2016) model. I was going to wait for the 2017, but since 3D is not being carried that year, I chose to downgrade.

3D is not going away, almost all big budget action movies will have a 3D option. The last movie to use 3D properly was Ghost in the Shell, and Cameron is planning to-release some of his older movies in 3D as well, including Terminator 2.

Civil War was great in 3D, and I expect the latest Avengers movie to also implement the technology.