3D TV Is Dead (cnet.com) 399
While Samsung dropped 3D support in 2016, 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 TVs, including the high-end OLED TV models, will be able to show 3D movies and TV shows. As a result, 3D TV is dead. The question is no longer when (or even why) 3D TVs will become obsolete, it's will 3D TVs ever rise again? CNET reports: The 3D feature has been offered on select televisions since 2010, when the theatrical success of "Avatar" in 3D helped encourage renewed interest in the technology. In addition to a 3D-capable TV, it requires specialized glasses for each viewer and the 3D version of a TV show or movie -- although some TVs also offer a simulated 3D effect mode. Despite enthusiasm at the box office and years of 3D TVs being available at affordable prices, the technology never really caught on at home. DirecTV canceled its 24/7 3D channel in 2012 and ESPN followed suit a year later. There are plenty of 3D Blu-ray discs still being released, such as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," but if you want to watch them at home you'll need a TV from 2016 or earlier -- or a home theater projector. Those market trends are clear: Sales of 3D home video gear have declined every year since 2012. According to data from the NPD Group, 3D TV represents just 8 percent of total TV sales dollars for the full year of 2016, down from 16 percent in 2015 and 23 percent in 2012. Native 3D-capable Blu-ray players fell to just 11 percent of the market in 2016, compared to 25 percent in 2015 and 40 percent in 2012. As for whether or not 3D TVs will ever become popular again, David Katzmaier writes via CNET, based on his own "anecdotal experience as a TV reviewer": Over the years, the one thing most people told me about the 3D feature on their televisions was that they never used it. Sure, some people occasionally enjoyed a 3D movie on Blu-ray, but the majority of people I talked to tried it once or twice, maybe, then never picked up the glasses again. I don't think most viewers will miss 3D. I have never awarded points in my reviews for the feature, and 3D performance (which I stopped testing in 2016) has never figured into my ratings. I've had a 3D TV at home since 2011 and I've only used the feature a couple of times, mainly in brief demos to friends and family. Over the 2016 holiday break I offered my family the choice to watch "The Force Awakens" in 2D or 3D, and (after I reminded everyone they had to wear the glasses) 2D was the unanimous choice. But some viewers will be sad to see the feature go. There's even a change.org petition for LG to bring back the feature, which currently stands at 3,981 supporters. Of course 3D TV could come back to life, but I'd be surprised if it happened before TV makers perfect a way to watch it without glasses.
But VR's still cool, right? RIGHT???? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh god, I put my life savings into Facebook stock after they bought Oculus! And now Zuck is getting sued and acting like a dick in Hawaii. Oculus is my last hope! I *need* this, man!
Re: (Score:2)
Also I find it really amusing that Zenimax is so insistence that Oculus couldn't have built a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, there's VR porn?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: But VR's still cool, right? RIGHT???? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't clear a 6ftx4ft space in your house...you might be a hoarder.
3D TV is dead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Was it ever really alive?
No. The cinemas started showing lots of blockbuster 3D screens and the occasional 2D. They quickly switched to the other way around when all the customers thought "screw wearing stupid glasses" and went for the 2D.
That was before 3D TV got going. So it was dead before it started.
Re:3D TV is dead? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:3D TV is dead? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny because it was a fad for a bit in the 1950s, but similarly died when the novelty wore off.
History has an amusing way of repeating itself. Nobody liked having to wear glasses to watch a movie in the 1950s, and the same is true today.
Re: (Score:3)
3D TV is dead
Hmm mine is still working.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm mine is still working.
So is ours.
Well, I should qualify that... I have no idea if the 3-D functionality is working. I don't really know if it ever worked. We bought an LG 3-D television several years ago because they were artificially trying to force 3-D adoption by restricting which features/functionality they'd include in non-3-D sets. So their best 2-D television was a 3-D television, and the price difference was only $50 - so that's what we got.
We even received four pairs of 3-D glasses for free. I can see the dust-covered,
Re: (Score:2)
Porn needs to save 3D TV (Score:2)
Porn is needed to save 3D TV
you are stupid (Score:3)
we sit watching movies many times a week in the dark, 2d and 3d, and netflix.
heaps of stuff on youtube and torrents.
TV is in the middle not corner like a 80s 17"
3D TV is DEAD!!! (Score:2)
3D was a thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for whether or not 3D TVs will ever become popular again
From where I sit 3D was a nonstarter. Why? The glasses. I paid something like $2500 to get my eyeballs lasered so I didn't have to wear glasses anymore. So a new TV standard comes along that requires me to wear glasses? Non-fucking-starter.
Re: (Score:3)
I paid something like $2500 to get my eyeballs lasered so I didn't have to wear glasses anymore.
I'm going to take a guess that you paid that money due to either a) you didn't like the look of glasses on your face, or b) you got sick of wearing them all the time.
Neither of which really come into play when we're talking about a movie.
Heck your entire comment: "I got corrective surgery so I don't need to wear corrective lenses, therefore I never want to wear something that adds a feature" is truly a bizarre train of thought.
I bought a car so I could drive to work, why should I go ice skating!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to throw in with the parent here. When I watch TV I want to be comfortable and relax. Glasses don't maximize comfort, and in fact kinda suck a lot if you decide to stretch out on the sofa and need to lay on your side to face the TV. Pillows and glasses are basically incompatible.
If I have to wear glasses to watch something, I am going to watch something else
Same could be said for color TV (Score:3, Insightful)
> I think it's because it doesn't help to tell stories.
> But if you are tempted to use it to "make the image more realistic" then maybe you just don't have a good story to tell in the first place.
Color TV is to "make the image more realistic". Color isn't needed to tell the story. Yet nobody wants to buy black and white. Color is all anyone makes, nobody shoots TV or movies in black-and-white. The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like colo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. While color indeed does make the image more realistic, 3D video doesn't. Yes, it gives the image some depth which would otherwise be flat, but a depth that's more like a special effect than reality. The 3D video I've seen so far (which I admit isn't much) never looked natural, it looked gimmicky. My major reason beside having to wear 3D glasses to choose 2D wherever I have the option.
That said, I don't agree with the parent, either.
I've seen gimmicky, gratuitous, and good (Score:2)
> I've seen so far (which I admit isn't much) never looked natural, it looked gimmicky.
I've seen some really gimmicky, some a bit forced, some good, and just a couple of good gimmicks.
Some stuff isn't a movie, shot in 3D, it is a bunch of "oh cool, 3D" scenes stitched together and they call it a movie. I've seen some that wasn't as gimmicky, but just as they insert sex and cleavage into movies for no apparent reason, they randomly stick in a couple of 3D "effects". Then I've seen a couple that were de
Ps: Best is the Spiderman ride (Score:4, Interesting)
The best use of 3D "effects" I've seen is one of the Spiderman rides. You're in a roller coaster like car traveling through a building. It blends actual motion, live action, and 3D film all together in ways where you don't know for sure what's real and what's projected. At one point you fall, you're dropping down 100 feet or so. I haven't been able to figure out how far you actually fall, if at all. I *think* it's a real roller coaster drop, a significant distance, enhanced by 3D video of scenery going past to make it feel like you fell twice as far. Or maybe you don't actually fall at all. I can't tell if it's real or just effects, and that's pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. While color indeed does make the image more realistic, 3D video doesn't.
Correction: 3D video projected from a small source with an extremely limited FoV doesn't make the image more realistic. The problem is all about the tiny field of view and imperfect crosstalk, etc.
3D video using a high end VR system makes the image MUCH more realistic. Yes, they glasses (headset, really) is even more intrusive, but the effect can be (for some people almost literally [kickstarter.com]) shit your pants realistic...
Re:Same could be said for color TV (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like color.
Well maybe... but if I'm watching a GoT episode do I really want to feel like I'm flipping from being 1m away from a combat scene to suddenly being 50 meters up in the air overlooking the battlefield and back down to 1m again in a matter of seconds? Just saying that maybe we want some kind of grounding that we're really watching a screen and not teleporting around.
Re: (Score:2)
Great point. Avatar was so successful as a 3D movie because the director resisted going over the top with it. Rarely did anything fly out of the screen into your face or give you sudden vertigo. Even the scenes high up in the air were carefully designed to avoid being uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
They stopped getting off their arses once they had kids anyway.
"Tommy, go put it on channel 9. Gunsmoke is coming on."
3DTV is dying (Score:5, Informative)
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: 3DTV is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered 3DTV community when IDC confirmed that 3DTV market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that 3DTV has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. 3DTV is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict 3DTV's future. The hand writing is on the wall: 3DTV faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for 3DTV because 3DTV is dying. Things are looking very bad for 3DTV. As many of us are already aware, 3DTV continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Free3DTV is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Free3DTV developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Free3DTV is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Open3DTV leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Open3DTV. How many users of Net3DTV are there? Let's see. The number of Open3DTV versus Net3DTV posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Net3DTV users. 3DTV/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Net3DTV posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of 3DTV/OS. A recent article put Free3DTV at about 80 percent of the 3DTV market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Free3DTV users. This is consistent with the number of Free3DTV Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Free3DTV went out of business and was taken over by 3DTVI who sell another troubled OS. Now 3DTVI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that 3DTV has steadily declined in market share. 3DTV is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If 3DTV is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. 3DTV continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, 3DTV is dead.
Fact: 3DTV is dying.
Hurray, 3D is still for nerds (Score:3)
3D is for nerds. I've always loved it, since my first cyan/magenta poster from a cereal box when I was a little kid. If you can't take the glasses, you don't get to watch. I've enjoyed the 3D Blurays and I'm sure I'm far from alone in my intention to continue to use the format as it turns retro. Seeya, everyone who thought this was going to bring football holograms into your living room.
Re:Hurray, 3D is still for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you mention football, I always thought sports was about the only genre where depth perception from a fixed perspective might actually improve the experience.
No great surprise. (Score:3)
It's no great surprise 3D TV died, while it was arguably better than the older red/blue system it still was a long shot at best; still at least it probably helped push along other developments during the cash splurge.
What however is looking to stick around and become more popular is the '360 degree' vision videos.
Perhaps if 3D rises again, they might just go straight for the neural implant - we'll see in another 25~30 years I suppose.
Despite enthusiasm at the box office (Score:4, Informative)
What enthusiasm? The fact that when all your showings are in 3D people reluctantly choose it over the 2D showing that you aren't even offering? Sure, that's enthusiasm....
3D is failing because nobody wanted it in the first place. They never wanted it at home, and they still don't want it in theatres. The only reason 3D sells is the lack of alternatives. For several years you almost couldn't buy a TV without it. That wasn't proof that people wanted it, it was proof that people were still buying TVs. My local theatre takes big name releases and does one 2D showing on a weekday at 2pm and 5 3D showings a night, people aren't "choosing 3D" they're trying to watch the movie.
I have in the past, and will continue to in the future, drive across town to find a 2D showing of a movie instead of being forced to watch in 3D.
3d costs zero $ (Score:3)
implementing 3d is virtually free.
off/even frames synced to glasses, thats $1 tech.
I am sure you could retro fit a PC HDMI output with software on non-3d tvs at 100hz, and if synced to glasses by the PC would work fine as 3d, on NON 3D tvs.
The other format is polarized glasses, which just requires a thin $5 filter on top + software to filter frames to odd/even lines.
3D movies and television would be good if.... (Score:3)
The only way to do this that I know of is with holograms, but seeing a full color holographic display at any time in the near future seems unlikely.
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
>"But some viewers will be sad to see the feature go."
That would be me. I am glad my Samsung TV supports 3D (I had to jump to a higher end/significantly more expensive 7100 series model to get it in August of 2015 because the feature was disappearing on most models). I enjoy watching the occasional 3D Bluray movie. In fact, the only Blurays I own are 3D and I would buy more if more were made (and were decently mastered).
3D shot/rendered correctly does add to the enjoyment of a film for many people. But, sadly, too much poorly shot 3D was released and helped to ruin the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Dido. I'm dreading the day my family's 3D TVs die. We also only buy movies when they're 3D, everything else is Netflix. My mother enjoyed my 3D TV so much, I set her up with a 3D TV and surround sound in her bedroom so she could have her own private theater like experience. She loves it.
3D is like any other aspect of media, having it done right enhances the experience. No-one wants color, if everything is over saturated, or off hue. Surround sound is pointless, if it's used incorrectly. Etc. etc. Poor media
Re: (Score:2)
Butt pug.
Here's a secret... (Score:2)
I'll let you in on a secret... people (as in the vast majority) don't want 3D in theaters either. The reason it's there is because it's an excuse for even higher ticket prices. Raise your hand if you actually believe people would not see a movie because it wasn't showing in 3D. Anyone? Would you? Would you walk into a theater, and find out that the movie was not playing in 3D, and turn around and leave? Checking my local cinema's showings for tomorrow (it has 8 screens), there is only one movie being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3d only hurts lower life forms, never hurts my brain.
im a more advanced model.
i prefer the 3d version, 2d sucks ass
3D TV screens were too small for some images (Score:5, Informative)
I think one reason 3D TV never caught on is that the screens generally were not large enough. There is a problem with a finite screen when objects appear near the left or right edges and relatively close to the viewer: the required binocular disparity is such that the image in one eye goes black (blank), leaving the image in only one eye. This is very uncomfortable, even if it happens for a brief instant. The screen needs to be large enough for the left and right edges to be nearly out of ones peripheral vision so that then one eye goes blank it is less noticeable. Most movie theater screens are large enough. But still, the director needs to be aware of this problem and be careful not to place up-close images near the edges of the screen. I think James Cameron knew this in making Avatar. I'm sure that Martin Scorsese did not know this when he made Hugo, as this happens many times during that movie. With TV, especially live action sports, I suspect that this might be hard to control.
Of course, the other problem is the disparate needs for the viewer to focus at one distance (the screen) and cross the eyes at another distance (the object). Most people adapt to this nearly instantly but I suppose even they find it a little fatiguing.
Re: 3D TV screens were too small for some images (Score:2)
3D photography (Score:3)
The only time I use the 3D feature of my LG TV is when viewing photos I shot with my Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W3. (Fuji, you are great at making cameras, not so hot at naming them!), or looking at other people's 3D shots with the Phereo app. These 3D sets are absolutely the best way to view 3D photos.
The W3 is maybe the best consumer 3D camera ever made (and it's pocketable!), but it didn't exactly set the world on fire either, and is now becoming a collector's item. So, yeah. . . I'm sad that this technology never seems to catch on with a wider audience, but that seems to be the reality of it.
Just to make sure 3D is completely dead (Score:2)
3D for scientific data display is also over-rated (Score:5, Informative)
Yet another BeauHD monolithic block of text (Score:2)
3D TV was fun for games (Score:2)
It added a lot to the immersion IMHO, and is also the best way to experience Virtual Boy and Master System 3D emulation. On the desktop PC, 3D LCD glasses came with many 3D accelerator cards since the 90s and it always blew me away to play games that way.
Not dead, just a zombie (Score:5, Interesting)
3D comes back every couple of decades. They had 3D movies as long ago as 1922 [wikipedia.org]. Since then, the popularity of 3D has come and gone several times. Each time, people get tired of the format when it loses its novelty. Then a couple of decades later, manufacturers come up with a "new" angle in hopes of selling new hardware.
Don't worry, 3D will come back. And then it will go away again.
And nothing of value... (Score:2)
And nothing of value was lost...
Why? (Score:2)
Jack: In fact (Score:2)
Lots of TVs have headphone jacks, but only a vanishingly small number of people use the jack.
And in fact, you could output 3D image purely with a software upgrade by outputing the "alternate frame" pulse signal over the audio-out jack.
So 3D can be 100% software solution, no hardware required.
(Most of the headphone users are probably anyway getting their audio over bluetooth for the convenience of avoiding cable accross the living room.
And for the last 2 geeks that are interested in 0ms audio latency provided by analog AND want to use 3D, we will probably get entirely fine using one of the other out
Gone again? Duh. (Score:2)
Went over like a lead balloon back in the 50's. (without a special tv) No clue why they thought it would go today.
Terrible implementation on my TV (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're extremely (and unusually) sensitive, this sounds like bad source media, or perhaps an unusually poor hardware implementation. Not something that most users will experience. I also have a Samsung TV with 3D capability. As others here have said, there are reasons why the 3D capability isn't used much in practice. But on the few occasions that we've used it, it worked well and caused no headaches, flickering, or other problems.
If you have other light sources active in addition to the TV, you may
Essentially Free (Score:2)
When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?
By all means, stop packing 3D glasses in. Make them a separate purchase for those who want them.
But why not offer the feature for those who want it when the hardware already does everything you need and it costs essentially nothing more?
If anything, the moment for glasses is finally here. Yeah, they still suck to wear. But the next major complaint was that they darkened the picture. Yet Samsun
Connector (Score:2)
When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?
- The weird proprietary connector, that goes to the weird proprietary array of infra-red emitters that needs to send the signal to sync the eyes.
or
- The integrated IR emitter in the TV that emits the sync signal to the 3D googles.
or, for TV that don't use active glasses
- A weird structure in the pannel that makes sure that every pixels emits light in a different polarity than it's neighbours
(either alternating horizontaly in scanlines, or vertically in column, or in a checkered pattern... whatever, as long
Not worth the hassle at home (Score:3)
The problem is that 3D, when it's done well, is an enhancement to the experience, but not an essential part of it.
In the theatre they hand you a pair of 3D glasses when you come in, you sit down silently facing straight forward to watch the movie, and then you drop the glasses in the box on your way out. The 3D is worth while because it's really convenient to do.
But at home? You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D, then you need to move around to make sure the viewing angle is right, then you need to take the glasses on or off when you wander around to do something else, then at the end you need to find a place to store the glasses again.
The enhanced experience just isn't worth the hassle.
And batteries (Score:2)
You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D
and make sure their button batteries didn't die since the last time you used them,
if your 3D googles are of the more popular active variety.
(as opposed to passive glasses with polarized lens [like the cinema theater ones] and the TV screen itself is a polarized emitter).
Not hard to see why (Score:2)
Some day
playing grand tourismo in 3d had it's advantages.. (Score:2)
Count me as one of the few 3D fans. (Score:2)
Count me in as one of 3D TV's few fans.
We bought our current TV a few years back (2012 or 2013 IIRC). We weren't specifically aiming to get a 3D (or even Smart) TV, however we lucked into a Cyber Monday deal that had a Sony KDL-46EX720 TV with a Sony 3D BluRay player for $750 (CDN) -- only one of three being offered in all of Western Canada. We scooped it up -- and for the most part it has been an excellent TV.
A year or so later we were able to pickup two pairs of 3D glasses while in the US (where they we
3D is not what anyone was ever looking for... (Score:2)
3D is not a feature. It's an attempted implementation of a feature.
The feature that people want is 'lifelike' video or immersive video.
To get that at home, I do see two potential technologist that are making headway. 4K TVs (for the color gamut, not the screen resolution) and virtual reality glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
I died laughing when I saw the petition (Score:2)
Here is the petition. [change.org]
Here is the part that made me laugh:
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of us across the world with large 3D Blu-ray collections who have paid literally thousands of dollars / pounds / euros for these disks which we paid a premium for over 2D Blu-ray do not want to lose access to these when our 2016 OLEDs bite the dust.
Yes...I'm sure the manufacturers are going to jump right in and support those HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of people AROUND THE WORLD who want this feature.
Re:Next up dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next up dead (Score:5, Insightful)
The preferred alternative of pure monitor plus streaming box could be marketed as 'modular TV'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Next up dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the "IoT" market that's actually relevant is already addressed through SCADA and other building management or energy management systems, and these systems usually don't require connections outside of the building or outside of the organization in order to work, and there's a better chance that the organization using them has staff responsible to maintain them, and that staff usually understands the ramifications of not maintaining them. Most of the new buzzword bingo stuff is fluff and will probably cause a lot of long-term problems when appliance manufacturers don't want to spend the money to patch security vulnerabilities in software for durable goods.
Re: (Score:2)
To my view, much of IoT is a solution looking for a problem, and is compounded by ignorance on all levels. Corporations that are seeking it thinking it's the future don't understand Information Technology or Information Security.
If we must have smart tvs, then just making a slot for something like this:
Intel compute card [intel.com](I'd also prefer to get rid of hdmi in favour of display port, but that is not happening.)
Basically this would be my ideal tv.
1) A few hdmi (or display port)
2) dot for dot displays in at least 24bpp color at at least 60Hz non interlaced, or better yet supporting that variable sync rate stuff graphics cards are supporting now to prevent tearing.
3) A single optical digital audio output, because do we really need to ru
Re: (Score:2)
A bit offtopic, but that's not quite true.
A neighbour - utterly non-technical - brought back a cheap cam from the hardware store the other day; she plugged it in, followed the instructions and a few minutes later was round my place showing me live streams of her kids playing in the garden on her iPhone.
Probably unbelievably insecure, but for her, very convenient.
As long as people can get this "instant convenience" they'll uptake IoT.
Re:Next up dead (Score:4, Funny)
3D TV's always seemed stupid as hell to me. I can't say I'm surprised they're gone. I never got the point, even before you factor in the need to wear special glasses and their tendency to induce eyestrain/headaches.
Good riddance!
Re:Next up dead (Score:4, Funny)
I watched the golf on a friend's 3D TV and the experience was pretty awful.
I don't know what I expected, but with the glasses on it just seemed to be layers of 2D, rather similar to an episode of Captain Pugwash [wikipedia.org]...
.
Re: (Score:3)
If they could get 3D TV to work without requiring glasses then perhaps they'd really have something. Until then it's just too cumbersome to be mo
Re: Next up dead (Score:2)
Nope. VR, before it even gets started. Smart TVs are too easy to embed, and end users use them or not. Unlike 3D or VR, Smart TVs aren't the reason you buy the device, it's a nice extra. Well, not nice, of course. VR as a mass market device will be gone before Smart TVs.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no smart TV's in my house as I didn't see the need
That by definition means you don't have a 4K TV, or any non projection TV larger than probably about 40-50" less than 3 years old. It's pretty much impossible not to buy a "Smart TV" these days unless it's basically a computer monitor.
Not saying you can't get a better experience with a big monitor + STB/etc, just that you can't actually buy a high end 4K monitor that isn't also Smart TV (whether you use the software or not).
Re: (Score:2)
My Panasonic 50-something in TV is *not* a smart TV, and it's about 2 years old. I specifically shopped for a "dumb" TV. The features of smart TVs will quickly become outdated and cumbersome, and I hope to keep a TV for a good 10+ years. It was cheaper than the smart versions.
Large 4K TVs without Smart (Score:2)
Check the JVC and Sceptre out. https://www.walmart.com/browse... [walmart.com]
Probably the same Sceptre again and an Avera... a Changhong. Not top name brands but they do exist.
Re:Next up dead (Score:5, Informative)
I'm hoping 3D cinema are next to go.
Yes, it was fun in Avatar and all, but nowadays it only makes everything fuzzy and dark.
The last movie I watched in 3D was "Star Wars Rogue One", and I had no option for 2D (movie theaters here in Brazil are doing this dirty practice). In some scenes it was so dark I could barely see anything... I liked the movie, but 3D almost ruined it for me.
Re:Next up dead (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm hoping 3D cinema are next to go.
Why hope for the death of something people enjoy? I was given the option of a 2D Rogue One screening. I chose the 3D one because I actually like it when done properly. What we really need is more choice rather than a battle of what people like.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars Rogue One was also the movie which made me realise how much the 3D glasses affect the colour of the picture. There were lots of scenes that looked very dull and dark - taking the glasses off for a moment, the colours were much brighter and "normal". I've now started noticing that in other 3D movies as well... surely the studios should master the 3D videos with brighter/lighter colours to compensate for the darkening of the glasses?
I wouldn't call for 3D cinema to go though, I enjoy watching movies
Re: Next up dead (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like this? [feelreal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More like this:
Kentucky Fried Movie predicted this in 1977:
FeelAround [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I still have a T-shirt from the 2001 CGDC from this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It was a horrible idea, and equally horrible implementation. And I will cherish the T-shirt forever...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really want that, especially not in some movies like Pr0n, splatter, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory or in newscasts from war zones.
I actually have one of the Samsung 3D TVs and I did look at it once - Men In Black 3, but the 3D revealed with ease all the CGI because it was flat while the actors were in 3D. Another disadvantage is that the glasses aren't that comfortable.
So 3D is a cool feature for special applications like Virtual Reality where you simulate an environment where people will
Re: (Score:2)
As a non american, always looking at american bitches, you complain too much, enjoy it.
If you cant hack it, suck it up. They are NOT uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus people had to push a button when starting to play the content which is a non starter for some people.
Push a button? Holy crap, as if my day isn't complicated and difficult enough already!!
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you, but the twitch and bend was not painful, but significant enough to realize that there was something going on.
My pop has maculer degeneration, my mom had cataract surgery.
I program for a living and need my eyes, so 15 seconds of 3d goggles causing a spasm is more than I need to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
VR is your salvation here. You can already watch 3D blurays with the Vive or Rift. Not yet on the PSVR, but it's expected that software will eventually be updated to support it.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem... you just need to move side to side very rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just described the already existing active-shutter 3d system.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if I understand correctly the shutters are driven by the television itself. My version uses an external device to drive the shutters. The point is that there is little that needs to be done to make a 3d capable extened system with televisions that are still on sale.
I think the big problem would be properly synchronizing the shutter control to the screen. 240Hz is roughly only about 4ms per frame. Modern digital TVs impart a small delay between when a frame and received and when it shows up on screen. The box you propose would have to emit the signal to keep the glasses synchronized in time, however there is no guarantee that the glasses would then be in sync with the TV. You'd need either some sort of configuration system whereby the user could control the synchro
Re: (Score:2)
DLP® Linkâ - The 3D glasses use flashes of white light between frames to send the 3D signal to the glasses, this is invisible to the naked eye.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future we will all go back to black and white crt wooden tvs.
With people listening to vinyl and cassettes nothing would surprise me anymore
yeah well i love 3d, dick shit (Score:2)
Have I you to blame for not making menus in 3d too ?
3d is good and should always be an option, just like MFR or DNR is, or 200hz options.
No options = cheap shit.
Just wait, China will add it and make cheaper sets. Just like how they are pushing android with 6gb ram, where stupid everyone else for years was 1-2gb max, which makes them unable to run the next gen OS. If you have more ram than you need, you can upgrade to the next gen OS, who cares if its $4 extra cost.