Is 3D on the way out?

On the way out? Never knew they were 'in'. The sweet spot may indeed be important though I'm not sure what it means in this context. The last movie I saw in 3D was "Avatar" some seven years ago. I thought the film as well as the 3D presentation were excellent and I don't recall feeling disoriented afterwards. Did I miss anything?

Samsung has dropped 3D from its latest 4K TVs.  Apparently, customers don't especially want what it would cost to include, so Samsung can either reduce the TV price, or use the money on other features.

The other reason is that there are no 4k 3D movies to buy.  No discs have the storage capacity - there is a new format of blu ray disc just for 4K 2D movies, let alone 4k 3D.  So we can't buy any 4k movie discs yet.  

Furthermore, streaming a 4k 3D movie will require lots & lots of bandwidth on our network connections.  Perhaps broadband is no longer the appropriate term. Should we call it a panoramicband connection now? 

Best regards, FT

3D never really got off the ground here in the US. Hard to go out when you never got in.

On the otherhand and much to my surprise I saw 4k discs and players for sale at my local Best Buy today. Also saw a brand new Sony Z9D 4K LED-HDR TV that was extremely impressive. 

I've never liked the concept of 3D TVs ... Sitting around wearing an odd pair of glasses looking at something that only takes up a small portion of your field of view just never did it for me. A 3D projector on the other hand made more sense.

Ultimately it never really got a foothold here in the UK really beyond being a novelty and I certainly won't mourn its demise...

Phil

There was the occasional movie where 3D improved the experience, Avatar and Gravity spring to mind. Generally I actively avoided 3D. The only place where it really worked for me was IMAX, and then the proper thing not an Odeon Imax Lite. I never thought about it at all for home use.

4k will have to become a pretty mature technology before I consider buying it - let me see the 4k movies widely available.

M

Resolution is irrelevant to whether or not 3D becomesthe norm or falls by the wayside: Until or unless it does not require the wearing of glasses it will never be fully accepted, though it might this time remain for occasional special effects blockbusters for which people will ignore the annoyance factor..

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resolution is irrelevant to whether or not 3D becomesthe norm or falls by the wayside: Until or unless it does not require the wearing of glasses it will never be fully accepted, though it might this time remain for occasional special effects blockbusters for which people will ignore the annoyance factor..

Most people don't want movies in a concentrated way which is required for 3D.  A cinema is different in that respect.

Of course resolution is irrelevant ... there's a big argument that UHD is irrelevant... new 4K TVs are impressive, but a lot of that is down to reasons other than being 4K

When I moved I had already bought a 4K Samsung 40" but haven't seen a 4K movie on it.  I also bought the sound bar but don't much care for it, somewhat mirky sound, maybe a tech friend could tune it better at Christmas when he comes to town.  Back in LA my 48" Samsung was thru my Naim system and was incredible  to watch.  I'm trying to read more out here and streaming thru Netflix right now.  The new series on Queen Elisabeth I saw #2&3 last night was jaw dropping.

I don't think it was ever fully in in the home at least.  I don't mind 3D at the cinema but I have a 3D TV and hardly ever use it as 3D.  There have been some films that were better with 3D, Avatar would be a good example, but usually it's a token gesture and doesn't add anything in my view.

My projector is 3D capable, and I have watched 3 or 4 films that were 3D. Very effective on things where the feeling of great height - as in looking down - is important, as it can induce vertigo in a way that a two dimensional image is less effective. And good for gimmicky things (E.g  the credit scenes at the end of Despicable Me), but otherwise not worth the hassle of wearing glasses. 

As for cinema, aside from the glasses issue, the fact of having to pay 50% extra is simply a turn -off, and it has clearly never taken off.

As I suggested previously, until they can devise a glasses-free approach, and integrate in such a way that cost of viewing is not affected, things like this will simply remain gimmicks.

Avatar and the Polar Express were the two best 3D Imax movies I've seen. Just watched Rogue One which was also excellent in that format. But, the majority of 3D cinema films seem to suffer from digital blurring when there's heavy CGI which ruins the experience.

The OP seems to be talking about home cinema, though. I've had demos which were excellent, but I could never justify the cost. BluRay does it for me on a plasma screen. 4K has yet to impress. I'm still not convinced by OLED.

I don't know about TVs, but with projectors 3D just seems to be a normal feature, not something you need to pay extra for other than the glasses (and cost of them is no more than the extra cost of 3D in the cinema a few times).

Blueray is a different matter, and whilst it would be nice to have, especially given my size viewing (160"), the cost is presently prohibitive, and absolutely pointless without new content being available in that format as a matter of course, including online streaming services.

I've several 3D BluRays, and, whilst it's a bit of a gimmick & rather a nuisance having to mess around with the glasses (which also cut down on the brightness - a problem with very dark scenes) some of the well-mastered ones are very good. The best I've got by some margin is The Martian, followed by Avatar, and Gravity. 

I am one of those who have headaches from 3D glasses in cinema. I saw Hobbit2 in cinema twice - first 3D with glasses and later normally. I can report than 3D glasses have very bad effect on overall picture quality, less brightness, ill colors and so on.

I bought the top of the range Panasonic 50" plasma in 2013, just before its general demise, and have used the 3-D glasses twice (Avatar and the first Hobbit film). Quite an unpleasant, claustrophobic experience, which detracted significantly from my viewing enjoyment. The glasses went into the coffee table drawer, never to re-emerge!!

IMHO a total gimmick, to rank alongside curved screens.

I have only one comment.  I wear glasses (couldn't get on with contacts for more than 6 hours).  3D glasses have to be worn OVER my glasses.  After watching a couple of films, I decided I couldn't be bothered with it.  SWMBO never really saw the point, so the whole thing has been a white elephant.  If they ever come up with a system that doesn't require special glasses, then I may rethink this.

I'm clearly in a minority regarding 3D. I love it, and am disappointed it seems to be being phased out domestically. I've heard the gimmick argument over and over, but for me cinema is a pure entertainment, a bit of magic, and 3D well done (like Avatar) adds to the magic. It's a bit like people saying music should only be in mono - don't we hear in stereo? Well I do, and see in 3D too

My 3D viewing is done on an LG which uses the Passive mode, so I can use cheap glasses (I wear glasses myself so use a £5 pair of clip-ons for 3D, and I don't get headaches, don't get blurring). I knew someone at Sky when they launched their 3D channel (3D football was great!) and they did informal testing sessions of the two systems. The feedback they got from their users was overwhelmingly in favour of passive vs active, with almost no-one complaining of headaches using passive, and with no perceptible drop-off in quality.

Passive or active, I just don't like wearing spectacles (gave up at age 14, went around unable to see properly in preference, until getting contact lenses at 20, which I've worn ever since. And passive ones still reduce brightness, though a TV if not a projector might be able to compensate, and I acknowledge they can readily be made larger and so not obscure any of even a massive screen

I bought a Panasonic 3D plasma screen and blu-ray player when there was a deal going at John Lewis a few years back, it worked out to be marginally more expensive than the standard version of the same TV. Bought primarily because it was a good screen.

The 3D on it was much better than I was expecting and I do have a large number of 3D films which i do work.

Personally, I like the experience as it adds more depth to the films, the only downside is losing brightness.

This is Active 3D so full HD rather than the LCD passive 3D I tried which I found dire!

Very much on the way out I think as more 2017 specification sets seem to be dumping it. As a spectacles wearer putting glasses over glasses makes me look even more daft than usual

I wonder what glasses-free 3D is all about?

I also read somewhere that it negatively impacts screen resolution which is another reason why the glasses stay firmly in the drawer...

 

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×