Bye Bye 3DTV

I have a 3D tv and have very very rarely used it in 3D.  I think in answer to your question, for it to have worked it would have to be a seamless process, just like changing a channel or streaming a film, having to set up the 3D and put on daft glasses, as easy and quick as that may be, is just too much of a faff for most people.  I think that is why 4K has a much better chance of taking off, with sufficient media to view, becuase to the user it is no diifferent to use than any other channel or film

A shame really. The glasses was the issue I guess. I have a 3D Tv and BR player. Can't say I watched many 3D movies though. I felt it only worked well on some films and with larger screens. My 42" Panasonic is a little on the small side to get the best from 3D. I found myself moving closer and closer to the screen and could only watch in a dark room. Ultra HD gives a better viewing experience from what I've seen. 

I think we've managed 1 movie on our 3D 60" Panasonic plasma. The experience was, how do I put it - interesting 

The best I have watched was Avatar, which worked really well

Some 3D films are better than others. Most 3D though are more like the View Master 3D toy experience, flat images at planes different to other flat planes. Not a true 3D with delineation of forms in space. Large UHD screens with the right resolution material are eye poppingly closer without the need for 3D technology.

I never even bothered watching the sky 3D channel. 

I never liked the 3D effect. Always looked like a childs pop up book - layers of flatness at different depths.

not disappointed to see it go.

There are some magical 3D films available, and so I would be a little disappointed if 3D was to go completely.

As an example, I have watched the film "Hugo" in both 3D and conventional formats. Both were good, but I found the 3D version much more immersive. I do have a reasonably large (58") TV though, and I think that makes a big difference. The "Life of Pi" was another in this category or me.  

However, the most impressive use of 3D in my opinion was the year that the US Masters Golf tournament was covered in 3D. I think it was only covered in 3D once, but it was absolutely fascinating to be aware, for the first time, of the severely undulating nature of the Masters golf course. Ordinary HD (or even Ultra HD) coverage of golfing events now seem tame and uninteresting by comparison. It's a shame they haven't repeated this.

There have also been some very interesting wildlife documentaries that in my view were enhanced by the use of 3D.

I suspect however, that 3D (with it's requirement for multiple special glasses and the nee to sit reasonably straight on to the picture) simply wasn't suited to the average or large sized families.  

"If there’s one thing history has taught us: technology fails if using it makes you look like a plonker." (BBC News website).

Says it all really!!

Timmo1341 posted:

"If there’s one thing history has taught us: technology fails if using it makes you look like a plonker." (BBC News website).

Says it all really!!

 

Excuse me, but are you one of those sad people that laugh at people who wear glasses?

Bananahead posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

"If there’s one thing history has taught us: technology fails if using it makes you look like a plonker." (BBC News website).

Says it all really!!

 

Excuse me, but are you one of those sad people that laugh at people who wear glasses?

No (wear reading glasses myself), but are you one of those sad people that inhabit forums and delight in taking offence at everything?!!

Steady...

FWIW, I bought a new screen a couple of years back and have never used the 3D function - the glasses remain untouched in the box.  It was only when I found the glasses in the packaging that I even realised it was 3D capable.  No great loss.

It's a bit hit and miss at the cinema and I never thought it would be any better at home, so never bought ant 3D products.

It looks like UHD will be the same as soon as you buy UHD the UUHD will be out, followed SUUHD etc etc until they run out of letters.

No loss. Pointless. Ruins a good 'straight' movie.

3D on (50") plasma failed to impress vs. 2D on 110" projector.

The big problem for me was the most impressive 3D was where the effects were subtle, so then getting rid of them didn't really bother me.  There were a few impressive 3D effects, but they tended to make bad films entertaining rather than improving already good films (IMO). 

I do enjoy a well-mastered 3D film, but having to fiddle around with the glasses (and discover the batteries are flat) is a bit off-putting.

Guys, thanks for the comments, so if it wasn't for the arguably somewhat impractical glasses do we think 3DTV would have been a success or are there are reasons why we think it hasn't been successful,  such as screen size required too large, too intensely demanding on how we watch TV, lack of content etc...

Simon,

I think the problem is a combination of all of the reasons you suggest. I still occasionally buy Blue Ray films which have 3D & 2D versions, but only occasionally, and I only watch the 3D version occasionally. For me, this is simply because of the effort involved in doing so. 3D movies only become impressive if you sit close to the TV - significantly closer than the normal viewing distance in my 'Home Cinema' room. This is the case even though I have a relatively large 58" Ultra HD Panasonic TV. The sofa I use in this room is pretty immovable and so I have to bring in an additional comfortable chair to allow this. Far too much effort except for the odd occasion. In addition to this, many people are affected by digital artefacts when using active 3D glasses  (LG being really the only advocate of the slightly less good but less prone to user fatigue passive 3D.) I was slightly off-put by this on my previous 55"  Samsung TV, although not affected when using my new Panasonic.

Obviously there hasn't been enough good 3D content on ordinary television, where in my opinion 3D can really excel. I would definitely go to the effort required to watch 3D were the US Masters and other golfing events broadcast in 3D, or if more wildlife documentaries were available in 3D. Like many of the other contributors to this thread, I feel that 3D in films is often artificial looking and off-putting. However, the best documentaries and some sporting events (in particular golf) can be really stunning. 

I guess it was all those things, but the glasses was/is the biggest issue. My wife got a headache when trying to watch 3D. She couldn't even watch Real D 3D at the cinema. I can't see my young children keeping the glasses on for more than 2 minutes either, so that just leaves myself who would watch 3D content, when/if I had the time alone in from of the Tv. 

I agree with [@mention:23389351210890912]. I sit at least 3m from my Tv but to watch 3D i needed to be half that distanced from the screen. Moving there sofa was out of the question. Then i needed a pitch black room as the 3D and glasses dimmed the screen. 

Some people are still happy to put a disc in the machine, but if you have to re arrange the room to watch something, that's more than most people are willing or able to do. 

I think I would add as well, that although some Ultra-HD content is fantastic, it really also requires one to be closer to the screen than normal in order to appreciate the difference in quality. At most people's normal viewing distance, then unless the TV is huge (say 65" or thereabouts), the difference in quality is likely to be somewhat marginal.

Still, I guess Ultra-HD doesn't have some of the other drawbacks that afflicted 3D TV, so some people may be prepared to pay slightly more for Ultra-HD content.

And yes, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the next (higher resolution) generation of TVs is just round the corner (and we'll still be a generation behind the latest TV technology currently available in Japan). A nephew of mine is a mathematician specializing (amongst other things) in developing compression algorithms for new generations of hi-res TV broadcasts. It's a never ending and an increasing pace of development. The broadcasters just won't be able to keep up.    

8k on the way? 

Finkfan posted:

8k on the way? 

And the next generation after that.

And that's perhaps it, if the broadcasters are not using those resolutions or formats, is the demand really there.. perhaps there comes a point where more is not better.. I guess at the end of day these formats can impress, but it's the quality of the content that matters... if we are sucked into it, the formats and definitions become irrelevant.

When I undertook an intern with the BBC participating in TV studio engineering many moons ago .. I remember being told the optimum viewing distance for colour PAL 625 line screens was when your fist at arms length held out in front of you just fitted inside the screen.. how times change... but the media was still just as effective.

And I guess the same principle applies to hi-res music formats as well. In the end, as with hi-res TV, it's the quality of content that really matters.

We have come through an amazing journey (I hate the phrase, but no alternatives come to mind at the moment) in respect of television technology. As a youngster, we struggled in the North of Scotland to receive even a blurred (& interference prone) signal from the one channel available on our 20" black and white cathode ray tube TV. We take what's available to us nowadays for granted far too much.