3D TV is Dead

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead

by derpenxyne • 14 years ago

40 57 14 years ago

jerf• 14 years ago

Interesting times. 3D is dead, but... 4K and 8K aren't going to fare any better. Few people sit close enough to the TV for it to matter, or want to.

It will be interesting to watch the TV manufacturers flail around for a while, trying desperately to avoid the cold hard realities that come with becoming a commodity...

nicholassmith2• 14 years ago

4K and 8K will suffer the same problem as 3D, poor amount of content available. HD was an easy sell as TV streams all pretty much shifted uniformly over to HD, plus there was two competing formats for home movies, plus with upscaling it made old DVDs look a bit better. 3D was never going to gain mass market traction as you paid a huge premium for...well, not a lot.

travisp• 14 years ago

Some of the reviews of 4K projectors have mentioned some fairly good upscaling for HD content, however, so that would help bridge the gap somewhat.

roc• 14 years ago

Even with HD, it's worth noting how little 1080 content is consumed.

It's worth considering that a good chunk of HDTV market penetration may well have been due to other factors: size/weight/power -- and the price quickly reached a point where it was roughly on par with what people had paid for the old tube tvs they were replacing. So why not?

3D/4k/8k -- these don't have any advantages over their predecessors, except that they deliver "more/better" on an axis that people demonstrably don't care too much about.

dbrian• 14 years ago

That and we seem to be trending towards streaming more and more media. Convenience trumps quality more often than not.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

The convergence of OLED, 4K, and 8K are an interesting cross road. Lets take the high end, 8K, and imagine a 96" TV with a 2:1 aspect ratio. (that is a 4' x 8' panel). That is a 90 PPI screen, which makes it better than all standard monitors and only slightly worse than the 103 PPI of 27" 'high density' monitors.

Put a stand up desk in front of it with a keyboard and you've got something you can use for both an up close experience (create a monitor of arbitrary size in front of you, work, move down a bit and create another one, etc) or step back 10' and do a cinematic.

OLED means no projector shadow and black is actually no light at all.

It will not be like anything before it.

snogglethorpe• 14 years ago

Now if only they can get the dynamic range thing figured out...

I.e. true HDR display: black is black, gradients are subtle, and high intensity is blinding, not just "white"... give those irises some exercise!

clux• 14 years ago

From near the end of the article: "This isn’t to say that 3D TV is dead — but it’s certainly no longer the next big thing."

Linkbait title.

biot• 14 years ago

Nietzsche was known to use linkbait phrases as well, much in the same spirit as the article.

guard-of-terra• 14 years ago

"it’s certainly no longer the next big thing"

Duh. It's the current big thing. And on the next CES it's going to be previous big thing. How long did you expect it to be "next"?

P. S. I own a 3D TV.

S_A_P2• 14 years ago

3D will certainly never gain favor with me until the requisite headache inducing glasses are eliminated. Polarized glasses reduce my field of vision to about 25% of what it normally is so I feel like Im watching through telescopes. I have yet to see a 3D movie that makes me think "I am so glad I am wearing these glasses".

I think that it will require a radical shift in display tech (a'la holographic projections) to make me rethink this position, and even then, I would probably much prefer a 2D screen for television shows or most movies. Games and virtual reality simulations would be a different animal for me.

kalleboo2• 14 years ago

How close are you sitting to your TV that you can't see the whole screen through the glasses?

S_A_P2• 14 years ago

Its not just TV, I was at a 3D IMAX movie the other day, same effect sitting 2/3rd the way back.

jfb2• 14 years ago

Neither high-res or display technology will do squat to "push the envelope of content creation". The desperate scramble to escape the commoditization trap will throw up more and more and more of these "breakthroughs", of declining marginal utility.

bhewes• 14 years ago

Seems like Moore's law is hitting all hardware now. But it still takes years to make a decent movie or any creative work no matter the hardware.

jfb2• 14 years ago

Well, changes to e.g. cameras (like the GoPro) that drive the cost of creation down will continue to make a big difference; but 8k TV? Nobody has the bandwidth. Nuts to that.

taeric• 14 years ago

I do still think using the 3D glasses to give full screen multiplayer games a run is a great idea. Did that just not take off?

jcromartie• 14 years ago

The PS3 uses this for various games, but they are few and far between. It's a decent effect but it can impact the framerate that each player sees.

cocoalovethax• 14 years ago

Black Ops 2 is a phenomenal 3D experience, and I have a lot of other games for PS3 that support 3D as well. Extremely stupid article, I plan to play 3D games for years to come, and watch more 3D movies in the future. I think 3D > 4K. I would MUCH rather watch a movie in 3D than 4K, but that's just me, but I'm sure it applies to a lot of other people as well.

Guillaume86• 14 years ago

Would be my main usage if I had a 3D TV (well perhaps I would try Skyrim in 3D too).

I was looking at this some time ago (for my XBOX) and some TVs can force a 3D mode on a vertically split image and you can setup the glasses to only pick the left (or right) image. The only thing wrong was the aspect ratio obviously, it's too bad that simple setting is not available on most (any?) games.

swalsh• 14 years ago

Seeing as the food network is about 80% of the television I watch, i'm really hoping smell-o-vision becomes the next big thing ;)

vyrotek• 14 years ago

And then you accidentally switch the channel to "Dirty Jobs" and immediately regret that decision. :)

vidarh2• 14 years ago

"Only 20-30% penetration" (according to the article) apparently means it is "dead". 20-30% in that short timespan sounds amazingly high given how long a typical TV lasts, and the wide range of form-factors (presumably "nobody" cares about 3D on the lower sized screens that are rarely used for movies).

And it explains the de-emphasis on 3D somewhere like CES: You won't easily sell lots more new high-end TV's if you emphasise on something all of your competition has, including the low end. And when I went to Amazon to check right now, the cheapest 42" screen on offer in their UK store is a 3D tv...

objclxt• 14 years ago

The problem with market share stats is that they don't always correspond with usage. People with 3D TVs don't simply seem to be very interested in watching 3D content on them.

Case in point: in the UK 27 million people watched the Olympic Games opening ceremony on TV, but only 0.4% of that audience (just over 100,000 people) watched it in 3D[1]. For a technology with 20-30% penetration this is pretty dismal.

[1] http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46728/3d-tv-viewing-update-b...

nwh• 14 years ago

> The problem with market share stats is that they don't always correspond with usage. People with 3D TVs don't simply seem to be very interested in watching 3D content on them.

This is true of my parents. I've never seen them use their 3D TV as one, the rather pricy viewing glasses are still sealed in the box.

ahlatimer• 14 years ago

Indeed. Most new TVs seem to support 3D [1]. It could be that roughly 20-30% of people bought a new TV in the last 2-3 years, and those TVs just so happened to support 3D, even if the consumer wasn't purchasing a new TV specifically to get 3D.

[1]: At least that was the impression I got when shopping for a new TV ~6 mos ago.

crymer11• 14 years ago

I have a 3D TV and would probably watch some TV in 3D if it was available (I'd certainly give it a try, at least), but my content provider doesn't offer any 3D channels. I'm curious how many of the audience you mention could watch it if they had a 3D TV.

vidarh2• 14 years ago

I think that's a poor metric. Why in the world would the Olympic opening seremony be something worth caring about 3D for?

Also note that the numbers in that article does not mesh with 20-30% penetration - according to Ofcom there was ca. 60 million TV's in the UK end 2011. The article cites 1.3 million 3D TV's sold in the UK at the time of writing.

So rather than a mismatch with usage, it seems prudent to question where the 20-30% number the article cites comes from....

sk5t• 14 years ago

TheVerge has a similar article titled "It's official: 3D is dead": http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852452/death-of-3d/in/3608...

3D had always struck me as a shallow gimmick to get folks with lots of disposable income to think about upgrading their already-very-good 55" LCD TVs. Come on, it hangs on the wall, is less than an inch thick, and looks great all the time--what more do you want?

xpose2000• 14 years ago

3D tv would be amazing if two things happen:

- We no longer need glasses

- The FPS is increased to provide smooth a smooth viewing experience. Without a smoother 3D experience, people will still feel fatigued eyes when the motion is going too fast.

Here is a bit more info about 3D and FPS in Hobbit. http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682085/will-the-hobbit-start-a-...

quux• 14 years ago

MOst new tvs have a mode that adds extra interpolated frames to "improve" the frame rate of a 24 fps movie to 120 or higher. I can't stand this mode for 2D movies, but when i watch a 3D blueray is actually improves things a lot.

noiv• 14 years ago

Obviously glasses are superfluous. The frame rate thing is a straw-man. Why perception of 3D really fails is it allows the director to override your field of depth. Whatever depth you choose to focus it is not up to the physics of your eyes to determine what's sharp or not, instead it was already decided during the shot. This is like someone else changes slightly the dioptries of your contacts at random. Very annoying.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

Why extremetech isn't dead is a point to ponder. Seriously, adding 5 seconds to page load time on their mobile site? (On new iPads, even.)

jamieb• 14 years ago

My 2c. I have a 3D TV and I buy 3D blu-rays. Its the only reason I buy blu-rays now. Otherwise I buy online on Amazon or iTunes. We don't go to the movies ever. I do, however, enjoy the kind of silly, action movies, such as Transformers, that many of my clever friends turn the noses at. Not coincidentally these friends don't see the value that 3D adds to a movie. "The Piano", or "Withnail and I" probably wont ever benefit from 3D treatment. OTOH, action movies like Transformers, and gag movies like Despicable Me, are ideal for 3D and we now have about 10 glasses in our house for like minded friends and sleep-overs. I sincerely hope that there are enough of us to keep the 3D market going.

sliverstorm2• 14 years ago

I buy blurays exclusively now; I tried buying online, but I have not been particularly impressed by the quality. Bluray discs approach cost parity after they have been out a year or two, so I don't pay all that much more either.

Quizz• 14 years ago

A better sell is cheaper quality projectors or larger screen Larger screen size for less. Consumers will buy more 60" TVs if they drop to sub-$500 territory. More 60" TVs mean more "smart" content can be stuffed along the margins. Hardware is a commodity, but viewership on smart TVs will be the rage. TV manufacturers will be like phone carriers - subsidize the hardware in order to hook them on the software.

JabavuAdams• 14 years ago

Increasing resolution to 4k is silly for movies. It may make sense for sports, documentaries, or educational shows where you can show dense (computer-screen-like) data with the picture.

This same discussion comes up a lot in games, but the experience there is that increasing resolution just shows that you're using shitty digital puppets with bad acting/writing. Increasing pixel-throughput for post-processing or faking an "analog" look can lead to more creativity, though.

cjensen• 14 years ago

The resolution in any digital theater already is 4k. 1080p would look silly on a large screen.

mikec3k• 14 years ago

Good riddance.

jonnathanson• 14 years ago

"To the objective, cynical observer, 3D TV has always come across as a fad fabricated by TV makers and Hollywood to sell more TVs and Blu-ray discs."

I'm perhaps a subjective observer, working in the entertainment biz, though I consider myself cynical enough to pass similar judgment. 3D has been a fantastic way to build sizable margin into box office ticket prices, and presumably, the same logic compelled studios and electronics manufacturers to push 3D technology into the home: to keep the home video revenue stream alive for a few more, gloriously lucrative years.

Now I'll remove my cynic's cap. I think 3D is a very interesting piece of technology. I can count on five fingers the number of movies I've seen that make truly good use of 3D. Nonetheless, those that do seem to do it well. Say what you will about Dances With Aliens, errr, Avatar. But the use of 3D in that picture was pretty freaking cool. Same with (some) of the 3D in The Hobbit. When used to convey a sense of depth and scale, especially in wide shots over vertical landscapes, 3D can really bring a sense of majestic proportion to a big-budget film.

Does that mean I want to invest in a 3D TV for my home? No. The calculus that went into most consumers' purchases of 3D TVs was essentially "Eh, might as well." It was a hedge against the possibility that the future really would be all about 3D. If faced with a new TV purchase, some folks figured they might as well spring for the model with all the latest bells and whistles. If 3D ended up going nowhere, well, at least the TV could still play 2D at high def. There just weren't enough of these people to bankroll the 3D revolution, and/or enough people who could be convinced that a revolution was actually forthcoming.

As a consumer, as a production professional, and as a fanboy, I bear no animus toward 3D. I just think it will end up as another tool in the filmmaker's arsenal, rather than the Next Great Leap that Hollywood wanted people to think it was.

cube132• 14 years ago

As I was pricing out and comparing TV's, I found that in general, the 3D TV's actually tend to review with a better 2D image than the standard 2D TV's.

So there was a benefit to it, even if you're never going to use it.

koffiezet• 14 years ago

The reason for this is simple, for getting as much light to both eyes as with a 'normal' 2D image, they need waaay more brightness - which means a more accurate color-range, and to let it appear as smoothly, they need higher refresh frequencies, certainly for active 3D solutions. This results in a much better 2D-experience also...

3D tech is - as the article says, incredibly low-tech. Or you use polarized filters, or you need a way to synchronize your shutter-glasses and quickly alternate the images. Personally I'm absolutely no a 3D fan, but if I have to choose a tech, please give me shutter glasses. Provided your TV can handle the higher refresh frequency AND higher brightness levels, it's far superior. 3D with polarized filters give me instant headache and it looks like all the colors are bland and washed out, certainly in the movie theaters...

sageikosa2• 14 years ago

Lacking stereoscopic depth perception, I fail to be drawn towards 3D anything.

baddox2• 14 years ago

3D printing should still be of interest to you. ;)

sageikosa2• 14 years ago

OK. Correction: any 3D rendering illusion that requires con-focal ocular capabilities.

brennenHN• 14 years ago

ONLY 20-30% market share?! How much turnover is there in the TV market normally?

madaxe• 14 years ago

Colour is dead. Nobody's talking about their colour TVs any more.

3D TV is Dead

Related Stories