So long 3DTV - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 04:19:42 am
content: So long, 3DTV - we won't miss youhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38778244

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 04:28:03 am
content: "Praise the lord and pass the ammunition."

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 04:55:54 am
content: I've seen some 3D movies and it's cool and stuff, but not more than that. I would not go out and buy a 3D TV for the sake of it.Also what ever happened to the red/blue 3D standard? Rather than requiring very specific glasses for that specific model TV it could be more universal. With that style of 3D you could also have stuff pop right up at you, while the current TV standards it's more "inwards".

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 05:07:34 pm
content: I remember the cinema 3D from the 1980's, with the need for a silvered high gain screen ( so as to not lose the polarisation info) with the poor colour rendering, and the hot seats in the centre. Don't think it has improved much since then, especially for the mass of people who have less than perfect binocular vision.IMAX yes, the bigger screen and lack of frame judder, but 3D not really, it is either relying on the 3D only and no real plot, continuity or even script, or it is not really needed.

author: cheeseit
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 06:49:27 pm
content: Good riddance. So, this is the third time 3D has come and gone? I'm predicting that it will return in about 20 years time, be the new and hot thing and then fizzle out yet again.

author: Terrius
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 07:34:11 pm
content: Quote from: cheeseit on January 28, 2017, 06:49:27 pmPerhaps in 20 years VR will have taken over and the big thing will be 2D movies because people will be tired of all the immersion.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 08:10:23 pm
content: Quote from: cheeseit on January 28, 2017, 06:49:27 pmProbably more times than that...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeleviewIt is inherently unnatural to watch 3d motion that is insensitive to the viewer's head and eye movement. The mismatch causes eyestrain and headaches. Because the effect will never be fully realistic, it is better to utilize it as a creative tool to allow new and different kinds of narrative.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_to_Language

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 08:24:15 pm
content: After all that hassle getting it into HDMI 1.4.Still useful for computer games I guess.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 08:31:17 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 28, 2017, 08:24:15 pmI don't think Nvidia cares about it anymore and AMD never really tried.Aside from a handful of films studios didn't bother with it and most of it was done in post process.HDR gives better sense of enjoyment than 3D does and HDR is easier to implement and will be more ubiquitous without the requirements of 3D.Now which version of HDR? That's probably not going to be solved until OLED dies and monitors have higher brightness specs.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2017, 11:25:24 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 28, 2017, 11:16:48 pmYou want quality incontentin preference to delivery?How rebellious of you!.... yet quaintly intriguing.

author: switchedmodepsu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 02:58:33 am
content: The public, the media and so-called "experts" are such utter mugs; I knew 3D TV was a fad the second I heard someone utter the phrase. Then again, no one's EVER sensible enough to laugh with derision at a clearly STUPID format or write it off until it's been "officially" announced by some "industry expert" or the media in general, that "it was a failure".I don't care about 4K and all the obsession with that, I don't care about 1080p particularly - my TV is a 2007 Panasonic plasma that doesn't even have720presolution, and do you know what I say? BIG DEAL. I watch something because I am interesting in taking in the documentary or story that is being conveyed to me, I do not watch television to get my ruler and magnifying glass out and COUNT HOW MANY PIXELS IT HAS. The modern world has become pathologically OBSESSED with specifications - I am enjoying the programme, SCREW THE PIXEL COUNT, HD looks perfectly fine on a LESS than 720p plasma, because life just ain't long enough to count DOTS ON A SCREEN. Take my lack of caring obsessively about resolution and "colour gamut" and multiply it by a factor of one trillion, and you'll see how much I couldn't care less, AT ALL, about this shite.When you're interested in the thing you're watching enough to warrant stopping life and sitting down and burning hours on watching it, you would be wise to forget the resolution and just ENJOY THE STORY!It took them THIS LONG to realise? Wow, talk about slow on the uptake.- it's such a superficial novelty, seriously, go away with your stupid gimmicks and hype, I'll watch anything on ANY TV.

author: switchedmodepsu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 03:12:16 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 28, 2017, 11:16:48 pm^ A sensible, rational person, the likes of whom are VERY few and far between.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 05:04:20 am
content: Our LG TV incorporates 3D capability and came with four sets of spectacles but I never bought it for that reason and had little or no intention of ever using it, LG also had some sort of bullshit subscription site where they would make 3D content and movies available for those who like to broadcast their private and personal details, like that's a really good idea.I did test the feature initially out of curiosity but it only made me dizzy and felling slightly sick, I never saw the point of it and she who likes to chuck stuff puts my instinctive duck for cover reflex to the test on a regular basis anyway.I could see how younger kids might get excited over such a thing with cartoons and so on but like most other fads the novelty soon wears off, one thing I do miss on TV and would spend hours in a day hours looking at was a decent test pattern, I have these permanently etched in my brain so most of the time even with my eyes shut I rarely lose focus on the bigger picture.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 05:21:56 am
content: Good riddance. I tried a few in store demos and found they all gave me a headache on top of adding almost nothing to the experience. Seems like manufactures are always putting out gimmicks trying to make it the next big thing and it always feels so forced.Now if only "smart" TVs would die right along with 3D. All I want is a great quality display with a load of inputs, why is that so hard? There's simply no excuse to have only 2 or 3 HDMI inputs and then waste effort including a pathetically out of date embedded computer with piss poor UI design. I keep a TV for 10 years or longer, the "smart" part is obsolete after only a year or two.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 06:02:11 am
content: It's been so poorly improperly aligned, and crappy uncomfortable glasses, it's like the stereo sound of the days of the early Beatles where you had vocals on one speaker and some instruments on the other side.It can never come back in such a poor and primitively implemented form.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 10:53:32 am
content: 3DTV was actually a thing?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2017, 12:24:59 am
content: I remember my first PC well over 20 years ago had a "3D upgrade" that came with a pair of glasses. Really not much different from the "3D" that was so hyped a few years ago.Quote from: switchedmodepowersupply on January 29, 2017, 02:58:33 amJust watch one of the EEVblog teardowns in 1080p and you won't want to watch it on anything less. I actually kinda wish he would film teardowns in 4K but that's not happening anytime soon because he invested a lot in a 1080p setup... And 4K DSLRs are still very expensive.Quote from: helius on January 28, 2017, 08:10:23 pmNot just 3D - even badly stabilized 2D videos make a lot of viewers uncomfortable.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2017, 01:51:24 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2017, 10:53:32 amIf you listened to TV manufactures or looked at what was shown in CES for a few years you'd certainly think so. It was hyped to death but predictably consumers mostly saw it as the gimmick it was. Even if the technology hadn't been so flawed (who wants to wear goofy glasses just to watch TV??) a majority of the content was crap. Most "3D" movies were filmed in 2D and the phony 3D effects were added.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2017, 12:15:49 am
content: All you guys who get headaches watching 3D are why the format died, more than any other reason. It is a real phenomenon and apparently affects somewhere between 15 and 35 percent of the population. My wife and I both actually enjoy 3D movies, though the enjoyment varies widely with the content. Some content just doesn't benefit from 3D, and many directors don't understand how to use the effect. One of the movies that is surprisingly good in 3D is a post processed version of the Wizard of Oz. We are mourning the end of the commercial medium.I also enjoy using the TV to display my own still stereo photographs. Much better than the second best approach I have found, using a small stereo viewer. I make most of them with my cell phone, just moving a few inches between pictures. Obviously this technique stinks for moving subjects, and if people are involved requires posing skills that haven't been needed since the days of tinplates. These stills have taught me a lot about what makes stereo good, and also what makes it terrible. Even after all the learning I still end up with a few percent really outstanding shots, a few tens of percent shots that are OK to look at, and many tens of percent shots that actually hurt to look at. Some of those can be repaired by Photoshop techniques. Things like a moving car can cause severe disorientation, but if removed from the scene can result in an acceptable shot.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2017, 01:12:07 am
content: I could watch something for 10-15 minutes in 3D before I have a splitting headache.I have the same problem with a lot of PWM-dimmed LED backlit LCD monitors, the flicker gives me horrible eye strain. The worst part is that people who can't see the flicker think I'm just being snobby about my super sensitive vision or something, or claim that the human eye can't perceive flicker beyond X Hz and it's all in my head. Believe me, if I had the option of not seeing flicker I would gladly take it.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2017, 05:25:08 pm
content: If I remember correctly, episode no. 1 (October 1, 1955) of the CBS TV "Honeymooners" sitcom series featured Ralph refusing to buy a television set, because he was waiting for 3D television.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2017, 06:26:20 pm
content: Good riddance. I never liked it, not because it gave me headaches, but because of two things:1) True 3D has two different effects on your eyes. a) When something is closer to you, your eyes have to move inward to continue to view the object. b) When something is closer to you, your eyes have to "accomodate", or re-focus due to the shorter distance to the object (this is the same whether you're looking with one eye or two). The problem with 3D movies/TV, is they take care of part a, but not part b. Your eyes have to physically move to view the new "position" of the object due to each eye receiving a slightly different image, however the focal plane is still fixed at the screen. That disconnect I believe is what causes headaches in so much of the population, but even without a headache, it still feels violently unnatural and completely breaks my immersion into the story.2) Every 3D movie I've seen plays with focus WAY too much, I believe to help combat part b above. They intentionally defocus objects in the background, possibly to reduce the strain on the viewer's eyes, however this causes an even bigger problem for me...I am constantly searching the screen trying to find the thing that's in focus. I spend more time scanning the screen trying to find what I'm apparently supposed to be looking at than actually watching or enjoying the movie.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2017, 06:32:10 pm
content: Quote from: switchedmodepowersupply on January 29, 2017, 02:58:33 amI disagree completely. Enjoying HD has nothing to do with counting pixels or getting out a ruler...watching SD is like going to a play with fogged up glasses. Would you really just sit there in the audience, barely able to see any details, just watching objects moving around the screen and listening to dialog, or would you grab a piece of cloth and wipe off your glasses so you could actually see what's going on clearly?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2017, 07:53:17 pm
content: Yes, although most people's impression of "SD" is overcompressed interpolated crap on a HD screen, or the cheap low end CRT TVs that were so common. I still have a 27" Sony Trinitron XBR downstairs that I primarily use for retro gaming but when I play a DVD on that TV I'm always impressed by how great it looks. The image quality on a *good* analog standard definition display is much better than the raw specs would suggest. I suppose it's similar to the way vinyl sounds so good to some people, and indeed it does sound good, I'm no audiophile and digital sounds just fine to me, but analog sounds better than I would expect by comparing specs.

author: Gary350z
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 09:20:30 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on January 28, 2017, 04:55:54 amWhatHave you ever tried it? Even when it works good, the red image going in one eye and the blue image going in the other eye makes my brain hurt

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 09:34:26 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 31, 2017, 12:15:49 amI don't get headaches, eye strain, or anything else, and I still hate it. It just looks like fake crap and distracts entirely from the visual story I'm trying to enjoy.Perhaps it's a lifetime of 2D conditioning, I don't know. But I do know that I've never gone "wow" when watching 3D, or using those VR headsets etc.I see other people go "wow" and I sit there like WTF are you seeing that I'm not?So if it doesn't add any "wow", and looks fake and distracting, then there is no point watching it.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 02:38:38 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 02, 2017, 09:34:26 amOK. That doesn't take away from those of us who do enjoy it. Fake and distracting happens. There are bad movies in any genre. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 3D photography is difficult, significantly harder than regular photography. You need to do everything that you do in normal photos right, plus a few more, so it isn't surprising that there are quite a few 3D clinkers out there, particularly in an immature market.It is just sad that the market wasn't large enough to merit continued support. Those who don't like 3D don't have to watch, but now those of us who do, can't. Imagine the situation if the vast majority of people who don't get any "wow" out of electronics hobbies had the power to eliminate the possibility of participating in the hobby. I can tell that my electronics hobby will be important in keeping my 3D TV alive for quite a while.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 02, 2017, 03:00:20 pm
content: Good riddance!I have just watched two or three movies in 3D, and it proved to be quite pointless.Avatar, which is probably the best shot 3D movie ever, also showed its limitations pretty well.A movie is not just some "display" in which you see a set and a bunch of actors doing their stuff. It's not a theatre stage. In movies there are several very important resources that help not to display some action, but to tell you a story in a certain way. These resources are so important, in some cases they can matter much more than the story itself!First of course is light, and its counterpart: shadow. Directors, directors of photography and colorists play with light, shadow and color even. I remember a very good phrase by Roger Deakins who said something like "in a set, what matters most is what you don't see".Second and less known:focus and depth of field. Together with camera movements, the person in charge of telling the story guides you to look at the intended center of attention. Watch a movie. Notice the usually shallow depth of field, how focus helps you separate the main subject from the background more often than the lighting.I remember that Avatar, for instance, was really weird to watch. Because there were those moments where you saw a 3D scene in which the main subject was in focus while the rest of the frame was out of focus. The usual thing in movies. But being 3D you were tempted to just look around, maybe focus on something different than the main character, only to see that it was really out of focus.2D photography offers a limited picture compared to our 3D vision. But it has become an expressive resource in itself. Maybe in a similar way to B/W, which was at first just a technical limitation only to become yet another resource in the bag of tricks of the cinematographer. With a difference, though. While the additional information offered by color photography compared to B/W can be meaningful (and yet, watch a movie such as "The Man Who Wasn't There" to see how much you can achieve by removing color and keeping most of the frame in shadows) I have yet to see an example in which 3D really adds something meaningful to the experience.I won't say it's not possible, maybe someone will crack the code in the future. But our current cinema language works with our without color but fails miserably with 3D.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 11:57:46 am
content: 3D is dead, as is Blu-ray. DVDs are dying and CD's are dead except as prizes to old people on "golden oldies" radio stations.I knew a fellow university student in 1977 who actually paid a fortune for one of these (and the tapes were so damned expensive)...http://www.obsoletemedia.org/elcaset/The websitehttp://www.obsoletemedia.org/is very interesting, where is shows media formats as far back as the 1600's. Many names of great companies that are now only memories. It does not, however list the fabulous "stringy floppy" made by Exatron that a friend had for his TRS-80 that I was a little jealous of.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 01:07:58 pm
content: Good. Next is the curved screens I hope.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 01:56:48 pm
content: There is a movie called "The Walk" which has a great story, great actors and can be seen in either 2D or 3D... And the 3D this time is really part of the plot of the movie, not just added on to be a gimmick... They tried to make it as good as possible. I urge those reading to watch it if they haven't done so already and report back on whether they would prefer 2D or 3D.I think you will find there are a critical mass of people that will be nauseated by the fear inducing visuals. It explains why even in movies like "The Walk" where there is a genuine reason for using it, and the 3D was implemented probably as good as they could get it, still polarizes (no pun intended) audiences.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walk_(2015_film)The other thing I would mention is 3D in a theatre is very different than on a home TV. There is a market for content in theatres but then they tried to see if they could sell it and make more money to home audiences and basically fell flat. I would pay to see a 3D movie on a big screen but not waste money on 3D content for home.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 02:14:44 pm
content: 3D TV might still have some enthusiasts:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/01/avn-porn-3d-tv-app-store.html

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 07:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: GK on February 03, 2017, 02:14:44 pmThis 3D technology didn't take off either, I know the adult entertainment industry trail-blazed the home video and online streaming industries, but this is an area which even they can't seem to... ahem.... penetrate.Let's hope it doesn't happen either.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2017, 07:49:40 pm
content: Having thought about it, another factor in the death of 3D was surely because of the lack of bandwidth available in HDMI 2.0. HDR/10-bit colour & 4k & 3D = too high data rate. Obviously this doesn't change the fact 3D was a novelty that quickly got old but still...

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2017, 01:30:36 pm
content: Quote from: edy on February 03, 2017, 07:02:34 pmLooks like it has a mallet to simulate a knee to the testicles.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2017, 05:36:48 pm
content: Quote from: edy on February 03, 2017, 07:02:34 pmThe BD disk showed off too high a resolution, so many stars had to get extra makeup and such to cover the flaws. This really spoilt the illusion, as the slightly blurred picture left a lot more for the human sex organ ( the brain, the rest is just IO structure) to use in generating the fantasy. in reality they all have unwanted cellulite, scars, stretch marks and little hair marks showing, along with wrinkles in all the wrong places and saggy bits. Just like the models on magazine covers, they all need a little work in production to keep up the perfection illusion, unless you are into the Hedgehog look and that whole side.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2017, 07:21:58 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on February 03, 2017, 01:07:58 pmThe curved screens are even dumber than 3D. At least with 3D you can have it and choose not to use it, but you can't flatten out a curved screen. We spent decades trying to make screens as flat as possible and then go and curve them the other way just to make a fashion statement? It screamed "useless gimmick" the moment I first saw one. They did it to try to make the OLED sets stand out, of course it took almost no time at all for LCD manufactures to copy the look. It's all so pointless since OLED stands out on its own without any gimmicks.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2017, 07:32:16 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on February 04, 2017, 05:36:48 pmCall me old fashioned but I prefer the real thing or my imagination if that's not available.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2017, 08:08:34 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on February 04, 2017, 07:32:16 pmWell, if you meet a few of the acting talents you pretty much realise they are all high maintenance drama filled attention seekers. plenty are great exterior, but zip zero nada inside there at all. Off camera there is no glamour.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2017, 10:51:25 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on February 04, 2017, 08:08:34 pmThat may be true for some of them but that's a bit of a generalisation. True they may mostly be intention seekers but they probably have other sides to their personalities. Some of the actors might just be there to raise money to pay for university.