BBC Says 3D TVs Are Dead

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

Well, the BBC is not really considered a top-notch technology-news source, but yesterday they had this article about TV manufacturers stopping the production of 3D TVs: “So long, 3DTV – we won’t miss you”.

 

Then today it was taken up by The Daily Mail: “Pulling the plug on a hi-tech turkey: Last two major 3D TV manufacturers announce they will no longer be making the sets”.

 

I bet some of you knew from the get-go that 3D movies are pointless and that this was just a matter of time.

[Guest]

It was a silly idea to begin with, I need to watch the news in 3D? So I can experience the blood and carnage they spew out on a nightly basis with greater effect?

 

3D as medium is just a cheap trick by Hollywood anyway, kinda like, "IMAX". HA!

 

R,

[John E Clark]

I think as early as 2013 there were rumblings that 3D home entertainment was not taking off... One wonders what is going to happen to all those 3-d BD disks that people bought...

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea 3D at home was silly. People simply don't care about 3D and if you put the same 3D movies at the same theaters in 2D, they would have identical attendance. Eventually the industry, especially IMAX, will wake up and realize they don't NEED to spend the money to convert every 2D movie into 3D in order to make money.

 

Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

[Guest]

Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

 

 

Well exactly Tyler, how much resolution do you need for the human eye!!!

 

R,

[Jack OGara]

3D was never going to take off. I think I have 1 3D DVD from 2005 and that is it. It was fun to watch Shrek in 3D but that is about it. Just not bothered

since.

 

4K HDR will kick off but wont fail though. Once people see it they really want it. But there is so little out there atm that support it in terms of TVs and content providers. Even then the content.

Unlike 3D, it is not a gimmick, it is evolution of home cinema and HD/UHD broadcasting.

 

Betting £5 on it.

[John E Clark]

3D was never going to take off. I think I have 1 3D DVD from 2005 and that is it. It was fun to watch Shrek in 3D but that is about it. Just not bothered

since.

 

4K HDR will kick off but wont fail though. Once people see it they really want it. But there is so little out there atm that support it in terms of TVs and content providers. Even then the content.

Unlike 3D, it is not a gimmick, it is evolution of home cinema and HD/UHD broadcasting.

 

Betting £5 on it.

 

Do we have to show up in the UK to get that (funny L symbol)5?

 

The one thing with 4K is that there are a large number of people who like the big screen, and that would support some 4K sales. Personally I've not upgraded my 720 'native' TV screen to even 1080(ip)... But then I don't position my viewing a football field's worth of distance away...

 

In terms of Broadcast... the real deal with implementing ATSC-3 or DVB-T2, which has higher resolution capabililty, is... more subchannels at reduced resolution...

 

In the US there has been a great amount of TV band channel 'repacking' which is to say, combining what use to be separate stations and transmitters into one transmitter, with the separate stations on a subchannel.

 

As for content providers shooting in 4K... could be sort of an ad gimmick or future-proofing, having been caught out on the NTSC/PAL resolutions of yore when the cutting edge went to 720/1080.

 

For my product, I watch a lot of content, purely for academic research purposes mind you... and one of the features of some HTML5 content is being able to see the bit rates that the media is being received, at. And often, even for 'HD' selection, the bit rate is below 5Mbs.

 

There have also been startling revelations from Netflix last year, that for content accessed via smart phones from providers like ATT, Netflix has adjusted the resolution/data rate to minimize going over the data caps that ATT has in place.

 

In a word, the industry uses for 4K suck people in, and then the reality is 'things are different'.

 

Most people don't spend time looking at performance much after they decide to get X service.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think HDR is in danger of failing because the manufacturers aren't really doing it properly. The 1500 to 4000 nit high grade professional stuff looks spectacular. I fear the 1000 nit LCDs and 500 nit OLEDs in consumer world just aren't sufficiently better.

 

P

[Michael LaVoie]

I never was blown away by 3D until I got a projector. With a 7.1 audio system, it's a nice addition. On a TV, meh.

[Stuart Brereton]

Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

I very much doubt it.

 

There is a very noticeable difference in image quality between 4k Netflix/Amazon and the HD stream, viewed on the same 4k TV

 

The push towards 4k TVs may have been to satisfy the computer game market, but movie and TV producers increasingly have one eye on the 4k market, and are future proofing their product by demanding 4k origination, even if there are currently few ways to broadcast it.

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes I think the 4K will stick.. for better or worse.. the TV manufacturers ,that by coincident make camera,s.. will just stop making non 4K sets.. then we had no choice .. and then hopefully HDR Rec 2020 comes in.. and we really will see a difference over HD..

I could see 3D TV,s were going out years ago here in Tokyo.. the massive, I mean like 10 story electronic shops were full of 3D sets .. as Sony/Pana really pushed them for the London Olympics.. they sold like chocolate fire guards.. and disappeared very quickly.. to be replaced by 4K sets of mind boggling size.. which are still there but have plummeted in price at least.. they all have netflix built in with a button on the remote..

Edited January 31, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Well exactly Tyler, how much resolution do you need for the human eye!!!

Depends on how far away you are from the screen. I mean, my screen is around 7 feet wide and I sit around 12 feet away. So yea in that case, it would be nice to have a higher resolution device. As a filmmaker who appreciates technology, I will absolutely invest in a 4k, laser-based, three chip DLP projector at some point. It's been my dream forever to have a decent home theater projector (I don't do monitors). For the vast majority of people who have 50 - 70 inch TV's, you'd have to sit 6 - 8 feet away for the resolution to matter.

[Tyler Purcell]

There is a very noticeable difference in image quality between 4k Netflix/Amazon and the HD stream, viewed on the same 4k TV

That's because they use two different streaming technologies. The 1080p signal is .h264 at around 5Mbps and the UHD signal is .h265 at around 15Mbps. If you streamed 1080p @ 15Mbps, you'd be not complaining. I have dozens of 15Mbps rips from BluRay and you can't tell the difference from the original media. (BD is 35 - 50Mbps .h264)

 

Also... right now it's in a "beta" phase. Once more people start using it, the quality will reduce. I remember when HBO did a special satellite HD Broadcast years ago, it looked awesome because it was 19Mbps! Long GOP MPEG2 stream and it was amazing. Now, we're lucky to get 1 - 5Mbps on satellite TV.

[Max Field]

So it took them like 7-8 years to figure it out? I own a hand-me-down 3D-ready TV my Dad bought in 2011 and I remember calling him a god damn moron the day he brought it home.

[Robin R Probyn]

Macks I have a genius plan for you.. get your dad to buy a non4K Alexa.. then you can tell him he's a moron .. and you get a free camera ,, voila ! ..

[Robin R Probyn]

Side note.. Sony are just showing their new 2/3 inch sensor 4K ENG shoulder cam in the UK now.. not on sale yet...

[Max Field]

Macks I have a genius plan for you.. get your dad to buy a non4K Alexa.. then you can tell him he's a moron .. and you get a free camera ,, voila ! ..

He's dead now. Guess I won that debate.

[Robin R Probyn]

He's dead now. Guess I won that debate.

 

 

Sorry.. seemed a good plan at the time..

[Max Field]

 

 

Sorry.. seemed a good plan at the time..

Still is, but the variables will need to be reworked slightly. Then I can take videos fast food restaurants in 2.7K

[Phil Rhodes]

3D was always a crap idea. Very few people genuinely liked it.

 

I was always very dismayed at the number of people who were willing to talk it up on the basis they thought they'd make money out of it. I thought some people made themselves look very stupid in trying to defend this stuff, but I hold out no great hope that any grand retractions are likely to be issued now 3D has failed for what, the fifth time?

 

P

[Mark Dunn]

 

Do we have to show up in the UK to get that (funny L symbol)5?

 

We still have the $ on our keyboards because of the programming connection, but you've not much use for the pound sign . It's alt 0163 if you ever need it. Or just google and paste it.

You used to be able to change over keyboard layouts in control panel. Good luck with that, old boy, what?

Edited January 31, 2017 by Mark Dunn

[Keith Walters]

Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

Well it's not generally known, but 4K panels were originally developed to produce 1920 x 1080 3-D displays that didn't require "active" glasses. By covering every other RGB triad with spots of so-called "Retardation Film", half of the triads will have their light 90º polarized with respect to the other half, so you can use the same cheap passive glasses they use in cinemas.

 

I have seen samples of sets that use this technology with 1920 x 1080 "retardation" panels for 3-D and it does work surprisingly well, considering you're only getting a 540-line image.

 

 

Haven't you ever wondered why they bothered with 4K screens in sizes under 50 inches? 4K would really only be useful with really big panels (100 inches or more). Screens can't practically be much bigger than that, as you wouldn't be able to get them through most domestic doorways!

[Ravi Kiran]

3D will be around for a while theatrically, though it doesn't seem like many people are clamoring for 3D at home. People don't decide to buy TVs because a new feature has been introduced. They buy them if their old set degrades or stops working, and their new sets will simply happen to be HD or have whatever feature is standard at the time. Look how long SDTVs lingered in people's homes after the introduction of HDTV.

 

Artistically 3D has potential, though it always felt more like a studio imposition or an afterthought. It doesn't seem like that many directors were interested in experimenting with it, which is surprising, since the technology to create and project 3D has never been better. But unlike other innovations (sound, color, widescreen, surround sound), 3D requires you to wear something to experience it, and for a lot of people that's an issue.

 

4KTV does look better, but it's not such a big leap that I wouldn't be able to watch 1080, the way 1080 made SD seem unwatchable in comparison. The average consumer would probably be fine with 720p, nevermind 4K.

[Max Field]

3D feels like it barely works in the theaters as is. I saw Amazing Spiderboy 2 and half the time I was seeing the depth lines through the glasses.

[George Ebersole]

Well, the BBC is not really considered a top-notch technology-news source, but yesterday they had this article about TV manufacturers stopping the production of 3D TVs: “So long, 3DTV – we won’t miss you”.

 

Then today it was taken up by The Daily Mail: “Pulling the plug on a hi-tech turkey: Last two major 3D TV manufacturers announce they will no longer be making the sets”.

 

I bet some of you knew from the get-go that 3D movies are pointless and that this was just a matter of time.

 

 

I haven't read the entire thread, but my feelings on 3D was that it was stupid from the start. Go to any art museum, and what do you see? You see paintings mostly. Some sculptures, some other things soo, but it's mostly relatively flat 2D renderings of whatever it is.

 

What you don't see are dioramas on any scale. Oh sure, go to a natural history museum and you'll see recreations of animals in their natural environment, maybe some extinct animals and our ancestors, but it's there to give you an idea of what those creatures are or were like.

 

Ditto with film. If you want 3D, if you truly want​ 3D, then go see a play.

 

Like I posted a few years back on another 3D thread, there was a better technology than todays being developed in silicon valley out of some garage by a couple of guys. The news' piece ran on KNTV Channel 11, then an ABC affiliate (Now NBC I think). Their technology didn't require that you wear any hokey (or just plain dumb) glasses, but had the signal from two televisions or two cameras weaving an image together on one TV.

 

Instead of the images seemingly like they're in three dimensions in front of you, the reported described the effect as "looking out a window".

 

I think the reason that technology never took off like today's 3D is because 3D doesn't enhance the movie experience. You're there to see a great story, maybe some cool visuals, but mostly you're there to see the characters and have your values confirmed in one form or another. Who gives a flying-F if it's in 3D or not.

 

Just me.