Is 3D dead? (on 3D Blu-ray and 3D TVs)

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Peachfuzz

I loved 3D Blu-Ray, but it's gone. On a good display, it looked great. Sadly, a lot of displays had terrible ghosting and gave you headaches, which is what I think killed it. Having two display formats - passive and active - didn't help. I'm fortunate enough to own a Samsung 65" UHD TV that does active 3D (the last they produced). It's near perfect at it. I also have a projector that does active 3D flawlessly. Now and then, I'll still pick up a 3D film at a budget price. I suppose TV manufacturers could do full 1080p passive on 4K sets if they wanted. I'd like that, but maybe cost is an issue. 3D will probably come back one day in a 'glasses free' form.

I appreciate we got to have classics like Creature from the Black Lagoon and House of Wax while it lasted.

I appreciate that too. I think it's great. I never dreamed I would have such a collection years ago.

But there's a lot of 3-D classics we don't have, and won't get if enough people go around trying to convince everyone that it's all over and powers that be decide to listen. Spacehunter, Starchaser, Bwana Devil, I the Jury, Phantom of the Rue Morgue, Hondo, Flesh for Frankenstein, The Charge at Feather River, Gorilla At Large, The White Poodle, The Stranger wore a Gun, Mark of the Wolfman. Some of these titles may yet see release, many others will never be seen in 3-D again. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

There's also modern 3D movies that failed to secure a 3D release, or only barely managed it. This is why I no longer wait for sales and budget-price 3D. In the early days I did, I took it for granted that there was plenty more to come. These days I see that when one title underperforms, a title I really care about may be denied a 3D release. Which is not to say I buy absolutely everything, but if I'm going to buy it, I buy it sooner rather than later. If enough people do the same we can keep this going a while yet and maybe we'll get the opportunity to see some really incredible 3D movies.

[petergee]

Here, here!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

I appreciate that too. I think it's great. I never dreamed I would have such a collection years ago.

But there's a lot of 3-D classics we don't have, and won't get if enough people go around trying to convince everyone that it's all over and powers that be decide to listen. Spacehunter, Starchaser, Bwana Devil, I the Jury, Phantom of the Rue Morgue, Hondo, Flesh for Frankenstein, The Charge at Feather River, Gorilla At Large, The White Poodle, The Stranger wore a Gun, Mark of the Wolfman. Some of these titles may yet see release, many others will never be seen in 3-D again. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

There's also modern 3D movies that failed to secure a 3D release, or only barely managed it. This is why I no longer wait for sales and budget-price 3D. In the early days I did, I took it for granted that there was plenty more to come. These days I see that when one title underperforms, a title I really care about may be denied a 3D release. Which is not to say I buy absolutely everything, but if I'm going to buy it, I buy it sooner rather than later. If enough people do the same we can keep this going a while yet and maybe we'll get the opportunity to see some really incredible 3D movies.

AFAIAC, it’s far from done. I have 18 3D titles still in the wrappers ready to watch next year and I have enjoyed two dozen this year. I keep them for the new year to cheer me up when I go back to work after Christmas.

[LordoftheRings]

Christmas 2020 in 3D is absolute best timing.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Yes

No projector is certified as HDR capable. How do you increase the light level that is called for in the HDR metadata?

Even professional cinema projectors aren't certified Dolby Vision. The way Dolby Cinema shows Dolby Vision encoded movies is to have two top of the line Christie Laser Projectors. One shows the SDR images and the other uses the metadata from the DV encode to project the HDR highlights.

That would be the only way to have HDR at home: use two projectors. The problem is no consumer priced "box" exists that would separate the HDR metadata from the consumer DV video stream.

I believe the new Christie eclipse can pull this off....for a high price.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Paul H

There is no consumer choice anymore. It's active 3D now. An added expense; and I hate the fact accessory glasses need maintenance, and can wear out.
Batteries need replacement and/or scheduled recharging, and polarized lense synchronization can become irregular/faulty and/or fail.

Passive 3D glasses came a dime-a-dozen and IMO, provided 3D perfection.

Only if by “perfection” you mean a narrow field of optimal view. High end active set-ups allow greater freedom of position and better maintain optimal 3D despite seating position and angle of view.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Freakyguy666

Only if by “perfection” you mean a narrow field of optimal view.

Yes. The 3D is perfection, realized @ my field of view.

[Peachfuzz]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It hasn’t gone at all. We are still getting 3DFA releases next year and one or two boutique labels are starting to release 3D Blu-ray. (Indicator and Vinegar Syndrome). As long as the flat version is included, I don’t see why that can’t continue as long as they sell (which they will)

That's actually good to know. I'd certainy purchase any titles that interest me.

[Freakyguy666]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Yes. The 3D is perfection, realized @ my field of view.

Imagine that level of 3D realized @ much greater field of view. That’s my idea of perfection.

[Lee A Stewart]

3-D TV is Officially Dead (For Now) and This is Why it Failed

Attention among manufactures is shifting to UHD, which, like 4G in telecoms, is actually a catch-all name for a grab bag of related technological improvements. (UHD covers not just higher resolution, but also options for improved color depth, sound, et cetera.) But before 3-D TV is put back into the technological attic, it’s worth discussing why it was such a spectacular failure (and hopefully learn some lessons for the future.)

There seem to be four main answers that seem to be bubbling up:

1. A small, but significant, number of consumers either don’t have stereoscopic vision in the first place, or found that the technology gave them eye strain or headaches.
   
2. The initial rush to get 3-D TV technology out meant that content was often created with immature systems by inexperienced creators, resulting in a great deal of poorly produced 3-D content that alienated early adopters. And good 3-D production requires non-trivial investments in training and equipment.
   
3. 3-D was largely useless as a story telling tool. With the exception of 2009’s Avatar and 2013’s Gravity, people were hard pressed to think of live-action movies that used the technology as an integral part of the cinematic experience.
   
4. Sports, which was considered to be a potential killer app for 3-D, fell victim to fact that inviting people around to watch the big game didn’t really work with handing out glasses, not least because of the expense involved in buying additional sets.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...-why-it-failed

Notice the source: IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Not some media blog.

[Interdimensional]

I had to google that because you didn't provide a functioning link. Jan 2014.

It's almost as old as this thread.

Well all I can say is I'm glad not everyone listened to them because some of the very best 3D movies and 3D-Blurays have come out in the past six years and will be coming out next year.

Of course they hedge their bets with a conclusion that opens with:

It’s unlikely that the dream of 3-D TV is dead.

[tripletopper]

Hey Lee, I'm not denying that your list caused the (temporary)ndeath of tv.

I believe one of those immaturities was the fact that in February 2012 if you broadcast on an atsc station, you either have to a) make the program 3D only with side by side half, therefore denying 2D viewing to other people or b) take a part another subchannel to add the second eye as an auxiliary stream but all those streams are full of secondary channels from secondary networks so you have to take one of them off to put yours on and unless you own more than one subchannel it's not going to work.

I'm here to talk to people about MVS. If I'm reading the description right it's a 2d compatible 3D where basically second eye information is hidden if you've got 2D equipment but if you got all 3D equipment and say 3D on it'll add the second eye which you said takes about half the size of a 2d compressed stream.

Also when I say 60 Hz, I mean it hurts in a literal definition of "countable thing per second". When I'm using it the countable thing is a frame. When I say a 30 hertz television show I mean 30 frames per second and yes I've seen animation go is cheap as somewhere between 10 and 15 hertz. But the format is broadcast perfectly fine on a 60 HZ TV.

If you could save frames, and if repeated frames just send a basic zero difference between frames, then that saves bits on the compression side, since you said the second eye of 3D takes half the size of the first eye then a 30 Hertz program, which a lot of the industry still uses because they just like the look of 30 Hertz versus 60 hertz, is already used, and we have room to accommodate the second eye. If there were a native 30 Hertz by two eye mode, the second eye is hidden unless everything in the chain is 3D in which case the second eye when activated to showed.

If that's what MVS is, that's exactly what I've been advocating. I just didn't know someone else came up with a name for it.

How do I tell if a broadcaster a cable carrier a satellite carrier a net carrier or show from any of those is mvs capable? I would actually like to use my 3D TV on broadcast and cable and internet? is there a directory of 3D friendly services and programs? I know YouTube has 2D compatible 3D converting side by side half into 2D for non-3D TVs and leaving it such for 3D

also I think the reason why the name mvs was chosen was because the 2012 Super Bowl and the 2011 run-up of hatred caused by incompatibility, that being stealthy about 3d is cool. Any reference to 3D would be avoided.

That's actually that not much of a stretch. The Sega Master System Sega Scope worked on any CRT TV. I understand it's a ping issue with modern TVs, but shouldn't plugging the 3D in the ARC resolve any display delay issues, and properly sync left and right?

And yes I agree if there was an all-time Lela Award ( The short name for the Stereoscopy awards, named ironically after Futurama's one-eyed alien) for best use of 3D and storytelling or gameplay, the five nominees from when 3D TVs were available at home to now would be Avatar Gravity, Life of Pi, Super Mario 3D (World or Land I forget which one is the 3DS one and which one is the Wii U one. I want the 3DS one) and Crush 3D for the 3DS.

One of those five should take the Ruby and Sapphire glasses trophy.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

I had to google that because you didn't provide a functioning link. Jan 2014.

It's almost as old as this thread.

Well all I can say is I'm glad not everyone listened to them because some of the very best 3D movies and 3D-Blurays have come out in the past six years and will be coming out next year.

Of course they hedge their bets with a conclusion that opens with:

Thanks for providing the link. I did edit my post with it.

Yep - new 3D movies in theaters, though less each year. Yep, new 3D BDs. Are they coming from the US or do you have to import them? But what isn't coming are new 3D TVs. And less BD players support 3D BD. Neither of the two new game consoles support it. 4K is what is being sold because that's what people are buying and that's what is being supported content wise.

3D for the home has gone from a mass market product to a micro niche. It can survive for quite a while there. Look how long Laserdisc survived.

[Lee A Stewart]

Abstract

This tutorial presents a hands-on view of the field of multi-view stereo with a focus on practical algorithms. Multi-view stereo algorithms are able to construct highly detailed 3D models from images alone. They take a possibly very large set of images and construct a 3D plausible geometry that explains the images under some reasonable assumptions, the most important being scene rigidity. The tutorial frames the multiview stereo problem as an image/geometry consistency optimization problem. It describes in detail its main two ingredients: robust implementations of photometric consistency measures, and efficient optimization algorithms. It then presents how these main ingredients are used by some of the most successful algorithms, applied into real applications, and deployed as products in the industry. Finally it describes more advanced approaches exploiting domain-specific knowledge such as structural priors, and gives an overview of the remaining challenges and future research directions.

I can't provide the link because it's a PDF Download and when opened will have my name in the URL

[Interdimensional]

/

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Are they coming from the US or do you have to import them?



It can survive for quite a while there. Look how long Laserdisc survived.

I have to import many of the ones I'm interested in from the US.

When was the last 3D-Bluray you bought? We're all quite aware of the situation. 3D continues as a niche, no thanks to all the naysayers who have tried to talk it into an early grave for years. It's not all that different from some of the things people say about physical media in general or theatrical exhibition these days.

It's as if they'll win some sort of bet by snuffing it out ahead of time for the sake of bragging rights. I don't appreciate it one little bit. It's like arguing in favour of a dystopian future. Not what any of us need at this time.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

/

I have to import many of the ones I'm interested in from the US.

When was the last 3D-Bluray you bought? We're all quite aware of the situation. 3D continues as a niche, no thanks to all the naysayers who have tried to talk it into an early grave for years. It's not all that different from some of the things people say about physical media in general or theatrical exhibition these days.

It's as if they'll win some sort of bet by snuffing it out ahead of time for the sake of bragging rights. I don't appreciate it one little bit. It's like arguing in favour of a dystopian future. Not what any of us need at this time.

I had to import Ralph Save the Internet from Japan for £60. That is steep. Fortunately, in the UK the Marvel movies are still released in 3D.

[Hass]

Hi, IMHO the main problem is that the companies wanted to premiumize 3D. Many people didn't want to watch a movie in 3D because it was more expensive. Movie tickets and 3D Bluray were like 50 cost about 50% more. And if you wanted to watch it at home you needed to buy it because outside of the US there were almost no rentals and no streaming services nor tv channels supported it. 4K is very easy to get through Netflix, Prime, Youtube, iTunes, etc while 3D didn't. iTunes movies cost as low as $2 here in Mexico and have a free upgrade to 4K, why couldn't we have that with 3D?

I have some 3D Blurays that have the 2D and 3D version in the same disc, I think that every 3D movie should have come like this with no "2D only" version, at the price of a normal Bluray. I mean, discs are the same, it shouldn't cost more to put an extra file in it. That way everyone would have a 3D version and maybe someone who's not a fan of 3D would watch one out of curiosity and actually like it, instead of having to decide between a $15 Bluray or paying $10 more for a version that they'll probably never watched. I know it sounds idealist but I think that if 3D was marketed that way it would've had a better acceptance.

Also, there are like five or six different HBO channels (at least here), I always wanted that they made one just for 100% 3D content, but sadly the only channels that were interested in 3D were sports channels in other countries

[8traxrule]

That's the huge problem- they wanted people to pay more money for it, and I'm actually surprised that ever worked at all in theaters. With theaters being closed for so long, it would be a great goodwill gesture for them to just drop the upcharges for it when they finally do open back up. For discs, 3D titles should just be on one disc without a separate 2D-only release- and funny enough the smaller labels have always done it that way. Don't make people jump through hoops just to get 3D material.

[DVDude86]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

That's the huge problem- they wanted people to pay more money for it, and I'm actually surprised that ever worked at all in theaters. With theaters being closed for so long, it would be a great goodwill gesture for them to just drop the upcharges for it when they finally do open back up. For discs, 3D titles should just be on one disc without a separate 2D-only release- and funny enough the smaller labels have always done it that way. Don't make people jump through hoops just to get 3D material.

But it takes a huge financial toll to make 3D only releases, because of how niche the audience is. I cant really blame the filming industry for doing both to maximize profits and doing both pushes the 3D to the sidelines, a vicious circle.

[Canada]

3D I would say interest in TVs are deader than a door nail, but it's still alive and kicking in the projector space.