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

[8traxrule]

Paramount isn't releasing it, but they've at least licensed it out.

Still open to ordering another TV from outside the US if any come out.

[Gibby11]

hi i cant afford a projector and why is it bad

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by film11

Not dead but certainly sabotaged.

How is it sabotaged? The marketplace has always dictated if something will succeed...

The fault of the whole 3D craze this round was it was based on the success of one film, Avatar.

I'm glad for the people that love the format, it finally gave them a legitimate home video option, and many releases of "classic" 3D films. The reality is the average consumer just didn't care after the first couple of years.

Fitprod

[8traxrule]

The average consumer just doesn't care about surround sound (forget setting up all those speakers across a room!), many don't even care about hi-def. Does that mean we should just get rid of those technologies and be forced to go backwards?

3D was sabotaged in plenty of ways, mainly by making people go out of their way to obtain 3D content. There should never have even been any separate 2D-only editions of movies, the smaller companies mostly just released one edition that included 3D whether the buyer needed it or not. Streaming 3D had horrible hardware support and then titles there were expensive (many 3D titles on Vudu are still in the $30 range, without even any rental option.)

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

The average consumer just doesn't care about surround sound (forget setting up all those speakers across a room!), many don't even care about hi-def. Does that mean we should just get rid of those technologies and be forced to go backwards?

No - they find solutions: Sound Bars.

3D was sabotaged in plenty of ways, mainly by making people go out of their way to obtain 3D content. There should never have even been any separate 2D-only editions of movies, the smaller companies mostly just released one edition that included 3D whether the buyer needed it or not. Streaming 3D had horrible hardware support and then titles there were expensive (many 3D titles on Vudu are still in the $30 range, without even any rental option.)

3D on other content deliver systems was hampered by not being able to use frame packing which preserves the Full HD resolution. SbS or T/B loses 50% of the resolution.

Niche = expensive

[kidglov3s]

The 3D rollout/support definitely could've been better. TV manufacturer exclusive 3D Blu-rays were a terrible idea, for one. Another would be not using just one disc for native 3D productions for 2D and 3D across the board (this would not apply as ideally to conversions as I understand neither of the 'eyes' of conversions are 1:1 representative of the 2D master).

Blame must also fall on the whole 2010s approach to parallax. When you present 3D movies that barely look any different it's hard to blame audiences for rejecting it.

Another thing that could've gone differently is gaming. I've had some great 3D gaming experiences, like De Blob 2, Wipeout and Crysis 3. But not a lot of games utilized 3D, and afaik there was no big AAA killer app 3D video game for the PS3/X360.

3DTV as launched in 2010 was going to be an uphill battle no matter what, but there were definitely unforced errors and missed opportunities.

[8traxrule]

Sound bars are the biggest joke in the history of consumer electronics, right up there with those disco lights that plugged into speaker terminals in the 70s. Yes, they sound better than TV speakers, but so do some clock radios. Get a real sound system or go home.

My clueless aunt has a soundbar mounted under her TV UPSIDE-DOWN!

[8traxrule]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

3D on other content deliver systems was hampered by not being able to use frame packing which preserves the Full HD resolution. SbS or T/B loses 50% of the resolution.

Granted I don't know a lot about how it actually works, but streaming 3D won't work on just anything- the device has to specifically support it. The 3D TV and 3D Blu-Ray player I got in 2012 both had Vudu and Netflix apps, but NEITHER of them "supported" 3D on those. I even bought a 3D documentary on Vudu through their website in anticipation of getting them, and was greeted with a message "Sorry, this device does not support 3D!". It wasn't til I got my LG TV in 2017 that I was able to watch it.

Netflix did 3D completely half-assed. Hardly any equipment supported it, and then they dropped it due to "lack of interest". I would have watched every 3D title they had if my equipment had simply been able to access it. (I've since dropped Netflix due to their current interface that treats everyone like they have ADD.) If they had made a few BIG 3D movies available on EVERY 3D TV, I doubt that would have been a "failure". Ditto for Vudu if the studios hadn't wanted $35 per title.

[globalimages]

Playback of bluray 3D content via PC will be more difficult in the future, it seems.

https://www.cyberlink.com/support/fa...nt.do?id=24902

So fewer playback methods, fewer TV screens and with suppliers of 3D theater systems like Master Image having disappeared from the market, or Dolby ending sales of their xenon based 3D kits, whenever theaters equipped with their hardware have the systems start failing, theaters are NOT going to replace them (not to mention spare parts won't be available) and just convert the screen to 2D. Fewer theatrical 3D screens in the future for sure.

Definitely the time to release catalog 3D films was about 5 years ago. Each passing year will probably lower their market value, I think, not to mention the possibility of just losing it due to aging. Waiting for a large, standard and cheap 3D market in the future is to wait for VR/AR/MR to make huge in-roads (still a few years away) and trust that Apple doesn't set its own de-facto VR standard and makes everyone pay the Apple-tax to get into their ecosystem (VRitunes? 3DappleStore? 40% royalties?)

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by globalimages

Playback of bluray 3D content via PC will be more difficult in the future, it seems.

https://www.cyberlink.com/support/fa...nt.do?id=24902

The heading "The 3D media playback feature is no longer supported in new versions of PowerDVD released after April 2020." from the linked page is incorrect. It should read "released after April 2019".

See Power DVD 20 - FAQ:
Screen Shot 2020-09-22 at 7.43.jpg

[BossTweed]

Originally Posted by Paul H

The heading "The 3D media playback feature is no longer supported in new versions of PowerDVD released after April 2020." from the linked page is incorrect. It should read "released after April 2019".

See Power DVD 20 - FAQ:
Attachment 247625

This is terrible news. I recently converted to 3D Harmy's Despecialized Star Wars Trilogy. EDoes this mean Cyberlink Mediashow 8 will soon end 3D Conversion and 3D Burning of blank discs?

[globalimages]

Originally Posted by BossTweed

This is terrible news. I recently converted to 3D Harmy's Despecialized Star Wars Trilogy. EDoes this mean Cyberlink Mediashow 8 will soon end 3D Conversion and 3D Burning of blank discs?

Burning 3D content to blank discs I don't think should be a problem, since no support for 3-D specific hardware is needed. I.e. all blu-ray burners can burn any type of file, and any computer can generate, transfer, copy etc a file containing standard blu-ray 3D content.

Also, no reason whatsoever for software to stop the ability to convert from blu-ray 3D format to others.

Likely, it seems the only thing being scrapped is support of playback of 3D blu-ray standard content (MVC mp2 files) from a computer or a blu-ray reader inside a computer into consumer 3D standard hardware (hdmi 1.4).

I was doing some Covid reading and it's kind of funny that this same topic "Is 3D dead?" keeps repeating every ~30 years, basically :

IS 3D DEAD? 1954

[tripletopper]

I heard one of the big complaints a polar 3D is that it's somehow ruins the 2D experience. I don't know how true that is but I guess you do a back-to-back test of two TVs, one with no polar shield and one with a polar shield and see if they could tell the difference.

If they can't then that would be the basis for adding passive 3D to everything. If it doesn't affect you watching it in 2D and it's very little to cost to add it then why not add it?

If it scientifically proven that 3D polar shields affect 2D viewing then we need a easily removable And re-insertable 3D polar shield. These things are so light and so thin that 2 shields of perpendicular filter angles can fit in a paperback book about optics when that technology was first being introduced to kids in an instructional booklet about stereoscopy.

As for shutter 3D, Sega proved you could add shutter 3D to any TV. The only issue is syncing.
Since the sound output of a movie is synced with the video output and since every TV has some sort of sound input then maybe the frame sync signal could be an inaudible signal that is on the sound signal that indicates when the sync system decided to alternate between left eye and right eye.

by the way doesn't dominant eye in the real world help dictate what view you should see in a 2d compatible 3D video? If someone is right-eyed, then wouldn't the right eye be more appropriate as the default to leave you instead of imposing left eye on right-eyed directors.

Also considering the TV show producing industry prefers 30 frames over 60 frames just for the look and since 60 frames is a minimum of atsc TV, heck it even does a 30 frame mode on retro TVs, why not have 30 real frames and 30 hidden frames that are decoded by a decoder so that you can have 2d-compatible 3D video?

As for sports, the more human the scale, is the better the 3-D effect is. if you're watching either with soccer football or American football game even from the front row seat there's not much difference between the closest person depthwise and the farthest person. Depth doesn't play much of an issue.

if I had to pick a sport which would take advantage of 3D well and I'll put my money where my mouth is by doing a Twitch series featuring this: it's miniature golf. To get a decent view of the action you always have to stay within 5-10 meters of where the action is. Also it's "turn-based" and an individual sport so you'll always catch the action. Also miniature golf courses seem more three-dimensional than large scale golf courses. trust me the hills are not as heavily sloped on large scale courses as they are on miniature golf where they designed to throw off simple putts. A couple places have a molehill hole where you have to climb the hill to get to the hall but if you overshoot it you go down the other side.

As far as the skill of the sport,the nature of miniature golf is that you use special miniature golf balls that makes shorter distances more of a sport, and also makes long putts feel like driving putts, to simulate driving on a large-scale course.
So that even though you could easily sink a 1-meter pot with a large-scale golf ball, a 1 meter putt with a miniature golf ball requires more force to go the same distance, and generally the more force you use the more likely a mistake could creep in. the reason why I know this now is because after the tournament someone complain that he was cheating by using a large-scale golf ball on a miniature golf course and he thought that gave him an advantage. At first I thought nothing of it, but my friend was insistent, even though it was many years later. So I did research and found that miniature golf balls are heavy and designed so that they are not driven to the next property line when you take a real heavy putt. Some are also heavy but yet float so that if it falls in water it could be easily scooped with a net as opposed to getting the frogmen to patrol the floor the lake. I even tried one meter putts with a large-scale golf ball versus miniature large-scale easier once I knew the general muscle range I needed for one meter putt.

Also now these cameras are so light you could have a cell phone 3D camera and you could have panning and moving shots in 3D that accentuate the 3-D effect even further. it almost looks like a cut scene from an early PlayStation or Saturn video game, except this filmed humans instead of polygons.

[moreorless]

3D's not dead it just smells funny.

[BossTweed]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

I heard one of the big complaints a polar 3D is that it's somehow ruins the 2D experience. I don't know how true that is but I guess you do a back-to-back test of two TVs, one with no polar shield and one with a polar shield and see if they could tell the difference.

If they can't then that would be the basis for adding passive 3D to everything. If it doesn't affect you watching it in 2D and it's very little to cost to add it then why not add it?

If it scientifically proven that 3D polar shields affect 2D viewing then we need a easily removable And re-insertable 3D polar shield. These things are so light and so thin that 2 shields of perpendicular filter angles can fit in a paperback book about optics when that technology was first being introduced to kids in an instructional booklet about stereoscopy.

As for shutter 3D, Sega proved you could add shutter 3D to any TV. The only issue is syncing.
Since the sound output of a movie is synced with the video output and since every TV has some sort of sound input then maybe the frame sync signal could be an inaudible signal that is on the sound signal that indicates when the sync system decided to alternate between left eye and right eye.

by the way doesn't dominant eye in the real world help dictate what view you should see in a 2d compatible 3D video? If someone is right-eyed, then wouldn't the right eye be more appropriate as the default to leave you instead of imposing left eye on right-eyed directors.

Also considering the TV show producing industry prefers 30 frames over 60 frames just for the look and since 60 frames is a minimum of atsc TV, heck it even does a 30 frame mode on retro TVs, why not have 30 real frames and 30 hidden frames that are decoded by a decoder so that you can have 2d-compatible 3D video?

As for sports, the more human the scale, is the better the 3-D effect is. if you're watching either with soccer football or American football game even from the front row seat there's not much difference between the closest person depthwise and the farthest person. Depth doesn't play much of an issue.

if I had to pick a sport which would take advantage of 3D well and I'll put my money where my mouth is by doing a Twitch series featuring this: it's miniature golf. To get a decent view of the action you always have to stay within 5-10 meters of where the action is. Also it's "turn-based" and an individual sport so you'll always catch the action. Also miniature golf courses seem more three-dimensional than large scale golf courses. trust me the hills are not as heavily sloped on large scale courses as they are on miniature golf where they designed to throw off simple putts. A couple places have a molehill hole where you have to climb the hill to get to the hall but if you overshoot it you go down the other side.

As far as the skill of the sport,the nature of miniature golf is that you use special miniature golf balls that makes shorter distances more of a sport, and also makes long putts feel like driving putts, to simulate driving on a large-scale course.
So that even though you could easily sink a 1-meter pot with a large-scale golf ball, a 1 meter putt with a miniature golf ball requires more force to go the same distance, and generally the more force you use the more likely a mistake could creep in. the reason why I know this now is because after the tournament someone complain that he was cheating by using a large-scale golf ball on a miniature golf course and he thought that gave him an advantage. At first I thought nothing of it, but my friend was insistent, even though it was many years later. So I did research and found that miniature golf balls are heavy and designed so that they are not driven to the next property line when you take a real heavy putt. Some are also heavy but yet float so that if it falls in water it could be easily scooped with a net as opposed to getting the frogmen to patrol the floor the lake. I even tried one meter putts with a large-scale golf ball versus miniature large-scale easier once I knew the general muscle range I needed for one meter putt.

Also now these cameras are so light you could have a cell phone 3D camera and you could have panning and moving shots in 3D that accentuate the 3-D effect even further. it almost looks like a cut scene from an early PlayStation or Saturn video game, except this filmed humans instead of polygons.

Whenever I adjust my LG Passive 3D Monitor for 3D. It does mess up my 2D viewing of TV shows and films.

[8traxrule]

You do know that the 3D and 2D settings are completely separate, don't you? If you adjust it during 3D material then those settings only apply for 3D material, when it switches back to 2D it keeps whatever settings you had before for that.

I could see some lines on the screen in 2D on the earlier passive screens which also halved the resolution of the 3D picture, but I've never seen them on my 4K screen. The 3D filter does not compromise the 2D picture in any manner, shape or form.

[tripletopper]

Sorry the only time I ever seen passive 3D was in the theaters. and I experienced active 3D back in the day with the Sega Master System. I personally thought the active Master System method was better.

my own experience with playing with a TV is an active Sony PlayStation 3D TV.

So you're saying you have to set your 3D TV in 2D mode to accurately play 2D on a polar based 3D. so if there were such a thing as an auto adjust where you could set it on either "always 2D", "manual 3d", (or "according to material".

I'm an active TV like the PlayStation 1 there's auto mode and their special manual 3D modes like side by side half top and bottom half and 3D off.

Also just wondering if there's a way you could add a passive screen as an aftermarket product. of course it would have to be made for your specific product so that the pixels line up one of they're vertical or horizontal. All you need is alternating polarized material that changes every so many millimeters which would be the length or width of a pixel, depending on if it's alternate rows or alternate columns, then cut to the size of the large screen, make a little device that holds it in front of the screen and makes it lined up correctly, and viola, aftermarket passive polar 3D.

that's all we really need to do to a 3D TV is add a poll of shield in front of it. And I know that they fit in a paperback book in terms of thickness.

I know Sega proved that after marketing 3D does work at least on CRTs. it should work on everything else assuming you compensate for ping. just think it with the audio output instead of the audio input because the audio comes in sync with the TV after the TV processing.

No one complains about Dolby or DTS if you just have twin speakers. so why should anyone complain about turning any TV into a 3D TV if you could choose to not participate by not buying one. also that makes everything from an 18 inch TV 2 100 inch TV simultaneously 3D compatible and not.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

Also just wondering if there's a way you could add a passive screen as an aftermarket product. of course it would have to be made for your specific product so that the pixels line up one of they're vertical or horizontal. All you need is alternating polarized material that changes every so many millimeters which would be the length or width of a pixel, depending on if it's alternate rows or alternate columns, then cut to the size of the large screen, make a little device that holds it in front of the screen and makes it lined up correctly, and viola, aftermarket passive polar 3D. that's all we really need to do to a 3D TV is add a poll of shield in front of it. And I know that they fit in a paperback book in terms of thickness.

You can't add the necessary polarizing screens to the front of your TV because you would have severe ghosting.

I know Sega proved that after marketing 3D does work at least on CRTs. it should work on everything else assuming you compensate for ping. just think it with the audio output instead of the audio input because the audio comes in sync with the TV after the TV processing.

Sega 3D worked on CRTs because they are multi-sync displays. They could handle taking the normal 60hz and splitting into two 30Hz images. Flat panel displays - ALL of them are single-sync devices. You can't split the sync in half. They are designed to operate at 60 or 120 Hz, etc.

[americancaptain]

I like a lot movies in 3d. The problem is that the devices to play them cost a lot

[tripletopper]

Okay I'll accept that if you say ghosting issueshappen if you add just any alternate polarity striped shielding in front of a normal TV to turn it into a 3D TV, since I don't understand it I'll say that somebody else's price to pick.

Of course one wouldn't have to need to do that if the 3D polar shield is built into every model and is no more expensive than the nonpolar shield. Heck if it were a standard feature, it would be like color in the '80s and stereo in the '00s... You cannot find a TV without color or stereo in those respects periods and beyond.

If it's true that 3D polar Shields cannot bedetected unless you're wearing the 3D polar filters, then maybe a blind eye test would be good.

That's exactly how I fell in love with Diet Pepsi in the late '90s when they introduced their AceK formula in Pepsi One. It was so popular that's in zeros it became the default sweetener in Diet Pepsi.

if 3D polar Shields could be installed without the knowledge of the people think they're being ripped off by giving a polar shield thus increasing their prices, if they can't tell, why should we?

and what you're saying about CRT TVs having a 30 HZ mode is that modern TVs cannot have a 30 HZ mode because it cannot subdivide below 60, it can multiply into multiples of 60 Hz, but not divide.

Wasn't standard definition analog TV 480i? Wasn't NTSC originally 30 interlaced frames and then video game companies found a way to subdivide those 30 480i frames into 60 240p frames? Isn't the artifact of that scan lines aka alternate lines of color data and black nothing?

There are such things as frame doublers. So with 30 Hertz broadcast encoded for two eyes but not decoded would double whatever the director considers the main eye, and then the other 30 Hertz in alternate frames would be the recessive eye, I would only be shown if there is decoding equipment otherwise it would just frame double a 30 HZ presentation.

By the way how do retro broadcast stations do 30 Hertz like the standard ntsc analog extended?

Probably the hardest part of 3D is syncing the frame shutter with the television screen. so it has to do with something after it processes the screen kind of like the arc on the sound system.

by the way there are plenty of 3D media players like blu-rays and web movies. the problem is finding a display. it seems like the only way to watch 3D on a new machine is either using Google cardboard or a projector.