3D How the Studios, Theatre Owners, and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D (1 Viewer)

[DavidMiller]

While I certainly believe that UHD BD is a dead-end format, I think HDR is the more appropriate equivalent to 3D. Furthermore, I think HDR will succeed where 3D failed.


Basically, as discussed earlier in this thread, 3D was ill-served due to the way electronics manufacturers tried to use it as a killer gimmick in order to sell new hardware. A combination of overhyping 3D, under-delivering titles that use impressive 3D, the additional cost, and a need for glasses all conspired to make mainstream consumers resent it.


HDR on the other hand provides some of the wow factor of 3D through enhanced contrast and color (images with 'pop'), without the need to wear glasses. At the moment, although a feature that's being promoted by studios and electronics manufacturers, it's not yet been overhyped - the average consumer probably hasn't even heard of HDR. So if the UHD launch (both physical and digital) manages to deliver impressive HDR, and as more and more people transition to HDR-capable TVs, unlike 3D, HDR may actually prosper.

Any consumer should know about HDR, most of the UHD disks have it plastered across them. Most advertisements have it plastered everywhere for the TVs that have it. I think you are underestimating the marketing engine behind 4K. 3D was always a niche product like laserdisc back in the day.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Sure, walk up to anyone on the street and ask them about HDR, and enjoy the quizzical look on their face. Then ask the same people about 3D and I guarantee you will get recognition from the vast majority. It's also amusing that you imply that the average consumer would consider 3D "niche" but somehow embrace UHD BD!

In any case my point was that as the killer gimmick the electronics manufacturers are after, HDR stands much more of a chance than 3D did, as it hasn't been overhyped yet - indeed the abysmal UHD BD launch has underhyped this feature if anything. HDR provides visual punch while placing less demands on the average consumer than 3D.

I maintain that the fundamental error made by the electronics manufacturers and studios was to sell (overhype) 3D as though it was a replacement for 2D, rather than a complement.

 

[Charles Smith]

I maintain that the fundamental error made by the electronics manufacturers and studios was to sell (overhype) 3D as though it was a replacement for 2D, rather than a complement.

I've had several different friends who, when they heard I could show them "House of Wax" or whatnot, asked me a little hesitantly if, having this TV, I had to watch everything in 3D.

 

[RolandL]

I've had several different friends who, when they heard I could show them "House of Wax" or whatnot, asked me a little hesitantly if, having this TV, I had to watch everything in 3D.

When I was a salesman, customers would say "I'm not interested in a 3D TV, you have to watch everything in 3D"

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Yet more pricing disparity- Target has a bunch of titles on sale this week, with 2D versions as low as $10 but their 3D equivalents are still full price, $29.99. The 2D of "Hotel Transylvania 2" was on sale for $16.99 but the 3D was $29.99, they could've at least done $19.99 on that. I was there to buy some other stuff and I didn't get the survey invitation on the receipt this time, but every time I do get that and there's a big 3D price gap in the stores, I comment on it and ask "Are you TRYING to make the 3D format FAIL?" At least they had "The Walk" for a good price the week that came out.

 

[Dick]

Having read and re-read this thread since its posting, I think it should be emphasized that the operative word in the thread phrase is "All but." 3-D seems once again to be thriving on Blu-ray (except for idiot Disney, although fortunately most of the 3D films released from that company are from Pixar, Marvel, or, now, Lucasfilm, all of which are independent with regards to 3D video). Most of the major studios continue to give us 3D Blu-ray transfers of theatrical 3D films, which are still being pumped into cinemas. Some of the biggest titles of this past holiday season are included. Plus you have Mr. Furmaneck getting those classic titles out...I mean, can you believe that IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE is actually coming? But it is. So, while I respect the OP's take on this, I would point out that 3D is still be included on most HD t.v. sets, and on the 4k sets as well. Yes, there have been many decisions made by the jerks in corporate regarding 3D theatrical and home video release, but it lives on in spite of that. This is by far the most resilient era for 3D that there has ever been, and with the kind of technology that can give us marvelous post-converts ranging from THE WIZARD OF OZ to THE WALK, there appears to be no end in sight to 3D this time around....as long as we continue to support it.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Having read and re-read this thread since its posting, I think it should be emphasized that the operative word in the thread title is "Nearly." 3-D seems once again to be thriving on Blu-ray (except for idiot Disney, although fortunately most of the 3D films released from that company are from Pixar, Marvel, or, now, Lucasfilm, all of which are independent with regards to 3D video). .................................This is by far the most resilient era for 3D that there has ever been, and with the kind of technology that can give us marvelous post-converts ranging from THE WIZARD OF OZ to THE WALK, there appears to be no end in sight to 3D this time around....as long as we continue to support it.

Love your enthusiasm, but until there is a 3D Blu-ray release from Lucasfilm, a feeling of uncertainty is immense.

 

[Dick]

Love your enthusiasm, but until there is a 3D Blu-ray release from Lucasfilm, a feeling of uncertainty is immense.

My prediction is that THE FORCE AWAKENS will be available in 3D. I just can't imagine that it won't happen. If it does, then I will concede that Disney is even more mindless than I previously believed (which was pretty mindless).

 

[SFMike]

I would point out that 3D is still be included on most HD t.v. sets, and on the 4k sets as well. Yes, there have been many decisions made by the jerks in corporate regarding 3D theatrical and home video release, but it lives on in spite of that. This is by far the most resilient era for 3D that there has ever been, and with the kind of technology that can give us marvelous post-converts ranging from THE WIZARD OF OZ to THE WALK, there appears to be no end in sight to 3D this time around....as long as we continue to support it.

I applaud your enthusiasm but would disagree that 3D is offered on "most" HDTVs and on 4K sets. And as I noted before even if offered it not be identified or promoted at all in their marketing displays. Another disturbing thing is there has been very little development in 3DTV tech over the past years since its inception. I think one of the things that initially hurt its acceptance was the severe crosstalk on early sets which was improved but then as the industry's attention was turned to 4K development in this area stopped. In recent reviews it has been noted that some current sets are actually showing up with more crosstalk than in the past. Projectors and TVs based in DLP chips never had this problem and is why projectors seem to be the best bet today. There was somewhat promising news about glasses free 3DTV at CES but I will reserve judgment until I see it and as no major TV manufacturer is behind it I anticipate miniscule marketing, if that, for this product. http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/glasses-free-3d-tv/ This could be great however it's noted that depth is not of the quality found in glasses enables sets. Right now I feel VR HMDs will be the next step in consumer 3D. Even with somewhat limited resolution, watching a 3D film in you private theater on your Samsung GearVR is a crosstalk free delight. If we had more support this small niche could continue to grow but there really seems to be to me an effort by the manufactures to get rid of this feature through neglect. Look at how few even visit these pages anymore. As the middle class economy continues to decline the 3D niche is further eroded. I'm happy we still have what crumbs the studios and manufactures throw us but unfortunately I'm not as optimistic as Rick as I feel another economic downturn will finish off 3DTV for good. Also, let's hope the Chinese continue to love 3D movies because if that changes we will probably see 3D movie production tank too.

 

[RolandL]

I applaud your enthusiasm but would disagree that 3D is offered on "most" HDTVs and on 4K sets.

Just checked Samsung's web site for TV's 52 inch and larger:


10 4K SUHD TV's , 6 with 3D

13 4K UHD TV's, 5 with 3D

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Not having shopped for a TV since my current one 4 years ago, how DO you tell if a TV is equipped with 3D or not just by looking at it if it isn't advertised on one of those stick-on labels they come with? Are they still including the 2D to 3D conversion "feature" (which is rather useless) or any other sort of "3D" buttons on the remote? Do at least the passive sets come with glasses? (I've heard stories of some people buying 3D sets, then being unable to find glasses or getting the wrong kind, and giving up at that point.) I'd like my next TV to have less crosstalk than my current one, but I don't know if I'll be able to check that out in any store.

 

[Dick]

I have a feeling that 3D is incorporated pretty much as a standard feature these days, and is not boasted about by t.v. manufacturers anymore. It's there if you want it, or you can ignore it. The cost increase for 3D is minimal now.

 

[albert_m2]

It's a gimmick and the prices are high because some people are willing to pay for it, but most prefer to watch the film for itself, not an additional gimmick.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Haters gonna hate. I personally think we should dump this whole picture thing and go back to radio plays, you can use your imagination more that way.

 

[Persianimmortal]

It's a gimmick and the prices are high because some people are willing to pay for it, but most prefer to watch the film for itself, not an additional gimmick.

Correction: it's an additional feature that has no negative impact on people who don't wish to use it. It's true that the manufacturers and studios tried to use it as a gimmick (and failed), but these days nobody is forcing 3D on "most" of the people who prefer to watch in 2D. So I don't understand why people who don't care for 3D often go to the extreme position of dismissing 3D entirely. I don't care for 7.1 or Dolby Atmos audio but I also don't dismiss them as valid options for those who do care.


I do agree though that prices are high because content providers realize 3D is not mainstream, and is never going to be in its current form, so they charge a premium which they know 3D fans will swallow.

 

[macdaddy]

It's a gimmick and the prices are high because some people are willing to pay for it, but most prefer to watch the film for itself, not an additional gimmick.

Nuts!!

 

[Interdimensional]

Not having shopped for a TV since my current one 4 years ago, how DO you tell if a TV is equipped with 3D or not just by looking at it if it isn't advertised on one of those stick-on labels they come with? Are they still including the 2D to 3D conversion "feature" (which is rather useless) or any other sort of "3D" buttons on the remote? Do at least the passive sets come with glasses? (I've heard stories of some people buying 3D sets, then being unable to find glasses or getting the wrong kind, and giving up at that point.) I'd like my next TV to have less crosstalk than my current one, but I don't know if I'll be able to check that out in any store.

Get the make and model number and check the full specifications list online. If you're buying from a store, sometimes it's a good idea to ask for a remote to check through menus on the display model. If it doesn't have a dedicated 3D button on the remote, it's probably tucked away somewhere in the picture options menu.

I have a feeling that 3D is incorporated pretty much as a standard feature these days, and is not boasted about by t.v. manufacturers anymore. It's there if you want it, or you can ignore it. The cost increase for 3D is minimal now.

It really ought to be a standard feature by now, but it's a mistake to assume that it will be. If 3-D matters to you, always check, and always ask.


When I bought my most recent TV, I made sure they knew that 3-D was an important factor in my decision.

 

[albert_m2]

Correction: it's an additional feature that has no negative impact on people who don't wish to use it

It has an impact on space in theaters.

 

[RolandL]

Three TV's featured on pages 6 and 7 of Best Buy's flyer -two mention 3D in bold.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Target does it yet again- Goosebumps lousy 2D edition $15, 3D $27.99.