Poll: Will 3D at Home Make a Comeback?

3 Stars

Poll: Will 3D at Home Make a Comeback?

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

240 Comments

  1. The answer is no. And no matter how many times I am and will be branded a "hater" by the more indoctrinated faction of this community, the answer will still be "no". Because in two months, the manufacturers will be announcing their new 2018 models and none of them will have 3D. The ones that do will become increasingly scarce and astronomically expensive and by the time you start looking for an upgrade, they will all be gone. That's why its a legacy technology, Home 3D lost the long game and in a big way.

    BTW: That petition has stalled at 16,000 signatures.

  2. Douglas R

    In my home it hasn’t gone away.

    Predictably, any 3D thread brings out the 3D haters.

    I think that's unfair to say those that think 3D isn't making a comeback are 3D haters. I have four 3-D displays in my house and I don't think it's going to make a comeback because the industry doesn't want a comeback.

  3. The nostalgia of it never goes out of my head. thought it was the neatest thing as a kid and still think it's pretty cool with right movies.

    I tried buying a used 3d TV off ebay recently and it was cracked up during UPS shipping. Got a refund and tried again. I got a order comfirmation that had the wrong TV listed on there… wait for it!!! a Non-3D TV ; 😀 NO>.>>> no comback!!! lol Seriously, they said it is probably the one I wanted and to wait until it comes. Lol I will keep trying since I've never really looked at 3D at home. The tv will have 4K on it too so I'll have that. Not sure why everybody wouldn't want 3D on every TV just so it's there if you crave it. I understand it don't cost all that much, and having to scramble for a used 3D tv because I'm very late to the party sucks!

  4. Well I'm sure there was something about the passive/active technology that made it a financial loss below the $1G mark. That's why few big box chains gave 3D a shake after 2014 since they were priced so far out of the market. In contrast 4K and HDR have become incredibly cheap to produce and sell, which is why the marketplace is currently flooded with 'em. If the cost/demand ratio had ever tilted in 3D's favor we wouldn't be having this conversation…but it didn't.

    Also doesn't help that more UHD blu-ray players don't support (or at least advertise) 3D output at the moment than do.

  5. I doubt it. There are too many whiny b****es in the world for whom the mere existence of a feature (that could be turned off) is an absolute affront to their god-like sense on how a film is meant to be watched. I mean, the mere existence of a 3D function on their TV sets was affecting their ability to watch and enjoy their movies in glorious, non-stereoscopic, 2D like they were meant to be.

    Stereoscopic conversion of a film is an affront to these people, but adding a layer (HDR) to artificially boost colour and contrast in a film is perfectly okay. For the record, I'm not referring to anyone specific. I'm talking about "film Luddites" in a general sense.

  6. 3D rules, but only with a decent display, and those displays are (at least temporarily) missing-in-action. I own the last 2016 LG OLED 65" display to offer passive 3D and it's absolutely awesome. Better by far than any plasma active set, and I've owned two of those. I recently watched the live-action BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (2016) from an imported 3D disc (not available in the U.S.) and continue to be blown away by the immersive quality of the image.

    Europeans apparently enjoy 3D more than we do on our home screens, yet the format continues to thrive in domestic theaters. We can try to analyze why this is (3D t.v. isn't easily available here anymore, and there is still confusion here regarding passive vs. active, proper set-ups are difficult, etc.), but the fact remains, the format was finally damn near perfected on the most recent OLED displays just before the format went south.

    I agree that the format will come back at some point, either temporarily or permanently, but for those of us who have heavily invested in the recent 3D wave (I own over 160 3D Blu-rays), this retreat from the format by display manufacturers seems very much like treason. These corporations (Disney, etc.) lured us into spending a lot of money on 3D, then simply pulled the rug out from under us. Yeah, typical corporate bullshit — draw them in, take their money, abandon them. Bait and Switch.

    I was fortunate to obtain my 65" LG OLED display with 3D at a reasonable price. These are growing scarce. Whether any online petitions for the re-introduction of 3D on newer sets actually produces results, my thinking is that they either do this now, or risk losing a considerable base of 3D collectors and leaving behind a very resentful faction of avid collectors.

    3D should be a mainstay for those of us who purchase and love it. This should not be likened to a MacDonald's sandwich that has fallen out of favor and becomes unavailable.

    1. I totally agree with you. Additionally, 3D is beloved by children outside the USA. The next generation of viewers in other parts of the world see 2D as “flat” and uninteresting. 3D without glasses is coming. Content creators have only scratched the surface of how to use 3D effectively as a dramatic device. Most conversions are fake 3D and have hurt the market. (Wizard of Oz is a rare exception – which, if you haven’t seen in 3D, well ,,, it’s like seeing it for the first time.)

      Please continue to support the home format. Import those 3D discs, ask for 3D TVs when you are browsing in the store, and attend 3D showings in theaters. Money talks! My home theater 3D is as good or better than the movie theater experience.

  7. Will 3D at Home Make a Comeback?

    The answer is "no" — because it doesn't need to make a "comeback." It's here to stay in full force!

    There's a hunger for classic 3D titles (albeit at market-friendly prices), which is why it's so infuriating so many rights-holders continue to sit on them….

  8. Ok, I love 3D. I like it more than 4K. However, reading the very heavily engraved writing on the wall, I believe I currently own my last 3D TV. I hope it lasts a long time. 3D is going to, sadly, fade away.

    BTW, if all my 4K discs were as good as Bladerunner, it would soften, but not eliminate, the blow of losing 3D.

  9. I assume you're talking about TV's. For the home projector market, it hasn't really left. Sony, Epson, and others are still making 3-D compatible models. 3-D on tvs will return when 3-D becomes glasses-free IMO.

  10. revgen

    I assume you're taking about tvs. For the home projector market, it hasn't really left. Sony, Epson, and others are still making 3-D compatible models. 3-D on tvs will return when 3-D becomes glasses-free IMO.

    Yes, TVs. We don’t have a projector friendly environment.

  11. revgen

    I assume you're taking about tvs. For the home projector market, it hasn't really left. Sony, Epson, and others are still making 3-D compatible models. 3-D on tvs will return when 3-D becomes glasses-free IMO.

    Except home projectors make up less than 10% of the market and are priced accordingly. Limited market, for what amounts to being a luxury item, means limited demand and thus limited profit. Its really no different from laserdisc where it was supposed to be the format that won out in the end and MCA flooded the market only to lose millions on unsold stock. In this case, its Disney, and its the only major mistake Bob Iger has made in his otherwise sterling tenure as CEO.

    And furthermore, if glasses free 3D is anything like it is on the Nintendo 3DS it will not save the format as few will want to keep their heads perfectly still in the so-called "sweet spot".

  12. Lord Dalek

    Except home projectors make up less than 10% of the market and are priced accordingly. Limited market, for what amounts to being a luxury item

    Not necessarily true.

    Optoma 142x DLP 3-D Projector – $534.90
    https://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD142X-Lumens-Theater-Projector/dp/B01HQCF6R6/
    Optoma ZF2300 RF 3-D Glasses and Emmitter – $50
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-O…300-Starter-Kit-with-Emitter-US-/172175116046
    Silver Ticket Projector Screen with Frame – $250.00
    https://www.amazon.com/STR-169120-Silver-Ticket-120-Diagonal/dp/B00CYLOTPK/

    Which comes out at around $834.90 for cross-talk free 3-D on a large 120 inch screen. Not exactly what I'd call a luxury item.

    The limited market is more due to real estate. Not everybody has the space for a projector/screen setup and the spouse/partner willing to sacrifice that space if it does exist.

  13. Bob Iger and "sterling tenure" is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing sterling about Emperor Iger's tenure at Disney unless a person is a shareholder. He has managed to turn Disney into an even more soulless entity than Eisner did.

  14. There are 3D projectors that are less expensive than most larger HDTV's. I just paid around $550 for my new Optoma HD29.

    I don't know why everyone has this elitist perception that front projection is only available to the 1%-ers? It doesn't take any special environment or dedicated HT room to run a projector. Mine is in my living room.

    Plus, home 3D is much easier to watch than theatrical 3D, IMO. I always got headaches in the theater (with RealD 3D) which made me avoid theatrical 3D, yet I have not yet had a headache at home while watching 3D.

  15. bigshot

    Projection is great. I have a system myself. But it takes a pretty specific type of room to pull off.

    I wish someone would explain this. As far as I know, there's nothing special about my living room. About 13'x17' (projector is set up across the short side, 12-13' throw). Four windows with standard blinds/drapes.

    It might be a bit difficult to watch on a sunny summer day without blackout drapes, but otherwise I've never had any issues.

  16. A good room for projection requires the ability to control the light during the day. Lots of windows and open floor plans aren't well suited. The room has to be well laid out for surround sound too. You don't want a door that opens into the screen. There needs to be a way to make the screen unobtrusive when not in use. In a living room, the look has to pass the "wife test".

  17. Malcolm R

    I don't know why everyone has this elitist perception that front projection is only available to the 1%-ers? It doesn't take any special environment or dedicated HT room to run a projector. Mine is in my living room.

    Same here.

    My projector is in my living room, which is not a light controlled space.

    During the day, I watch TV.

    At night, I pull up the portable screen, turn on the projector, and boom, 100" of quality 3D in less than five minutes of setup. When the movie's over, it's all away in even less time.

    I live in a one bedroom apartment.

    It's really not that hard to have a projector if that's your goal. The trick is simply to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  18. Thomas T

    Yes, it definitely will. Along with VHS, Beta and laser discs.

    I disagree with this since there is a replacement for all of those. Does anything replace 3D and give movies depth?

    Projector people: what is the max you have to spend to get a good setup? Projector, player and screen. I've looked at those and I'm confused. Would love that to be an option to future proof 3D for me.

    btw, the TV I had that got broke was a Samsung JU7100 55". The one on the way is the same but 65". These are active.

  19. Josh Steinberg

    My projector is in my living room, which is not a light controlled space. During the day, I watch TV. At night, I pull up the portable screen, turn on the projector, and boom, 100" of quality 3D in less than five minutes of setup. When the movie's over, it's all away in even less time. I live in a one bedroom apartment.

    I'm guessing you aren't married.

  20. It was actually pretty easy to stash it unobtrusively. The PJ sits on top of the bookshelf in the rear of the room, and the screen rests on the floor against the opposite wall. You might not notice either if you didn't know what you were looking for.

    The idea is that the equipment will outlast the apartment. One day there might be a room for it.

    But yes, I am tremendously lucky. 😀

  21. Ah the joys of having a dedicated movie theatre in your home!! Of course we gave up the 2 car garage to make this happen. 3D ready 24/7, automated and everything controlled by a key-fob. You only go around once!!

  22. Got into 3D just this year when I purchased my Epson 3D/4K PJ and player. Up to 131 films and am enjoying them immensely. Even though they are releasing some of the newest high action films in the UK only, they are still releasing them. So, I'm hoping it continues! :3dglasses:

  23. Josh Steinberg

    The cost is insignificant.

    I bet consumers complained, and still would, that they were forced to pay for something they didn't want.

    Yeah, I tend to agree with those things don't look good for 3D displays ever coming back, at least in the way we know them. I know the glasses free thing will eventually emerge but from what I understand they can't (unless they figure out some kind of magic technology) replicate "pop-out" effects which kind of kills half the fun.

    Note though that apparently 3D Blu-Rays work with the PlayStation VR headset (and you technically don't even need a PS4 to use the set as a display). So I guess there's that option for anyone who gets in a bind.

  24. WillG

    I bet consumers complained, and still would, that they were forced to pay for something they didn't want.

    Then they should strip 4K ability from current sets, as I doubt very many households are running full 4K content.

  25. When we had our house built, I asked them to split the area above the garage. One bedroom, one home theatre room. The HTR has a 3D projector, receiver and 3D Blu-ray player behind the convertible L shaped couch. I project on to a wall and it looks great. Three matched speakers below the image on the wall, two surround speakers on the walls above the sides of the couch, subwoofer to the left of the couch.

  26. Malcolm R

    Then they should strip 4K ability from current sets, as I doubt very many households are running full 4K content.

    I bet most people are watching SD content and stretching the image to fill the screen on their 4K TV.

  27. Robert Crawford

    Are you kidding?

    I think he was just making a point that it was/is a dumb idea to strip a TV set of a feature because some people are not taking advantage of it. There are a lot of people who used the 3D function, who have now had their collections orphaned by these lousy consumer electronic companies.

  28. Edwin-S

    I think he was just making a point that it was/is a dumb idea to strip a TV set of a feature because some most people are not taking advantage of it. There are a lot of some people who used the 3D function, who have now had their collections orphaned by these lousy consumer electronic companies.

    With the above corrections and whether we like to admit it or not that was the crux of why they were stripped. It sucks and those companies don't give a damn about their consumers which is why they moved on to their new marketing campaign. It remains to be seen if this one is more successful and last longer than the last one. IMO, they screwed up this roll out too which is power for the course with this industry. I'm including the studios and content providers too as part of the industry.

  29. We all pay for things we don't utilize fully: insurance (most of the time), cable/satellite channels we don't watch, cars that can go over 100 mph when most speed limits don't exceed 70-75, heating/cooling systems that go up to 100 or down to 50 when most everyone sets their thermostat from 65-75, gym memberships, etc.

    How and why 3D capability on televisions rose to the top of this list and triggered action by manufacturers is kind of ridiculous.

  30. Most people don't use the apps on their TVs and those aren't being stripped. And I doubt that very many mainstream consumers are fully taking advantage of their 4K sets. I do think 4K is going to have better acceptance because we have a predilection to be attracted to promises of more power or better resolution, even though, in a lot of those cases, the excess power is unused and the resolution difference is inconsequential at typical viewing distances. The strength of 4K sets isn't even their resolution; it is in their increased colour gamut, which is lost on average TV consumers. Most of them don't have a clue on how to do even the most basic calibration to get a reasonably good picture out of their sets, let alone notice any difference in PQ due to increased resolution.

  31. A few weeks ago, I was buying smart bulbs. There were two options… ones that were programmable and had a range of colors, and ones that did all that with the added ability to produce infrared night vision light so security cameras could see in the dark. The ones with infrared cost a little bit more. I bought the cheaper model without the night vision because I don't have a video security system like that. I think 3D TV is the same. If you don't see any use for it, you won't pay for it. If enough people don't see the use for it, the market forces the feature out. I'm sure night vision light bulbs will go the same way. Who wants a camera to be able to see them clearly when they get up in their boxers to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?

  32. bigshot

    A few weeks ago, I was buying smart bulbs. There were two options… ones that were programmable and had a range of colors, and ones that did all that with the added ability to produce infrared night vision light so security cameras could see in the dark. The ones with infrared cost a little bit more. I bought the cheaper model without the night vision because I don't have a video security system like that. I think 3D TV is the same. If you don't see any use for it, you won't pay for it. If enough people don't see the use for it, the market forces the feature out. I'm sure night vision light bulbs will go the same way. Who wants a camera to be able to see them clearly when they get up in their boxers to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?

    Have you seen the price of 4K televisions go down because 3D was dropped? I certainly haven't. The costs of 3D technology were already sunk, so the argument that including the feature was increasing the cost of TV sets is just so much nonsense in my book.

  33. For better or worse, people in general don't like to feel as if they're paying for things they don't need. I don't know why 3D rose to the level of "That sounds expensive, and the existence of it on my TV set is offense to me" while the same people probably don't mind that their car goes faster than they can use or cable channels they don't watch, but it did.

    I also don't know when we as a society switched to a philosophy where it's only worth doing something if there are maximum profits. I can accept that home 3D isn't a priority for most people. But I seem to remember "the old days" when maybe if a feature or a product wasn't completely mainstream, that it could still thrive as a niche industry. That, to me, is one of the more disappointing things about today's way of doing business.

    We're seeing a version of that attitude play out with the major studios and their catalog releases. Most of the major studios have decided now that it's not worth their time or effort to put out older movies on disc, because it's not worth the effort for only a small profit when other endeavors they work on gross so much more. But in the case of the studios, they've made business deals with labels like Kino and Twilight Time who are interested in putting out those catalog titles, so in the end, we as the consumer still have access to that material. It might cost a little more because it's not as popular or in demand, but the movies are available. I wish there were something equivalent for 3D. OK, we get it, it didn't drive sales for Sony or Samsung or LG so they dropped it. But there isn't one manufacturer out there who couldn't keep it on their brand, even with a premium charge for it, just for the sake of filling that niche market? That everything has become so "all or nothing" is concerning to me.

    Ultimately, as long as our economy is being driven by that kind of "everything or nothing" mentality, I don't expect 3D to return, and I expect other choices to become limited over time as well.

  34. Edwin-S

    Have you seen the price of 4K televisions go down because 3D was dropped?

    I don't know because I don't have a 4K TV. But I got a 1080p set without 3D for dirt cheap during a Woot! sale.

    Everybody would like everyone else to have to pay extra for something they don't need, but when it's something you don't need that costs extra, it's a different story. That's why supply and demand is the best way to work these things out.

  35. That's a good one. I don't need digital downloads or standard Blu-ray discs in my 4K purchases, but I'm not bitching about having to pay for something that someone else uses. I'm not demanding they stop putting those discs in there, so I can save a couple of dollars. If you are getting a 1080p set for dirt cheap, it is because the technology is becoming obsolete, not due to 3D being on it or not.

  36. bigshot

    Everybody would like everyone else to have to pay extra for something they don't need, but when it's something you don't need that costs extra, it's a different story. That's why supply and demand is the best way to work these things out.

    Edwin-S

    I don't need digital downloads or standard Blu-ray discs in my 4K purchases, but I'm not bitching about having to pay for something that someone else uses. I'm not demanding they stop putting those discs in there, so I can save a couple of dollars.

    For those of us who have supported 3D at home since its roll out or soon after, this is a perfect example of what's become so frustrating. 3D can't be included as a feature on new TVs, even though it doesn't really cost anything to add (especially if the manufacturer passes off the cost of glasses to the customer), because some people don't want it. The 3D disc can't be included with the regular 2D disc just as part of the package, because people who are 2D-only don't want to have an extra disc they won't use. So OK, that's the argument for that. Don't know if I agree, but OK, let's accept that it's a legitimate argument.

    Well, at the same time that works for that, as Edwin points out, we get all sorts of extra discs we don't need in other product configurations too. When I buy a Blu-ray of a title, I don't need a DVD copy included. I didn't ask for it, and I'd be happy to trade a few bucks off the purchase price for not having that disc. I'm happy to take the digital copy, but it's also something I didn't ask for, and I'd be happy to give it back to them for a few bucks off the purchase price. Who knows how many DVDs have been produced over the last decade that never even left the hub of the combo back?

    It seems disingenuous to say that the 3D disc or the 3D capability on the set HAS to be eliminated, because most people aren't using them, but that the DVD and digital codes included with Blu-rays HAVE to stay, even though most people aren't using them. The inconsistency of it bothers me.

  37. Crosstalk (ghost) free 3D eminating from my Sharp DLP projector viewed on a 120" screen is truly a sight to behold!

    3D never left my home theater setup. Never will. I will continue to support domestic and/or foreign 3D Blu-ray releases as long as they are being manufactured.

  38. While 3D at the movie theaters remains strong, it seems to be dead at home for a variety of reasons.

    1) Projectors aren’t bright enough and many flat panels were not bright enough without adding in other artifacts to compensate for brightness.
    2) Glasses are active vs. passive in the movie theater, thus weighing more and having more side effects on users (i.e. headaches).
    3) Highly reflective screen material is typically needed to compensate for projectors, thus causing side effects like hot spots (though the movie theaters have the same problems).
    4) Most new flat panel tech does not include 3D anymore.

  39. Kevin Collins

    While 3D at the movie theaters remains strong, it seems to be dead at home for a variety of reasons.

    1) Projectors aren't bright enough and many flat panels were not bright enough without adding in other artifacts to compensate for brightness.
    2) Glasses are active vs. passive in the movie theater, thus weighing more and having more side effects on users (i.e. headaches).
    3) Highly reflective screen material is typically needed to compensate for projectors, thus causing side effects like hot spots (though the movie theaters have the same problems).
    4) Most new flat panel tech does not include 3D anymore.

    Not nearly as strong as it was just 2-3 years ago. The number of 3-D showings in my favorite theaters have been reduced 30-50%. IMO, that trend is probably similar in the rest of the US market.

    As to your reasons why 3-D appears dead at home, I think the number one reason is that people didn't want to wear glasses at home even though, many did so at their local movie theater. I'm sure industry research picked up on that fact as it had to affect 3-D equipment for home sales in a negative way.

  40. I don't think it'll make a comeback. The TV industry seems to be focused on 4k as a selling point now and the features that go with that, like HDR. I remember 3D in the home being a similar focus a few years ago.

    I think what happened with 3D is it left a bad taste in people's mouths. Having to wear the glasses being the biggest issue for a lot of people. Nobody wants to wear glasses to watch TV at home if they don't have to. It's different in a theater because you're there for 2 hour experience on a huge screen where 3D can really shine.

    While I think 3D is a cool technology, personally I can do without out it. My biggest complaint with it is how dark it makes the image look due to the glasses. That was something I could not tolerate no matter how cool it looked.

  41. We just watched "The Polar Express" in 3D for the first time on my OLED 65" and what an incredible experience! The best 3D rendering I've seen in a movie so far. Great depth and the scene when the emergency brakes are applied and the cow catcher extends out of the screen at you…WOW!!

    We all enjoyed it and I told my daughter, when my tv finally goes, I'm going to be crying a river because I'll never be able to see that again.

    I really hope it does make a come back even though I won't be holding my breath.

  42. I believe eventually it will come back, but the technology will have to improve first. Wonder what happened to the glasses free monitor technology we experienced at Dolby during a HTF meet some years ago….

    Raul

  43. 3D in my home will never die as long as I have 2 eyes. It’s never left and continues to impress friends and myself on my 4K Sony XBR Triluminous display.
    Just picked up an imported Valerian-can’t wait to watch it and Gog on Amazon’s lightning deal the other day.
    Criterion still needs to release Flesh For Frankenstein- one of the best!

  44. It will come back. New technology without glasses. Good luck with all the early HDR adopters, so many different standards, wich one will win out? Need to wait for the dust to settle. I still enjoy my 3D and plenty of source material.

  45. Bob Bielski

    It will come back. New technology without glasses. Good luck with all the early HDR adopters, so many different standards, wich one will win out? Need to wait for the dust to settle. I still enjoy my 3D and plenty of source material.

    There is no format war when it comes to HDR, so early adopters are not going to lose in any way. HDR10 is a required spec on 4K Blu-rays. Any 4K disc with Dolby Vision or other HDR layer is going to have to have, at minimum, HDR10 on it.

  46. Consumer Electronic companies and movie studios hamstrung in-home 3D right out of the gate with stupid policies such as:

    1) movie exclusives tied to the purchase of a particular television manufacturers TV models. AVATAR being one of the most egregious examples.
    2) failure to realize that it wasn't 1997 anymore and that the landscape for physical media had changed, so charging 30+ dollars for a movie wasn't going to fly. They are repeating the same mistake with 4K Blu-rays.
    3) non-existent implementation of a single standard for active glass 3D, so any type of active glasses could be used with any 3D TV.
    4) poor implementation of the technology leading to poor image quality.

  47. Travis Olson

    My biggest complaint with it is how dark it makes the image look due to the glasses.

    I hear this complaint often, and I have to confess, I don't understand it. My wife had a bunch of her friends over to watch Wonder Woman in 3D on my projector, and they loved the movie, thought the 3D was really cool, but also said the same thing about it looking dark.

    To me, these movies don't look dark. Yes, you lose some light by wearing 3D glasses, but the filmmakers compensate for this by making the 3D version extra bright to begin with. Then, when you put the glasses on, the extra brightness in the image makes up for the light loss from the glasses, and you should be seeing the image at the light level intended by the filmmakers. If you were to put on a 3D version of a movie without putting on the glasses, and then put on the 2D version of the same movie, the 3D version without the glasses should appear much brighter. But that doesn't mean it was intended to be watched at that brightness level.

  48. I think it will come back when prospective consumers reach critical mass through 1) 3D sets being retired leaving the consumer looking for a replacement 2) continued release of 3D movies leaving a segment of home theater enthusiasts ready to double dip to get a newly released 3D version (I.e. the Force Awakens), 3) technology improvements giving TV manufacturers something new to offer over today’s sets and 4) emergence of one standard (just passive displays) removing the need for a multitude of extra SKUs for glasses from different manufacturers for IR, Blutooth, RF, etc.

    One can always hope.. Make it simple and they will come…

  49. I don't have any brightness issues with 3D on my system, either (though I have noticed this in theatrical 3D in the past).

    I do think substandard implementation of the early technology and confusion about competing active/passive options probably frustrated many consumers into simply throwing up their hands.

    I also wonder how many consumers were under the impression that buying a 3D TV would require them to watch everything in 3D, not realizing they could switch back and forth or watch everything in 2D if they desired, simply ignoring the 3D functions on their set. Much like many consumers still don't seem to understand that a blu-ray player can play all of their DVD's and CD's, in addition to blu-rays. Many seem to think that they can ONLY play blu-ray discs on a blu-ray player, so they resist buying one.

  50. Josh Steinberg

    Yes, you lose some light by wearing 3D glasses, but the filmmakers compensate for this by making the 3D version extra bright to begin with.

    Sorry, but I don't believe you are correct. The actual versions on the discs are the same brightness level. It's the TV or projector settings that are brighter in 3D mode to compensate for the filtering of the glasses. That's why when you have a disc where the 2D is embedded in the 3D and plays back a one-eye view it's not too bright.

  51. Lord Dalek

    The answer is no. And no matter how many times I am and will be branded a "hater" by the more indoctrinated faction of this community, the answer will still be "no".

    You seem pretty confident. Are you an industry insider? If not then I, personally, would not be so adamant. All I'll say is that I hope it never goes away. Done properly, 3D can be awe inspiring. My Panasonic PTAE8000U projector supports it and I would have a hard time buying another one that didn't. There are also a considerable number of titles available, varying quality I concede, but still.

    On the TV front you may be correct. I don't know why but its clear major manufacturers have abandoned the format, at least for now. Since I don't know the costs or trade offs involved in implementing it in modern TV's I won't comment further on that.

    "Will 3D at Home Make a Comeback?" I don't know since I can't see the future, not yet anyway… Working on that.

    "Would I like it to comeback?" Yes indeed.

  52. Mark-P

    Sorry, but I don't believe you are correct. The actual versions on the discs are the same brightness level. It's the TV or projector settings that are brighter in 3D mode to compensate for the filtering of the glasses. That's why when you have a disc where the 2D is embedded in the 3D and plays back a one-eye view it's not too bright.

    I'm sorry too, but I'm not sure that's correct either.

    If I take a 3D-only disc and put it into my player, and force my player to display it in 2D-mode overriding the disc's 3D-only setting, I receive an image that is brighter than what is on the 2D-only disc. As far as my TV and projector are concerned, they are receiving and displaying a 2D signal, but it's a much brighter picture than what's on the 2D disc.

    Certainly when a film is prepared for 3D release in theaters, that 3D DCP is mastered differently than the 2D version, and is mastered to be extra bright to compensate for the loss of light from the glasses. I have stacks of American Cinematographer articles about 3D films that confirm this.

    But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm wrong about where the extra brightness is introduced – let's say that it's introduced by the display. The original point is still valid. The 3D version itself isn't inherently meant to be dimmer than the 2D version – it's meant to be displayed at a brightness level so that when you're wearing the 3D glasses, the brightness of the 3D image as seen through glasses is equivalent to the 2D presentation without glasses. And that's what I see on my 3D projector, and that's what I saw on my 3D TV before that, and that's what I see in movie theaters as well.

    Malcolm R

    I also wonder how many consumers were under the impression that buying a 3D TV would require them to watch everything in 3D, not realizing they could switch back and forth or watch everything in 2D if they desired, simply ignoring the 3D functions on their set. Much like many consumers still don't seem to understand that a blu-ray player can play all of their DVD's and CD's, in addition to blu-rays. Many seem to think that they can ONLY play blu-ray discs on a blu-ray player, so they resist buying one.

    Without fail, every single time I told someone not on HTF that I owned or was buying a 3D TV or a 3D projector, the first or second comment was always, "What if you don't want to watch everything in 3D?" Every. Single. Time.

    I don't understand how that misconception came to exist. At no point has any 3D display manufacturer touted that their equipment only works in 3D and that 2D is now unavailable.

  53. Josh Steinberg

    I'm sorry too, but I'm not sure that's correct either.

    If I take a 3D-only disc and put it into my player, and force my player to display it in 2D-mode overriding the disc's 3D-only setting, I receive an image that is brighter than what is on the 2D-only disc. As far as my TV and projector are concerned, they are receiving and displaying a 2D signal, but it's a much brighter picture than what's on the 2D disc.

    Certainly when a film is prepared for 3D release in theaters, that 3D DCP is mastered differently than the 2D version, and is mastered to be extra bright to compensate for the loss of light from the glasses. I have stacks of American Cinematographer articles about 3D films that confirm this.

    But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm wrong about where the extra brightness is introduced – let's say that it's introduced by the display. The original point is still valid. The 3D version itself isn't inherently meant to be dimmer than the 2D version – it's meant to be displayed at a brightness level so that when you're wearing the 3D glasses, the brightness of the 3D image as seen through glasses is equivalent to the 2D presentation without glasses. And that's what I see on my 3D projector, and that's what I saw on my 3D TV before that, and that's what I see in movie theaters as well.

    I'll concede your point with modern 3D. As most films are completely different masterings for 2D and 3D which is why they are always on separate discs. But for vintage 3D there was only one version prepared and the 2D was simply showing half the film. So for Blu-ray releases of vintage 3D with Multiview Video Coding (MVC) the primary stream is 2D and primary+secondary streams are 3D. It's the same primary stream used in both versions and therefore no difference in brightness level.

  54. Radioman970

    I disagree with this since there is a replacement for all of those. Does anything replace 3D and give movies depth?

    Great point!

    Radioman970

    Projector people: what is the max you have to spend to get a good setup? Projector, player and screen. I've looked at those and I'm confused. Would love that to be an option to future proof 3D for me.

    Here's my situation as it applies to video:

    Projector – Panasonic PTAE8000U – Approx – $1500.00 but you can probably find much better deals today

    Screen – Mine is an Elite Screens Aeon 135" – Approx – $800.00

    Player – HTPC – Approx $1000.00 but, again, you could use any compatible BD player and pay considerably less.

  55. Mark-P

    I'll concede your point with modern 3D. As most films are completely different masterings for 2D and 3D which is why they are always on separate discs. But for vintage 3D there was only one version prepared and the 2D was simply showing half the film. So for Blu-ray releases of vintage 3D with Multi-View Coding (MVC) the primary stream is 2D and primary+secondary streams are 3D. It's the same primary stream used in both versions and therefore no difference in brightness level.

    Fair point. We could maybe ask someone like Bob Furmanek for some clarification on that point. My understanding, which may not be entirely accurate, was that even in those cases, the disc itself is flagged in such a way to alert the player to display it brighter.

    But whether it's on the disc itself, on the player, or some combination of both, the basic point is still the same – the 3D films are meant to be displayed brighter to compensate for the light loss from the 3D glasses. That's what I was having a somewhat more difficult time explaining to our Wonder Woman 3D guests — yes, the image appears brighter on the screen when you take your 3D glasses off, but it was never meant to be seen as brightly as it appears with those glasses off. The 2D-only disc viewed without glasses should be exactly the same in terms of brightness as the 3D-only disc viewed with glasses on.

    If that's not happening for some people, something's wrong. It could be poor implementation of 3D in that particular display, it could be a defect in the glasses, it could be a number of things. But 3D films displayed properly shouldn't appear to be any more "dark" or "dim" than a properly displayed 2D version of the same title.

  56. I have tried to find the “poll” and don’t seem to be able to do so. So I will put my comment here.

    Yes, it will return. It has returned many times before since the golden age in the 1950s.

    The fact that 3D movies continue to be made and watched theatrically means that we are just waiting for a renaissance. It probably needs a new technology.

  57. Josh Steinberg

    Fair point. We could maybe ask someone like Bob Furmanek for some clarification on that point. My understanding, which may not be entirely accurate, was that even in those cases, the disc itself is flagged in such a way to alert the player to display it brighter.

    But whether it's on the disc itself, on the player, or some combination of both, the basic point is still the same – the 3D films are meant to be displayed brighter to compensate for the light loss from the 3D glasses. That's what I was having a somewhat more difficult time explaining to our Wonder Woman 3D guests — yes, the image appears brighter on the screen when you take your 3D glasses off, but it was never meant to be seen as brightly as it appears with those glasses off. The 2D-only disc viewed without glasses should be exactly the same in terms of brightness as the 3D-only disc viewed with glasses on.

    If that's not happening for some people, something's wrong. It could be poor implementation of 3D in that particular display, it could be a defect in the glasses, it could be a number of things. But 3D films displayed properly shouldn't appear to be any more "dark" or "dim" than a properly displayed 2D version of the same title.

    But I'm not sure you are understanding that TV or Projector settings for 3D and 2D are segregated and have to be that way. Could you imagine tweaking the settings in 3D mode and then having to retweak them for 2D every time every time you switched modes? The default settings in 3D have the brightness boosted from the starting point compared to the default settings in 2D mode.

  58. Mark, I think you might be missing my point.

    What I am saying is this.

    The viewer should perceive no difference in brightness between a 2D version of a movie watched without glasses, and a 3D version of the same movie watched with glasses on. The 3D version should be presented with a higher level of overall brightness hitting the screen than the 2D version (whether that is something that is adjusted in the creation of the digital master, or on the display device), so that when viewed properly with 3D glasses on, it appears the same.

    If something is dim or difficult to see in the 2D version, then it should remain so in the 3D version. But it should not be the experience of viewers that a film is bright and visible in 2D, but dim and hard to make out in 3D. And if that is happening, that means that there is a technical problem in how the film is being presented.

  59. I really hate 3D. One of my eyes doesn’t work properly, so 3D material is totally useless for me. In fact, it’s more a headache inducing distraction that makes me hate bad movies even more than I normally would.

  60. Wow, what a diversity of opinions. That's why HFT rules!

    So, I'll add my two cents and hope it has some merit.

    3D, as viewed on a decent display (I own a 65" LG OLED, the last of its kind) is simply an awesome experience. With OLED in particular, there are no grays where there should be black levels. Properly calibrated, you get velvet black, a complete absence of light. This renders star fields in sci-fi films absolutely pure, whereas even in most theaters (unless they are running nitrate prints against a silver screen) are at best revealing dark gray. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was a new experience entirely on this set. Even in 1968 at the Cinerama theater I did not see a gorgeous black star field like what I see now.

    3D is also terrific. The vertical differential is an issue if you can't watch the monitor tilted down a bit so that you are parallel to the axis, but the ideal horizontal viewing field is wider. Within that space, I've seen no equal to the 3D effects offered by OLED, and I've owned two Panny 3D Plamas sets. The passive glasses are light and are quickly forgotten a few minutes into a good 3D movie. These glasses only cut the light by a small percentage, and the display can be programmed to add brightness and contrast enough so that there is hardly a difference compared to a 2D play.

    3D should never have been dropped by TV manufacturers. It remains a viable feature. To my mind this is just another instance of corporate greed and an ignorant misunderstanding of their customer base. As has frequently been pointed out here and elsewhere, the chip that enables a display to present 3D is just not a big financial expense. I suppose one argument these idiots use is that consumers feel they are being charged for 3D even if they don't want it. Well, some of the 2016 displays offered 3D but it was not advertised as a feature. Why couldn't they simply continue producing new displays in this fashion? In other words, 3D is there for people want it, but it isn't a selling point any longer and isn't adding a lot (if anything) to the price of the set. Plus, with included DVD's and digital copies customers are already being surcharged.

    There will always be a base of consumers who will support 3D. I can't imagine that Bob Furmaneck and his 3D Film Archive team would be bothering to prepare SANGAREE, THE MAZE, I THE JURY and who knows what else if not for the fact that there enough of us out here clamoring for 3D titles to be able to support for format. Period.

    So, what…corporations like Disney need to feel there's a guaranteed million sales for a 3D version before they'll offer it to us? Europe gets BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (2016), BIG HERO 6, MALEFICENT, and FROZEN but we don't? And nobody gets PETE'S DRAGON in 3D? Disney, you're way too big to give a shit about my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway: you suck. It was largely because of you that I invested in this format. Now, you don't give a shit about me/us. Sure, business is business, but your business is seething in greed.

    But I think we fans will, ultimately, prevail. There are enough companies out there feeding us new releases that I feel hopeful about the future of Blu-ray 3D. Already something like 35% of the 50 classic-era titles are out or have been announced. 95% of recent films released in 3D to theaters are or will be available that way on Blu-ray here or in Europe. I guess I should not despair.

    Probably the best advice I could offer to all of you (and also to myself) is to continue to buy / support 3D releases. Money talks. Let's show these big ignorant honchos that we still represent a palatable consumer constituency when it comes to this awesome format!!

  61. One thing that I hope doesn't happen when 3D displays make a comeback is if a new "glasses free" technology is introduced that will not display forward projection properly. Dumbed down 3D, without "pop-out", would cripple many of the classic 50's and recent 3D films with this feature. 3D with depth only is NOT 3D as it was envisioned by the filmmakers who took full advantage of this exciting format.

  62. I don’t think it will make a comeback anytime soon, though the fad will possibly come back around in another 20 years or so. It doesn’t bother me though because the splitting headache I get from trying to watch 3D material isn’t worth the price of admission.

  63. Francois Caron

    I really hate 3D. One of my eyes doesn't work properly, so 3D material is totally useless for me. In fact, it's more a headache inducing distraction that makes me hate bad movies even more than I normally would.

    Okay. You know it causes physical distress when you watch it, so why would you bother? If I had your problem, I would just stick to watching the standard version of the movies and shut the function off on my TV. I wouldn't hate 3D because it gives me problems when I watch it. I would just stop watching it.

  64. Josh Steinberg

    Mark, I think you might be missing my point.

    What I am saying is this.

    The viewer should perceive no difference in brightness between a 2D version of a movie watched without glasses, and a 3D version of the same movie watched with glasses on. The 3D version should be presented with a higher level of overall brightness hitting the screen than the 2D version (whether that is something that is adjusted in the creation of the digital master, or on the display device), so that when viewed properly with 3D glasses on, it appears the same.

    If something is dim or difficult to see in the 2D version, then it should remain so in the 3D version. But it should not be the experience of viewers that a film is bright and visible in 2D, but dim and hard to make out in 3D. And if that is happening, that means that there is a technical problem in how the film is being presented.

    Josh, we're in complete agreement there. A properly calibrated 3D presentation should have identical perceived brightness as a 2D presentation. Where our opinions diverge is in what is controlling the brightness level. I say it's the hardware, and you say it's the software. Try watching some 2D material with your TV's 3D conversion mode turned on. Does your set brighten the picture or not?

  65. Mark-P

    I say it's the hardware, and you say it's the software.

    I think it's a combination of both. If we're talking modern 3D, the vast majority of those titles are presented on different discs. I think if we were to load up the 2D and 3D discs of, say, "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2" in some kind of screen capture software, the screen capture from the 3D disc would be brighter than the screen capture from the 2D disc. I think there is definitely something happening in the mastering of modern films in terms of brightness levels. (And I think this is backed up by articles I've read in American Cinematographer where the cinematographer will talk about doing different color timings for the different versions – these days, they do different passes for standard 2D, standard 3D, Dolby Cinema and IMAX (when a film is being released in those varying formats). And I think they are working on brightness at a mastering level.

    I also believe that the home equipment is adding additional brightness to compensate for the light loss from the glasses. It's definitely true that my projector kicks into a higher brightness mode when 3D content is activated.

    Ultimately, though, whichever explanation is correct, the bottom line is that this should be true:

    Mark-P

    A properly calibrated 3D presentation should have identical perceived brightness as a 2D presentation.

    And, for whatever reason, a lot of people perceive it not to be true.

    To go back to my group Wonder Woman 3D screening example, a couple of our guests did comment that the picture seemed "dim" with the glasses on, but when they took the glasses off, it seemed much brighter. It seemed like there was nothing I could say that would convince our friends that "Yes, it does appear brighter on the screen, but that brightness is being boosted to compensate for the glasses, it's not the way the film is supposed to look – the 2D version of the film isn't actually that bright!"

    For whatever reason, scenes that are intentionally low lit in 2D films don't register as problematic to people, but the same scene in 3D, with the same perceived level of lighting, does register as problematically dim to people. I'm not sure why that is.

  66. We have consensus! I really wanted to leave it there, except I couldn't resist the following challenge 🙂

    Josh Steinberg

    …I think if we were to load up the 2D and 3D discs of, say, "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2" in some kind of screen capture software, the screen capture from the 3D disc would be brighter than the screen capture from the 2D disc…

    From the 2D version:
    View attachment 42707

    From the 3D version:
    View attachment 42708

    From the 2D version:
    View attachment 42709

    From the 3D version:
    View attachment 42710

    Yes there is a slight difference, but I'm not seeing anything noticeable in the brightness levels. :unsure:

  67. I'm not viewing on my actual projector or TV monitor, and I don't trust the accuracy of the monitor I'm writing on to give a detailed analysis, except to say – I see a huge difference between the 2D and 3D caps of the first image.

    The first (2D) image has good contrast, color and brightness. The second (3D) image does not look correct to me – too bright and the color seems very off. However, I'm sure if I put the 3D glasses on, it would then look like it should. Basically, the 3D image in the still looks to me like the 3D image does when I take off my glasses at home. Without glasses, it looks very off. With glasses, it looks exactly as it should.

    The difference seems less pronounced with the second image (the two shot), but in the 3D cap seen without the glasses, it still looks wrong – Gamora's color isn't right and the rest of the image seems subtlety but noticeably out of whack. To me, it clearly looks like it's been adjusted to compensate for what the glasses will do to it.

  68. My wife doesn’t care for 3D because it cuts the brightness in half.
    One friend can’t see 3D due to visual problems.
    Other friends don’t care or have no interest in wearing glasses for a movie party.

    I enjoy 3D movies. But with the mild discomfort of the glasses and the loss of brightness mitigating the visual impact, I’m take it or leave it on 3D at home.

    I’ll have no problem shifting to 2D UHD when I upgrade. And I don’t worry about buying 3D blu-rays unless they’re the same price as the 2D version.

    I think 3D at home is dead. For those who like it, I wish it would remain available and supported. But I think it will only shrink as UHD replaces blu-ray as the media for enthusiasts and collectors.

  69. DaveF

    My wife doesn’t care for 3D because it cuts the brightness in half.

    DaveF

    the loss of brightness mitigating the visual impact

    Dave, not sure if you've seen the conversation that Mark and I have been having — but there should be no difference in perceived brightness between watching a 2D version of a movie without glasses, and watching a 3D version of the same movie with glasses on.

    When a 3D movie is being played, the brightness is increased to compensate for the light loss from the filters on the projector and the glasses.

    Yes, a 3D movie will appear darker with glasses on than watching the 3D image without glasses on, but that image without the glasses is not meant to be watched that way.

    I hear this complaint a lot, and I just don't really understand it.

  70. DaveF

    My wife doesn’t care for 3D because it cuts the brightness in half.

    DaveF

    the loss of brightness mitigating the visual impact

    Dave, not sure if you've seen the conversation that Mark and I have been having — but there should be no difference in perceived brightness between watching a 2D version of a movie without glasses, and watching a 3D version of the same movie with glasses on.

    When a 3D movie is being played, the brightness is increased to compensate for the light loss from the filters on the projector and the glasses.

    Yes, a 3D movie will appear darker with glasses on than watching the 3D image without glasses on, but that image without the glasses is not meant to be watched that way.

    I hear this complaint a lot, and I just don't really understand it.

  71. Josh Steinberg

    Dave, not sure if you've seen the conversation that Mark and I have been having — but there should be no difference in perceived brightness between watching a 2D version of a movie without glasses, and watching a 3D version of the same movie with glasses on.

    When a 3D movie is being played, the brightness is increased to compensate for the light loss from the filters on the projector and the glasses.

    Yes, a 3D movie will appear darker with glasses on than watching the 3D image without glasses on, but that image without the glasses is not meant to be watched that way.

    I hear this complaint a lot, and I just don't really understand it. I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk. Is it possible that there are tons of 3D displays out there that just aren't displaying the content the way it's meant to be shown? Or is it possible that a darker or dimmer image (as intended by the filmmakers) stands out negatively to a viewer in 3D in a way it doesn't in 2D?

    set has to be calibratetd

  72. Josh Steinberg

    When a 3D movie is being played, the brightness is increased to compensate for the light loss from the filters on the projector and the glasses.

    When my Sharp DLP projector detects a 3D signal, I hear the fan kick into a faster speed, and the picture brightens noticeably. Just the way it does when I manually switch from economy lamp mode to high brightness mode. When I stop playing the 3D disc, the fan slows down, and the lamp reverts back into economy mode.

  73. I'm not interested in CG effects movies. There are a handful of films from the 50s that I would be interested in seeing in 3D, but not nearly enough to justify going out and getting a set just for that.

  74. Bob Bielski

    set has to be calibratetd

    I think that could definitely be a factor.

    And I know that some movie theaters intentionally turn the brightness on their bulbs down, on the (disproven) belief that doing so will extend the bulb's life, thus saving the theater money on replacement costs. (Projector bulbs don't work that way, so all you do is cheat the audience out of the proper image.) I am not a big fan of RealD projection in theaters because when the RealD system is used in combination with an existing "turn the bulbs down low" policy, it can result in a dim image that appears that way because the presentation is being shown outside of the proper specifications. With IMAX or any other dual projector system in theaters, I find that's not at all a problem.

    I find that my projector at home exceeds RealD and is about equivalent to the quality I get from attending an IMAX 3D screening.

    I wonder if perhaps some people and/or theaters are also playing 2D content at brightness levels that are way too high. So, by comparison, the 3D image seems "dim" even if it's playing at the level it's supposed to, because the basis of comparison is an artificially brightened image.

  75. Josh Steinberg

    I hear this complaint often, and I have to confess, I don't understand it. My wife had a bunch of her friends over to watch Wonder Woman in 3D on my projector, and they loved the movie, thought the 3D was really cool, but also said the same thing about it looking dark.

    To me, these movies don't look dark. …

    Josh Steinberg

    Dave, not sure if you've seen the conversation that Mark and I have been having — but there should be no difference in perceived brightness between watching a 2D version of a movie without glasses, and watching a 3D version of the same movie with glasses on.

    “5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM”
    http://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70247
    Roger Ebert was complaining about this in 2010.

    In concept, you’re right. In practice, it’s not my experience. You assume everyone has a display that normally shows 2D images at calibrated brightness, and has 100% headroom to double the brightness for equivalent 3D image.

    My projector running in Eco mode automatically goes into Normal mode when it’s showing 3D — this is what you’re talking about. But Normal isn’t twice as bright as a Eco. Moreover, Normal is what I watch 2D movies in for best color, contrast, and brightness (I use Eco for routine TV) So for 3D there’s none more brightness to be had. And 3D movies are noticeably dimmer than 2D.

  76. Josh Steinberg

    …With IMAX or any other dual projector system in theaters, I find that's not at all a problem…

    Diehard enthusiasts run dual-projector setups at home for full brightness 3D.

    I’m not a diehard enthusiast. That a whole other level of hobbyist pain to pull that off. 🙂

  77. DaveF

    Roger Ebert was complaining about this in 2010.

    Absolutely. And a lot of that came down to theaters using RealD equipment out of spec. I looked up the specs for RealD once and there are a lot of very specific guidelines for how it is meant to be used, from the amount of light the projector must output to the throw distance to maximum screen size, and it seems that theaters have disregarded almost all of that. Roger Ebert wasn't wrong in what he was complaining about, but it also falls under, I think, a long series of complaints he had about theaters turning their bulbs down – the theater is showing the movie improperly, but that doesn't mean that 3D itself is inherently flawed. If you give your pecan pie recipe to a friend and he doesn't follow it, his crappy pie doesn't mean that your recipe sucked, it means he didn't follow the recipe.

    DaveF

    In concept, you’re right. In practice, it’s not my experience. You assume everyone has a display that normally shows 2D images at calibrated brightness, and has 100% headroom to double the brightness for equivalent 3D image.

    My projector running in Eco mode automatically goes into Normal mode when it’s showing 3D — this is what you’re talking about. But Normal isn’t twice as bright as a Eco, and Normal is what I watch 2D movies in for best color, contrast, and brightness. So for 3D there’s none more brightness to be had. And 3D movies are noticeably dimmer than 2D.

    In the interest of full disclosure – my projector has not been professionally calibrated. I work in an industry where I've had a little experience doing minor calibration and also see monitors day in and day out, and generally have a decent sense of what they're supposed to be. When I got my projector, I put a couple calibration discs into my player, and out of the box it was so close to what it was supposed to be that I made the minor adjustments myself.

    Anyhow, I can't say that I'm getting double the brightness going from 2D to 3D. What I have found is that watching 2D movies on anything other than the Eco mode isn't workable for me – it's way too bright. The recommended light level is 14 footlamberts for 2D theatrical projection – when I pulled out my light meter when I was first setting it up, I think I was getting two or three times that. So the 2D image in my setup just isn't right at "normal" brightness – it's a bit like staring at the sun.

    I think there's more brightness that can be gotten out of a projector than simply going from eco to normal. If you've got the time, money and interest, it might be worth getting your unit calibrated so that you're getting a proper brightness level for 3D.

  78. John Dirk

    Great point!

    Here's my situation as it applies to video:

    Projector – Panasonic PTAE8000U – Approx – $1500.00 but you can probably find much better deals today

    Screen – Mine is an Elite Screens Aeon 135" – Approx – $800.00

    Player – HTPC – Approx $1000.00 but, again, you could use any compatible BD player and pay considerably less.

    Yeah, I'd probably just use a blu ray player with 3D and 4K. I want to make sure I get a projector before the 3D go away on those too. That screen was crazy expensive! I need to research the dif in a $60 one and one like yours.

    My 65" Samsung arrived late Friday with screen covered in fingers and smudgers like somebody had hot lovin sex on it. Luckily no damage. One stuck pixel, still need to do a full check but it was obvious and off one side. I was watching a Trek blu ray, upscaled to 4K and lost sight of that pixel with ease. Lovely Trek, near 4K! Trek-gasm! 😀 Remote doesn't pair, only turns on and off. So irritating. Going to see if they will send a replacement. The active 3D is very good. Some crosstalk but often none at all. REally no flicker, didn't give me a headache, nothing but good 3D. Godzilla 3D should only be watched in 3D I think. Great tester for 3D. Lots of 3D layers, like that monster moving under the train bridge while those soldier lays quietly on top, and people standing behind smudgy or rainy windows with reflections and all. Dark monster moving around against dark blackground, just terrific! So much depth. 65" is HUGE! Lots of testing and messing to do! I put my 13" plasma away for now. Wait, 42"! 42"! Honest mistake! 😀

  79. StephenDH

    I've never understood people's reluctance to wear the glasses. After a few minutes, if the movie's any good, I forget they're there.

    I wear eyeglasses, I got a pair of eDimensional active glasses from amazon and they are light and very comfortable over mine. I've gotten ear irritation wearing the ones at IMAX but these were way way better! Shoot, those 3D glasses are way more comfortable than my own eyeglasses. heh! I actually like how it darkens the screen, which is crazy bright already on mine since I haven't really messed with the settings yet. 3D looks marvelous through those glasses, like I'm in a darkened movie theater.

    Bob_S.

    We just watched "The Polar Express" in 3D for the first time on my OLED 65" and what an incredible experience! The best 3D rendering I've seen in a movie so far. Great depth and the scene when the emergency brakes are applied and the cow catcher extends out of the screen at you…WOW!!

    We all enjoyed it and I told my daughter, when my tv finally goes, I'm going to be crying a river because I'll never be able to see that again.

    I really hope it does make a come back even though I won't be holding my breath.

    oh man! I was planning on watching that today! Can't wait.. If your tv goes out you may have to get a projector system too! Hopefully they will keep on with those. I do plan to get a system when I can even if I just test it good then put it away for later. I only have a small bit of doubt that 3D will leave forever. People might get nostalgic for it sooner than we thing. Those nutty masses! From one thing to another. One day hoolahoops, next day pokemons, next day bell bottoms, etc..

  80. Josh Steinberg

    Anyhow, I can't say that I'm getting double the brightness going from 2D to 3D. What I have found is that watching 2D movies on anything other than the Eco mode isn't workable for me – it's way too bright. The recommended light level is 14 footlamberts for 2D theatrical projection – when I pulled out my light meter when I was first setting it up, I think I was getting two or three times that. So the 2D image in my setup just isn't right at "normal" brightness – it's a bit like staring at the sun.

    I think there's more brightness that can be gotten out of a projector than simply going from eco to normal. If you've got the time, money and interest, it might be worth getting your unit calibrated so that you're getting a proper brightness level for 3D.

    I’ve never been bothered inordinately by the brightness decrease, and I didn’t share Ebert’s criticism when I heard in originally in 2010.

    But it fails WAF, and friends who can’t watch 3D…so 3D is watched only by myself, alone. And that means it’s barely used in my home.

    I put the time into getting 3D to work properly on my HTPC. But I doubt I’ll spend any more time tweaking it further.

  81. Mark-P

    We have consensus! I really wanted to leave it there, except I couldn't resist the following challenge 🙂

    From the 2D version:
    View attachment 42707

    From the 3D version:
    View attachment 42708

    From the 2D version:
    View attachment 42709

    From the 3D version:
    View attachment 42710

    Yes there is a slight difference, but I'm not seeing anything noticeable in the brightness levels. :unsure:

    The three 3D displays I have owned (2 Panny plasma's and an LG OLED) have all memorized specific settings I assign to 3D playback, while leaving ordinary 2D alone. When I watch a 3D disc, these t.v.'s have all automatically produced a brighter picture with greater contrast according to my settings. If that is the case with all 3D displays from all manufacturers, why is there even an issue here? Just calibrate your set separately for 3D viewing, just as you would for 4K. It will know the difference.

  82. I watched Polar Express again recently, and this is one title that on its own justifies continuing to make 3D equipment available even if not another single new 3D movie is ever made again. That's what has me pissed off about this whole thing the most- I've got some great 3D movies and because electronics are poorly marketed and the general public are idiots, they're going to tell me that I won't be able to watch them anymore in the future.

    I'm not so pessimistic about glasses-free 3D not working though- I've walked by a number of lenticular 3D covers in stores recently and many of them have images that protrude forward- I had to put my hands on the covers to see where the surface really was. If they can make that work on a big screen then they'll have something- of course the issue of there being a sweet spot and some places where the image just won't look right will have to be addressed. In the meantime I have no problem with passive 3D glasses though.

    There's a laundry list of things the industry has done wrong with 3D, but a big one has been the issuing of separate 2D and 3D editions, and of course charging a sometimes-large premium for the 3D version. Lionsgate did it right with their first 3D titles being single discs that were also playable in 2D, and they didn't price them higher than normal, so EVERYONE who bought those movies (like Dredd, Step Up Revolution and Texas Chainsaw) got the 3D version whether they meant to or not. To get Polar Express in 3D, you have to make sure that you're buying the 3D version- I saw tons of the crappy 2D version in stores this year but not a single copy of the 3D (which is also just one disc.) Theaters have made the same mistake by running 2D showings of 3D movies, and then charging extra for 3D even when they sell fewer tickets (and take in less money overall) as a result. I may not even bother seeing the latest Star Wars in theaters since the 3D showtimes are so sporadic and I already have the 3D Blu-Ray pre-ordered from Zavvi in the UK for less than what 3 tickets would cost.

  83. DaveF

    But it fails WAF, and friends who can’t watch 3D…so 3D is watched only by myself, alone. And that means it’s barely used in my home.

    I put the time into getting 3D to work properly on my HTPC. But I doubt I’ll spend any more time tweaking it further.

    My situation exactly, but when I do use it with the right material it is awesome.

  84. Francois Caron

    I really hate 3D. One of my eyes doesn't work properly, so 3D material is totally useless for me.

    Sounds like you're more allergic to it. If you did not have the eye issue would you still feel that way?

  85. Radioman970

    That screen was crazy expensive! I need to research the dif in a $60 one and one like yours.
    😀

    I was "ball parking" it. Actual cost was $680.00 but much cheaper options are available. My first screen was a painted wall and it looked surprisingly good. My second was a DIY project I found online and cost, maybe $100.00 in materials. A little research and elbow grease can save you a lot.

  86. When I first got into projection in 2006, I bought an Optoma SD projector/screen combo (92" screen) for around $650. I believe my Sony 3D blu-ray wi-fi capable player was around $180. I used that setup for the better part of 10 years (and that projector still works fine; I pre-emptively replaced the bulb once).

    I'm still using the same screen and player, but have upgraded to another Optoma projector, with HD/3D capability, for $550. Four sets of 3D glasses were $80. High-speed HDMI was about $30.

    So it seems like it would be very easy to get an entry-level HD/3D projector setup for under $1,000.

  87. John Dirk

    Sounds like you're more allergic to it. If you did not have the eye issue would you still feel that way?

    I don't know because I've never had perfect vision as a frame of reference. One of my eyes has no central vision; it only has peripheral vision. The 3D effect only manifests itself in my peripheral vision and becomes a horrible headache inducing distraction when the 3D effect conflicts with the central vision in my good eye. Because of this annoyance, I prefer to watch movies in 2D whenever possible.

  88. John Dirk

    Sounds like you're more allergic to it. If you did not have the eye issue would you still feel that way?

    I don't know because I've never had perfect vision as a frame of reference. One of my eyes has no central vision; it only has peripheral vision. The 3D effect only manifests itself in my peripheral vision and becomes a horrible headache inducing distraction when the 3D effect conflicts with the central vision in my good eye. Because of this annoyance, I prefer to watch movies in 2D whenever possible.

  89. While I'm not a fan of 3D per se, it's a shame to see it being removed from newer televisions. I have a small but often-used collection of cult 3D content (Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D, the IMAX classic Haunted Castle, etc), and it's a shame I won't be able to use it now I've upgraded to a 4K setup.

    I was hoping that someday they'd release Friday the 13th Part 3 in proper 3D, as well as gems of the age such as Flesh for Frankenstein. Oh well… that's progress, I suppose.

  90. Will*B

    While I'm not a fan of 3D per se, it's a shame to see it being removed from newer televisions. I have a small but often-used collection of cult 3D content (Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D, the IMAX classic Haunted Castle, etc), and it's a shame I won't be able to use it now I've upgraded to a 4K setup.

    I was hoping that someday they'd release Friday the 13th Part 3 in proper 3D, as well as gems of the age such as Flesh for Frankenstein. Oh well… that's progress, I suppose.

    "progress is a comfortable disease"–e.e. cummings

  91. WillG

    Note though that apparently 3D Blu-Rays work with the PlayStation VR headset (and you technically don't even need a PS4 to use the set as a display). So I guess there's that option for anyone who gets in a bind.

    Hopefully this works good since I just ordered a playstation VR just for this feature. I have confirmed from other sources that it does work. I'll let you know how well when my order arrives.

  92. I bought the Playstation VR specifically to try out the 3-D capabilities. I was not impressed.

    Thankfully, I bought it at Best Buy so it was easy to return and get a refund.

    Also, you need to have a PS Camera in order to use the PSVR. If the Camera isn't installed the PSVR won't work.

  93. Three TV’s in the house. All do 3D. The LG OLED65E6P has the best 3d picture.

    There are certainly some companies still working on 3d for TV but no signs of any manufacturers planning a return. It is has also become more and more common for Blu-rays 3d version’s of movies to not be released in the U.S while still being available elsewhere.

    Certainly I expect some 3d to make a comeback. I certainly see some company as being open a niche market for some 3d models until it becomes more common. Seems like they could find a market in several countries where 3d is more popular with some sales in the U.S. as well

    ON THIS POLL, I can’t find anywhere to vote on it.

  94. Llappin

    I hope that it will make a come back. I cannot understand why the industry doesn't apply some research to make the 3D glasses work better instead of throwing away the whole technology.

    By the way I find 4K very gimmicky. I can't see the big deal in watching something 4K.

  95. No. 3D in home is dead. I think I got my Mitsubishi 3D equipment out a total of 3 times in the 78 I've owned it.

    And I wish it would die in the theater. Cant count how many times I have wished I could see a movie in IMAX in standard format. 3D has absolutely zero benefit and the trade is to have to wear uncomfortable glasses which cause headaches and limit viewing enjoyment. Unfortunately they will never get rid of it because they can charge more for tickets.

  96. I've been an adjusting fool with my settings and finally watched Alice in Wonderland 3D yesterday after all that and it was jawdropping. Active glasses and alll. Almost no crosstalky. It was so good my brain finally noticed I have my center speaker 1.5" over the center bottom of the screen and started messin with my dimensional processing so I ordered a TV cart to solve all!

    I've really only used passive in IMAX but I think mine at home is better. 😛 I can't stop buying and upgrading my silly old BD to 3D ones. I ordered In the Heart of the Sea 3D yesterday, with 3D and Atmos…!! are you kiddin me!!! My moby is tingling!!! (sorry about that… ) And over the weekend Jack the Giant Slayer 3D! Both flat ones go to mom since she'll love those movies even flat.

  97. Ten8yp

    3D in home is dead.

    Not as long as I own a 3D capable OLED and some 170 3D Blu-rays, it isn't! Plus, new titles continue to dribble out, both here and overseas. And, with regard to your "3D in home [sic] is dead" remark, tell that to Mr. Furmaneck & Co. I understand what you are saying, due to lack of support from the manufacturers of displays and from Disney and a few other studios, and the new emphasis on 4K, but look what's on the docket for 2018 insofar as 3D Blu-ray release goes between here and Europe: BLADE RUNNER 2049, TERMINATOR 2 3D, COCO; STAR WARS PART VIII: THE LAST JEDI, etc. etc. No, I ain't throwin' in my towel (besides…I have only one towel ;)).

  98. I have been watching 3D at home since the 1980's when the Japanese VHD system came out and haven't stopped since. In the 1990s, 3DTV Corp had a 3D system with LCD shutter glasses and 3D movies on VHS tape. Later 3D titles came out on DVD – many of them still not on Blu-ray 3D (Andy Warhol's Frankenstein, Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3D, etc.). 3D at home will never die.

  99. Ten8yp

    No. 3D in home is dead. I think I got my Mitsubishi 3D equipment out a total of 3 times in the 78 I've owned it.

    And I wish it would die in the theater. Cant count how many times I have wished I could see a movie in IMAX in standard format. 3D has absolutely zero benefit and the trade is to have to wear uncomfortable glasses which cause headaches and limit viewing enjoyment. Unfortunately they will never get rid of it because they can charge more for tickets.

    I disagree with you completely on every point you make. I have never gone to the theatre to see a flat version of a 3D movie and never would.

  100. Ten8yp

    No. 3D in home is dead. I think I got my Mitsubishi 3D equipment out a total of 3 times in the 78 I've owned it.

    And I wish it would die in the theater. Cant count how many times I have wished I could see a movie in IMAX in standard format. 3D has absolutely zero benefit and the trade is to have to wear uncomfortable glasses which cause headaches and limit viewing enjoyment. Unfortunately they will never get rid of it because they can charge more for tickets.

    I never get what it is with people like yourself? You guys don't like it, so nobody else should be able to enjoy it either? For the record though, IMAX announced some time ago that they would be dropping 3D presentations and focusing on 2D. They have decided to become just like any other plain Vanilla theatre brand. They will have nothing left to differentiate themselves from any of the other Alphabet soup formats that have sprung up as competitors to their digital IMAX brand; however, at least your wish has been granted.

    Edit: Also, I don't quite get your complaint about not being able to see "standard format" films in IMAX. There are lots of Hollywood films presented flat in IMAX theatres.

  101. They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time. IMAX appears to be moving toward VR becoming a thing. Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it. :laugh:

  102. Edwin-S

    They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time. IMAX appears to be moving toward VR becoming a thing. Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it. :laugh:

    I suspect the 2 lb helmet will go over like a 2 lb lead balloon! 😀

    Perhaps the IMAX people will reconsider the 3 oz 3-D glasses once the VR helmet thing sinks like a stone? I'm no expert, but I just don't see that trend flying, as anything VR never seems to get much past the initial "WOW, Isn't that super awesome!" demonstration stage for the niche within a niche crowd. Just my opinion.

    CHEERS! 🙂

  103. I bought 2 TV sets during the past 2 years . It was difficult to find a 3D TV in 55 inch and 43 inch sizes . So I didn't get one even though I have two 3d capable Blue ray players . So I've stopped looking for 3 D BD's .

  104. LouA

    I bought 2 TV sets during the past 2 years . It was difficult to find a 3D TV in 55 inch and 43 inch sizes . So I didn't get one even though I have two 3d capable Blue ray players . So I've stopped looking for 3 D BD's .

    I gave up on the idea of there ever being a 3-D TV in our price range once I discovered that the manufacturers began dropping the feature. 🙁

  105. TJPC

    Why are some films still in 3D IMAX? We saw the latest Thor and Star Wars there. Is there a date when this stops?

    Edwin-S

    They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time.

    It's depends on the studio.

    To begin with, in the wake of Dunkirk, Warner as a studio has made a new policy that all of their IMAX releases will be 2D only, regardless of whether there is a 3D version, and regardless of the filmmaker preference. The reason for this is that the 15/70 film release of Dunkirk did very well, so Warner has taken the lesson from that that people prefer 2D IMAX. They have completely missed the idea that Dunkirk was popular in IMAX because it was shot with IMAX film. That's why the IMAX grosses were huge for that title. To say that, for instance, people wouldn't be interested in Justice League in IMAX 3D because Dunkirk was successful in 2D doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately, it seems that Warner is sticking to this.

    For all other studios, in general, IMAX is trying to offer a combination of 2D and 3D showtimes so that everyone can see the version they prefer. In the past, if a film was offered in 3D, IMAX would offer it only in 3D. While that was fine for me as 3D is my preference, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to appeal to both audiences.

    Edwin-S

    Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it.

    The one in New York is located within the IMAX theater and offers programs that last approximately 10 minutes each. I think the idea is more, while you're at the theater, check this out, and not, "make a separate trip to try a ten minute ride and then go home".

  106. TJPC

    Why are some films still in 3D IMAX? We saw the latest Thor and Star Wars there. Is there a date when this stops?

    Edwin-S

    They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time.

    It's depends on the studio.

    To begin with, in the wake of Dunkirk, Warner as a studio has made a new policy that all of their IMAX releases will be 2D only, regardless of whether there is a 3D version, and regardless of the filmmaker preference. The reason for this is that the 15/70 film release of Dunkirk did very well, so Warner has taken the lesson from that that people prefer 2D IMAX. They have completely missed the idea that Dunkirk was popular in IMAX because it was shot with IMAX film. That's why the IMAX grosses were huge for that title. To say that, for instance, people wouldn't be interested in Justice League in IMAX 3D because Dunkirk was successful in 2D doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately, it seems that Warner is sticking to this.

    For all other studios, in general, IMAX is trying to offer a combination of 2D and 3D showtimes so that everyone can see the version they prefer. In the past, if a film was offered in 3D, IMAX would offer it only in 3D. While that was fine for me as 3D is my preference, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to appeal to both audiences.

    Edwin-S

    Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it.

    The one in New York is located within the IMAX theater and offers programs that last approximately 10 minutes each. I think the idea is more, while you're at the theater, check this out, and not, "make a separate trip to try a ten minute ride and then go home".

  107. TJPC

    Why are some films still in 3D IMAX? We saw the latest Thor and Star Wars there. Is there a date when this stops?

    Edwin-S

    They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time.

    It's depends on the studio.

    To begin with, in the wake of Dunkirk, Warner as a studio has made a new policy that all of their IMAX releases will be 2D only, regardless of whether there is a 3D version, and regardless of the filmmaker preference. The reason for this is that the 15/70 film release of Dunkirk did very well, so Warner has taken the lesson from that that people prefer 2D IMAX. They have completely missed the idea that Dunkirk was popular in IMAX because it was shot with IMAX film. That's why the IMAX grosses were huge for that title. To say that, for instance, people wouldn't be interested in Justice League in IMAX 3D because Dunkirk was successful in 2D doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately, it seems that Warner is sticking to this.

    For all other studios, in general, IMAX is trying to offer a combination of 2D and 3D showtimes so that everyone can see the version they prefer. In the past, if a film was offered in 3D, IMAX would offer it only in 3D. While that was fine for me as 3D is my preference, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to appeal to both audiences.

    Edwin-S

    Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it.

    The one in New York is located within the IMAX theater and offers programs that last approximately 10 minutes each. I think the idea is more, while you're at the theater, check this out, and not, "make a separate trip to try a ten minute ride and then go home".

  108. TJPC

    Why are some films still in 3D IMAX? We saw the latest Thor and Star Wars there. Is there a date when this stops?

    Edwin-S

    They are phasing them out. I don't believe that they will entirely drop them, but there will be a lot fewer 3D films playing in IMAX over time.

    It's depends on the studio.

    To begin with, in the wake of Dunkirk, Warner as a studio has made a new policy that all of their IMAX releases will be 2D only, regardless of whether there is a 3D version, and regardless of the filmmaker preference. The reason for this is that the 15/70 film release of Dunkirk did very well, so Warner has taken the lesson from that that people prefer 2D IMAX. They have completely missed the idea that Dunkirk was popular in IMAX because it was shot with IMAX film. That's why the IMAX grosses were huge for that title. To say that, for instance, people wouldn't be interested in Justice League in IMAX 3D because Dunkirk was successful in 2D doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately, it seems that Warner is sticking to this.

    For all other studios, in general, IMAX is trying to offer a combination of 2D and 3D showtimes so that everyone can see the version they prefer. In the past, if a film was offered in 3D, IMAX would offer it only in 3D. While that was fine for me as 3D is my preference, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to appeal to both audiences.

    Edwin-S

    Apparently, they have opened a facility kitted with VR helmets. People don't want to wear a pair of 3 oz glasses for a couple of hours but IMAX management figures they'll jump at wearing a 2 lb helmet. Imagine. Going to a movie with a wife or friend so you can feel like you are alone while watching it.

    The one in New York is located within the IMAX theater and offers programs that last approximately 10 minutes each. I think the idea is more, while you're at the theater, check this out, and not, "make a separate trip to try a ten minute ride and then go home".

  109. If my usage is any indication it was dead before it started. I have an early Panny 3D set and can't say I've watched more than 2 movies in it. I forgot that it even had 3D. It was a gimmick that basically sucked on the small screen, and by small I mean anything smaller than an IMAX theater. It was like watching people in a fish tank. No tanks.

    I don't regret buying the TV as it was a good price for the quality, the 3D was supposed to be a bonus.

  110. I don't own a 3D TV and really don't have any use for one. I do screen a lot of 3D material in both BD and 35mm film.
    It seem from what I'm reading, 3D TV's are going to be phased out.
    QUESTION: In your opinion, will the digital projector manufacturers cease making 3D units in the near future? Is this time for me to purchase another Epson and sit it on the shelf for future use when my current unit fails?

  111. Ten8yp

    No. 3D in home is dead. I think I got my Mitsubishi 3D equipment out a total of 3 times in the 78 I've owned it.

    And I wish it would die in the theater. Cant count how many times I have wished I could see a movie in IMAX in standard format. 3D has absolutely zero benefit and the trade is to have to wear uncomfortable glasses which cause headaches and limit viewing enjoyment. Unfortunately they will never get rid of it because they can charge more for tickets.[/QUOT

    3-D works better in your home than it does in the cinema. In IMAX , 3-D is virtually unwatchable.

  112. Josh Steinberg

    Mark, I think you might be missing my point.

    What I am saying is this.

    The viewer should perceive no difference in brightness between a 2D version of a movie watched without glasses, and a 3D version of the same movie watched with glasses on. The 3D version should be presented with a higher level of overall brightness hitting the screen than the 2D version (whether that is something that is adjusted in the creation of the digital master, or on the display device), so that when viewed properly with 3D glasses on, it appears the same.

    If something is dim or difficult to see in the 2D version, then it should remain so in the 3D version. But it should not be the experience of viewers that a film is bright and visible in 2D, but dim and hard to make out in 3D. And if that is happening, that means that there is a technical problem in how the film is being presented.

    According to this article, 3D theatrical presentations do suffer lower brightness levels compared to 2D:

    https://www.thewrap.com/3d-progress-lost-dark-19392/

    Does the same thing happen with home TVs? In my experience it does, and my TV is calibrated. No matter how bright the 3D picture, the TV is capable of making the 2D picture brighter. That's an inescapable fact.

  113. It depends upon what theater you go to. My local Cinemark theater uses much brighter bulbs during 3-D projection, so brightness isn't an issue during RealD showings. Others are a mixed bag. IMAX solves the problem by using two projectors.

  114. Josh Steinberg

    It's depends on the studio.

    To begin with, in the wake of Dunkirk, Warner as a studio has made a new policy that all of their IMAX releases will be 2D only, regardless of whether there is a 3D version, and regardless of the filmmaker preference. The reason for this is that the 15/70 film release of Dunkirk did very well, so Warner has taken the lesson from that that people prefer 2D IMAX. They have completely missed the idea that Dunkirk was popular in IMAX because it was shot with IMAX film. That's why the IMAX grosses were huge for that title. To say that, for instance, people wouldn't be interested in Justice League in IMAX 3D because Dunkirk was successful in 2D doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately, it seems that Warner is sticking to this.

    For the record, IIRC, IMAX said they were "cutting back" on 3D. So in two years time, I'm sure that they will be showing Star Wars episode IX in 3D, for instance.

    As for Warner. It amazes me how the actual industry can be so myopic to something that is so obvious to people like us. And you have to remember that Dunkirk was being marketed at something you HAD to see in IMAX (especially 15/70) to "Truly experience". Just like Avatar was something you HAD to see in 3D to "Truly experience"

  115. I just got my first 3D tv a week or so ago. It’s a 65″ Samsung with active. I’m floored by what I’ve seen so far. I was waiting for moneys to get better but had to act if I wanted one because TV makers decided nobody wants it. 🙁 I wish I could afford to get another like this, or projector system, and put it into the closed for when this one goes out.

    People tastes change, people get nostalgic, new techs show up, some big thing happens like Avatar and people want it again. 3D no dif. It was invented in… (googling) … 1844! We are printing in 3D! There’s holograms, there’s VRs and surround video can’t be far away! Some new is coming. For now, I absolutely DON’T see me getting tired of what I bought with moneys I’m supposed to be saving for somehting else. 😀

  116. I'm now regretting not getting LEGO Batman in 3D. 2D was fun, but it was obviously made to be watched in 3D. 🙂

    3D may be dying as a consumer electronics feature…but there's fun to be found in it, even for folks like me who mostly don't care.

  117. Zac_F

    If my usage is any indication it was dead before it started. I have an early Panny 3D set and can't say I've watched more than 2 movies in it. I forgot that it even had 3D. It was a gimmick that basically sucked on the small screen, and by small I mean anything smaller than an IMAX theater. It was like watching people in a fish tank. No tanks.

    I don't regret buying the TV as it was a good price for the quality, the 3D was supposed to be a bonus.

    I read other comments where people felt they were watching miniatures. I guess flat miniatures is better than dimensional ones? 😉

  118. Radioman970

    I read other comments where people felt they were watching miniatures. I guess flat miniatures is better than dimensional ones? 😉

    Sport such as football, rugby and athletics definitely suffer from 3D miniaturisation. It's like watching Subbuteo/ table football.

  119. StephenDH

    Sport such as football, rugby and athletics definitely suffer from 3D miniaturisation. It's like watching Subbuteo/ table football.

    And that’s because sports cameramen never received the specialised training required for filming in 3D. If you’re going to shoot in 3D, you have to understand how stereoscopy works and how to prevent miniaturisation.

  120. Stephen_J_H

    And that’s because sports cameramen never received the specialised training required for filming in 3D. If you’re going to shoot in 3D, you have to understand how stereoscopy works and how to prevent miniaturisation.

    That, to me, in a nutshell is my biggest disappoint with the modern 3D wave.

    3D presented the almost unlimited potential to have a new storytelling language, the way that sound changed everything about film. It took many years of trial, error, experimentation, and the creation and learning of new skills before sound moved out of its clunky infancy.

    That effort was never put into 3D. 3D required everyone to go back to the proverbial skill to relearn everything, and almost no one put any effort into developing those skills. For the most part, modern filmmakers have simply made 2D films with a 3D rig, or made a 2D film and had it postconverted. The idea of re-evaluating long-held conceptions of things like framing and shot length and cutting speed were never seriously addressed. They made 2D-style films in 3D, and then complained when people didn't notice a big difference.

    There's a renowned cinematographer named Seamus McGarvey, who has filmed things like The Avengers, Fifty Shades of Grey, Atonement, Life and others. He's been nominated for an Academy Award for Cinematography and is highly regarded in the industry. He's an example of the kind of thinking that killed any chance of innovation in 3D technique. He was hired to shoot The Avengers for director Joss Whedon, and Marvel had announced that the movie would be filmed in native 3D. As a test, Whedon and McGarvey shot a short scene that was used as the end credits tag at the end of a previous Marvel film. McGarvey had no prior experience with the 3D camera and, by his own admission, had done no testing with it and had no experience when he went onto the set that day to use it. He said that it took him hours to get a shot that would normally take minutes, and that the process was completely unworkable. After that one test shoot done by a man with absolutely no experience with that equipment, McGarvey told Whedon that it would be impossible to shoot the film using 3D cameras, and a decision was made to shoot it in 2D.

    How in the world does that make any sense?

    Ridley Scott is able to shoot native 3D, and he says it adds no additional time to their shooting schedule. While Ridley is clearly somehow superhuman, it doesn't make sense that Ridley and his crew can shoot with a 3D rig in the same amount of time as 2D, but somehow McGarvey needed ten times longer. What makes more sense, that Ridley's making it up, or that McGarvey didn't know what he was doing?

    How is, "I don't know how to use this piece of equipment, therefore the equipment is stupid" a reasonable response? I don't know how that flies in a professional environment. If my boss came to me and said there was a new piece of equipment that I was now required to use in my job, throwing a glorified temper tantrum and refusing to use it would not be an acceptable response on my behalf.

    But now McGarvey will tell anyone, anywhere, at any time, how much he hates 3D, how difficult it is to work with, how it ruins a picture, etc., etc., all because he had a single bad experience trying to use a piece of equipment that he had no experience or training with. The entire medium is without merit, says McGarvey, based on a poor experience he had that anyone could have predicted could have gone that way. You can't walk into a kitchen having never cooked before and expect to make a culinary dish for the ages on your first attempt; I don't see why anyone could reasonably expect that there wouldn't be or shouldn't be a learning curve on an entirely different way to photograph movies.

    People like Seamus McGarvey, within the industry, have done a tremendous amount of damage to the format by refusing to learn anything about it, and then blaming their poor experiences on the format itself rather than their refusal to honestly engage in a new and different way of working.

  121. I wanted to add to the above… that example might not seem like that big of a deal, with Seamus McGarvey, but I think it's huge.

    When it came out in 2012, The Avengers opened to what was then the largest opening weekend of all time, and grossed over $1.5 billion worldwide. The movie was a gamechanger in many ways – DC's cinematic universe is a direct result of the success of that film, as is Universal's attempts at a monsters franchise, Sony's attempts at Spidey spin-offs, and too many more to list. That movie, and its success, changed the industry. Everything from what pictures are greenlit, to how franchises are constructed, what box office expectations can be, and more, now work differently because of The Avengers.

    Is it too far fetched to think that if The Avengers had been shot natively in 3D, and designed as such, that it could have had the effect that Avatar did on 3D in the industry? When The Avengers was originally announced, they made a big point that it would be shot in native 3D, following the backlash of some early post-converted titles. Given how much everything else about the industry is different in a post-Avengers world, it seems only reasonable to assume that had the film been as groundbreaking in its use of 3D as it was in other areas, that would have been something that other filmmakers and studios would seek to replicate too.

    But because Seamus McGarvey spent one afternoon making a bad faith attempt to use a piece of equipment that he had no training on, no experience using, and more importantly, no desire to learn, the entire trajectory of modern 3D may have been changed.

  122. Returning to the question posed in the thread, I actually think it's kind of a chicken-egg question. Will rights-holders license 3D blu rays on the chance they will sustain if not drive 3D home equipment sales? Or will they hold back, and in turn likely hasten the death of those sales?

    I'm a big believer in the old entertainment-industry saw "content is king." I belatedly jumped onboard the home-3D bandwagon (buying one of Samsung's last 3D sets) when Kino and 3D Film Archive released a gorgeous 3D blu of 1954's Gog.

    Since then, I've bought a lot of classic and recent 3D titles I wanted and, I suspect like many fellow classic-3D enthusiasts, I've "taken one for the team" multiple times by buying other titles I'd never buy in 2D — in order to inspire rights holders to keep the classic-3D spigot open. For example, I've bought: Kiss Me Kate from WB, Miss Sadie Thompson from Twilight Time, and, from Kino, Those Redheads from Seattle (sorry, I'm just not into musicals) and APE (this stinker of a movie wasn't released; it escaped… but the 3D on the blu, thanks to 3D Film Archive, is pretty great).

    The good news is that I can look forward to The Maze from Kino in a couple of months, and possibly another couple of titles on my classic-3D want-list before long. But too many classic-3D rights remain frustratingly elusive. And that won't help…

  123. Camps

    Returning to the question posed in the thread, I actually think it's kind of a chicken-egg question. Will rights-holders license 3D blu rays on the chance they will sustain if not drive 3D home equipment sales? Or will they hold back, and in turn likely hasten the death of those sales?

    I'm a big believer in the old entertainment-industry saw "content is king." I belatedly jumped onboard the home-3D bandwagon (buying one of Samsung's last 3D sets) when Kino and 3D Film Archive released a gorgeous 3D blu of 1954's Gog.

    Since then, I've bought a lot of classic and recent 3D titles I wanted and, I suspect like many fellow classic-3D enthusiasts, I've "taken one for the team" multiple times by buying other titles I'd never buy in 2D — in order to inspire rights holders to keep the classic-3D spigot open. For example, I've bought: Kiss Me Kate from WB, Miss Sadie Thompson from Twilight Time, and, from Kino, Those Redheads from Seattle (sorry, I'm just not into musicals) and APE (this stinker of a movie wasn't released; it escaped… but the 3D on the blu, thanks to 3D Film Archive, is pretty great).

    The good news is that I can look forward to The Maze from Kino in a couple of months, and possibly another couple of titles on my classic-3D want-list before long. But too many classic-3D rights remain frustratingly elusive. And that won't help…

    I'll be buying the Maze, and any other vintage 3D revival on BD even though I don't have a 3D TV set . The reason is that the 're usually pretty good movies, so I watch them "flat" . Having said that , I'd prefer to watch them in 3D and I'm hoping someone comes out with a reasonably priced (around $1000) 50 to 60 inch 3D television.
    Meanwhile , the 3D format for modern blockbuster films seems to be pretty healthy in theaters. Most new films seem to have a 3D counterpart.

  124. DaveF

    I'm now regretting not getting LEGO Batman in 3D. 2D was fun, but it was obviously made to be watched in 3D. 🙂

    3D may be dying as a consumer electronics feature…but there's fun to be found in it, even for folks like me who mostly don't care.

    I love 3D, but IMO any Lego movies should be assigned to the bin. Just our opinion.

  125. I have 293 3D titles. About two months ago I bought an all-region blu-ray player so I could get the titles released overseas as well – hence "The Mummy", "Seventh Son", "Terminator 2", "Ratatouille", "Universal Soldier Day of Reckoning", "Valerian" etc. I'm a die-hard 3D fan and am disgusted at the studios for abandoning it after trying to sell it to us as the next big thing. Instead they are now selling us UHD 4K that's not really 4K most of the time but up-converted 2K. I have a 4K player but I only buy the "real deal" 4K titles. But if they put out a 3D title, I'll get it every time.

  126. Ten8yp

    No. 3D in home is dead. I think I got my Mitsubishi 3D equipment out a total of 3 times in the 78 I've owned it.

    Unfortunately they will never get rid of it because they can charge more for tickets.

    Ok, then. You don't get your wish.

  127. RJ992

    And vinyl?

    You get a chuckie thumb.
    [​IMG]

    moovtune

    I have 293 3D titles. About two months ago I bought an all-region blu-ray player so I could get the titles released overseas as well – hence "The Mummy", "Seventh Son", "Terminator 2", "Ratatouille", "Universal Soldier Day of Reckoning", "Valerian" etc. I'm a die-hard 3D fan and am disgusted at the studios for abandoning it after trying to sell it to us as the next big thing. Instead they are now selling us UHD 4K that's not really 4K most of the time but up-converted 2K. I have a 4K player but I only buy the "real deal" 4K titles. But if they put out a 3D title, I'll get it every time.

    That's what I'm going to do. I hope they will drop in price though $400 is a lot.

    One to add to the list is The BFG 3D. The region B has ATMOS!! The others don't… 🙁

  128. Remember 1973 was during the oil crisis. They weren't manufacturing enough records to meet the demand back then. Today, LPs are a tiny niche market. People are using streaming to get music now.

  129. bigshot

    Remember 1973 was during the oil crisis. They weren't manufacturing enough records to meet the demand back then. Today, LPs are a tiny niche market. People are using streaming to get music now.

    What's this got to do with the 3-D forum that you are using???????????????????

  130. moovtune

    Thanks for the mention of "The BFG". I missed that one on 3D. Now ordered.

    Just a quick reminder to those not following BFG releases and without Region Free player

    The UK/DE/Fr 3D sets with Atmos are Region B Locked
    Teh India 3D is region Free, but has no ATMOS

    There is a Netherlands release which is region free with Atmos available from bol.com (very well respected Retailer), but it's only a 1 disc 3D ONLY release so there is no 2D disc in the set.

  131. David Norman

    An indirect comparison to previously nearly dead formats making a surprisingly decent rebound

    "Vinyl LP sales accounted for 8.5 percent of all album sales last year, and 14 percent of all physical albums sold in 2017 — respective increases of 6.5 percent and 11 percent from 2016." (ABC News)

  132. Stephen_J_H

    To quote Han Solo, "Well, that's the trick, and it's gonna cost ya." You're just gonna have to hunt the interwebz for such items, and be prepared for a serious case of sticker shock.

    Assuming I got the 2016 model LG OLED, would I have 3D? Would I need some kind of upgrade tech or reprogramming? I get the feeling that you know the answer to this.

  133. JoeDoakes

    Assuming I got the 2016 model LG OLED, would I have 3D? Would I need some kind of upgrade tech or reprogramming? I get the feeling that you know the answer to this.

    No. It has 3D. I have the OLED 65E6. Best 3D I have ever seen.

    List price was $5,000

    I paid $3200

    Good luck finding one.

  134. Tino

    No. It has 3D. I have the OLED 65E6. Best 3D I have ever seen.

    List price was $5,000

    I paid $3200

    Good luck finding one.

    Don't know the model number, but I have the LG OLED 55" model with 3D. I echo Tino's assessment. Best Damn 3D representation I have ever seen. So good in fact, that it made me come back to watching 3D movies after I had largely abandoned them due to poor quality. I am now snapping up as many 3D titles as I can find. This is so good, it even makes Clash of the Titans (one of the poorest 3Ds I had ever seen) look decent. I paid the same as Tino did. Just did a search, still can find some on Amazon, but they are pricey, and most of the listings are for used models.

  135. This week's Bloomberg Businessweek covers the annual CES show, and sadly reflects the current mass market attitude toward 3D:

    "There probably won't be any mind-blowing announcements from Las Vegas this January, and the show's history is littered with more duds than hits (3D TVs, anyone?)"

  136. JoeDoakes

    Assuming I got the 2016 model LG OLED, would I have 3D? Would I need some kind of upgrade tech or reprogramming? I get the feeling that you know the answer to this.

    All 2016 models except the B6 have 3-D.

    All you need is a 3-D Blu-Ray player and a high-speed HDMI 1.4 cable. Passive glasses are included with the TV.

  137. revgen

    All 2016 models except the B6 have 3-D.

    All you need is a 3-D Blu-Ray player and a high-speed HDMI 1.4 cable. Passive glasses are included with the TV.

    And all real3D glasses work too.

  138. Well… Marvel went from being the best studio for home 3D from 2011-2017 to inconsistent support in 2017 to no domestic support at all in 2018.

    That's a major bummer.

    The Marvel titles in 3D were likely to be among the format's greatest sellers. If they're done, it's probably done.

  139. Unfortunately, Disney doesn't care on this particular issue. They have already discontinued 3D support for their main studio output, for Pixar, and possibly Lucasfilm. This isn't a fluke but rather an intentional decision, and I don't think there's anything we the consumer can do, other than ordering from overseas when possible.

    We can also thank James Gunn for pushing Marvel into UHD at the expense of 3D support. Gunn was very vocal about wanting Guardians 2 to come out in UHD, but promised that 3D fans would still be taken care of. When it was pointed out to Gunn that the 3D version was released in extremely limited quantities and that most fans who wanted it were unable to easily purchase it, rather than acknowledging that issue and offering to look into it, he declined to respond.

    I have also noticed that it appears Marvel's upcoming Black Panther is scheduled to be released in IMAX 2D rather than IMAX 3D, the first time this has happened for a Marvel title since Iron Man 2 in 2010. There is a 3D version available, but it appears that Marvel is declining to share it with IMAX. So, yet another nail in 3D's coffin – despite Thor 3 selling out opening night in IMAX 3D and delivering huge numbers in that format.

  140. Worth

    Why don't they alternate the IMAX screenings between 2D and 3D? That's what they did around here for Last Jedi.

    That's a really good question for which I have no answer. We have four IMAX theaters in Manhattan, and each show exclusively 2D. When tickets went onsale yesterday, I purchased tickets for an IMAX 3D showing and was charged the 3D rate, and when I checked later in the day to see if other tickets were available, I saw that the showing had been changed to IMAX 2D at the lower IMAX 2D price.

  141. Tino

    And all real3D glasses work too.

    Are you sure about that Tino? I was under the impression that the passive 3D used on TVs was vertical/horizontal polarization rather the the circular polarization used by RealD 3D.

  142. Mark-P

    Are you sure about that Tino? I was under the impression that the passive 3D used on TVs was vertical/horizontal polarization rather the the circular polarization used by RealD 3D.

    I use them all the time.

  143. Tino

    I use them all the time.

    I'll be darned, you learn something new every day. I had only had experience with active shutter TVs. Apparently passive 3D TV manufacturers use(d) circular polarization as well. This means you can tilt your head and not lose the 3D effect.

  144. Mark-P

    I'll be darned, you learn something new every day. I had only had experience with active shutter TVs. Apparently passive 3D TV manufacturers use(d) circular polarization as well. This means you can tilt your head and not lose the 3D effect.

    Yup. I watch 3D pretty much laying down.

  145. Just watched Jurassic Park in 3D and was disappointed. Saw a lot of ghosting. Probably the worst 3D movie I have right now. I have a 65 inch LG OLED E6. Anyone else discover this or is it just me?

  146. Bob_S.

    Just watched Jurassic Park in 3D and was disappointed. Saw a lot of ghosting. Probably the worst 3D movie I have right now. I have a 65 inch LG OLED E6. Anyone else discover this or is it just me?

    I have that disc and the same display. Do you remember any time lines for the ghosting?

  147. I'll try another movie. Polar Express looked fantastic when we watched it at Christmas. I have 2 movies that I have problems with ghosting out of all my 3d discs. Dial M for Murder and now Jurassic Park 3D. The ghosting appears mostly towards the top of the screen on both. Sometimes on JP the ghosting shows up from the middle to upper third of the picture. Dial M for Murder happens mainly at the top. Maybe the angle I'm watching it at? But why would Polar Express look great but JP not? I viewed both those movies at the same angle. Now that I think about it, when I watched Dial M for Murder I stood up and noticed that the ghosting disappeared. Seems like some 3d movies have better viewing angles?

  148. Bob_S.

    I'll try another movie. Polar Express looked fantastic when we watched it at Christmas. I have 2 movies that I have problems with ghosting out of all my 3d discs. Dial M for Murder and now Jurassic Park 3D. The ghosting appears mostly towards the top of the screen on both. Sometimes on JP the ghosting shows up from the middle to upper third of the picture. Dial M for Murder happens mainly at the top. Maybe the angle I'm watching it at? But why would Polar Express look great but JP not? I viewed both those movies at the same angle.

    Is the ghosting throughout Jurassic Park? Does it happen within the first 30 minutes of the film? The reason I ask is I want to check it out, but don't want to watch the entire film.

  149. It seems to happen through out most of the movie. I think tonight when I get home from work, I'll pop it in and watch it standing up and see if the ghosting disappears. My sofa may not be far enough away from the screen and the angle I'm watching it at is off.

    Oh, did anyone buy the Jurassic Park 3D/Jurassic World 3D set with all the Jurassic movies? I bought it from Amazon new and noticed I got 2 Jurassic Park blu rays and no Jurassic Park III. I ordered a new set but didn't know if it was a fluke thing or a common issue.

  150. Bob_S.

    It seems to happen through out most of the movie. I think tonight when I get home from work, I'll pop it in and watch it standing up and see if the ghosting disappears. My sofa may not be far enough away from the screen and the angle I'm watching it at is off.

    I'm going to check it out this weekend and report back my findings.

  151. Well, here is my vote.

    If indeed the days of home 3D in the US are becoming more and more numbered (as evidenced by this week’s announcement of COCO), then it is time to start collecting all those 3D blu rays, get a good 4K Blu ray player that is 3D ready, and a 3D Wizard device (if you can find it at all as they are scarce and the company that made it apparently went belly up) to get more mileage off of home 3D. Remember too that Disney has regionfree 3D imports available of films you cannot get here in their original form. Or better yet get a region free 4K 3D ready player so you can have a chance to grow your collection with region B 3D discs too.

    I already have a 3D Wizard now and am planning to get at the very least a good 4K 3D ready player. Would be nice if I can get a region free player too at the right cost.

  152. deepscan

    Well, here is my vote.

    If indeed the days of home 3D in the US are becoming more and more numbered (as evidenced by this week’s announcement of COCO), then it is time to start collecting all those 3D blu rays, get a good 4K Blu ray player that is 3D ready, and a 3D Wizard device (if you can find it at all as they are scarce and the company that made it apparently went belly up) to get more mileage off of home 3D. Remember too that Disney has regionfree 3D imports available of films you cannot get here in their original form. Or better yet get a region free 4K 3D ready player so you can have a chance to grow your collection with region B 3D discs too.

    I already have a 3D Wizard now and am planning to get at the very least a good 4K 3D ready player. Would be nice if I can get a region free player too at the right cost.

    Samsung 3D/4K K8500 region free

    http://www.220-electronics.com/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=220 Electronics Name&utm_term=220 electronics&utm_content=220 Electronics Name

  153. 3D Projectionist

    Will 3D at Home Make a Comeback?

    Um its not gone yet! New 3D releases are coming on BR, 3D projectors are plentiful as are suitable players.

    Not enough of the market place to sustain producing 3D releases in the USA.

  154. Update on my Jurassic Park 3D: Popped the disc in last night and watched it sitting down and then standing up. One scene I'll mention is in the beginning of the film when Ellie is underneath the tent watching the monitor with the raptor fossil, her hat brim has a double image. When I stand up the double image disappears but then I see double images on the bottom of the screen. Looks like it's the viewing angle that's the cause. Most of the 3D movies I have have just a little ghosting at the very top of the screen, but not enough to distract me. I just chalked it up to my sofa not being far enough back ( or my tv stand too high) and my viewing angle being a little too low. Jurassic Park and Dial M for Murder seem to be the worst of them. I could cut the tv stand legs down a few inches but I don't think the wife would be too happy with that.:lol:

  155. Bob_S.

    Update on my Jurassic Park 3D: Popped the disc in last night and watched it sitting down and then standing up. One scene I'll mention is in the beginning of the film when Ellie is underneath the tent watching the monitor with the raptor fossil, her hat brim has a double image. When I stand up the double image disappears but then I see double images on the bottom of the screen. Looks like it's the viewing angle that's the cause. Most of the 3D movies I have have just a little ghosting at the very top of the screen, but not enough to distract me. I just chalked it up to my sofa not being far enough back ( or my tv stand too high) and my viewing angle being a little too low. Jurassic Park and Dial M for Murder seem to be the worst of them. I could cut the tv stand legs down a few inches but I don't think the wife would be too happy with that.:lol:

    I'll check that scene out today.

  156. May I ask some information?
    Do you have some numbers or graphic, of the rise and fall ot 3D film releases and 3D film conversions?

    Maybe the lack of good view devices, for home and for theaters, is one key reason. The only good system is liguid crystal glasses that blink in syncrony to the right and left image projected. But it's expansive. Anaglyfe glasses and polarized glasses have problems. 3D TV have worse view angle.
    Quality of 3D conversions many times wasn't decent., and the best donversions was costly.

    And we can't forget that many people have 2D view, despite have 2 working eyes. The guy who created a a image segmentation system, used in 3D conversion and years ealy in modern colorizationm, had mono view.

  157. Alberto_D

    May I ask some information?
    Do you have some numbers or graphic, of the rise and fall ot 3D film releases and 3D film conversions?

    Maybe the lack of good view devices, for home and for theaters, is one key reason. The only good system is liguid crystal glasses that blink in syncrony to the right and left image projected. But it's expansive. Anaglyfe glasses and polarized glasses have problems. 3D TV have worse view angle.
    Quality of 3D conversions many times wasn't decent., and the best donversions was costly.

    And we can't forget that many people have 2D view, despite have 2 working eyes. The guy who created a a image segmentation system, used in 3D conversion and years ealy in modern colorizationm, had mono view.

    Nothing wrong with passive polarised glasses. Cheaper, lighter, battery free and less prone to crosstalk.
    Comparing viewing angles between cinemas and homes is pointless: the viewing angle on my 3D TV is just fine.
    If some people can't see 3D for any reason then that's Tango Sierra and they're out of luck.

  158. Bob_S.

    Update on my Jurassic Park 3D: Popped the disc in last night and watched it sitting down and then standing up. One scene I'll mention is in the beginning of the film when Ellie is underneath the tent watching the monitor with the raptor fossil, her hat brim has a double image. When I stand up the double image disappears but then I see double images on the bottom of the screen. Looks like it's the viewing angle that's the cause. Most of the 3D movies I have have just a little ghosting at the very top of the screen, but not enough to distract me. I just chalked it up to my sofa not being far enough back ( or my tv stand too high) and my viewing angle being a little too low. Jurassic Park and Dial M for Murder seem to be the worst of them. I could cut the tv stand legs down a few inches but I don't think the wife would be too happy with that.:lol:

    I checked that scene sitting and standing without any ghosting issues.

  159. Mark-P

    Sorry, but I don't believe you are correct. The actual versions on the discs are the same brightness level. It's the TV or projector settings that are brighter in 3D mode to compensate for the filtering of the glasses. That's why when you have a disc where the 2D is embedded in the 3D and plays back a one-eye view it's not too bright.

    Sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree- if I take off my glasses while watching the 3D version at home the image is noticeably brighter the the HD version and I never change the settings.

  160. noel aguirre

    Sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree- if I take off my glasses while watching the 3D version at home the image is noticeably brighter the the HD version and I never change the settings.

    Read post #82. Josh Steinberg and I went back and forth on this until basically coming to agreement. I'm not about to get into it all over again as I've said my peace.:(

  161. Worthy questions (I think at least) to add here:

    1) If 3D truly is done, how are we supposed to watch all our 3D discs in the future? That’s what bugs me more than whether any new ones will be made. Do they expect us to just watch the 2D versions, or throw them out since any movie over 10 years old isn’t worth watching anyways? The least I’m hoping for is an external device to add active 3D back to TVs- wouldn’t be as good as continuing passive technology and wouldn’t get the masses on board, but would be better than nothing.

    2) Would ONE really well done and popular movie shot in 3D be enough to bring equipment back into production? I didn’t think Avatar was that great of a movie but it did look good, and if all of the 3D movies made after it looked as good then there wouldn’t be so much hate for it.

  162. Jesse Skeen

    Worthy questions (I think at least) to add here:

    1) If 3D truly is done, how are we supposed to watch all our 3D discs in the future? That’s what bugs me more than whether any new ones will be made. Do they expect us to just watch the 2D versions, or throw them out since any movie over 10 years old isn’t worth watching anyways? The least I’m hoping for is an external device to add active 3D back to TVs- wouldn’t be as good as continuing passive technology and wouldn’t get the masses on board, but would be better than nothing.

    The only definite answer I can give you is to seek for 3D Video Wizard. It’s not being made anymore because of poor sales. It pops up from time to time on eBay and Amazon (via second hand members) but they are rare at best and becoming tougher and tougher to track down. It will work with 3D ready blu ray players (even the new 4K players) and can plug in to all HDTVs (or if you have a 4K player that’s 3D ready it has to plug in to 4K TVs). I have a 3D Video Wizard unit on hand and ready to go whenever I complete my upgrade to 4K. You should be able to get good 3D with the “classic red/cyan” system (that’s what color the glasses are) and being in HD you probably won’t have any problems with it.

  163. Any system that uses colored glasses is awful- I've seen almost all of them. There's just no way to get the color right, and if it's done in black and white it's just an alternating red and blue mess rather than a proper black and white picture.

  164. Mark-P

    Are you sure about that Tino? I was under the impression that the passive 3D used on TVs was vertical/horizontal polarization rather the the circular polarization used by RealD 3D.

    I used the clip-on lenses that came with my LG OLED several times at the theatre. they worked just fine.

  165. Mark-P

    Are you sure about that Tino? I was under the impression that the passive 3D used on TVs was vertical/horizontal polarization rather the the circular polarization used by RealD 3D.

    I used the clip-on lenses that came with my LG OLED several times at the theatre. they worked just fine.

  166. Jesse Skeen

    Any system that uses colored glasses is awful- I've seen almost all of them. There's just no way to get the color right, and if it's done in black and white it's just an alternating red and blue mess rather than a proper black and white picture.

    Agreed. The best way to have 3-D become another "passing fad" is to bring anaglyph back.

    Anaglyph is okay if it's a still image like a comic book. And only if the image is black and white. 1950's 3-D comics used it quite a bit, and it's okay.

    For moving images, especially color moving images, it's anachronistic. Most of the major studios abandoned anaglyph for brand new 3-D productions since 1936 when Polaroid introduced the first discrete 3-D projection system. Only repertory screenings ever used anaglyph prints since repertory theaters couldn't show dual-strip 35mm. With digital projection, anaglyph is pretty much a dead format.

  167. Jesse Skeen

    Any system that uses colored glasses is awful- I've seen almost all of them. There's just no way to get the color right, and if it's done in black and white it's just an alternating red and blue mess rather than a proper black and white picture.

    Agreed. The best way to have 3-D become another "passing fad" is to bring anaglyph back.

    Anaglyph is okay if it's a still image like a comic book. And only if the image is black and white. 1950's 3-D comics used it quite a bit, and it's okay.

    For moving images, especially color moving images, it's anachronistic. Most of the major studios abandoned anaglyph for brand new 3-D productions since 1936 when Polaroid introduced the first discrete 3-D projection system. Only repertory screenings ever used anaglyph prints since repertory theaters couldn't show dual-strip 35mm. With digital projection, anaglyph is pretty much a dead format.

  168. Jimbo64

    No ghosting on my LG 65” C6 either

    Last year up I ordered a LG LCD. Ghosting on it was horrible. Had a LG technician look at it swap out the board and all that…no improvement, ended up sending it back and splurged on the Curved OLED (which was $1000 less than the flat panel). Better performance (of my tests was the title screen on Jaws 3D which had horrible ghosting on the LCD, still had some ghosting on the OLED, but it was the same as on my older Samsung active display). But I do find I really have to be in sweet spot to not get any ghosting. If there's a problem with the display, not much I can do now since this is the last 3D display I will even own apparently. It's still under warranty, but nothing the technician did for the original LCD I bought had any effect so I wouldn't expect any difference for the OLED.

    Anyway, on a personal note since 3D BD is terminal in the US, I feel like I'm being pushed toward the feeling of just wishing it will go away all together. Either support 3D BD or just stop releasing movies in 3D theatrically im the first place.

  169. WillG

    Last year up I ordered a LG LCD. Ghosting on it was horrible. Had a LG technician look at it swap out the board and all that…no improvement, ended up sending it back and splurged on the Curved OLED (which was $1000 less than the flat panel). Better performance (of my tests was the title screen on Jaws 3D which had horrible ghosting on the LCD, still had some ghosting on the OLED, but it was the same as on my older Samsung active display). But I do find I really have to be in sweet spot to not get any ghosting. If there's a problem with the display, not much I can do now since this is the last 3D display I will even own apparently. It's still under warranty, but nothing the technician did for the original LCD I bought had any effect so I wouldn't expect any difference for the OLED.

    I have a 42” active Samsung in my living room that I never use for 3D since I discovered passive. In my den I had a 4 year old 50” Sony LCD passive set that I enjoyed for many years (now in a spare bedroom) that I replaced with the LG OLED 65” curve last summer. I have to say rewatching many of my 3D blu-rays is a much better experience on the OLED and I have zero complaints about it. I know what you mean about the titles of Jaws 3D but I don’t think that’s a good title to judge ghosting on much like Comin At Ya. Those split lens single strip 3D films can be painful to the eyes as the parallax is so extreme. Hugo is the one that proved the superiority of the OLED to me, it just looks perfect on the LG but did ghost a bit on the Sony

  170. Jesse Skeen

    1) If 3D truly is done, how are we supposed to watch all our 3D discs in the future?

    As far as the industry is concerned, no one is watching them now, therefore people watching them in the future isn't a concern either. The less glib, more practical answer is that you'll need to move into projection. You can get a high quality HD 3D capable projector from a brand like BenQ for $500, and project onto a white wall or sheet for a bare minimum job. Projection is a niche market anyway, so a niche feature within a niche product may survive a little longer than on flat panels. 3D discs are still being released internationally; if an international television manufacturer still makes a set, you may be able to import one. But in general, they don't think anyone's watching (and statistically speaking, that may be close to the truth), so they don't care about it. The BDA mandated when the 3D spec was created that all 3D discs be backwards compatible to 2D (either by including both versions on the same disc, or separate 2D and 3D discs within the same package) so they will probably argue that you still have the ability to play those films in some format. But essentially, they don't care. Microsoft probably doesn't care if you have something on a Zune you can't play either.

    Jesse Skeen

    2) Would ONE really well done and popular movie shot in 3D be enough to bring equipment back into production?

    I would guess not, but who knows. 3D projection is handled so poorly in the U.S. on average that it seems the vast majority of people are turned off by that experience and aren't looking to repeat it, particularly at the premium prices charged. As an anecdotal example of the whole phenomenon, my wife had some friends over to watch our copy of Wonder Woman 3D on my projector. They had all seen the movie in 2D in theaters, and were primarily interested in watching it at our house for the big screen, not the 3D, but when we mentioned it was an option they thought that was cool and didn't realize it was possible at home. They watched it and found the 3D quality at home to be outstanding, better than anything they had seen in theaters before. When I pointed out that I knew for a fact at least two of them had televisions that were 3D capable, so that they could easily have this experience in their own home, they showed no interest. I think there is a lot of genuine disinterest; some, but not all, brought on by poor quality 3D releases and/or poor quality 3D exhibition. The price gauging hurt. Even IMAX, owners of the best 3D projection technology in the world, are starting to move towards 2D-only exhibition of 3D films. Dolby Cinema, which is also capable of outstanding 3D projection, shows 3D films almost exclusively in 2D.

    3D in the U.S. will probably remain popular for theme park attractions – Universal theme parks use 3D technology extensively, where a lot of their attractions will be the user in a mechanized cart on a track that jostles and moves and sets the viewer in front of giant 3D screens for a thrill, and then moves again to another giant 3D screen. (Disney generally prefers anamatronic builds of actual physical props.) So I think it'll still be in use for those applications.

    I can't really blame the audience at this point. The sales pitch for 3D over the years has been reduced to: "Come pay an extra $5-10 per ticket for a poor quality 3D presentation that's inferior to the 2D presentation in the next auditorium." That's not a sustainable sales pitch.

    I think the entire industry is rapidly changing faster than the studios understand and faster than the exhibitors can adjust. I think the goal of enhancements like 3D should have been not to price gauge audiences, but to give them reasons to come to the theaters when the quality and convenience of watching a movie at home has never been greater. Adding things like 3D or Dolby Atmos shouldn't have been done as an excuse to charge more; it should have been done to give people a reason to go out. Unfortunately, I think they blew it, and theatrical exhibition continues to decline across the board.

    WillG

    Jaws 3D which had horrible ghosting

    Unfortunately Universal didn't make a good digital master for this title, and there are errors baked into their master that are going to look terrible on any display. That's not an ideal title to test your TV with, as it looks pretty bad even on the best systems.

  171. I got into 3D really late (like 2017) but I'm glad I did (up to 139). Of course I'm double dipping on almost everything but there are some really great 3Ders out there.

    If 3D makes a comeback, we only have to thank China…they are going to own Hollywood! They just built quite a few 3D theaters last year…watch out Disney…you're in their sights! :3dglasses:

  172. Lord Dalek

    By that point everybody in this thread will be dead.

    While there's still some life left in the most recent 3-D revival (and there most definitely is), I just want to see as many of the vintage 3-D films get restored as possible. They are so much fun. I wish more people would check these out.

    Seeing the occasional modern gem is a welcome bonus.

  173. Though it got little coverage, turns out there WAS an 8K glasses-free 3D display being shown at CES and the manufacturer (admittedly one I've never heard of) is trying to push it. No word of when we can actually buy one, but at least it's something.

  174. Jesse Skeen

    Though it got little coverage, turns out there WAS an 8K glasses-free 3D display being shown at CES and the manufacturer (admittedly one I've never heard of) is trying to push it. No word of when we can actually buy one, but at least it's something.

    Glasses-Free 3D

  175. John Sparks

    If 3D makes a comeback, we only have to thank China…they are going to own Hollywood! They just built quite a few 3D theaters last year…

    That's a good point. If 3D remains viable in Asia and Europe, there should be content available for years to come, especially if you're region free. Displays might be more problematic, but it's hard to imagine if the content remains available that some manufacturer, at some point, wouldn't introduce a 3D feature in future displays (and it might not require separate glasses, per the posts above).

Leave a Reply