6 ms·

The 3D TV phase was so odd. It really seemed like an inevitability: there was a technological breakthrough, it was genuinely much better than what came before (

The 3D TV phase was so odd. It really seemed like an inevitability: there was a technological breakthrough, it was genuinely much better than what came before (the red and blue stuff), it was relatively inexpensive, and on paper it seemed like a strict improvement on the status quo (flat TV). But... somehow, I never actually found myself wanting it that badly at home. And I guess everyone else agreed because one day it just vanished. So few technologies follow a trajectory like that. Usually you either get a success or a failure, where successes only end once they're replaced by something new and strictly better. But this was truly a fad; it was kind of successful for a minute, and then everybody lost interest.

taneq 6y ago
I'm still salty about that. I love 3D movies, even with the fuzziness and the glasses (I wear glasses anyway so, I mean, what's the big deal?) but nobody else can be bothered, and now you can't buy them any more. I really hope my current TV doesn't die.
- thiht 6y ago
  Do you mind sharing what you love about 3D movies? Even ignoring the glasses and the fuzziness (and the headaches and the blurry vision in my case) I can't find one positive thing about it.
  - taneq 6y ago
    I enjoy the extra sense of immersion and the added depth, and I feel like I get a better understanding of what's going on. I get a sense of 'being there' that I've never really had with 2D movies.
dandanua 6y ago
It's because of the lack of 3D content for TV. Occasional 3D movies, that you'd better watch in a cinema, is not a very big incentive. For games there are VR helmets.
- spookthesunset 6y ago
  It wasn’t just the content. It was the glasses weren’t included and were almost always super expensive. Or at least costly enough to make it something you’d have to really really want.
  - dandanua 6y ago
    I guess it depends on the technology. Passive glasses (polarizers) shouldn't be expensive.
SilverRed 6y ago
I wonder if we just hit a technology wall. The glasses were a pain, the non glasses ones didn't work so well and nothing else better could be found. People were willing to put up with the inconvenient version for the novelty but they quickly wanted something better and no one could provide better. 3D video may come back with mobile VR devices. I don't think that people simply didn't like 3D video, only that we weren't able to give a good enough experience for it and one day if someone invents something that does it better, it will come back.
- spookthesunset 6y ago
  I think that is a good take. It is a technology wall, but I have no idea what technology would make truly painless 3D.
  - axiolite 6y ago
    > I have no idea what technology would make truly painless 3D. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  I don't think it was ever about technology. Or perhaps you expected sculpture would have supplanted painting? 3D isn't really what we want for every medium. I would argue the same is true for VR.
  - k4rli 6y ago
    VR seems more promising than AR for consumers. Do regular people really have valid AR use cases?
    - slfnflctd 6y ago
      I honestly think AR is poised to blow up, there has been a lot of sustained activity in the space for years - including lots of exploration of business/industrial uses - and we haven't even seen a true consumer device yet (Google Glass doesn't count). It's going to simplify/streamline a decent subset of the top uses for smartphones, while also providing novel experiences. I do believe VR is here to stay, but I really think that's going to be more gamer-centric. The 'social' aspects of VR seem to be very, very niche; most of what users are talking about (and spending time/money on) is games.
philwelch 6y ago
It’s honestly just more trouble than it’s worth. I have a 3D TV (by relative accident) and I’ve never used the 3D functionality. Even going to the movie theater it was honestly never a big draw once I got over the novelty of it, which happened approximately 2/3 of the way through Avatar. That was almost the only content that was ever specifically made for the 3D format—a quickly forgotten, crappy science fiction movie that wasn’t even that much better in 3D compared to 2D. VR might be another story, since VR content has a much more convincing 3D effect. But that entails pretty fundamental changes to cinematography, and requires the viewer to wear a massive headset that blocks out the real world; having some friends over for a movie night is virtually impossible.
- piotrkaminski 6y ago
  > Avatar [...] —a quickly forgotten, crappy science fiction movie I mean, you're not wrong, but I think it's fair to note that yours is not a popular opinion [0]. :D [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56397511 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56397511
  - philwelch 6y ago
    I saw it in theaters because it was advertised to be the best use of the new and improved 3D film technology at the time, so I was part of that high box office gross. Despite the strong positive reception at the time, though, the movie didn’t really seem to achieve a lasting legacy.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      It was an outstanding technical achievement for the time. And enjoyable enough. But it really wasn't a great movie.
    - slavik81 6y ago
      Avatar 2 is scheduled for next year, and there's a movie every second year until 2028.
hannob 6y ago
Like 3D cinema. I found it interesting 2 times, then annoying, and then just started avoiding cinemas that didn't show the movie I wanted to see in 2D. Or the Nintendo 3DS. I quickly found the best thing about its 3D feature was that you could turn it off.
brigandish 6y ago
Football (real football, the one with actual kicking) was pretty good in 3D. Occasionally it got a bit weird when the ball would move in a certain arc relative to the camera but mostly it was an improvement, and the crowd scenes were kind of mindbending[2]. It's how I imagine football would look if the animators of the original Paddington Bear series[1] were rendering it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClA14WQFu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClA14WQFu8 This is the best example I could find. Like 2D cutouts set out in 3D. [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnSGffAmFGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnSGffAmFGk
LegitShady 6y ago
I'm convinced 3d tv/movies only had that resurgence because movie theaters were using the '3d' (along with some other gimmicks') to raise the price of tickets.
nly 6y ago
Bitcoin...
alexgmcm 6y ago
My dad has a 3d TV and I found the main issue was just the fundamental physics - like unless the TV is absolutely massive like a cinema then there are fundamental limits on how "3D" it can appear. This meant that even the relatively small amount of 3D content didn't really feel that 3D, it just felt like more realistic 2D. And if there's only a small amount of content you might as well just go to the far superior 3D cinema for the experience.
cuddlybacon 6y ago
I found 3D TV broke the experience. I'd get into a movie, then at some point into where the 3D effect would get shown off, and it would pull me out of the movie entirely. Perhaps that is more about poor usage of the technology than a problem fundamental to 3D TV. For a while, it was really hard to go to the theater. Everything interesting was only in 3D. I didn't want to pay more for an experience I liked less than the previous status quo.

taneq 6y ago

I'm still salty about that. I love 3D movies, even with the fuzziness and the glasses (I wear glasses anyway so, I mean, what's the big deal?) but nobody else can be bothered, and now you can't buy them any more. I really hope my current TV doesn't die.

thiht 6y ago
Do you mind sharing what you love about 3D movies? Even ignoring the glasses and the fuzziness (and the headaches and the blurry vision in my case) I can't find one positive thing about it.
- taneq 6y ago
  I enjoy the extra sense of immersion and the added depth, and I feel like I get a better understanding of what's going on. I get a sense of 'being there' that I've never really had with 2D movies.

dandanua 6y ago

It's because of the lack of 3D content for TV. Occasional 3D movies, that you'd better watch in a cinema, is not a very big incentive. For games there are VR helmets.

spookthesunset 6y ago
It wasn’t just the content. It was the glasses weren’t included and were almost always super expensive. Or at least costly enough to make it something you’d have to really really want.
- dandanua 6y ago
  I guess it depends on the technology. Passive glasses (polarizers) shouldn't be expensive.

SilverRed 6y ago

I wonder if we just hit a technology wall. The glasses were a pain, the non glasses ones didn't work so well and nothing else better could be found. People were willing to put up with the inconvenient version for the novelty but they quickly wanted something better and no one could provide better. 3D video may come back with mobile VR devices. I don't think that people simply didn't like 3D video, only that we weren't able to give a good enough experience for it and one day if someone invents something that does it better, it will come back.

spookthesunset 6y ago
I think that is a good take. It is a technology wall, but I have no idea what technology would make truly painless 3D.
- axiolite 6y ago
  > I have no idea what technology would make truly painless 3D. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
I don't think it was ever about technology. Or perhaps you expected sculpture would have supplanted painting? 3D isn't really what we want for every medium. I would argue the same is true for VR.
- k4rli 6y ago
  VR seems more promising than AR for consumers. Do regular people really have valid AR use cases?
  - slfnflctd 6y ago
    I honestly think AR is poised to blow up, there has been a lot of sustained activity in the space for years - including lots of exploration of business/industrial uses - and we haven't even seen a true consumer device yet (Google Glass doesn't count). It's going to simplify/streamline a decent subset of the top uses for smartphones, while also providing novel experiences. I do believe VR is here to stay, but I really think that's going to be more gamer-centric. The 'social' aspects of VR seem to be very, very niche; most of what users are talking about (and spending time/money on) is games.

philwelch 6y ago

It’s honestly just more trouble than it’s worth. I have a 3D TV (by relative accident) and I’ve never used the 3D functionality. Even going to the movie theater it was honestly never a big draw once I got over the novelty of it, which happened approximately 2/3 of the way through Avatar. That was almost the only content that was ever specifically made for the 3D format—a quickly forgotten, crappy science fiction movie that wasn’t even that much better in 3D compared to 2D. VR might be another story, since VR content has a much more convincing 3D effect. But that entails pretty fundamental changes to cinematography, and requires the viewer to wear a massive headset that blocks out the real world; having some friends over for a movie night is virtually impossible.

piotrkaminski 6y ago
> Avatar [...] —a quickly forgotten, crappy science fiction movie I mean, you're not wrong, but I think it's fair to note that yours is not a popular opinion [0]. :D [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56397511 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56397511
- philwelch 6y ago
  I saw it in theaters because it was advertised to be the best use of the new and improved 3D film technology at the time, so I was part of that high box office gross. Despite the strong positive reception at the time, though, the movie didn’t really seem to achieve a lasting legacy.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    It was an outstanding technical achievement for the time. And enjoyable enough. But it really wasn't a great movie.
  - slavik81 6y ago
    Avatar 2 is scheduled for next year, and there's a movie every second year until 2028.

hannob 6y ago

Like 3D cinema. I found it interesting 2 times, then annoying, and then just started avoiding cinemas that didn't show the movie I wanted to see in 2D. Or the Nintendo 3DS. I quickly found the best thing about its 3D feature was that you could turn it off.

brigandish 6y ago

Football (real football, the one with actual kicking) was pretty good in 3D. Occasionally it got a bit weird when the ball would move in a certain arc relative to the camera but mostly it was an improvement, and the crowd scenes were kind of mindbending[2]. It's how I imagine football would look if the animators of the original Paddington Bear series[1] were rendering it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClA14WQFu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClA14WQFu8 This is the best example I could find. Like 2D cutouts set out in 3D. [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnSGffAmFGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnSGffAmFGk

LegitShady 6y ago

I'm convinced 3d tv/movies only had that resurgence because movie theaters were using the '3d' (along with some other gimmicks') to raise the price of tickets.

nly 6y ago

Bitcoin...

alexgmcm 6y ago

My dad has a 3d TV and I found the main issue was just the fundamental physics - like unless the TV is absolutely massive like a cinema then there are fundamental limits on how "3D" it can appear. This meant that even the relatively small amount of 3D content didn't really feel that 3D, it just felt like more realistic 2D. And if there's only a small amount of content you might as well just go to the far superior 3D cinema for the experience.

cuddlybacon 6y ago

I found 3D TV broke the experience. I'd get into a movie, then at some point into where the 3D effect would get shown off, and it would pull me out of the movie entirely. Perhaps that is more about poor usage of the technology than a problem fundamental to 3D TV. For a while, it was really hard to go to the theater. Everything interesting was only in 3D. I didn't want to pay more for an experience I liked less than the previous status quo.