quote:

---

3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets

by Daniel Frankel | Jan 23, 2017 12:53pm

Perhaps putting to rest a cautionary tale for the pay-TV industry about diving headlong into new display technologies, Sony and LG have announced that they will stop integrating 3D capabilities into the TV sets they manufacture this year.

"3D capability was never really universally embraced in the industry for home use, and it's just not a key buying factor when selecting a new TV," said Tim Alessi, LG'sdirector of new product development, to CNET. "Purchase process research showed it's not a top buying consideration, and anecdotal information indicated that actual usage was not high. We decided to drop 3D support for 2017 in order to focus our efforts on new capabilities such as HDR, which has much more universal appeal."

The moves come four years after DirecTV decided to end its 24-hour 3D programming channel.

RELATED: DirecTV pulls plug on 24-hour 3D channel

ESPN dropped its own 3D channel a year later. Comcast, Sony, Discovery and IMAX also teamed up on a short-lived 3D TV gambit.

Consumer electronics companies, pay-TV operators and programmers jumped headlong into the home 3D market back in 2010, when James Cameron’s Avatar grossed nearly $2.8 billion at the global box office and wowed audiences worldwide with the most effective 3D graphics they’d ever seen on a movie screen.

However, delivering a consistent level of 3D experience proved difficult for the motion picture industry, which has since relegated 3D to a niche premium offering.

The 3D experience was even harder to manage in the home, where consumers in smart-phone using, multitasking age had to be convinced to wear glasses and find a good stationary viewing angle while sitting on their couches.

"I think [the fact that Sony and LG dropped 3D] says that consumers have moved on to other purchase motivators for TV," added Ben Arnold, executive director at NPD, to CNET. "Things like 4K/UHD, HDR and even smart have become the key features along with screen size that consumers are buying on."

---

quote:

---

THE STEWARDESS on blu ray in 3D . .. fantastic with a lot of pop outs.

---

I'll bet.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2017, 05:41 PM:
 
Our 3-D unit "went down" in April of last year. We were doing 3-D shows on Saturdays only. Since it went down, we've had the occasional person ask what's the deal with our 3-D. About half the time, if we say it's down, they say "Good!" The other half just shrug like it doesn't make any difference.

I assume we'll get it up and running again some day, at which time maybe we'll just use it occasionally on big-deal shows as a gimmick, which is the way it should have been done all along anyway.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-26-2017, 06:30 AM:
 
Make no mistake, 3D is on the decline in cinemas too. It is still there and perhaps a new Avatar will briefly give some interest as well as some well made 3D movies but as a release format, it is on the severe decline.

I'd think the home market signaling its departure from the format may hasten its decline too since there will be fewer and fewer returns on making 3D releases. Sure, the people that like the format have their systems now but through attrition, that will decline too, further restricting the market to more of a niche.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2017, 12:51 PM:
 
The death of 3D is a self-inflicted wound, thanks to the movie studios.

I think 3D would have performed better in the home market if the Blu-ray 3D discs were not priced so ridiculously high and kept high priced on a permanent or near-permanent basis.

Regular "2D" movies on Blu-ray often go through a series of price discounts after the initial retail release. They'll start out at $18-$25 at first and then steadily drop down to bargain bin pricing. There are few exceptions to this, such as Disney animated movies and Marvel super hero discs. Over time this pricing difference would lead to situations where you could find a 2D version of a movie on Blu-ray for less than $10 yet the 3D version would still cost $30 or more.

I have a 3D capable 65" HDTV set, but have bought only a few Blu-ray 3D discs due to the high price. I was able to get a few 3D movies for cheap when Hastings was was liquidating its inventory. Battery life stinks for the 3D glasses that came with my TV set. That adds more to the high cost of 3D.

In theaters, it's clear customers really hate the high ticket price of 3D movies. That's the biggest factor killing 3D. Some of us picky viewers really hate the bad 2D>3D conversion jobs of so many of these movies. That adds to the poor sales potential of the Blu-ray 3D version at home. Tangent thought: I think movie piracy has grown worse. There's more piracy apps, web sites and things like modded Amazon Fire TV sticks letting people at home watch pirated movies and TV shows easier than ever before. Theater ticket price inflation has more people looking for these outlets of piracy.

The electronics industry's "replacement gimmicks," 4K UHD and HDR, are hardly doing any better. Nearly all the Ultra HD Blu-ray releases have imagery up-rezzed from 2K sources. I've read plenty of negative disc reviews saying the quality differences between the regular Blu-ray and "4K" version is nearly indistinguishable. Basically you have The Revenant and a couple other titles as good 4K demo material. All the rest of it is crap.

I can't help but think the global media industry is doing this as a form of self-sabotage. It's clear they just don't like selling physical media products like movie discs anymore. I think the plan is to cut out retailers and then somehow sell direct to consumers. While they can cut out Target, Best Buy and Walmart they're still going to be stuck dealing with online portals like Amazon and Netflix.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-26-2017, 04:40 PM:
 
I agree with you Bobby about the high cost of 3D discs and it does appear it is something for us who love 3D have to accept and live with. I also agree with you about the extra charge exhibitors make People pay to watch a movie at their theaters in 3D but I had also accepted that when I go to a Cinema.

Unfortunately people like Frank and I are in the minority and what you both said about 3D might eventually cause the demise of 3D in theaters and the home cinema market but we will be able to continue to enjoy the format as long as we are alive in our homes with the TV and the software we already have

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2017, 06:55 PM:
 
I think Hollywood movie studios should have made fewer 3D movies from the start. That would have allowed them to put more time and energy into those movies, whether they were shot in native 3D with dual camera rigs, converted to 2D sources or a combination of both.

Instead they got greedy, trying to make every big release 3D and a bunch of not so big ones 3D as well. The public got price fatigue from that at the box office. The quality of 2D to 3D conversions suffered from start, thanks to rushed production schedules and too many movies in the pipeline for crews who work on the conversions. The studios were already killing the 3D golden goose not long after Avatar was released.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-27-2017, 12:55 PM:
 
Seems like studio greed is mucking up more than just 3D in the industry; two week video window!? -- I rest my case.

Also, the biggest problem I've seen with theatrical 3D is that I have not yet seen a 3D presentation in standard, RealDim 3D theatres where the image wasn't woefully....painfully underlit. The only theatrical 3D presentation worth its salt, IMHO, is dual projector IMAX where brightness levels are at least decent. Unfortunately that leaves a huge swath of theatre goers who only see bad 3D. It's no wonder a patron will say "good" when told 3D is down.

The real shame is that 3DTV will go the way of the Edsel because it is the BEST way to see the format. Brightness is much less of an issue and with LG's passive 3D, of course the battery thing is solved, so is the weight of the glasses. The downside with passive that they always talk about -- the halved scan lines -- it may be a mathematical issue on paper, but I can tell you, sitting a normal distance from the TV screen, there is no apparent degradation of the image at all. I would say it's the same kind of thing as screen perfs...technically there are thousands of holes in the image -- actually missing pieces of the image; in reality, given where we sit in the theatre to watch the movie, it's a non-issue for your eyes. Same with passive 3D.

And Claude, no, THE STEWARDESS is one of the few titles not in my library. Not that I have anything against smut (I like smut, but it has to be really good smut). I did see it in 3D in a theatre in NYC long ago and even back then it was just too silly for words, besides, as a rule of thumb, I never did see the point of "soft" porn, whether in 2D or 3D. When it comes to porn, "soft" seems to be the antithesis of its goal.

I would also add that I am not a big fan of the off the screen "pop-out." To me, it calls attention to a process and that should never be the goal of the processes behind the scenes. They detract from the ILLUSION that is the essence of movie. You can't sustain the suspension of disbelief when there's a process screaming, look at me...look at me. That was certainly a problem with the 50s 3D -- many of the lesser titles relied on the effect instead of the quality of everything else that makes up a good film. Even in the better 50s 3D films they gave into that temptation, although a good director could do it to good effect if worked well into the storyline (the paddle-ball sequence in HOUSE OF WAX), but for the most part though, there is no good reason to bring the wizard from out behind the curtain. AVATAR never needed to do that because the visuals were so spectacular and natural in 3D that Cameron never had to resort to that kind of nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-27-2017, 01:05 PM:
 
I'll take Dolby 3D over any of the polarization systems and with Dolby Vision, you do get up to 14fL on 3D. A Dolby 3D running 4fL will look a lot brighter than a Real-D running 4fL. The problem with the single number rating is that it is for just the center of the screen. With Dolby 3D and lower gain screen you have more light everywhere else.

Believe it or not, people that are happy that the 3D is down is not just for the cost and low-quality reasons...they, like me, just don't like it. The same way you like it, I don't. I'll do my damnedest to make it look as good as it can (any system) but given a choice, I'll watch the 2D version most times. If the content and stereography supports it, then and only then am I interested in 3D
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-27-2017, 04:28 PM:
 
Frank, while 3D is still around, there are a couple of promising titles soon to be released in 3D from the Golden Era on blu ray, APE, SEPTEMBER STORM, THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE and much more that has not been announced. While ALL THE GREAT CLASSIC 3D movies such as DIAL M FOR MURDER, KISS ME KATE, HOUSE OF WAX, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and MISS SADIE THOMPSON has been released, I hope Paramount will Release HONDO in 3D. Although they did release it only 2D. I do not know why they passed on a 3D release when restored left and right eye elements were available. Some other 3D films I like to see on blu ray include, FORT TI, ROBOT MONSTER, BWANA DEVIL, THE MAZE, CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER, ARENA, DRUMS OF TAHITI AND MANY OTHERS>

_Claude
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-27-2017, 04:29 PM:
 
Although I am not a JWayne fan, and I never saw it when it came out, I agree Paramount should do a 3D release of HONDO, but who knows, there was always a problem with that title. Jeff Joseph at the first World 3D Expo said he wouldn't do a second Festival unless he could find both eye negatives. If my memory serves me, the Right Eye negative was lost?

I certainly agree with that, Steve that not every film should be in 3D. I see 3D as just another cinematic tool like aspect ratio or sound or color, but it's much more specific to content than those. Color for example, can pretty much be used on most genres, except maybe film noir, but even there, a good cinematographer, colorist and LD could create that menacing, pessimistic mood with color if they knew what they were doing. When it's done well, 3D can certainly be an enhancement in creating mood and feeling.

I have never seen a 3D movie with the Dolby system. Anyone here have a list of Dolby 3D equipped cinemas in the NY area; to my knowledge there are none in Brooklyn or Queens.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-27-2017, 04:41 PM:
 
Regal here in Hawaii and I am sure throughout their chain use Real D and Consolidated Theatres here features, Dolby 3D. Until recently when I used to see all my movies at a Regal Theatre, I do not anymore because of their dreadful picture quality from their Sony projectors that need to be replaced. Consolidated use Barco projectors and the picture quality is awesome and so is the 3D with their Dolby System. I think I now prefer Dolby 3D over Real D for the reason you had cited, Frank.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-30-2017, 03:16 PM:
 
> I have never seen a 3D movie with the Dolby system. Anyone here have a list of Dolby 3D equipped cinemas in the NY area

Film Forum in Manhattan. Not sure if it is in all the auditoriums, but the one where they usually run repertory has it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-30-2017, 06:14 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

It's no wonder a patron will say "good" when told 3D is down.

---

I would say the biggest reasons people have cited for being glad with the 3-D is down are:

- They just don't like 3-D
- They get headaches
- They "can't see 3-D" (Unless they're blind in one eye, I don't get this one)
- They like it OK, but their kids won't keep the glasses on
- They find the glasses uncomfortable because they already wear glasses

I don't think we ever had anybody say our 3-D picture was too dim, and we never really had complaints about the surcharge either. We have a (broken) Dolby system.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-01-2017, 10:11 AM:
 
Apparently another "thing" that died with this year's TV display offerings - curved screens. Not a single one noted at CES...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-01-2017, 11:48 AM:
 
Samsung's Q8000 series are curved for 2017. Available in 55, 65 and 75" models.

That said, their flagship line for 2017, the Q9000 are all flat screen this year. (65 and 88 inch). So yes, the bloom is off of curved screens too.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-01-2017, 12:40 PM:
 
I can't see 3D. I'm not exactly blind -- I can see shapes and colours with one of my eyes but nothing more detailed than that.

I really don't know what 3D is supposed to look like except in a theoretical sense since I've never seen anything in 3D, ever. I've always been told that photographs, movies and television screens look flat, but that's the way real life looks to me.

With my 3D system I can check if it's working by looking through one side of the glasses and then the other, but if I actually sit and watch the movie a 3D movie looks just the same as a 2D movie.

But the customers seem to like it, so that's good enough for me.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-01-2017, 07:30 PM:
 
Both eyes work OK, but 3D in real life for me doesn't exist. I do get it on projection.

Headaches/eye strain are 100% related to less-than-15 ft/lm projection. Need for glasses almost disappears at 16 ft/lm.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-02-2017, 02:11 PM:
 
Frank, you are not alone -- I read somewhere that 4 or 5% of the population don't see 3D for a number of eye issues. I really feel for you because that extra feeling of space between objects for me is quite a spectacular experience, not only on the screen but just the way one sees in real life. I think it is a beautiful thing that most people take for granted.

The best way to explain it to someone who has never felt it would be, if you are listening to music on a system that allows you to select MONO or STEREO, like some of the older receivers used to do, put on your favorite classical music, I would say a full orchestral piece would work best, and listen to it in MONO for awhile, then punch up STEREO -- you are hearing the same exact music that you heard in MONO, but now all of a sudden the whole space in front of you opens up. You can FEEL the placement of the instruments and the space between them and in a really good recording, you can FEEL the space behind and in front of them as well. Nothing has changed from what you were hearing in MONO, except now you hear it with the spacial information that your brain interprets as a unique and quite separate from the sense of sound. That happens because -- and this is putting a very complex process much too simply (it's much more complex that this given the shape of your ear and the way sound gets into it) -- but your brain gets two different angles of sound and by some magic of our evolution, is able to use that audio differential to interpret it as another sense of space totally separate from the sense of hearing. You hear the same music when the MONO button is pressed, but you get this wealth of incredible spacial information when you switch to STEREO.

Binocular vision does the same thing but with sight. When the brain gets slightly different visual information from your eyes, it is able to interpret it as a FEELING of space. Two eyes...two ears -- some biologists also say, two nostrils at one time probably gave us a 3D sense of smell too; dogs and probably many other animals have 3D scent. Granted, depending on how a 3D movie is shot, that feeling of space can be exaggerated and I think some people are not comfortable with that, but for me, it is the same as stereo sound. And I can tell you, the first time I ever heard stereo I was maybe 12 or 13 and I went apeshit. I couldn't believe my ears...it was such an awakening.

It was WQXR in NYC -- probably in the late 50s, -- did a stereo experimental broadcast of The Overture of 1812, PIT, with one channel (Left ear) broadcast on their FM station and the other channel (Right ear) on their AM station. Our FM turner was built into a big combo piece of heavy furniture with a 10in RCA TV and an AM/FM radio and record player. The thing had a decent 12in coax speaker in it down close the floor. The thing was a behemoth and couldn't be moved so I had to put our small table AM radio on the floor so I could lay between them, FM in one ear, AM in the other. The announcer said, "This ladies and gentlemen is stereophonic sound!" al la Lowell Thomas's bit in the Cinerama opening. For me, it was like my ears had awakened for the first time. Even with the ridiculous disparity between the two radios, one FM quality with a decent speaker and an AM quality sound coming out of a 5in speaker, still, I was enthralled...it was a revelation -- the feeling of space totally overshadowed any problem with the sound quality because stereo is 3D sound and that is separate and distinct sense relative to the sound itself.

I couldn't listen to this new experience for more than a few minutes...I had to let someone else hear what I was hearing. I jumped up and yelled for my mom to come into the living room, running into the kitchen, grabbing her by the arm, her hands wet from something she was cooking; I was so excited for her to hear this stereo. I made the poor woman who had chronic back problems to get down on the living room rug with her head between the two radios. She was not nearly as impressed as me, but she did say it sounded very different and good.

From that time forward, I knew stereo was the only way to ever listen to recorded sound again.

THAT's what 3D is like.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-02-2017, 02:38 PM:
 
I've only seen one digital 3D film; Finding Dory on the Norwegian Cruise Line's Escape. Projector was a Barco DP 2K-19b. I thought the projection and 3D effect was rather good. The photo is from the 3D short that preceded the feature. The theater seated about 800.

 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-02-2017, 03:40 PM:
 
Frank, I remember those days when a radio station would simulcast stereo sound with their AM & FM bands. It was very primitive but I used to enjoy it when Our local classical music station KAIM in Honolulu did it. Did you also know when the ABC television network did it one year when the were the host of Walt Disney's programming and simulcast scenes from Disney's new SLEEPING BEAUTY movie in stereo . Yes, I was hooked to stereo sound from the primitive broadcasts liKe I was to 3D movies after I saw BWANA DEVIL.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-15-2017, 08:20 AM:
 
There is an online petition to reverse LG's decision to stop making 3D displays, you can find it at: https://www.change.org/p/lg-please-revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-tv-model?source_location=minibar

I've already panic-ordered a bigger and better 3D TV than the one I currently have, just in case it is the last one available, I also have about 99% of the 3D Blu-Rays that have been released (even the porn, much of which has very good 3D!) many of which I bought just to show my support for the format. If 3D releases stop however, my enthusiasm for collecting movies will severely diminish (I have literally thousands of movies on every home format past to present) and I will NEVER under any circumstances watch a 2D presentation of a 3D movie.

I WOULD also be going to every 3D movie in theaters, but I've seen very few of them because of the greedy upcharges. I got REALLY pissed when Cinemark showed some COMMERCIALS in 3D before the movie; if 3D really does cost more to show then why not have the advertisers pick up that cost? That'd sure make me a bit more receptive to seeing the commercials in the first place. 3D in theaters has seemed a bit dark also, but so have many 2D presentations I've seen lately; I've pretty much given up on theaters at this point.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2017, 08:26 PM:
 

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

I WOULD also be going to every 3D movie in theaters, but I've seen very few of them because of the greedy upcharges. I got REALLY pissed when Cinemark showed some COMMERCIALS in 3D before the movie; if 3D really does cost more to show then why not have the advertisers pick up that cost?

---

quote:

---

They could easily net more in the long run without such a big upcharg

---

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

If few people "give a darn" about 3D, how do you explain the "September Storm" restoration in this same forum- that was funded by DONATIONS from average Joes, and I didn't even contribute to that due to lack of funds yet they were able to raise the amount of money needed to do it! Despite the limited audience for older movies in general, Bob Furmanek has said that he's been satisfied with how his classic 3D titles have been selling- I doubt more would be coming out of he or the labels were losing money on them.

---

quote:

---

I don't get what the big deal is about glasses- 3D movies have ALWAYS had them for more than 60 years, it's not like glasses are a new annoyance. I wear regular glasses already and I've never had any problem with putting 3D glasses over them- and if I did, I could get polarized clip-ons.

---

The answer to your question can be found in the part I bolded. Since you already wear glasses, you're used to them. People who don't wear glasses don't generally like to wear them, and not everyone has glasses that are small enough or will otherwise fit having the 3-D glasses over them. And some modern 3-D glasses can be uncomfortable and heavy.

Then you have the issue of kids. Most kids will wear their 3-D glasses for about 5 or 10 minutes, then it becomes a hassle to the parents to keep the kids' glasses on.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-20-2017, 04:05 PM:
 
Mike, Although I have been wearing prescription glasses for almost fifty years, I was not wearing them during the Golden Age of 3D movies in the fifties. As a person who was not wearing glasses at the time, I had absolutely no problem with them when I watched 3D movies. With people like Jessie and I and many others who do, you would think it would be much more cumbersome to have to wear two pair of glasses to watch 3D in a theatre or at home but personally, I have not found it to be a problem at all.

The biggest concern I have right now is what I will do when my 3D HDTV 'dies'. Fortunately, my set is less than two years old and I am almost 78 years old and hopefully it will outlast me.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2017, 06:48 PM:
 
I don't wear glasses (I wear contacts, at least for now) and I have found that the discomfort of 3-D glasses is directly proportional to how good the movie I'm watching is. Really good movie = I barely notice the glasses.

But no matter what, I still find that my eyes tend to dry out after about an hour of watching 3-D. I'm not sure why that is.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-20-2017, 09:29 PM:
 
Is there a difference in weight of the glasses between manufacturers? I have no experience with any 3D glasses other than Real D and those seem pretty lightweight.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-20-2017, 10:00 PM:
 
I saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" at the Chinese Theater in Los Angeles and I think they use Dolby 3D as we had to give the glasses back afterwards- I remember them being a bit tight but still not a big deal. My friend who doesn't like 3D didn't like them though. RealD glasses are virtually non-existant, and the great thing is they're compatible with LG TVs. I have several pairs of them still sealed as I've used the same glasses when going to theaters, so I'll be set when my TV comes. My current TV uses active glasses that require charging and they're expensive, I only have 3 pairs of those. They are a bit heavy but I've watched movies with them for over 12 hours at a time and they don't get in the way too much. The passive 3D using non-powered theater glasses is obviously the most efficient way to do it at home- I chose active when I got my TV because the resolution with passive was halved; but with 4K screens that problem isn't there anymore.

I would've thought kids would love 3D; I certainly did when I was younger even though I hardly got to see any 3D movies then. I remember "Friday the 13th Part 3" coming out but I was too young to see that on my own and there was no way in hell my parents would take me to that! If kids don't want to keep the glasses on then obviously they shouldn't be watching the movie, same goes for those who run around making noise during the "boring parts". I've enjoyed the kids' 3D movies I've seen at home, but I would never have bought them if they'd only been in 2D- more money the studios won't get if they don't release them. "Trolls" came out last week in 2D only, but there's still a chance a 3D disc might come out in another country in which case I'll order it from there; I have a region-free player so that won't stop me
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-21-2017, 12:10 AM:
 
To answer Frank's question - the original Dolby glasses with the glass lenses were heavier than Real D's. The current Dolbys with the "film" lenses are lighter, but not as durable as the originals, so it's a tradeoff. They are about $5 or $6 per pair cheaper. (as of the last time we bought glasses).

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

If kids don't want to keep the glasses on then obviously they shouldn't be watching the movie, same goes for those who run around making noise during the "boring parts".

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Question: my only 3D experiences have been in movie theatres, using either cardboard glasses (1950s style) or modern Imax or Real-D plastic glasses. Are the glasses that are used for 3D TV sets heavier or more awkward than these?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The newer 6P systems from Christie and Barco use even larger frames (and different glasses because the primaries are different from the xenon systems).

---