3D TV is Dead

I'm perhaps a subjective observer, working in the entertainment biz, though I consider myself cynical enough to pass similar judgment. 3D has been a fantastic way to build sizable margin into box office ticket prices, and presumably, the same logic compelled studios and electronics manufacturers to push 3D technology into the home: to keep the home video revenue stream alive for a few more, gloriously lucrative years.

Now I'll remove my cynic's cap. I think 3D is a very interesting piece of technology. I can count on five fingers the number of movies I've seen that make truly good use of 3D. Nonetheless, those that do seem to do it well. Say what you will about Dances With Aliens, errr, Avatar. But the use of 3D in that picture was pretty freaking cool. Same with (some) of the 3D in The Hobbit. When used to convey a sense of depth and scale, especially in wide shots over vertical landscapes, 3D can really bring a sense of majestic proportion to a big-budget film.

Does that mean I want to invest in a 3D TV for my home? No. The calculus that went into most consumers' purchases of 3D TVs was essentially "Eh, might as well." It was a hedge against the possibility that the future really would be all about 3D. If faced with a new TV purchase, some folks figured they might as well spring for the model with all the latest bells and whistles. If 3D ended up going nowhere, well, at least the TV could still play 2D at high def. There just weren't enough of these people to bankroll the 3D revolution, and/or enough people who could be convinced that a revolution was actually forthcoming.

As a consumer, as a production professional, and as a fanboy, I bear no animus toward 3D. I just think it will end up as another tool in the filmmaker's arsenal, rather than the Next Great Leap that Hollywood wanted people to think it was.

It will be interesting to watch the TV manufacturers flail around for a while, trying desperately to avoid the cold hard realities that come with becoming a commodity...

And it explains the de-emphasis on 3D somewhere like CES: You won't easily sell lots more new high-end TV's if you emphasise on something all of your competition has, including the low end. And when I went to Amazon to check right now, the cheapest 42" screen on offer in their UK store is a 3D tv...

3D had always struck me as a shallow gimmick to get folks with lots of disposable income to think about upgrading their already-very-good 55" LCD TVs. Come on, it hangs on the wall, is less than an inch thick, and looks great all the time--what more do you want?

Linkbait title.

I think that it will require a radical shift in display tech (a'la holographic projections) to make me rethink this position, and even then, I would probably much prefer a 2D screen for television shows or most movies. Games and virtual reality simulations would be a different animal for me.

- We no longer need glasses

- The FPS is increased to provide smooth a smooth viewing experience. Without a smoother 3D experience, people will still feel fatigued eyes when the motion is going too fast.

Here is a bit more info about 3D and FPS in Hobbit. http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682085/will-the-hobbit-start-a-...

This same discussion comes up a lot in games, but the experience there is that increasing resolution just shows that you're using shitty digital puppets with bad acting/writing. Increasing pixel-throughput for post-processing or faking an "analog" look can lead to more creativity, though.