PerryD

Places like Fry's and Abt Electronics will negotiate. I didn't have much luck with Best Buy. LG sets are price fixed, so Fry's gave me a gift card for "free", then applied it to my order as a work around, so I was able to get their 55" OLED set for only $1650.

E Unit

Some light happy reading for today.

https://www.cnet.com/au/news/shambli...lls-down-dead/

Shambling corpse of 3D TV finally falls down dead

The bespectacled zombie lies face down in the dirt, thanks to LG and Sony dropping support from their 2017 TVs. Will it ever rise again?

It's been a walking corpse for the last couple of years, and now 3D TV finally looks dead.

LG and Sony, the last two major TV makers to support the 3D feature in their TVs, will stop doing so in 2017. None of their sets, not even high-end models such as their new OLED TVs, will be able to show 3D movies and TV shows.

Samsung dropped 3D support in 2016; Vizio hasn't offered it since 2013. Other smaller names, like Sharp, TCL and Hisense, also failed to announce any 3D-capable TVs at CES 2017.

The 3D feature has been offered on select televisions since 2010, when the theatrical success of "Avatar" in 3D helped encourage renewed interest in the technology. In addition to a 3D-capable TV, it requires specialized glasses for each viewer and the 3D version of a TV show or movie -- although some TVs also offer a simulated 3D effect mode.

Despite enthusiasm at the box office and years of 3D TVs being available at affordable prices, the technology never really caught on at home. DirecTV canceled its 24/7 3D channel in 2012 and ESPN followed suit a year later. There are plenty of 3D Blu-ray discs still being released, such as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," but if you want to watch them at home you'll need a TV from 2016 or earlier -- or a home theater projector.

I asked LG's Tim Alessi, director of new product development, why his company's TVs no longer have the feature. "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," he said. "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."

Sony's reply was similar, if less detailed. "Based on current market trends we decided not to support 3D for our 2017 models," a representative told me.

Those market trends are clear: Sales of 3D home video gear have declined every year since 2012. According to data from the NPD Group, 3D TV represents just 8 percent of total TV sales dollars for the full year of 2016, down from 16 percent in 2015 and 23 percent in 2012. Native 3D-capable Blu-ray players fell to just 11 percent of the market in 2016, compared to 25 percent in 2015 and 40 percent in 2012.

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

Will 3D TVs rise again?

My own anecdotal experience as a TV reviewer is similar to LG's. Over the years, the one thing most people told me about the 3D feature on their televisions was that they never used it. Sure, some people occasionally enjoyed a 3D movie on Blu-ray, but the majority of people I talked to tried it once or twice, maybe, then never picked up the glasses again.

I don't think most viewers will miss 3D. I have never awarded points in my reviews for the feature, and 3D performance (which I stopped testing in 2016) has never figured into my ratings. I've had a 3D TV at home since 2011 and I've only used the feature a couple of times, mainly in brief demos to friends and family. Over the 2016 holiday break I offered my family the choice to watch "The Force Awakens" in 2D or 3D, and (after I reminded everyone they had to wear the glasses) 2D was the unanimous choice.

But some viewers will be sad to see the feature go. My colleague David Carnoy, for example, enjoys it at home on a regular basis with his 2015 LG 65EF9500 OLED TV. "It's a shame they're killing it after 3D was finally perfected with passive technology on a 4K-resolution OLED TV," he said. "If it had started out this good, it might still be alive today."

Judging from my twitter feed, and the comments on my CES report that mentioned LG dropping the feature from its entire 2017 OLED line, Carnoy's not alone.

There's even a change.org petition for LG to bring back the feature, which currently stands at 3,981 supporters.

Of course 3D TV could come back to life, but I'd be surprised if it happened before TV makers perfect a way to watch it without glasses. Research in that arena is ongoing, especially in theaters, but for the remainder of this year at least, 3D TV is dead.

mattysemo247

Well, there you go. Now we just have to see if studios will continue to support the format on Blu Ray for the existing customers out there.

OldBoy

that really sucks.

b2net

. This really concerns me as I have been wanting to upgrade to 4k so we could have passive 1080p 3D

Eddie W

This sucks as I'm a huge 3D fan but it's hardly surprising. 3D has been so badly botched by both Hollywood and the electronics industry that it would be surprising if the format actually succeeded.

There have been only a handful of true 3D movies made that people actually want to watch in the current era. And the biggest one, Avatar, was locked into a Panasonic bundle exclusive for so long that instead of driving the trend while it was hot, very few people could actually even buy it. I bought my first 3D TV in 2011 and all I could find to watch was a bunch of shitty post-conversions and cartoons.

Fast forward to 2016 & 3D TV's have finally been perfected via passive 3D on 4K set & still all there are to watch are primarily cartoons and conversions. The most spectacular 3D I can find is from the 50's & about 3 movies post 2010.

Besides that there is just no way to easily watch 3D. The movies are priced at about $30 ea & even the one streaming services that carries them, VUDU, had most of their 3D options priced for sale only at about them same price point. You just can't easily rent 3D.

So I guess I'm bittersweet about buying a LG passive set right before Christmas. Glad that I got it in the nick of time, but sad that there wasn't really more of an effort put into the format. But still it's cool that while it lasted I was able to own movies like Dial M for Murder, Creature from Black Lagoon, House of Wax, Life of Pi, Hugo, etc in true 3D for the first time in home video history. Maybe the next time 3D is resurrected it will be done right.

Jon2

And yet Disney is still releasing the Disney (not Pixar or Marvel) branded 3D titles only outside the U.S.

So it would appear 3D seems to be doing OK in the rest of the world.

However... FWIW, I just found out a couple of Disney 3D titles (Maleficent being one, forget the other) that were region A viewable and available thru AmazonUK, longer ship to the U.S.

Alan Smithee

Disney's Moana is coming out in the US (did I say that in this thread already?)

Speaking only for myself and not Internet Brands or anyone else involved with this site, CNet can bite me. They've always had it in for 3D- the reader comments on that article are disgusting as well- someone said "I don't even have a Blu-Ray or DVD player anymore!" If their TV reviewer wasn't even checking 3D performance, he has no business reviewing TVs at all- EVERY function should be checked in that case. I could say that broadcast TV sucks and is worthless, but I'd still fully evaluate the TV's tuner if I were reviewing it (and yes, mine is hooked up!)

Petition continues to grow, so that's encouraging, and I took a chance ordering the 73-incher from Ebuyusa.com so we'll see if that actually shows up. I know how to dispute credit card charges otherwise. I'll still be a bit surprised if it ships but I'll have to put my present TV up for sale on Craigslist before it gets here, which will mean having my apartment clean enough for potential buyers to come in!

Alan Smithee

Gotta comment on this- yes, movies are expensive but can be gotten cheap if you're willing to watch and wait. When I had limited funds I was still able to get over 100 3D Blu-Rays for under $20 brand-new, mostly from Amazon. There is/was a site that rented 3D discs through the mail, but I rarely rent anyways. Yes, Netflix should have carried them. 3D streaming is next to impossible to even access- the Vudu apps on my 3D TV and 3D Blu-Ray player don't support their 3D, and neither does any Roku I have. There was a streaming app that rented movies called 3D Go that went out of business, but I never had them available on any of my equipment and wasn't about to go hunting for something that did support it, so there you go. My stuff didn't support Netflix's 3D either when they had it.

Jay G.

I've been having a good experience with this site for renting 3D discs the past two months:
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/

Doctorossi

Yep.

*sigh*

mattysemo247

I think it also helps that Sony has the 4K + 3D blu ray bundles. Amazon already has a preorder up for the new Underworld movie for $30. It probably would have helped if more studios jumped on that bandwagon. Even though I don't have a 4K TV, the purchase felt better since I was slowing building a 4K collection.

clckworang

That's my basic sentiment as well. I've been thinking of upgrading the TV but was hoping to wait another year or two. With this new announcement, it has me thinking that maybe I should try to purchase something sooner rather than later. I have a lot of fun watching my 3D titles, as do my friends. I don't want to end up with a TV that doesn't support it.

caligulathegod

The sad thing is they are finally bringing out the classic '50s 3D films, which should have been done years ago. I just hope we can get Friday the 13th 3D before they shutter things.

E Unit

Nothing is getting shuttered.

Alan Smithee

Got a call today that my TV will ship next week- there seems to be a run on these since the announcement, hopefully that will get LG to reconsider things. When it gets here and I've got it installed, I'll send a letter to LG and maybe post a video of it. I want to get some sort of picture of all my 3D discs together too (maybe show myself buried in them) to show how many are out there and would become unplayable (or only in boring 2D, which to me would be the same thing) if no more 3D displays are made.

Petition has passed 5000 signatures!

Alan Smithee

Well, I'll be getting a 4K TV next week, and a 4K player soon after (going for the Oppo again so may have to wait a bit)- I bought Ghostbusters and Angry Birds already for the 3D discs, I really don't care about the 2D versions no matter how high the resolution is but of course I'll watch them anyways, just like I still watch the crappy regular DVDs that come with many Blu-Rays just because it's there.

clckworang

I'm trying to get serious about buying a new TV and have been reading up on the formats. I'd like to get something bigger than what I currently have, so I'd like something 60 inch or larger. I'd love to get an OLED, but the disparity in price makes it difficult to consider. Considering the price difference, I'm leaning more toward sticking with LED for a few more years.

I'm also debating the when. Aren't there supposed to be more TV deals closer to Super Bowl? It might be worth it to hold out a bit longer.

clckworang

All right, I wanted to get some input from all of you. I've pretty much narrowed down my picks to two 65-inch TVs. One is the LG 65UH8500 and the other is the Sony XBR65X930D. Not much difference in price. I've been reading reviews on both. The Sony seems to get slightly better marks in that regard, but I've read quite a few customer reviews complaining about poor 3D performance on the Sony. They say there's a lot of crosstalk and ghosting.

Now I don't want to make a decision based purely on 3D performance, but if it's that poor, it doesn't seem like much of premium feature. Anyone have any experience with these TVs and would like to share your impressions? I'd very much appreciate it.

E Unit

Doing a quick comparison, it looks like the Sony wins out if you're looking to use this for movies overall. It looks like the LG picture suffers in brighter rooms and overall picture brightness not as good as it could be. Sony has a bad ipout lag, which is only important if you are going to be doing a lot of gaming. As for 3D, the Sony got a pretty high rating, but the crosstalk is called out. But overall, if it got a 9, I'm guessing unless you really can tell when you see crosstalk, you should be fine. The LG also got the same rating as well as the callout about crosstalk.

Biggest callout regaring the 3D - LG is a passive TV while Sony is active. So something to consider, whether or not you want rechargeable glasses. Other than that, I think either TV will be a good purchase.

LG - http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh8500
Sony - http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x930d

Jay G.

LG being passive 3D is largely why I went with it. Sony being active also explains the crosstalk complaints; active 3D glasses have this issue.

The two issues with passive 3D, the "half resolution" of each eye and the more visible lines, are pretty much negated by 4K.

Also, consider it's much cheaper to get additional passive 3D glasses, as they're the same simple polarized glasses used in RealD 3D theaters. Also, with Sony getting out of the 3D game, it may be difficult to get the active glasses repaired or replaced a few years down the line.

clckworang

Thanks for some input. I hate making decisions like this. I need to remind myself that there isn't necessarily a "right" decision in this. I think they'll probably both be solid performers.

I feel stupid for not looking, but I didn't realize the Sony set was active 3D. I thought they produced passive sets. Not a deal breaker for me. My current Samsung is active. I've only ever had a problem with bad ghosting one time. Plus, I think the glasses I have now would work for the Sony.

That being said, I like the idea of the cheaper glasses that passive has, and I've often wondered if passive is better for pop out effects as I rarely ever see those on my current TV.

Jay G.

It depends on what glasses you have. The "Full HD 3D RF" standard got implemented in 2012, so they may work if they're from a 2012 TV or later. Check this article for more info:
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Wi...ny-3D-TV.shtml

One other neat thing about passive is I got some glasses that have the same polarizer for each eye, so you only see one of the two images. This is good for letting someone who either doesn't like or has issues with 3D to still be able to watch the same movie with you, but in 2D instead while you still watch in 3D. You can also use it with game consoles in "dual play" mode so that, instead of a split-screen, each player sees only their screen.
http://televisions.reviewed.com/feat...asses-playtest

Eddie W

Clkworang - another thing to consider is that the LG set supports both types of HDR: Dolby Vision & HDR-10. The Sony only supports HDR-10.

clckworang

I went to actually look at the sets and talk to a sales person. I was really impressed with the OLED sets. I think I'm down to picking between an LG, either 55 inch OLED or 65 inch LED. I think I'm leaning toward the LED because sometimes size does matter.