3D TVs-are they about to go away?
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I was interested in one at a certain point, but it appears they are a passing phase. The most recent Best Buy ad didn't even list them as available. While I am sure they are in stock, they aren't advertising them.
I only ask this because I am seeing good deals on large screen TVs but didn't want to make my next TV purchase unless I know this 3D thing is gone for good.
I only ask this because I am seeing good deals on large screen TVs but didn't want to make my next TV purchase unless I know this 3D thing is gone for good.
#2
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Formerly known as "n8boss87".
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Fairly soon, if not already, there won't be any price difference or "ding" for buying a TV with this capability vs one without, so it will be a moot add-in feature that may keep its grasp and may wither and die. I've seen some damn cheap TVs with 3D stereoscopic abilities in recent months, and was somewhat shocked by the brand names making the technology so cheap. Honestly, one can buy a TV that can do 3D, not pay much if anything more, and then not use it if one doesn't want to. It's not as if having the capability gimps any other feature on the set.
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Yeah, I think this feature will become so ubiquitous that it's not really touted as anything special anymore. Best Buy still has many, many 3D tv's. There are still far too many 3D movies being produced to have no way to watch them at home. I'm glad my TV has the capability for when I want it, but I certainly don't use it every day. Or even every month.
But why would you let this delay your purchase if you're ready for a new TV?
But why would you let this delay your purchase if you're ready for a new TV?
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Most Best Buys have a 3D section in the movie area devoted solely to 3D editions. Some stores have a better selection than others but 3D titles definitely still have a presence.
#5
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I doubt 3D is going anywhere. It's still very prominent in blockbuster, big budget movies now and in the future so if that isn't going anywhere 3DTV probably isn't either.
#6
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The lonely depths of my mind
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I hope they go away. It was a neat idea, but was killed by having most of the 3Dtvs run on glasses that take batteries. I'm surprised a pointless fad like this took this long to die off....
#7
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
As a 3D TV owner (and someone who's waited DECADES for a quality home 3D format), I hardly see 3D as "pointless". The batteries are no big deal either- just plug a USB cord into them and they're recharged. If anything, ALL future TVs should at least be 3D capable, of course stores aren't really helping as many 3D displays I've seen haven't even been WORKING!
#8
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
As a 3D TV owner (and someone who's waited DECADES for a quality home 3D format), I hardly see 3D as "pointless". The batteries are no big deal either- just plug a USB cord into them and they're recharged. If anything, ALL future TVs should at least be 3D capable, of course stores aren't really helping as many 3D displays I've seen haven't even been WORKING!
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
#10
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The lonely depths of my mind
Posts: 3,863
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
As a 3D TV owner (and someone who's waited DECADES for a quality home 3D format), I hardly see 3D as "pointless". The batteries are no big deal either- just plug a USB cord into them and they're recharged. If anything, ALL future TVs should at least be 3D capable, of course stores aren't really helping as many 3D displays I've seen haven't even been WORKING!
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Interesting article:
Don’t Expect Things to Get Better for 3D
25 June 2013
By: Thomas K. Arnold
The demise of 3D for the home appears to be upon us. ESPN has announced plans to scrap its ESPN 3D channel by the end of this year, and a well-known title from a well-known studio recently racked up an anemic 3% of its total sales from the 3D version.
I think back to the words of the late, great film critic Roger Ebert, who wrote in 2010, the year 3D for the home began its big push, “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.”
Ebert, of course, was writing about the 3D fad in general. I don’t exactly agree with him — I thought Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were mesmerizing in 3D, and I even got a kick out of watching one of the “Final Destination” movies in 3D, complete with the flying entrails.
But for the home, I’d say the 3D experiment has been a colossal failure — and not because of it “adding nothing essential” to the viewing experience, but, rather, due to the ineptitude with which it was launched.
Let me make clear, right away, that I am not faulting the content side. I think our industry handled the advent of 3D quite well. For those who bemoaned, and now want to blame, the lack of product, consider this: 3D was never meant to be a whole new viewing experience, like Blu-ray Disc or, before that, DVD. Rather, it was always intended to be a selective experience, one that is not universally applied. Watching Avatar and Final Destination in 3D was a kick; watching, say, any mystery or crime thriller, from The Big Sleep to The Departed, in 3D would have been as annoying as heck. I think the studios did a good job managing the content flow, recognizing that not every movie is meant to be seen in three dimensions.
Fault for the 3D-for-the-home debacle, instead, rests with the consumer electronics industry. Not only was there no single, universal 3D format, there were dozens of incompatible devices. I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
And then there was the issue of the glasses. I’m sorry, but speaking as a consumer, I get pissed off every time I have to change the batteries on my remote. I spent $500 on a high-end universal remote not so much for the convenience as to relieve me from the burden of having to constantly change the batteries on three separate handhelds. And now you’re asking me to do a battery check on the glasses every time I want to watch a movie in 3D?
That wasn't the worst of it. The glasses kept changing, with new and supposedly improved models coming out every month, it seemed. Multiply that by a dozen manufacturers and you’re going to have a hard time keeping track of which glasses go with which TV, even if the manufacturer is the same.
I had that problem with my Panasonic TV. It’s 3D enabled, but I have yet to be able to watch a movie in 3D on it. Even the clerks at Best Buy couldn't figure out which glasses worked for it — and when I finally found a supposedly compatible pair online, I found out they were discontinued.
Don’t expect things to get better anytime soon — or ever. The CE industry has already moved on to the next thing — 4K, which supposedly makes images on our current crop of high-definition TVs look like grainy old photos.
I can’t wait for the studios to start releasing movies on 4K. I simply cannot wait.…
TK's Take
25 June 2013
By: Thomas K. Arnold
The demise of 3D for the home appears to be upon us. ESPN has announced plans to scrap its ESPN 3D channel by the end of this year, and a well-known title from a well-known studio recently racked up an anemic 3% of its total sales from the 3D version.
I think back to the words of the late, great film critic Roger Ebert, who wrote in 2010, the year 3D for the home began its big push, “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.”
Ebert, of course, was writing about the 3D fad in general. I don’t exactly agree with him — I thought Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were mesmerizing in 3D, and I even got a kick out of watching one of the “Final Destination” movies in 3D, complete with the flying entrails.
But for the home, I’d say the 3D experiment has been a colossal failure — and not because of it “adding nothing essential” to the viewing experience, but, rather, due to the ineptitude with which it was launched.
Let me make clear, right away, that I am not faulting the content side. I think our industry handled the advent of 3D quite well. For those who bemoaned, and now want to blame, the lack of product, consider this: 3D was never meant to be a whole new viewing experience, like Blu-ray Disc or, before that, DVD. Rather, it was always intended to be a selective experience, one that is not universally applied. Watching Avatar and Final Destination in 3D was a kick; watching, say, any mystery or crime thriller, from The Big Sleep to The Departed, in 3D would have been as annoying as heck. I think the studios did a good job managing the content flow, recognizing that not every movie is meant to be seen in three dimensions.
Fault for the 3D-for-the-home debacle, instead, rests with the consumer electronics industry. Not only was there no single, universal 3D format, there were dozens of incompatible devices. I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
And then there was the issue of the glasses. I’m sorry, but speaking as a consumer, I get pissed off every time I have to change the batteries on my remote. I spent $500 on a high-end universal remote not so much for the convenience as to relieve me from the burden of having to constantly change the batteries on three separate handhelds. And now you’re asking me to do a battery check on the glasses every time I want to watch a movie in 3D?
That wasn't the worst of it. The glasses kept changing, with new and supposedly improved models coming out every month, it seemed. Multiply that by a dozen manufacturers and you’re going to have a hard time keeping track of which glasses go with which TV, even if the manufacturer is the same.
I had that problem with my Panasonic TV. It’s 3D enabled, but I have yet to be able to watch a movie in 3D on it. Even the clerks at Best Buy couldn't figure out which glasses worked for it — and when I finally found a supposedly compatible pair online, I found out they were discontinued.
Don’t expect things to get better anytime soon — or ever. The CE industry has already moved on to the next thing — 4K, which supposedly makes images on our current crop of high-definition TVs look like grainy old photos.
I can’t wait for the studios to start releasing movies on 4K. I simply cannot wait.…
#12
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
ESPN has announced plans to scrap its ESPN 3D channel by the end of this year, and a well-known title from a well-known studio recently racked up an anemic 3% of its total sales from the 3D version.
#13
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Don't have cable anyways, and don't care about sports- heard ESPN3D usually just showed the same stuff over and over anyway. Wonder what 'well-known' title they're talking about- probably "Oz, the Great and Powerful"- that's one title I didn't buy as it was overpriced and many stores didn't even stock it. So is this guy implying that 4K will be 2D-only? I've seen at least one 4K set listed as 3D capable.
#14
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
Interesting article:
Don’t Expect Things to Get Better for 3D
25 June 2013
By: Thomas K. Arnold
The demise of 3D for the home appears to be upon us. ESPN has announced plans to scrap its ESPN 3D channel by the end of this year, and a well-known title from a well-known studio recently racked up an anemic 3% of its total sales from the 3D version.
I think back to the words of the late, great film critic Roger Ebert, who wrote in 2010, the year 3D for the home began its big push, “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.”
Ebert, of course, was writing about the 3D fad in general. I don’t exactly agree with him — I thought Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were mesmerizing in 3D, and I even got a kick out of watching one of the “Final Destination” movies in 3D, complete with the flying entrails.
But for the home, I’d say the 3D experiment has been a colossal failure — and not because of it “adding nothing essential” to the viewing experience, but, rather, due to the ineptitude with which it was launched.
Let me make clear, right away, that I am not faulting the content side. I think our industry handled the advent of 3D quite well. For those who bemoaned, and now want to blame, the lack of product, consider this: 3D was never meant to be a whole new viewing experience, like Blu-ray Disc or, before that, DVD. Rather, it was always intended to be a selective experience, one that is not universally applied. Watching Avatar and Final Destination in 3D was a kick; watching, say, any mystery or crime thriller, from The Big Sleep to The Departed, in 3D would have been as annoying as heck. I think the studios did a good job managing the content flow, recognizing that not every movie is meant to be seen in three dimensions.
Fault for the 3D-for-the-home debacle, instead, rests with the consumer electronics industry. Not only was there no single, universal 3D format, there were dozens of incompatible devices. I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
And then there was the issue of the glasses. I’m sorry, but speaking as a consumer, I get pissed off every time I have to change the batteries on my remote. I spent $500 on a high-end universal remote not so much for the convenience as to relieve me from the burden of having to constantly change the batteries on three separate handhelds. And now you’re asking me to do a battery check on the glasses every time I want to watch a movie in 3D?
That wasn't the worst of it. The glasses kept changing, with new and supposedly improved models coming out every month, it seemed. Multiply that by a dozen manufacturers and you’re going to have a hard time keeping track of which glasses go with which TV, even if the manufacturer is the same.
I had that problem with my Panasonic TV. It’s 3D enabled, but I have yet to be able to watch a movie in 3D on it. Even the clerks at Best Buy couldn't figure out which glasses worked for it — and when I finally found a supposedly compatible pair online, I found out they were discontinued.
Don’t expect things to get better anytime soon — or ever. The CE industry has already moved on to the next thing — 4K, which supposedly makes images on our current crop of high-definition TVs look like grainy old photos.
I can’t wait for the studios to start releasing movies on 4K. I simply cannot wait.…
TK's Take25 June 2013
By: Thomas K. Arnold
The demise of 3D for the home appears to be upon us. ESPN has announced plans to scrap its ESPN 3D channel by the end of this year, and a well-known title from a well-known studio recently racked up an anemic 3% of its total sales from the 3D version.
I think back to the words of the late, great film critic Roger Ebert, who wrote in 2010, the year 3D for the home began its big push, “3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.”
Ebert, of course, was writing about the 3D fad in general. I don’t exactly agree with him — I thought Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were mesmerizing in 3D, and I even got a kick out of watching one of the “Final Destination” movies in 3D, complete with the flying entrails.
But for the home, I’d say the 3D experiment has been a colossal failure — and not because of it “adding nothing essential” to the viewing experience, but, rather, due to the ineptitude with which it was launched.
Let me make clear, right away, that I am not faulting the content side. I think our industry handled the advent of 3D quite well. For those who bemoaned, and now want to blame, the lack of product, consider this: 3D was never meant to be a whole new viewing experience, like Blu-ray Disc or, before that, DVD. Rather, it was always intended to be a selective experience, one that is not universally applied. Watching Avatar and Final Destination in 3D was a kick; watching, say, any mystery or crime thriller, from The Big Sleep to The Departed, in 3D would have been as annoying as heck. I think the studios did a good job managing the content flow, recognizing that not every movie is meant to be seen in three dimensions.
Fault for the 3D-for-the-home debacle, instead, rests with the consumer electronics industry. Not only was there no single, universal 3D format, there were dozens of incompatible devices. I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
And then there was the issue of the glasses. I’m sorry, but speaking as a consumer, I get pissed off every time I have to change the batteries on my remote. I spent $500 on a high-end universal remote not so much for the convenience as to relieve me from the burden of having to constantly change the batteries on three separate handhelds. And now you’re asking me to do a battery check on the glasses every time I want to watch a movie in 3D?
That wasn't the worst of it. The glasses kept changing, with new and supposedly improved models coming out every month, it seemed. Multiply that by a dozen manufacturers and you’re going to have a hard time keeping track of which glasses go with which TV, even if the manufacturer is the same.
I had that problem with my Panasonic TV. It’s 3D enabled, but I have yet to be able to watch a movie in 3D on it. Even the clerks at Best Buy couldn't figure out which glasses worked for it — and when I finally found a supposedly compatible pair online, I found out they were discontinued.
Don’t expect things to get better anytime soon — or ever. The CE industry has already moved on to the next thing — 4K, which supposedly makes images on our current crop of high-definition TVs look like grainy old photos.
I can’t wait for the studios to start releasing movies on 4K. I simply cannot wait.…
This quote in the above piece puzzled me:
I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
Finally, I don't plan on ever getting a 3-D TV.
#17
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
This is the first I've ever heard of 4K. What is it?
This quote in the above piece puzzled me:
>>I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV >>from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
What does the bolded phrase mean?
Finally, I don't plan on ever getting a 3-D TV.
This quote in the above piece puzzled me:
>>I even remember one year at CES seeing a prototype of a glasses-free TV >>from Toshiba that looked like a giant scratch dollar on a Doberman.
What does the bolded phrase mean?
Finally, I don't plan on ever getting a 3-D TV.
He must have misspelled "scratch collar" I'm sure you know what they are.
#19
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I have a 3D TV and I never use it to convert flat programming into stereoscopic programming. The algorhythm that it uses to do that isn't perfect, and I've found that it will 3D-ize weird things. I only use the 3D function to watch 3D Blu-rays. Also, I made sure that the TV I purchased used a passive system, as I didn't want to have to fool with either batteries or incredibly bulky glasses.
I've been perfectly happy with my setup and can't wait until HOUSE OF WAX comes out!
#20
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I've heard rumors that Twilight Time will be releasing a 1950s 3D movie soon. I hate their distribution model but I'll buy it anyways.
#22
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Re: 3D TVs-are they about to go away?
I was interested in one at a certain point, but it appears they are a passing phase. The most recent Best Buy ad didn't even list them as available. While I am sure they are in stock, they aren't advertising them.
I only ask this because I am seeing good deals on large screen TVs but didn't want to make my next TV purchase unless I know this 3D thing is gone for good.
I only ask this because I am seeing good deals on large screen TVs but didn't want to make my next TV purchase unless I know this 3D thing is gone for good.
I have never used that feature.
My TV is not going anywhere.