It's a catch-22- if they throw stuff at the audience, some will dismiss 3D as a "stupid gimmick." If they DON'T throw stuff at the audience, some will say "Why bother?" Gimmick shots have their place in some movies, but when they do it like "Friday the 13th Part 3" it just looks silly. I personally wish they would give up on post-converted 3D and only shoot in REAL 3D. Post-converted can look good, but it still seems second-rate.

Yeah, it's a matter of preference. Plus, the "throw at the audience" stuff doesn't translate well to a 2D presentation, whether in theater or on home video.

Sadly, it seems like the trend it towards more post-conversions and less films shot in 3D. I mean, there were only 3 domestic live-action films shot in 3D in 2016, while there were 23 post-conversions, according to this list:
http://www.realorfake3d.com/

Anyone pick up Storks 3D and viewed it? how does it look?

Thanks. Appreciate the info.

I've got Storks but of course haven't had time to watch it yet. Bought it on the way home from my new job partly to celebrate that and partly to show my support for Target carrying it, even if it was priced a bit high.

let me know when you get a chance...

I'm disappointed that none of LG's 2017 OLED displays will support 3D. Panasonic's OLED set (which uses an LG display) will not support 3D either. Unless I settle for one of the 2016 models (and even then not the B6), I have to choose between "OLED" and "3D" in a UHD display, and...OLED is probably gonna win. I was really looking forward to watching stuff like A*P*E in 3D too. I'll have to wait and see how much of an improvement the 2017 models are over 2016.

I have the OLED55E6P, and it's really nice. both 4K HDR and 3D look really good on it. It might be good to get one one closeout after the 2017 models are released.

OK guys, this is the post I didn't want to have to make, but the industry really has it in for 3D at this point. While there are still a number of 3D discs announced as forthcoming, the lack of 3D-capable displays is likely to put an end to home 3D sooner or later. Someone has started a petition which I hope anyone here who cares about 3D will take the time to sign:

https://www.change.org/p/lg-electron...ion-reason_msg

I would like to buy a bigger and better 3D TV than the one I have now, but that just won't be possible until after I make my long-delayed move. I'm afraid now that there won't BE any 3D sets available by then- if I'm forced to buy a 2D-only display my enthusiasm for this whole thing in general is going to severely decrease.

I expect 3D television sets to quietly disappear, probably next year. Looks like eberyone has abandoned it it except for Sony, who only have one model available.

The 3D format was botched when it was introduced as a sub-format of blu-ray. It should have been part of the blu-ray and HDTV spec from the start, and once introduced, all new HDTVets and blu-ray players manufactured would have to include 3D compatability. As it worked out, consumers were turned off by the upselling of televisions and players at a significant premium in orde to play a handful of premium-priced 3D blu-rays.

People who had purchased HDTVs and blu-ray players and were not ready to upgrade stalled the adoption of 3D. If it would have been mandatory in the tv and players, then maybe it would have been slowly adopted.

I'm sorry, but no.

I think everyone can agree that Avatar, in combination with the launch of RealD 3D in 2009, set off the recent 3D trend. Prior to that, 3D was limited to CGI films and IMAX shorts. The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3D in 2005 was screened primarily in anaglyphic 3D in theaters, which wasn't very appealing.

In contrast, "HDTV" was certified as an ATSC standard by the FCC in the US in 1996, more than a decade before 3D in theaters took off again. The ATSC standard even only goes up to only 1080i, since TVs weren't capable of 1080p yet and they want to allocate the bandwidth for it. Even then, getting everyone to switch over was a herculean task, so there was no way they were going to require the extra bandwidth and processing on every station, TV, and converter box for handling a format that was considered faded gimmick at the time.

As for Blu-ray, keep in mind it was competing with HD DVD at the time. It was first announced in 2002, and was rushed out incomplete in 2006 during the launch. I mean, even BD-J was initially optional, and dual-layer 50GB discs were not possible. Hell, even Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD are optional features on Blu-ray. And even at launch, it was still 3 years before 3D in theaters really took off. Blu-ray was already more expensive than HD DVD, they weren't going to jeopardize the format even more by requiring a format that had an extremely limited catalog and appeal. I recall the Blu-ray vs HD DVD debates, and I don't recall one person bemoaning that neither format had built-in support for 3D.

I'm not sure this is true. First of all, even back in 2009 when Blu-ray 3D was announced, Blu-ray was still a nascent format with not a lot of adoption, and HDTVs were still being quickly adopted by new buyers. As this shows, there was a huge surge in HDTV sales in the 2009-2014 period:
http://www.coax.tv/EXEC_NAB2014.pdf

So there really wasn't a shortage of new buyers. Even with existing owners, if a new feature is appealing enough they may upgrade early. Most TVs can get moved around to secondary rooms, replacing older sets, and the same with Blu-ray players, often replacing DVD players in secondary locations.

And the problem wasn't really that it's an optional feature in Blu-ray. As I mentioned before, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD are technically optional features on Blu-ray, but they've seen huge adoption on players and discs. Even 1080p wasn't part of the ATSC standard, but due to the rise of LCDs became so ubiquitous that it was included in the Blu-ray format. Now, Atmos is slowly taking over, even though that, again, is optional.

The big factors for adoption are the cost the manufacturers, the appeal to consumers, and the availability of content.

For 3D content, the manufactuers shat the bed with "Active 3D" sets. In some ways, this made sense to them, as they were already making high refresh rate sets, and so the extra cost to the TV was minimal. The problem was the glasses, which are bulky, heavy, and cumbersome, what with needing recharging and such. TV manufactures cheaped out by only typically including 2 in a box, limiting the number of people that could appreciate 3D on a set, and putting the burden of buying more on the consumer. Plus, active 3D is prone to crosstalk. So consumers were asked to buy into a tech that was clearly inferior to theatrical RealD 3D and IMAX 3D.

Passive 3D is better, but it's more expensive to make the TV screen with it, especially earlier on, so it was never as readily available, and I don't think it was every clearly marketed, so most consumers weren't aware of a difference. Plus, the "screen door effect" was more prevalent in 1080p sets, although it's not noticeable at all on 4K sets at reasonable distances.

But a big thing is the lack of content, especially TV content. While films for a while picked up the usage, especially blockbusters, there aren't any TV shows regularly filming in 3D, and all the 3D channels in the US are defunct. Unlike HD where TV productions more quickly started producing content, or even 4K, with Netflix pushing it on all their productions, the massive drive to produce 3D content never appeared. Partially it's because it's harder to produce, required a complicated 2 camera rig for live action, wheras HD and 4K basically were just a camera swap.

Another thing is that the viewership has simply never been there, with even people with 3D TVs not watching much 3D content.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-23195479
I think that many people seem content to viewing 3D content only in the theater, and sticking with 2D at home. It's certainly not condusive to "casual" viewing that a lot of people do with TV. Even with passive glasses, it's hard to glance down at your phone. I know over the holidays, we had my in-laws over, and they sat captivated watching a 3D movie on the TV. Meanwhile, I had to be moving around helping get dinner ready, and 3D wasn't conducive to quick glances back at the screen between mashing potatoes and the like.

I do feel like it should hang on as a "premium" option on TVs, since I don't think the extra cost is that much and that with newer, brighter, 4K TVs it could gain some traction. There's also the chance that VR headsets could bring around interest again, as people want something a bit more passive to do with them. But the initial hardware issues and aggressive marketing push may have muted audience appeal, and the lack of content has restricted its usefulness.

Also, just about every 4k projector announced at CES all play 3D. That's something I'm going to be doing at some point this year. But 3D still has a strong presence in projectors. Not everyone's thing, but there are 3D options still out there.

Would anyone care to post links to affordable projectors that can do both 3D and 4K? The only ones I found cost about $29,000 which is WAY out of my price range.

Some good news is that the petition seems to be getting a lot of signatures. I'm glad that at least I'm not the only one who's upset about this. But having had a rather bad week stuck at home with a cold and hearing about our country falling apart, waking up to this news was not what I needed.

Go for the $3k-$4k ones. New ones coming out will range between $4k-$25k.

https://www.amazon.com/JVC-DLA-RS400...s=4k+projector

https://www.amazon.com/JVC-DLA-X550R...s=4k+projector

Thanks- I'll keep those in mind after I move. Debating now whether to panic-buy an LG 3D 4K TV while they're still out there, I REALLY didn't want to do that before moving but this sort of changes things. Truth be told the 3D on my Sharp is not very good; I wasn't too picky when I got it because of the financial situation I was in but can at least afford to buy a new one now. (For those keeping score my apartment is still a mess and getting a new TV in and the old one out would be a pain.)

3D will live forever. Don't sweat it so hard and take care of your move...

If a projector something that interests you, another alternative is to just get a really good 1080p with 3D, and focus on a 4K that will more than likely not have 3D. That way you can have the latest and greatest with the 4K.

Even if I lived in a mansion I really wouldn't want to maintain two A/V setups (though ironically if I ever do, the 2nd one will feature my old CRT for watching field-sequential 3D, which doesn't work on modern displays!) and the only time I would buy a new display that doesn't do 3D is if it were literally my only choice- so if I get one now that does both 3D and 4K then I'll at least have something that'll be better for the long term than what I've got now. Then I can just hope that this thing sorts itself out in a few more years. Of course I'm just thinking out loud and won't make any rash buying decisions right away.

When are you moving? I doubt they'll disappear, but if you want to secure one now but pick it up later, you could consider putting one on layaway. Sears has layaway for up to 12 weeks:
http://www.sears.com/en_us/dap/layaway.html

Sears has a few LG 3D 4K LED-LCDs available for layaway, but not the OLED ones.
http://www.sears.com/tvs-electronics...on&sbf=layaway

I imagine that there will be some price drops on the LG sets for Super Bowl sales. That always seems to be a popular time for big screen sales.

I picked up my LG OLED set Thanksgiving week as a part of a early black friday sale, and amazingly, the prices spiked up after that and haven't come back down yet.

I found the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter 3D pack (Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray 2D, DVD, and digital copy) at a local Dollar General yesterday for $6.95.

Just a heads-up in case that title at that price might interest anyone.

^That movie is way better than its title suggests and has some really good 3D.

Petition is currently at 4210 signatures. I think the previous petition for LG to add or return a "gaming mode" to their TVs (I'm not exactly sure what that was) had about 7000 signatures and they did act on that one. Keep it up!

Still thinking of panic-buying an LG in the meantime and just setting it up here in my present apartment even though I'm hoping to move soon (and I know I've been saying that for more than a year now!) I want to go for the 75-incher (non-OLED) which is currently $3500, I could manage that but will watch for at least a slight price drop while it's still available. Almost jumped on a couple websites selling it for closer to $2500 but decided against it after reading bad reviews of the sellers; seems like a bait-and-switch operation.

"East Coast TVs," "Joe's AV," and "CliffsDeals," all have reputations for trying to upsell shipping and other accessories once you've placed the order, and a lot of the Google ratings are fake.

I once recommended East Coast TV for a person, since I didn't know much and didn't look past the surface rating on Google. They got called by a sales rep, trying to get them to buy HDMI cables and improved shipping. She turned them down, and the TV she ordered got shipped anyway. My understanding is that these sites are a hassle, but if you stick firm rejecting any insistence that they need additional shipping fees or add-on items, they'll eventually begrudgingly send you the TV.

I went the eBay route instead since I found a decent deal, and I've found eBay sellers to be very responsive and customer friendly, since they live and die by their Ebay rankings, which are difficult to game.