By technical standards were 3D TVs impressive, Why didn't they catch on back then?

Comments

• swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

  3D has tried to be a thing for well over half a century, and failed every time.

  from red/blue disposable glasses to modern headsets, it has always beem a niche for two fundamental reasons:

  • The cost to produce content
  • The inconvenience to view it

  It’s trivial to throw a movie on while you’re folding laundry or cooking. Watching 3D means putting on a device that (currently) prevents you from doing anything else, the Sitting and Watching. And the content is some degree of unwatchable without that.

  source
• despoticruin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  A lot of the same issues VR has that relegates it to a very niche hobby, as well as VR itself becoming more of a thing.

  Basically, it’s twice the cost at a minimum. Want 3D movies? Well, that’s 2 cameras, double the storage, and all of the added workload in alignment, effects needing to be done for each eye… Basically double everything and add some to stitch them together.

  3D games? Same thing, but with calculations. You have to render each eye, plus the calculations to keep them aligned and in the right place.

  3D screens? You have to render each eye, so you have to either do glasses or funky screen tech like the 3DS to get that image to each eye at the right time, so the usual minimum is a screen that refreshes twice as fast plus a bit extra with the glasses to tie it all together.

  See the pattern? It’s twice as hard, twice as expensive, plus a little extra.

  Which begs the question:

  Is it twice as good, plus a little extra?

  source
• Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Aside from ALL the shit other people have said, 3d always gets used like shit anyway. The way to make it shine is to give depth to images, and everyone wants to use it to make shit “pop out of the screen at you”.

  Otherwise it’s subtle. So why bother with the extra infrastructure for no additional effect?

  source

  • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This is the way. The movies I’ve watched in 3d that used it only in this way have been amazingly done. The goofy jump scare pop out the screen is best left for Disney world.

    source
• ieatpwns@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They needed accessories (polarized glasses or battery powered glasses that alternated frames to produce the 3d effect) to access the 3d features. Also things needs to be produced with 3d in mind or else it just looks like a crappy pop up book. Source: I had one and hated why it did to video games and movies that weren’t intended to be experienced in 3d

  source
• brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  None of my family will watch 3D in theatres. It makes them sick.

  This is a huge factor.

  source
• Redacted@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  3d didnt work for some people, made other people sick, required special glasses just to watch, and also required the seating positions and tv to be at certain angles and distances: meaning unless the whole room was changed just for the viewing experience, only a few select people would be able to enjoy the 3d.

  Also a dirth of content as making 3d is more difficult.

  source
• rafoix@lemmy.zip ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  There was not enough content for 3D TVs and people didn’t want to wear special glasses.

  Also, consoles were too weak to display 3D content.

  source

  • IonTempted@lemmynsfw.com ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Weren’t there like Blu-Rays? I guess the first movie I watched was Avengers (2012) and it really didn’t blew me away

    Nowadays I watch movies with my Quest 2 on the big screen app and think, holy shit

    source

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The media (Blu-ray, dvd, whatever…) didn’t matter so much. Adding depth fields to existing media works, but it isn’t exactly perfect. The tech should be much better now, but it took a fuck ton of manual labor to convert films to be compatible with 3D. Back when 3D TVs were being pushed, studios had to film movies in 3D as well, which took more time and more equipment.

      Here is an old pic I took during the conversion of Titanic into 3D since it wasn’t filmed in 3D from the start. Each frame needed to have depth fields mapped, by hand, in a room filled with jr level staff: Image

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • rafoix@lemmy.zip ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yes, you needed a 3D disk player, 3D TV, 3D version of whatever you want to watch. That’s a lot of upfront costs.

      Very few movies are filmed in 3D. Avatar did it right but almost nothing else did and it shows.

      Video games should be doing it right now on PC but most folks would rather use all the extra horsepower to run their games at 200fps.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Nobody wants to wear dork goggles to watch TV.

  source
• deafboy@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I feel like 3D is a different kind of medium. Directors used to shoot movies that look good on a 2D screen weren’t fully utilizing the possibilities of the new medium. However, shooting movies solely for being presented in 3D would not have been financially viable.

  VR suffers from a similar problem. But thanks to lower costs, compared to a Hollywood movie, it’s possible to target the smaller market of VR users.

  source
• watson@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They are not impressive, they were extremely expensive, and there was no standard for distributing 3-D movies.

  Finally. Everyone got over their craze for three movies and instead I was more interested in 4K.

  source

  • IonTempted@lemmynsfw.com ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, nowadays I only watch movies in 4K and it’s night and day over Full HD and I don’t know why anyone would say otherwise.

    source

    • Kirca@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Honestly 2k is fine for most tvs, I wish that became standard. Imo 4k should be reserved for computer screens and the like, that are less than a metre from you, most people can’t really see the difference anyway.

      Also side rant, drives me mad when people are more worried about resolution than bitrate (not directed at anyone here) . I have a friend who “can’t stand watching things in 1080p” but half the 4k streaming content is compressed to hell.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • cRazi_man@europe.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      1080 is quicker to download an easier to store than 4K. There is a difference between them, but it’s not a huge deal if youvd got good quality full HD. Leaves me plenty of space on my home server for other data hoarding.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• BootLoop@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I dislike watching movies in 3D and prefer them in normal 2D.

  source
• Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Not enough content, and some people got sick watching it.

  source

  • IonTempted@lemmynsfw.com ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah but it’s ten times as immersive as 3D, How would you replace it.

    source

    • froh42@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I had a TV that was 3D capable along with a PS3. I think I played 30 minutes of 3D games on that TV before I got a headache from the flickering shutter glasses and then they staid in the drawer below them tv for a year ar or two. Next time I wanted to try the batteries were empty.

      I also saw a number of 3D movies in the cinema but it’s more for block busters and after a while it just is “meh”.

      It’s a wow effect in the beginning, but in the end it’s just a gimmick.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• proper@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I got a 3d tv after seeing fury road 3 times in theaters.

  The issue is that 3-d content was, at best, 1080p. That’s 720p per eye. And on a 4k tv it looks low res and shitty.

  plus the active lenses remove a lot of the brightness during the opening/closing, so the picture was darker too.

  if it was anything close to what it was like with passive glasses in the theater I believe it would have caught on.

  source

  • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    They made 3D TVs with passive glasses too, I had one. Still have actually, working fine 10 years later.

    Has some neat tricks like coming with two pairs of “game” glasses that are effectly two left lenses for one person and two right lenses for the other, giving the ability to play a two-player split screen game with each player having a full-screen view (albeit stretched) and not being able to see the other! Trippy.

    IMO the reason they didn’t catch on wasn’t the technology, just that it genuinely didn’t add much to the movie watching experience. What makes a movie worth watching continues to be the movie itself, and in some ways 3D - which was meant to be “immersive”- was actually just a distraction from the movie which frequently reminds you you’re actually just sat in a room watching a screen, rather than letting you get into the story.

    source
• IWW4@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You can’t polish a turd and 3d is a turd. So 3D TVs weren’t impressive at all.

  They fucking sucked.

  source
• slazer2au@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Which time? The 90s or the 2010s?

  I say it’s a gimmick and doesn’t provide any real benifit.

  source
• ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  3dtvs would’ve only had a chance if they were basically gigantic 3ds top screens

  The glassesless 3d effect would be the only way. But then you have the issue of the display is then compromised in other ways (rainbowing, contrast issues, softer definition, etc), is more expensive because it’s basically 2 panels laminated together, and is a lot of compromise for something that ultimately had very little content, which was the other issue.

  I remember people dragging me to 3d movies and hating it because I’m blind in one eye and having to make the choice between wearing 2 pairs of glasses (other eye isn’t great) or basically sitting through a blurry mess because watching without the glasses was a nightmare (though it varied, sometimes it was 2 small copies of the movie side by side)

  source
• davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I think it’s because the studios/cable/etc tried to charge extra for 3D content compared to 2D. Ensured that demand for 3D was insufficient to make more content available for it.

  source