SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Back in 2010 Sony Australia's Paul Colley forecasted that a large percentage of Australian viewers would have 3-D televisions by 2014.
In the same year, industry pundits such as Simon Murray predicted that sales of 3-D TVs were set to increase in the years to come.
But others were heralding the death of 3-D TVs and this year the remaining major manufacturers, LG and Sony, have said they will no longer produce 3-D-capable televisions.
So despite all the repeated push and positive predictions, what went wrong with 3-D TV?
Tim Alessi, LG's director of new product development, acknowledged this year that:
[...] 3-D 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.
Sales of 3-D TVs have been in decline for several years, according to data from analysts NPD. In 2013, 3-D TVs accounted for 23% of TV purchases in the United States, but this dropped to just 8% in 2016.
Is 3-D TV dead, or will it rise again?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:01PM
Careful there. The pr0n producers know something. Something that news casters and politicians know. And corporate spokes droids.
If you get TOO up close, and have too much detail, you now can see all of the natural imperfections. It might distract you from the fantasy.
And like pr0n, all spokes droids, sales people, and Disney are all about fantasy and illusion. Reality is less appealing. But it is real.
I suspect the pr0n producers know this and haven't produced material in this format because it might actually be a detriment to their product. I wouldn't know. But it is a hypothesis.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:43PM
Well, I suppose there could be high quality 3-D and low quality 3-D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:50PM
Yep, some things are just better enjoyed through a soft lens.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:56PM
Just airbrush that shit. It works for magazines.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:40PM
If you get TOO up close, and have too much detail, you now can see all of the natural imperfections. It might distract you from the fantasy.
Have you actually seen porn? You do realize a lot of places put out super, duper HQ photos and videos that make it look like you're actually looking at a vulva through a microscope, right? You could probably diagnose the number of ingrown hairs that might erupt around the individual shaved follicle sites with the HQ a lot of porn is in today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @11:15PM
Not to mention the in thing now is to purposely include high resolution closeups of the girl's asshole. As if that's the part of the girl I wanted to see the most.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday February 10 2017, @02:44AM
I noticed that with my new TV. At 55 inches and 1080p I noticed how many celebrities have really yellow teeth! Can't rich people afford toothpaste?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @05:07AM
First off, whitening toothpastes are mostly terrible for the enamel and secondly, at least as far as actors go, super white teeth are generally unnatural for the parts they'd be playing anyways.