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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:11PM
You didn't mention spherical (360-degree) video. Does that mean you think it has staying power, or that it's not worth mentioning?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:26PM
I thought about it but didn't list it because 360-degree/VR doesn't have much to do with "television screens", unless they try to sell a $100,000 TV dome/igloo I guess. The FOV of a TV or computer monitor depends on your sitting distance but will be quite low.
VR headsets may be a better buy than big TV sets for some people. They could be cheaper (when comparing high end to high end and low end to low end), they are 3D by their nature with no tricky holography or flawed 3D techniques required, and they are a better use case for high resolution panels than TV sets that people sit several feet away from. Downsides include the need for multiple headsets for multiple people, and headsets are bulkier than 3D glasses. TVs also don't typically get smeared with your disgusting body liquids when you use them.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:34PM
TVs also don't require you to wear bulky things on your head or in your ears, which can get uncomfortable. It's just like stereo speakers vs. headphones: with headphones, you don't have to worry about reflections from the walls and things in the room making the listening experience imperfect. But it's more comfortable to not have headphones on at all, and most people generally seem to prefer loudspeakers rather than wearing headphones all the time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:24PM
Sure; it brings this historical film about the life of Dutch fishermen(*) [wikipedia.org] to vibrant life due to its 360° nature.
(*) Please, don't complain about the frame-rate! We know.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday February 09 2017, @09:28PM
I suppose the fact it's lasted makes up for the 2.3*10-10 fps frame rate.
At the 1900 Paris Exposition there was a cinematic version; it was only shown for three days before the police shut it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9orama [wikipedia.org]