Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the death-of-curved-tvs dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday February 10 2017, @02:36AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Friday February 10 2017, @02:36AM (#465375) Journal

    The main difference is that your brain tends to fill in 3D if it's missing, but is much less good at filling in colour. 3D isn't a binary thing. Your brain uses a lot of different cues to construct a 3D image and several of those are present in 2D cinema. From memory, so probably missing some, your brain uses stereo separation (different pictures in both eyes), relative movement (things in the background moving at different speeds), occlusion (things appear and disappear as things pass in front of them), scanning (your eye is constantly moving to give slightly different views of the scene), focal depth (how does your lens have to change to focus on different parts of the scene), and a couple that I've forgotten. You get many of them from a 2D film and you only get one more from today's 3D film. It's really a misnomer to describe it as 3D and this is one of the reasons that it's a problem: most people get motion sick if the cues don't agree and today's 3D crosses a line from where a percent or two suffer to where about 10-20% of people feel sick.

    The comparison to colour is therefore a little bit misleading. A comparison to HDR would be more appropriate: we already have the equivalent of colour for 3D, the next change is simply providing a richer colour range.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 10 2017, @04:43PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday February 10 2017, @04:43PM (#465525) Homepage

    That's a good point and I'm going to steal it.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk