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?
Not enough content, and some people got sick watching it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, it all depends on screen size and distance. From memory a 60inch at 2m will not look any different in 1080 or 4k.
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.
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.
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
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.
I mean we have VR, make the case for 3D while VR is a thing
VR seems a lot more isolating than 3D glasses in front of a TV. Even the powered active 3D glasses are a lot less cumbersome than any VR headset.
I absolutely wish that someone made a 3D TV with the New 3DS technology in 4K. Have the 3D effect turn off when more than one person is watching TV.
I think you might be one of the few guys, that prefer 3D over VR
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. This work was split across multiple studios.
Native stereoscopic capture has massive labour costs itself, and there were many issues where one eye had corrupted footage or imperfections, so the insurance paid for the footage to be post-converted from the one good eye anyway.
Even where it went right, it more than doubled the size and weight of the camera system, and changing a lens would be a complex process taking 30 minutes instead of the minute or two normally required which significantly reduced the material that could be captured in a day. Post-production labour is far far cheaper. So post-conversion very quickly became the norm.
