This meant that when 3D TV was introduced in , most consumers were not ready to discard their just-purchased TVs, and reach into their wallets again, just to get 3D. Bad timing was just the first mistake. To view the 3D effect on a TV you had to wear special glasses. And, get this, there were competing standards that determined which glasses you had to use.
Some TV makers led by Panasonic and Samsung adopted a system referred to as "active shutter". In this system, viewers had to wear glasses that used shutters that alternately opened and closed, synchronized with alternately displayed left and right eye images on the TV to create the 3D effect.
However, other manufacturers led by LG and Vizio adopted a system referred to as "passive polarized", in which the TV displayed both the left and right images at the same time, and the required glasses used polarization to provide the 3D effect. However, a major problem was that the glasses used with each system were not interchangeable.
If you owned a 3D TV that required active glasses, you could not use passive glasses or vice versa. To make matters worse, even though you could use the same passive glasses with any 3D TV that used that system, with TVs that used the active shutter system, you couldn't necessarily use the same glasses with different brands. Another problem with 3D glasses was the cost.
For a family of 4 or more or if a family regularly hosted a movie night that cost was pretty high. Uh-oh, more costs ahead! Also, with internet streaming starting to take off, you needed to make sure that your new 3D TV was compatible with any internet services that offered 3D streaming. Realizing that some consumers might not want to purchase all the other gear needed for a true 3D viewing experience, TV makers decided to include the capability of 3D TVs to perform real-time 2D-to-3D conversion—Big Mistake!
Although this allowed consumers to watch existing 2D content in 3D right out the box, the 3D viewing experience was poor—definitely inferior to viewing actual 3D. As a result, TV makers made the big mistake of not incorporating increased light output technologies into 3D TVs to compensate. However, what is ironic, is that with the introduction of HDR technology in , TVs began to be made with increased light output capability.
This would have benefited the 3D viewing experience, but in a counter-intuitive move, TV makers decided to dump the 3D viewing option, focusing their efforts on implementing HDR and improving 4K resolution performance , without keeping 3D in the mix. In order to provide 3D TV programming, two channels are required, so that standard TV owners could still watch a program normally on one channel, in addition to those wanting to watch in 3D on another. This meant increased cost for broadcast networks to provide separate feeds to local stations, and for local stations to maintain two separate channels for transmission to viewers.
However, Vudu, 3D Crave , and some other internet streaming content channels still provide some 3D content, but how long that will last is anyone's guess. Another reason 3D failed was the poor retail sales experience. At first there was a lot of sales hype and 3D demonstrations, but after the initial push, if you walked into a lot of retailers looking for a 3D TV, the sales people no longer provided well-informed presentations, and 3D glasses were often missing or, in the case of active shutter glasses, not charged or missing batteries.
The result was that consumers that may have been interested in buying a 3D TV would just walk out of the store, not knowing what was available, how it worked, how to best optimize a 3D TV for the best viewing experience, and what else they needed to enjoy the 3D experience at home.
Also, sometimes it was not communicated well that all 3D TVs can display images in standard 2D. In other words, you can use a 3D TV just like any other TV in cases where 3D content is not available if 2D viewing is desired or more appropriate. For a variety of reasons, not everyone likes 3D. If you are viewing with other family members or friends, and one of them doesn't want to watch 3D, they will just see two overlapping images on the screen. Sharp offered glasses that could convert 3D back to 2D, but that required an optional purchase and, if one of the reasons that the person didn't want to watch 3D was because they didn't like wearing glasses, having to use a different type of glasses to watch 2D TV, while others are watching the same TV in 3D was a non-starter.
Unlike going to the local cinema or using a home theater video projector and screen, the 3D viewing experience on a TV is not the same. Although not everyone likes watching 3D regardless of whether it is at a movie theater or at home, consumers, in general, are more accepting of 3D as a movie-going experience.
Also, in the home environment, watching 3D using a video projector which are still available and a large screen, provides a more acceptable cinematic experience for many. Viewing 3D on a TV, unless on a large screen or sitting close, is like viewing through a small window — the field of view is much more narrow, resulting in a less than desirable 3D experience.
Another setback was the decision not to include 3D into 4K standards, so, by the time the 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray disc format was introduced in late , there was no provision for implementing 3D on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs, and no indication from movie studios to support such a feature. In the short term, there are still millions of 3D TVs in use in the U. There are about 3D Blu-ray Disc movie titles available, with more in the short term pipeline. This means that you may have to purchase them from international sources.
If you do, make sure they are region code compatible with your player and that they have an English soundtrack or subtitles. Looking at the long-term, 3D TV could make a comeback. So, why have they stuck around? Traditional TVs do not come with all the additions 3D TVs bring, and there are several reasons people stuck with purchasing traditional TVs, such as:.
Instead, manufacturers are turning their attention to 4K , HDR and OLED technologies, with consumers wanting sharper and higher definition images rather than 3D features. It all comes down to personal preference when purchasing either a traditional 2D TV or 3D TV, and this debate and difference in opinion may continue.
Menu Search My Cart - 0 item s. Order online, or call our Sales hotline Shop by My Cart - 0 item s. The 3D Blu-ray format, and made-in-3D movies, definitely represent the state of the 3D art, with full high-def resolution and the benefit of the latest filming techniques to make the 3D effect comfortable and enjoyable. Unlike Blu-ray, 3D broadcasts on TV currently use a half-resolution 3D format known as side-by-side, resulting in a significantly softer, non-high-def look. We know of no plans to add more 3D channels or introduce a full-HD resolution 3D broadcast.
Click here for more on the differences between Blu-ray and broadcast 3D formats. The Vudu streaming service also has a smattering of 3D movies available. Sensio's 3DGo app , currently only available on Vizio TVs, promises more content than other comparable services.
Games are often touted as the "killer app" for 3D TVs, but actual 3D games are still uncommon. Today many popular titles are still 2D-only, and 3D games aren't really catching on fast. The Nintendo Wii does not offer 3D compatibility. The Wii U does, but no compatible 3D games are available yet. But lack of 3D content is a big reason people don't want to get a 3D TV today. We don't see this situation changing in the immediate future, and we feel glasses-free 3D TVs need to be available at mainstream prices -- and work well -- before 3D content has a chance to become as common as 2D high-def content is today.
How should 3D shape your TV buying decision? Not strongly, in our opinion. Here are few things to keep in mind. The best way to think about 3D is as 'just another feature' Manufacturers construct their product lines to get you to pay more for "step-up" features.
They're generally all tied together, too, which is why nearly all high-end TVs -- and many midrange ones -- now feature 3D compatibility. In our experience, the best-performing 2D TVs happen to have the 3D feature as well. If you're willing to pay extra for an improvement in 2D picture quality, chances are you'll be getting 3D whether you like it or not.
That said, just because you buy a 3D TV -- even just to get the best 2D picture quality -- doesn't mean you need to ever use the 3D feature. Don't buy a 3D TV just to stave off obsolescence If the only reason you're considering stepping up to the 3D feature is to avoid buyer's remorse in the next couple of years, in anticipation of 3D content becoming widespread, you should stick with a 2D TV. For reasons discussed in the content section, we don't see 3D as a "must-have" for most TV buyers, either now or in the near future.
Don't hold out for glasses-free 3D TVs The obstacles preventing glasses-free 3D TVs from catching on include restricted viewing angles, limited numbers of viewers, lower resolution, and the necessity to use head-tracking to optimize the image. In short, we don't expect glasses-free 3D TVs to hit mainstream prices anytime soon.
Check 3D out yourself before you buy Our best advice, which applies to the 3D feature more than to any 2D step-up feature, is still to see for yourself. Watch at least a couple of 3D movies in the theater to decide whether you like or can even see the effect.
Even better, audition 3D TV at a friend's house or a good retail store. If you've narrowed it down to two similar models you can afford, one with 3D and one without, it's definitely worth seeing 3D TV in action before making your decision.
Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic. We delete comments that violate our policy , which we encourage you to read. Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion. David Katzmaier. July 18, a.
0コメント