Is there still a need for 3D TV or cinema?

[Dave2002]

I attend live events - mostly opera and theatre, and recently "live" cinema events.

I enjoy the cinema events in a different way. However at the recent Marnie (Met Opera) show, I was struck at how flat the presentation was. This is nothing to do with the on screen presentation, but rather the fact that it was only in 2D. I have felt the same about other cinema presentations.

I know that 3D TV didn't really take off - but then neither did video phones for a period of about 40 years, until the present generation of mobile phones.

I found a few articles about 3D TV - such as this - https://www.extremetech.com/electron...vr-follow-suit

I never really saw any 3D TV, and I understand that there can be production difficulties for programmes - with more complex cameras, and some problems with video editing and general presentation etc. However, I do wonder if the assumption that it is completely dead in the water, or the "rejoicing" that the articles from 2017 made that the last incarnations of 3D TV had failed were actually justified.

My feeling is that there could still be great merit in 3D, and we have the technology. It's just the business models which have so far failed.

[Serial_Apologist]

I attend live events - mostly opera and theatre, and recently "live" cinema events.

I enjoy the cinema events in a different way. However at the recent Marnie (Met Opera) show, I was struck at how flat the presentation was. This is nothing to do with the on screen presentation, but rather the fact that it was only in 2D. I have felt the same about other cinema presentations.

I know that 3D TV didn't really take off - but then neither did video phones for a period of about 40 years, until the present generation of mobile phones.

I found a few articles about 3D TV - such as this - https://www.extremetech.com/electron...vr-follow-suit

I never really saw any 3D TV, and I understand that there can be production difficulties for programmes - with more complex cameras, and some problems with video editing and general presentation etc. However, I do wonder if the assumption that it is completely dead in the water, or the "rejoicing" that the articles from 2017 made that the last incarnations of 3D TV had failed were actually justified.

My feeling is that there could still be great merit in 3D, and we have the technology. It's just the business models which have so far failed.

Doesn't the brain make allowances for the 2D? A year ago I acquired my first flat-screen TV; it took a while to acclimatise to the 2-dimensional impression's accentuation, having always watched TVs with convex screens. Now I'm happy with it.

[Dave2002]

Doesn't the brain make allowances for the 2D? A year ago I acquired my first flat-screen TV; it took a while to acclimatise to the 2-dimensional impression's accentuation, having always watched TVs with convex screens. Now I'm happy with it.

Sure.

The brain also makes allowances or acclimatises to sound sources which are rolled off below 500 Hz and above 8 kHz. Well, most people's brains do, anyway.

[richardfinegold]

I think the answer to the Title thread is “no”. Not unless you wish to hold your head in one spot while wearing those goofy glasses. The new monitors have stopped offering 3D capability. Why this old fad ever received any traction with manufacturers is beyond me

[Dave2002]

I think the answer to the Title thread is “no”. Not unless you wish to hold your head in one spot while wearing those goofy glasses. The new monitors have stopped offering 3D capability. Why this old fad ever received any traction with manufacturers is beyond me

Did you ever try it?

I think some of the problems which led to the demise of 3D TVs by 2017 might have been to do with targeting a mass audience, and also producing sufficiently high quality films in 3D. I gather that some films were somehow converted to 3D, and this threw up all sorts of problems - things which weren't noticed in the "flat" 2D versions (some of which were box office successes ...). Plus also, the people who make films aren't always interested in artistic merit or quality, but simply making vast amounts of money. Another factor might be that to get good results, the displays and the content might have to be optimised for each viewer - something which was difficult for a mass audience. However, there are terrific developments in technology, and I think it's possible that this could come back.

I have seen some 3D video, though admittedly it was for technical purposes, and it was very good. Some surgeons use 3D viewers to perform operations using robots.

I stick with my original assertion that 2D viewing just looks "flat" - even though I know there's a 3D world behind the screen.

[Dave2002]

A year ago I acquired my first flat-screen TV; it took a while to acclimatise to the 2-dimensional impression's accentuation, having always watched TVs with convex screens. Now I'm happy with it.

Sorry - I didn't read this properly at first. We've had flat screens for nearly 10 years now. I think the latest trend in 2D screens is for concave curved screens.

[Bryn]

I have a fairly basic 32" 3D in a spare bedroom. I also have a few 3D Blu-rays and an experimental Channel 4 3D transfer of Flesh for Frankenstein (DIrected by Paul Morrissey and nominally produced by Andy Warhol) on DVD-R. It's a bit of a faff getting the specs out to vies in 3D, but worth the occasional effort. I must check whether there is a comercial disc of the3 3D version of FfF available. The Channel 4 experiment was not all that successful, certainly not as good as when I saw the film in 3D at the ICA many moons ago.

[richardfinegold]

Did you ever try it?

I think some of the problems which led to the demise of 3D TVs by 2017 might have been to do with targeting a mass audience, and also producing sufficiently high quality films in 3D. I gather that some films were somehow converted to 3D, and this threw up all sorts of problems - things which weren't noticed in the "flat" 2D versions (some of which were box office successes ...). Plus also, the people who make films aren't always interested in artistic merit or quality, but simply making vast amounts of money. Another factor might be that to get good results, the displays and the content might have to be optimised for each viewer - something which was difficult for a mass audience. However, there are terrific developments in technology, and I think it's possible that this could come back.

I have seen some 3D video, though admittedly it was for technical purposes, and it was very good. Some surgeons use 3D viewers to perform operations using robots.

I stick with my original assertion that 2D viewing just looks "flat" - even though I know there's a 3D world behind the screen.

A friend has a 3 D monitor, and I tried it a few months ago. He wants to replace it with a newer HD monitor

[richardfinegold]

Did you ever try it?

I think some of the problems which led to the demise of 3D TVs by 2017 might have been to do with targeting a mass audience, and also producing sufficiently high quality films in 3D. I gather that some films were somehow converted to 3D, and this threw up all sorts of problems - things which weren't noticed in the "flat" 2D versions (some of which were box office successes ...). Plus also, the people who make films aren't always interested in artistic merit or quality, but simply making vast amounts of money. Another factor might be that to get good results, the displays and the content might have to be optimised for each viewer - something which was difficult for a mass audience. However, there are terrific developments in technology, and I think it's possible that this could come back.

I have seen some 3D video, though admittedly it was for technical purposes, and it was very good. Some surgeons use 3D viewers to perform operations using robots.

I stick with my original assertion that 2D viewing just looks "flat" - even though I know there's a 3D world behind the screen.

A friend has a 3 D monitor, and I tried it a few months ago. He wants to replace it with a newer HD monitor

[Dave2002]

A friend has a 3 D monitor, and I tried it a few months ago. He wants to replace it with a newer HD monitor

Yes - but do you know why? There may be other factors than simply the difference between 2D and 3D.

I'm not suggesting that we always have to watch in 3D, but simply that some presentations may be (or could be) much better in 3D than 2D. The sort of thing I'm envisaging is going to the cinema to watch one of the Met (or ROH) operas live, or an NT Live theatre production. Though having said that, I see no reason why those experiences couldn't be transmitted direct to the home. Maybe even see those events through virtual reality headsets - which I've only had limited experience of.

Many people may not want to do this, and it would raise more complications and costs for service providers, but some people may find that they do want that, and the experience is better. I just don't know, but I still feel that the 2D TV or cinema experience looks very flat compared with almost any "real" live production, and that 3D might make the experience much more immersive. On the face of it there's hardly any difference between 2D and 3D - if you think about it "only" a relatively few pixels in each frame are actually different between the left and right eye views, so what's the big deal? We could use the same sort of negative arguments against stereo or surround sound - particularly stereo - but most of us wouldn't want to be forced back to listen to mono nowadays. We could, and indeed mono can be very good, and enjoyable, but most people given a choice, and with the right environment and equipment would prefer stereo or surround sound.

One of my neighbours tried out virtual reality (I've only done that once - at an exhibition), and said it was amazing - though he did also say that it could be disorienting as there was a temptation to move around and not be aware of obstacles in the real world, and to try to manipulate objects in the virtual world. My own very short VR experience was limited, but I did also find that it was tempting to reach out for things which weren't really there. Most of use don't have those experiences for long enough. Maybe over a long period some people get used to them, and others may actually find there are too many problems. I just don't know.

[richardfinegold]

My friend complained of the need to keep his head in one spot and to wear the glasses, and the general lack of 3 D content. He is also more audio oriented, not that much of a visual aficionado. he did play a 3 D Rolling Stones concert for me from Hyde Park, sometime recently. Seeing the geriatric Rockers in 3 D didn't do much for me but the technology is meant more for action movies. The surround sound did impress, but then I'm already a convert there. At any rate, surround sounded added much more to the feel of an outdoor venue than when he played it in a non surround mode.

[Dave2002]

I understand your friend's reservations. Maybe virtual reality headsets really are the way to go, if the "must focus on one spot" aspect of TV is really significant. Proper VR headsets also know which way your head is facing, and that's apparently quite a good thing. Perhaps the glasses for TV don't have the same sense of awareness.

Your comments re audio are also intereresting. One of my friends suggests that having HD TV is just nothing like good enough without good quality surround sound. For "ordinary" watching at home we have been happy with HD TV, and now a very recent UHD set. Possibly I may prefer the older HD set to the 4k set, but it's early days yet. We skipped the 3D TV technology, though another friend of mine bought into it.

[Old Grumpy]

Doesn't the brain make allowances for the 2D? A year ago I acquired my first flat-screen TV; it took a while to acclimatise to the 2-dimensional impression's accentuation, having always watched TVs with convex screens. Now I'm happy with it.

We still have a CRT TV for our main viewing. We have a small flat screen TV in the kitchen. I personally have no desire to experience 3D TV or VR - call me old and grumpy if you like...