No more major production of 3D TV's

[AGTDenton]

This is great news in my eyes.

Of the 3D TV's that I saw they had inferior quality on 2D viewing vs standard 2D only TV's. I always felt aware that it was a 3D TV by seeing some kind of grain or bizar lag or other things that were not apparent on their 2D equivalents when watching a standard 2D source. It's one of the reasons that's put me off buying a TV for a number of years.
I'll certainly be checking out the market in the Summer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38778244
https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-...lls-down-dead/

What was your experiences of 3D TV's?

[kalniel]

We have a plasma active 3d TV and it's superb. The 2D picture is sublime and I've yet to see an LCD beat it (OLED probably does). 3D is at half refresh rate rather than half resolution as per passive 3d, but it's never been a problem since films have been fine as low as 24fps for ages. What lets it down is the quality of the content - filmed in/created for 3D is good, but post production converted films aren't worth attempting to watch.

[Jonj1611]

I have a 3D and some films are hit and miss but having the choice was always good. Some films did it well, others not so much. My TV has the active 3D glasses. My main grumble was colour reproduction often wasn't as good while watching 3D.

[Terbinator]

This is great news in my eyes.

Of the 3D TV's that I saw they had inferior quality on 2D viewing vs standard 2D only TV's...

This sounds like an actual error, more than anything. I see no reason why a 3D capable display - displaying 2D content as normal - would look worse than just a 2D TV. If anything, 3D TVs usually have better panels and processing power relative to their 2D equivalents. The only real difference could be a potentially darker light output due to polarisation(?) enabling the panel to display 3D images.

What was your experiences of 3D TV's?

Very little outside of cinema if that counts. If the owners and users are to be believed, apparently last years LG OLEDs have the best interpretation of 3D to have been released.

[peterb]

I have an LG 3D TV and the picture quality is very good, both in 2 and 3 d. However, as said before, the quality of 3D content is variable, and rarely subtle.

The future really lies in 4K (and beyond) where the much higher resolution gives a very subtle perceived 3D effect, where the brain processes the extra definition to create the 3D effect.

I saw an experimental 16K display at a trade show a couple of years (huge display, mounted on a trailer!) and the 3D effect (in 2D) was absolutely stunning.

So I'm not really surprised (with hindsight) that 3D has turned out to be a TV dead end.

[Englander]

My TV has active 3D glasses, but I never saw the point in shelling out for the glasses and thus have never used it. I always thought it was a bit of a gimmicky way of charging ever more for cinema tickets, too.

[Spreadie]

No more 3D TVs?

Gutted. No, wait... I'm lying

[chinf]

I think my main TV is so old it predates 3D mass market availability

If I was in the market for a new TV, I'd prioritise main (i.e. 2D) picture quality over 3D capability, all the time, every time. I've nothing against 3D technology, it's just that it has to compete on merit with other aspects of a TV. In the home it is of benefit for such a vanishingly small proportion of time that other factors easily outweigh it for me, and likely for most other people too.

3D works well in theme parks, cinema and the like as people expect an immersive experience in these events, but it's just a forgotten gimmick in the home.

[Saracen]

....

What was your experiences of 3D TV's?

Very, very poor.

Not that I have extensive experience, but I did extensively demo 3D TV several times, ranging from bog-standard high street stores to somecvery high-end .... or at least, high-priced, gear, and every single time, without exception, within 15mins I had a raging headache developing.

Now, maybe it's just me, and I do have some eye issues, but whatever the reason, I would not have a 3D set in the house.

[DanceswithUnix]

That's a shame.

3D was never going to replace 2D, in the same way chocolate biscuits will never replace normal ones. There were times when it worked though.

Not surprised it isn't a main buying factor. I have a 3D TV, and as long as it keeps working I am not in the market for another one. If I were to buy a living room TV, I would want the option of watching 3D material on it.

I have had some to me odd comments about having a 3D tv. People ask why I bought one, I point out that really I bought a good TV, and the good panels all seemed to be 3D capable. The cheap/bad panels were not 3D capable, and the extra cost for getting a few glasses (my set is passive) was insignificant.

I gather the 4K panels with passive 3D are much improved for 3D effect, guess I will never get one now so I won't know.

[b0redom]

I've got a LG 4k OLED. I bought it about 6 months ago and the reason I got the model I did was that it supported 3D.

Do I use it much? Nope, but it's nice to have. It's the first time I've had a 3D telly though. I watched the latest Star Trek in 3D and the effect was quite good. This is a passive rather than active set though.

[Spreadie]

I have had some to me odd comments about having a 3D tv. People ask why I bought one, I point out that really I bought a good TV, and the good panels all seemed to be 3D capable. The cheap/bad panels were not 3D capable, and the extra cost for getting a few glasses (my set is passive) was insignificant.

We have differing outlooks on this. To me, it has nothing to do with cheap/bad panels - I just wasn't prepared to pay a premium for a feature I a) didn't care about, and b) was sure would be obsolete in fairly short order.

TBH, I don't care about 4K either, or 78 inch curved screens, and I tend to keep my TVs until they die or develop a really annoying unfixable fault. By the time my "cheapo" non-smart, non-3D 39" Panasonic dies, I imagine 4/5K will be all that is available - I just hope they still do relatively small ones by then.

This isn't aimed at you, but the thread reminded me of last week - I was on a call to a home where the lounge carpet was sticky and threadbare in patches and the wallpaper was mouldy and peeling, but the TV was a curved 70-80" Samsung monstrosity - I'm guessing upwards of three grand - The pair of them sitting in their jimjams in the middle of the afternoon watching Jeremy Kyle. I didn't get a close look at their mobile phones, but something tells me they weren't Alcatel Pixi 4s. Geez... perspective, people.

[DanceswithUnix]

We have differing outlooks on this. To me, it has nothing to do with cheap/bad panels - I just wasn't prepared to pay a premium for a feature I a) didn't care about, and b) was sure would be obsolete in fairly short order.

Partly that depends on which brands you are looking at. The Samsung TVs with active glasses it did add quite a lot to the cost.

I have an LG, from memory it was something like £450 with the 3D and I would have saved about £30 to go with the same size but 2D only TV. I think there were other differences besides 3D support, can't remember. At the time of purchase the Doctor Who 3D special was about to be aired, and I like Doctor Who so I got the 3D one

Does the 3D get used all the time? No, probably only every couple of months, but given it didn't cost much I think so far the feature has been very good value. 3D gaming on the PS3 can be quite impressive too.

As for the huge TV and sticky carpets, eww that was quite the picture you painted there. Life-size Jeremy Kyle, that's going to be disturbing me all day

[Smudger]

I'm kind of going to miss it, but circumstances have passed me by. My first LED TV was pre-3d (2009) and my latest one is from Samsung, who stopped doing 3d a while back.

I don't feel I'm missing much, although having worked for a film distribution company, I received a lot of blu-rays for free, and many of these came with a 3d disc as well as 2d. I always thought 'maybe one day I'll get a 3d telly and see what the difference is'. But in the end, the 4k screen that was the best choice for me doesn't have 3d so I can live with that. The only films I wish I'd seen in 3d are Avatar and Life of Pi. The rest seem to have just jumped on the bandwagon and added the 3d in post production.

Addendum: Adding to what others have said on this thread, HDR in 4k seems to add a certain element of depth to UHD films, so I'm pretty happy just having that for now.

[virtuo]

My Panasonic plasma has 3D - it's a gimmick and I've used it a handful of times, usually just because someone has been round that hasn't tried it.

I know that in the case of the model of TV I have, the panels selected for 3D had to be a cut above what would have been adequate for non-3D sets. You can tell, the picture and colour is astounding and the reason I'm waiting for an absolutely perfect 4K OLED to come to market before I upgrade.

I remember Wipeout HD on my PS3 had 3D output - that did make me feel nauseous where normal films didn't

[Andy14]

We have a plasma active 3d TV and it's superb. The 2D picture is sublime and I've yet to see an LCD beat it (OLED probably does). 3D is at half refresh rate rather than half resolution as per passive 3d, but it's never been a problem since films have been fine as low as 24fps for ages. What lets it down is the quality of the content - filmed in/created for 3D is good, but post production converted films aren't worth attempting to watch.

Same here. I very rarely watch 3D content on it, but the 2D certainly hasn't suffered as a result. Agreed that LCD still can't beat it and I'm not convinced OLED does either (yet).

I've put a small mark in the diary to check in 2-4 years to see if I can get an OLED screen better than mine, bigger than mine & for less than £3k. (LG's wallpaper OLED's this year do start to show promise)