Support NeoGAF

[NR1]

Television manufactures appear to have all but abandoned 3D sets this year in favor of 4K sets. I recently purchased a LG 65" 4K 3D LED set, so I have the opportunity to experience both at home.

I find it very difficult to locate any meaningful 4K content, since streaming content is either limited in selection, unavailable due to bandwidth, or hidden behind pay walls or other tech barriers (Vudu currently only streams 4K to Vizio sets or Roku 4). UHD Blu-Ray's were released recently; however, there is currently only one player available (Samsung UBD-K8500) for $400, movies are $30, and good luck finding a store with a demo setup. In the Dallas area, there is currently only 1 Best Buy store with a Magnolia Theater section that has "The Martian" playing on a single chapter loop on the Samsung player, but it's on a television that doesn't support High-Dynamic Range (HDR). Worse still, the movie chapter chosen is set in a darkly lit room which doesn't offer much color to begin with or visible details. Before buying, I would love to see some sort of demo of the technology. Why not a nice disc with a split-screen of a demo worthy film? Right-side is 1080p Blu and left-side is 4K UHD with HDR? Saw this all the time with the introduction of HDTV and Blu-ray. SD vs HD image.

I have been able to expose myself to quite a bit more 3D content than 4K, but I am suddenly finding myself much more drawn to 3D than ever before. The format really sets itself apart from other viewing experiences and can be very striking at times.

I was watching Pacific Rim the other day in 3D and was floored by the presentation! The depth and detail is amazing! I can say similar things about Beauty and the Beast, Mad Max Fury Road, and The Nightmare Before Christmas.

I get the impression that 4K sets actually benefit 1080p 3D films, rather than being a direct competitor on viewing experience. I've heard there is a noticeable difference in 3D quality on a 4K set compared to a 1080p set; true?

Where do you think the future of home entertainment content rests for televisions? Higher resolutions? 3D? Smell-o-vision? Do you think 3D could make an unexpected comeback with its pairing with 4K?

 

[icespide]

don't most 4K tv's also include 3D?

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

don't most 4K tv's also include 3D?

Not all do and some manufacturers are dropping 3D in their TV's.

Also 4k UHD blu-ray doesn't support 3D in it's spec, so at least for now, there will be no 4k 3D movies, although some UHD players will play standard 3D blu-rays still. I just hope 4k 3D is introduced later, like it was with blu-ray, but right now 3D at home is not looking like it has a big future, sadly.

 

[Dominator]

I have a Sony 4K that does 3D also. But to be honest, probably neither in the long run.

 

[NR1]

don't most 4K tv's also include 3D?

Just a few short years after 3D burst into our living rooms claiming to be the future of television, it is dead. The technology was barely mentioned at the CES technology show in January 2016, and now both LG and Samsung have cut back their use of 3D.

Samsung will not be including 3D in any of its 2016 televisions, while LG is only adding the feature to its most expensive models, cutting the number of TVs it sells with 3D capabilities from 40% in 2015 to 20% this year. The cutbacks come after Sky canned its 3D channel and consumer interest shifts to Ultra HD and virtual reality.

Source:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/3d-television-dead-samsung-lg-cut-back-3d-tv-production-1542580

 

[-COOLIO-]

why not both?

i prefer having 3D of the two though.

 

[Jezbollah]

3D at home is not the same experience as 3D in the cinema. It's no wonder why it hasnt taken off via TV. It seems 4K or 8K is probably the way to go - but the major issue will be the delivery method of 4k/8k. The few channels in the UK seem to be only available via very fast fibre broadband delivered IPTV.

I think the future should really be unbundled TV packages to be honest. I hope we get to a stage where people pay for what channels they actually want to watch rather than for a ton of channels they have no interest in.

 

[Optimusdouche]

I have a Sony 4K that does 3D also. But to be honest, probably neither in the long run.

Sony's 3d as well as most the 3d manufacturers 3d is horrible.

Active 3d is really just a non starter. Only LG makes passive 3d sets, I believe, while they sell some of their 3d passive tech to other manufacturers.

Active 3d certainly helped kill 3d on tvs, as it was what was first available, and is still what is mostly available.

 

[Magnus]

We're kinda lovin our 4K Samsung with all the gorgeous Netflix 4K content that's around. The TV also shipped with an external drive with a bunch of decent 4K content.

The set can do 3D too but I see that dying off eventually, or being redone at a better quality down the line. 4K just feels like a natural next step, as inevitable as HD was in the late 90s/early 2000s.

 

[NR1]

3D at home is not the same experience as 3D in the cinema. It's no wonder why it hasnt taken off via TV.

100% agree! I just saw The Jungle Book and Zootopia in 3D at the theater and was really surprised how vastly different the look and feel is compared to at home. Same goes with The Force Awakens. It just feels and looks so much better on a TV rather than a projected screen.

 

[Marty Chinn]

3D at home is not the same experience as 3D in the cinema. It's no wonder why it hasnt taken off via TV.

I dunnno about this. Maybe on a 40" screen, it's not the same experience at home, but up on a 135" screen it starts to be a comparable experience.

3D is dead though; it's on its way out for the home market.

 

[jstripes]

While the content will take a while to arrive, 4K's gonna be the standard for new TVs within a few years. There's no reason for the manufacturers to back down.

3D was a gimmick that required each person to wear special glasses.

 

[ApharmdX]

3D is dead, and it was a gimmick. 4K is legit. It's the future, though adoption rates aren't exactly high.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Neither. Most people I know don't even give a shit about 1080p so I doubt anyone will care about 4K.

3D is as dead as dead can be.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Maybe when the Avatar sequel finally comes out and it looks spectacular in 3D at the cinema, UHD blu-ray and 4k will have been out a while by then and they might decide to try again with 3D. The higher resolution would definitely make 3D look better.

Avatar was pretty much the whole reason why 3D became a thing in the first place, so James Cameron and whatever state of the art filming equipment he uses could lead the way once again.

More movies will start to be mastered at 4k or higher now for UHD blu-ray (most movies are mastered at 2k right now for blu-ray, even if filmed at higher resolution) and 3D is still popular at the cinema, so maybe 3D will hit UHD blu-ray later on down the road, if we are lucky.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

3D is dead, and it was a gimmick. 4K is legit. It's the future, though adoption rates aren't exactly high.

Maybe once content is there and prices are lower. 4k Blu rays and no data caps/faster streaming needs to be a thing or the US won't ever take off I see.

 

[Servbot24]

I'm mainly interested in how long it will take for 4k prices to drop to more viable levels for the mainstream audience.

 

[Allard]

Future of home entertainment is in HDR, but since they are pairing it with 4k to create the UHD premium standard, 4K will stick around for the foreseeable future. Due to bandwith limitions the industry had to choose between 4k and 3D and they chose 4k. Personally I hope some point in the future we will see the two combined but as i said bandwidth limitations on consumer equipment just isn't there yet to make it worthwhile.

 

[Bsigg12]

4K with HDR is step up that TVs need. 3D because of the glasses will always be a gimmick.

 

[voodoojohn]

Not sure about 3D. 4K doesn't seem to have any practical benefits, but all manufacturers have moved to it for marketing's sake. LG's OLED's are definitely the new gold standard, as far as I can tell. OLED as a technology (and HDR?) meaningfully enhances the viewing experience, without any real tradeoffs vs LCD. Hopefully it doesn't remain a niche category that eventually loses support, as was the case with plasmas.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

3D can get fucked. I think it'll be phased out completely over the next few years.

 

[FuuRe]

Hololens is the ??? you are referencing to in the title, OP

 

[Jay Sosa]

I'm mainly interested in how long it will take for 4k prices to drop to more viable levels for the mainstream audience.

They're pretty cheap already. Problem is that most of the budget ones have terrible panels and seem like a huge stepback from cheap 1080p models. And so far there has been zero incentive to buy one, like I said most people are happy with 720p (me too tbh, I grew up with VHS tapes so 720p is certainly good enough for me)

I think the PS4.5 will help quite a bit with pushing sales though.

 

[NR1]

4K with HDR is step up that TVs need. 3D because of the glasses will always be a gimmick.

As others have pointed out or suggested, I'm not sure the general population can recognize the difference between HD and 4K. The jump between SD and HD was pretty substantial, thus much more noticeable. Plus the fact that the FCC required broadcasters to move from analog to digital signals in the US also further helped push that adoption over for the general public.

I consider myself fairly tech savvy and able to pick up on image quality, but I find myself having difficulty telling the difference between HD and 4K at times.

Case in point, when I was looking for my new set, I was torn between a LG OLED 1080p and my LG 4K LED, which were both the same price. That OLED was damn impressive in the color department and black levels! WOW! What really sold me on the 4K set in the end was the passive 3D option, plus the prospect of UHD in the future.

 

[Spring Drive]

- 600 Hz: Rather useless
- OLED: Useful
- Curved screens: Useless
- Hi-res audio: Useless
- HDR: Rather useful
- Richer colors: Rather useless
- Smart TVs: Rather useful
- UHD/4K: Rather useless
- UHD Blu-ray: Rather useful, best to wait though

 

[davepoobond]

3D may come back for VR headsets, but TVs its gonna be 4K then 8K.

 

[NR1]

Hololens is the ??? you are referencing to in the title, OP

It can refer to anything. Something that is also currently being pushed (curved screens) or something else in the future that hasn't been developed yet or is still experimental (glasses free 3D).

 

[Goo]

HDR will probably get pushed next. It will be easy to show off as well since HDR TVs will have observably better contrast.

Get ready for some blinding sun rise videos at Best Buy.

 

[Marty Chinn]

HDR will probably get pushed next. It will be easy to show off as well since HDR TVs will have observably better contrast.

Get ready for some blinding sun rise videos at Best Buy.

Sadly I bet a lot of people will attribute it to 4K and not HDR.

 

[darkinstinct]

Sony's 3d as well as most the 3d manufacturers 3d is horrible.

Active 3d is really just a non starter. Only LG makes passive 3d sets, I believe, while they sell some of their 3d passive tech to other manufacturers.

Active 3d certainly helped kill 3d on tvs, as it was what was first available, and is still what is mostly available.

I have not seen active 3D TVs in years, it's all passive.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I have not seen active 3D TVs in years, it's all passive.

That's not true at all.

 

[televator]

I just want TVs to finally get to 8k that's pretty much covers all film master. Then maybe other aspects of display intricacies can be addressed... Though in the digital future that seems unlikely. Hopefully there will be a resurgence of physical format content like there is for vinyl records. Maybe some kind of 8k flash media with with real 30+ bit deep color encoding and no chroma compression.

I can dream.

 

[GuyKazama]

4K and beyond for larger TVs. TVs will eventually die when I can buy a bucket of OLED paint and just coat my walls.

 

[walltowall]

The sad thing is,3D would benefit most from the move to 4K because of the brighter picture and HDR.

 

[Goo]

Sadly I bet a lot of people will attribute it to 4K and not HDR.

Agreed, the content will hopefully be good. Netflix is on board so that should help adoption.

I am happy this has come out, the wow factor from high contrast images is more exciting to me than the resolution increase from UHD 4k.

 

[The Faceless Master]

3D is done.

do they even sell them at Walmart anymore?

there is no vs, it's 4K+HDR

 

[NR1]

3D may come back for VR headsets, but TVs its gonna be 4K then 8K.

Now there is a technology on the rise... VR and 360-degree videos. I have seen a ton of those 360 videos on Facebook lately where you turn your smartphone around to view the video from different angles and such. I'm sure that would require a complete reinvention of how movies and shows are filmed and created, but that could be something novel.

 

[CloudyTuba]

4K will eventually become the norm on TVs. 3D will continue to be a bonus feature.

3D might see a boost in the VR realm.

 

[Marty Chinn]

4K will eventually become the norm on TVs. 3D will continue to be a bonus feature.

3D might see a boost in the VR realm.

No it won't. It's not a part of the UHD format spec.

 

[NR1]

No it won't. It's not a part of the UHD format spec.

That's a real crime too. It's what has annoyed me so much about all the current UHD releases to date. They all have UHD/Blu/Digital Combos, but no 3D copies. Mad Max,The Lego Movie, The Martian, ect... No 3D copy included.

The two upcoming releases that do have a 3D copy included have it on the Blu-ray and not the UHD disc.

 

[Stinkles]

3D is done.

do they even sell them at Walmart anymore?

there is no vs, it's 4K+HDR

I recently bought a 4K Sony and I literally couldn't tell you if it has 3D. It was not on my feature bullet list.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Both 4K and 3D will fail.

The former was only ever a stopgap for 8K and the later was doomed because people don't want to wear glasses when chilling, never mind the competing technologies fucking up the market when the opportunity was the best.

 

[MrJames]

3D has been quite a clusterfuck since it was launched in home on HDTVs. Different technologies all had shortcomings. From resolution limits, ghosting, crosstalk or brightness issues to headaches that some people got from active 3D, a lot of people were turned off by it. Passive 3D on a 4K set is probably the best it's going to get and with the new 4K OLEDs, it's pretty much perfect. A lot of new OLED owners who didn't care or disliked 3D have become fans of it after seeing it done right. Seems like it's too late now though. Vizio dropped 3D support in 2014 and now Samsung has as well from its 2016 lineup.

4K with HDR is the future. Netflix and Amazon are doing all of their original content in HDR10 and Dolby Vision. Comcast has been preparing for 4K deployment since last year but delayed it to add HDR support with newer boxes. UHD Blu-ray will be the best quality but it remains to be seen how much support it will get.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Both 4K and 3D will fail.

The former was only ever a stopgap for 8K and the later was doomed because people don't want to wear glasses when chilling, never mind the competing technologies fucking up the market when the opportunity was the best.

Ya, I have a gut feeling 4K is just a stopgap for 8K.

 

[Chris R]

So glad 3D is dead in homes, wish movies would drop 3D as well when it isn't shot in/for the format. Post processing I don't care about, but it seems like every single time a movie has this done they have to include a single "Whoa, look out, this is flying out of the screen and will hit you" bullshit scene (looking at you Mad Max). It also sucks that the biggest screens are only for 3D showings for things like Star Wars, at least show a single 2D showing a few times a week.

Next TV will be 4k for sure

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

As I understand it a lot of digital films weren't shot in 4k to begin with. As for 8k, common film formats don't scan that high, with 35mm maxing out on average with a 4k scan? Someone should correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Marty Chinn]

As I understand it a lot of digital films weren't shot in 4k to begin with. As for 8k, common film formats don't scan that high, with 35mm maxing out on average with a 4k scan? Someone should correct me if I'm wrong here.

I could have sworn common film formats can scan at 8K, and some have stored masters in 8K, but most opt for 4K. So it's possible, just it's usually not done.

 

[Cuburt]

3D should be hitting it's stride in home formats if only they hadn't tried to shove expensive and bulky active 3D down everyone's throats. Passive 3D on 4K sets would have made it worth it.

3D at home is not the same experience as 3D in the cinema.

Yeah, it can be way better. People go to the cinema to still see 3D but it's being pushed often for premium ticket prices and is often converted as an afterthought. Add to that the premium price of the home 3D blu-ray and they killed the format for themselves.

Everyone that I've shown 3D movies to on my passive screen with films that have good quality 3D always leaves impressed and at least 50% of those people say they hate 3D in the theater.

The industry poisoned the well because if people can have a good experience in the theater and have a better one at home without getting taxed on glasses and films (films that are still being made in 3D btw, why is it so hard to avoid 3D films in the theater but so hard to find 3D digital/blu-ray to watch the same films at home?), why wouldn't they still support the format on televisions? There theoretically should be way more support for 3D than 4K considering films aren't even being mastered in 4K .

What a joke.

Sadly I bet a lot of people will attribute it to 4K and not HDR.

And it will be completely the TV manufactures fault for trying to push 4K as the next innovation in image quality.

 

[captive]

Warms my heart to see so many saying 3d at home is dead. I was saying it last year and people were arguing with me that it's not.

 

[NR1]

Warms my heart to see so many saying 3d at home is dead. I was saying it last year and people were arguing with me that it's not.

I don't entirely understand your celebratory view on the formats shortcomings, but I do understand your dislike of the format. I thought 3D was just a passing fad and wouldn't work because of the glasses, but since owning one, I have started to become a believer.

The 4K sets really help the technology shine and show its potential, plus the effect is light years different than the movie theater.

On a 1080p TV (1,920x1,080-pixel resolution), each eye is only seeing 1,920x540 pixels due to the polarized lenses blocking half the lines. If your screen is big, or you're sitting close, you're going to see what look like alternating horizontal lines, as in black lines in between the active image (see images below). Even if those aren't visible, the jagged diagonal lines they cause might be.

...

When a 4K resolution TV uses passive 3D, however, the extra pixels play a much more obvious role. You still lose half the vertical resolution, but since there are so many more pixels, you can afford to lose it. 4K TVs (3,840x2,160-pixel resolution) with passive 3D, like the Toshiba L9300U, can still deliver greater than HD resolution in 3D, at 3,840x1,080 pixels per eye.

The improvement was profound compared with 1080p...

http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-with-passive-3d-finally-a-good-use-for-all-those-pixels/