kradcliffe

The demise of 3D televisions

Recommended Posts

kradcliffe    152

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38778244

I never knew Samsung had stopped production of 3D televisions. Sony and LG to follow.

I was always terribly cynical of 3D in general, especially at home but our Samsung UE55H7000 is brilliant for 3D with the active glasses. The Martian, Avatar and the adventures of Tin Tin are all must sees in 3D.

I can see why it never caught on however with the right TV it really does work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave    70

Cost killed 3D, whether it be in the movies or cost of a decent 3DTV.

Trying to milk the consumer by charging huge surcharges in the cinema for 3D and thinking people would pay much higher prices compared to a similar non 3D set was the industry simply shooting itself in the foot and then reloading and shooting itself in the head...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normal    345

3D TVs were oversold. Most were rubbish and I didn't like any until my current TV. 4k sets with 1080p in 3D with passive glasses is a great combination when it also handles motion and brightness properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milhouse    355

From a technology viewpoint 3D was always a bit hit or miss, with most TVs doing it rather poorly not helped at all by the 50% loss of resolution and reduced brightness. 4K HDR displays should be ideal for 1080p 3D, but have come too late to save it.

Complexity, extra R&D/support/accessory costs and often unsatisfactory picture quality is what has killed 3D. Plus, the failure of any broadcaster to support it - football in 3D didn't last long. Then you have movie studios no longer filming in 3D, but instead adding 3D in post production to create gimmicky effects that add little to the story telling, and you pretty much knew it was game over.

I won't miss it - I'd rather the studios concentrated on the story telling than often lame visual gimmicks. The failure of 3D is also one less opportunity for the multiplex's to gouge punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normal    345
2 hours ago, MadDog said:

where are we at with 4k sets - are they still evolving?

As far as I'm aware, TV standards are unlikely to change for the next couple of years. It should be safe to buy one now. I'm waiting for OLED to become more reliable and affordable before I buy my next telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milhouse    355

HDR is the new big thing so if you're buying a 4K set you'll want one with HDR (it really does improve picture quality - so much so that 1080p with HDR is perceived as producing better picture quality than 4K without HDR). Problem is that HDR as a standard is still evolving - there's likely to be at least 3 HDR standards (HDR10, hybrid-log-gamma and Dolby Vision). Not all current 4K sets will support hybrid-log-gamma, and even fewer will support Dolby Vision.

If I were in the market for a 4K set, I'd probably wait another 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milhouse    355

Oh and OLED - lovely contrast levels, but their level of brightness means they're not so good for HDR as OLED can't produce enough nits (measurement of how bright the display is).

The recommendation for HDR is a display capable of 1000 nits but the best OLED can currently only manage about 700 nits which is the absolute bottom end of acceptable HDR. Samsung quantum dot displays with LED backlighting are very good (and capable of over 1000 nits) - just a shame they're made by Samsung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rvn    103

I must have terrible eyesight being happy with a 42" 720p lcd telly that's almost ten years old! I can't think of a single advance in television technology since then that would make me upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kradcliffe    152

Even though there were 4k sets available at the time we went for the top of the range FHD instead. Even two years on there is hardly any 4k content so I don't understand why that resolution is so mainstream.

Normal freeview looks ropey in 1920x1080 (although that's more to do with the broadcast compression rather than the TV) so I dread to think what it would look like on a 4k panel.

I would still have been happy with my 50" LG 720p plasma but unfortunately it died on me :(

Edited by kradcliffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milhouse    355

Apparently HDR does make a significant difference, although it's probably one of those things you have to see to believe. I've not yet read or heard anyone say anything negative about HDR - all opinion I've seen/heard so far (over the last 2 years or so) is that it's basically an absolute must have. As I said, it even causes people to prefer a 1080p display with HDR over a 4K display without, which just demonstrates that display resolution has very little to do with picture quality and it's all about contrast levels and colour reproduction. At a distance of a few feet most people can no longer tell the difference between a display with 1080 and 4K resolution - to get the most from 4K you need a 65"+ display, so for anyone with a smaller display 4K (particularly without HDR) is likely to be massively overrated and unnecessary. Hopefully HDR will come to sub-4K displays although given the way prices of 1080p displays are crashing I somehow doubt it will be worthwhile and 4K displays will soon be cheap as chips. 8K displays will then be the next big thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Milhouse    355
5 minutes ago, kradcliffe said:

Even though there were 4k sets available at the time we went for the top of the range FHD instead. Even two years on there is hardly any 4k content so I don't understand why that resolution is so mainstream.

Supply and demand. The Chinese display factories are ramping up their output of 4K displays, and they'll soon be producing more 4K displays than Korea, and they have more 4K-capable factories coming online this year. The Chinese are already investing heavily in 8K displays, and expect that to be where the market moves in another 2-3 years. The price of 4K displays will soon be going the way of 1080p displays, and 720p before it. Soon there'll be little if any market for sub-4K displays (maybe only smaller sub-40" displays).

There's likely to be little 4K broadcast content for the forseeable future, maybe a few specialist channels, and the only 4K content will be streaming (if your broadband is up to it), games (XBone and PS4) and UHD Bluray (not PS4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normal    345

I used to have similar views to Millhouse but I'd say that I'm able to watch plenty of 4k online. It's really noticeable even on my 55" set. Yes, those programmes are also in HDR and pop, but even the non-HDR stuff, it's pretty damn amazing.

I'm not sure I'm a 8k believer though. Firstly, I did have problems with it in a living room environment, and secondly, because as already pointed out, there's not enough 4k material available yet, and even less people buying it.

 

8k will be used to give the same picture quality we're used to with 4k, but for cinemas and outdoor screens. I really can't see it being for domestic use any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadDog    464

cheers for the feedback - I'm not in the market for a tv for a long while yet (unless my Panny blows up)

I went for a 3d panel at the time as it seemed that they were the better panels - but I've never used 3d except to test it with 3d porn with the mates after a few beers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now