Add Product

Search Results:

Posts: 29
Registered: ‎03-25-2019

Why 3D failed in 2012 and how we could succeed in 2020

I remember the 3D market from 2010 to 2012. Recently people put big screens for the mandatory HDTV update. Some people were still paying on TVs in 2009, yet in 2010 they introduce 3D.

My dad would have bought a 3D TV except for the fact that he recently bought a TV one or two years ago. It makes no sense to throw out a perfectly good TV just to add 3D.

that probably explains why the 3D TV I bought the PlayStation 3D TV was the number one model of TV for those specifically asking for 3D as a primary feature and then we'll discuss it from there. People were using it as a secondary TV just for 3D stuff. At $500 when it came out until in 2012 went down to $200 that model t v sold out.

my guess is the main reason why that TV succeeded was because there was no way to turn a 2D TV into a 3D TV. if there were three d adapters would have been like Dolby surround adapters something you add to the TV but is that packaged in.

There already was a device which could turn any TV into a 3D TV. It was the Sega Master system Sega scope 3D. The TV show both frames in alternating frame format and the machine manually locked out one eye at a time.

I don't know whether the reason why that technology never went into 3D TV was because of either a patent reasons or b the fact that it only worked on CRT TVs because CRT TVs were instant compared to modern displays.

so if you could compensate for any amount of paying for 1 millisecond to 1 second and sync the glasses with the TV, then you can literally buy any brand TV, any size, any resolution, any heryz rate, any color bit depth, any ping time, internet from a 2d TV to a 3D TV.

What killed 3dtv was probably something in the fall of 2012. When people were wondering how do you get the super bowl in 3D in 2013. Someone suggested side by side half. I as well as very many people saw the problem in that.

even though atsc was technically possible to broadcast a 3D signal using side-by-side half,. The problem is is if you're watching it on a 2d TV, or you don't feel in the 3D mood, or you don't have enough glasses, it was physically impossible to watch it in 2d.... Unless you count side-by-side half with images easy to watch in 2d. You have to buy a 3D to 2D decoder,. And there are enough knuckle draggers ,(that's not an insult. I'm a knuckle-dragger when it comes to CRT TVs for its lightning quick gaming abilities) who would complain to the government if they were forced to buy a 3D to 2D converter just watch over-the-air broadcasts, and the government won't subsidize 3D to 2D converters because of government gets no benefit from it, as opposed from the standard definition to high definition change over where digital TV is more efficient and has more channels than an analog version of high definition TV.and the government's can sell the bandwidth again for cellular and other purposes. But the government's not going to pay money just so 2D TVs can exist when 3D programming prevents it.

So therefore whatever broadcast standard is used it has to be 2d friendly.

Some people despite the fact that the minimum requirements for HGTV is 60 hertz, shoot the TV programs in 30 hertzanyway. They just like the look of it.

Some people say that you can't do 30 Hertz on HDTV. what some of the backup point two and point three channels are retro oldies shows and the information says they're broadcast 30 hertz, then why not deliberately make a high-definition 30 Hertz mode, with a new tag that would just be ignored by 2d TVs but be picked up by 3D TVs when in 3D mode call " X 2 eyes."

If you're a knuckle-dragger and you don't have a 3D decoder then the alternate frames format would look at a "30 hertz by 2 eye" program as just a plain 30 hetrz program.

Also the show would be broadcast in alternate frames.

I talked to a local engineer at a local broadcast station, WEWS Cleveland, the ABC affiliate, and he did believe my theories would work and would make 3D more palatable to the rest of the 2d audience.

I can understand the frustration of most 2d people. I understand there is a hardcore and a casual mode of TV viewing. trust me you only want 3D when you feel in a hardcore mood meaning watching a movie or TV show for the sake of the movie or TV show. if you're talkin with your family if you're doing dishes while the TVs on or anything like that then you're in passive mode and those are times you prefer 2d.

Let's look at all the successful advances since the 1950s on TV. When they made black and white compatible color in the 50s it took 10 years for it to catch on, but it never interrupted people's viewing in the ten years until the technology for color TV got cheap enough where I was only twice a black and white set. from the 60s to the 80s they had separate lines a black and white and color TVs but eventually having two separate lines was more expensive than just adding color to all the TVs,. so black and white TVs became obsolete in the stores but if you still had your black white TV you could watch it until the ATSC take over. Our black and white mini TV still worked in 2004.

Same with stereo in the 80s the signal was mono compatible so you didn't have to buy special equipment until you were ready. Any equipment was separate an addable to any TV.

Closed captions did that affect anyone who wasn't deaf. Most people except those who closed captioning helped didn't know about closed captioning
Heck I have an off air betamax copy of return of the King which was probably late 70s early 80s,. And it has an early test closed captioning. Basically it said this is a test of the closed captioning system. The deaf will be able to read the text while the hearing will not. No hearing person complained about text in their picture, and the deaf could read the test words. I guess it was a success. So yes even VCRs could record the closed caption signal without being specifically dictated to do so.

The only reason why HDTV did succeed was because the government had interest in saving bandwidth. And when it came to the point that $100 digital to analog converter could be subsidized with $80 of it paid for by the feds,. That's when sdtv was finally cancelled.

So I probably picked two of the three big issues that made 3D fail.

One was requiring a whole new TV just for 3D.

Another was 3D broadcasts that were 2D incompatible.

The last is probably physical media. For some strange reason people hate 2D 3D combo media. I guess the main reason is because the 2D image is always assumed to be the left eye.

but two-thirds of the people perceive stereoscopic images with a strong right eye.

By the way you're strong I determines the 2D plane that's mean. If you close your weak eye, then you're framing of your picture looks the same, just not in 3d. But close your strong eye, and the image will both be thrown off center and shifted a few degrees around, and not look like the native image you saw in 2D.

So therefore all 3D media should have 50/50 bit tag defining the dominant eye of the director. So if the director is Right I'd when he made all the shots and made his film or her from,. Then for the purposes of a 2d broadcast you could do one of 3 things. Either a) follow directors to find strong eye, b) always use left eye, or c) always use right eye. B & C might be used if the native image is stereoscopic, and directors eye sometimes throws off a picture 1/3 to 2/3 of time.

At least 30% of the American public bought a 3D TV. Before the side-by-side half revolution the other 70% were 3d enviers. But when people discovered that 3D TV necessarily ruins 2D broadcasting, then quite a few of them became 3d haters.

Oh by the way my two solutions are both a shutter version of a solution, and the hypothetical way to make a polar solution out of this model of making 3D and add-on. I know the hypothetical way would work if one had all the money in the world, I just don't know if it's easy enough to make a practical version of it where could be mass-produced at a consumer level. But the active / shutter version is easy enough for a consumer product
Emerging Expert
Posts: 8,062
Registered: ‎02-25-2013

Re: Why 3D failed in 2012 and how we could succeed in 2020

Enough fools bought into 3D on TV's years ago when the movie industry was hot on the subject. I was one of the very exicted ones but I took a hard look at several brands and technologies and waved it aside. 


The movie industry is the one that really put the screws to 3D TV however, by losing interest in making 3D movies. 



I am not an employee of Best Buy and all opinions left on this forum are my own. Please leave Kudo’s if you like a post or click Accept as Solution if a post answers your query.
Posts: 29
Registered: ‎03-25-2019

Re: Why 3D failed in 2012 and how we could succeed in 2020

I believe the movie and TV industry had to make a choice when around 2012 the question came up how do you put 3D TV on broadcast. When all the answers were either eating way too much bandwidth or making contact that's 2D incompatible, that's when the industry said forget about 3D except in theaters and possibly Blu-ray.

I know enough TV shows shoot in 30 frames per second anyway and broadcast minimum is 60 frames per second,. So far you get old TVs to ignore every other frame with a "30 Hertz" tag and a "x2 eyes" tag to tell modern equipment to deal with all 60 frames if in 3D mode, then you have a 2d compatible 3D system setup. If I never shows prefer the 30 hearts format in filming over the 60 hertz then give them the option to add 3D in a way that doesn't eat bandwidth. 60 hertz is 60 hertz whether it's monoscopic 60 or stereoscopic 30.

Plus the phenomenon of 3D stink on Elite TV is real. On larger TVs 3D ads negative value. the best way it could add positive value as if it were separated and attachable to any TV. If a TV has Dolby surround built in, it might add negative value, but separating it gives it positive value. Same with 3D. Also forcing 3D fans to go with the most premium TV made the turn off effect more exaggerated. As I said literally the best selling 3D TV for those seeking the 3D feature was the PlayStation 3D TV. And probably lots of Best Buy salesman would probably agree with that statement if they worked during the 2010 to 2014 time period in TVs.

At least that's how I read the data. No one complains the Dolby surround is embedded in many cable and broadcast shows. These are take advantage of it or don't care. Is 3D was like that, it would be a lot easier to make more stuff 3D.
Posts: 29
Registered: ‎03-25-2019

Re: Why 3D failed in 2012 and how we could succeed in 2020

@bobberuchi I think it was the reverse. It was the inability to make 3d TV shows without scarificing both massive bandwidth and 2D unfriendliness. No one complains Dobly 5.1 is in TV broadcasts, or closed Captions, or even color. Color before 1955 was a UHF exclusive and had separate UHF and VHF TVs. and a UHF color TV was then only affordable to Tony Stark level rich people. The day B/W TVs were $500 and color was $1000, I'd when color took off. Eventually it became more affordable to include color in all TVs than to maintain 2 separate lines.

2 things can save/revive 3D, a 2D friendly format with the same bandwidth as a regular 2D hd channel ( 30 FPS x 2 eyes format) and an easy way to turn Any TV into a 3DTV with an add on. ( I can think of 2)