SIGNALS

The other factor I think you don't mention is that 3D on the small screen doesn't have the same "wow" factor as on the big screen. In a theater, where the screen dominates your view, the 3D can be immersive and cool. On a smaller home screen, your view also includes the wall, your feet (if reclining), etc. The "stuff popping out of the screen" just isn't the same.

I think the other thing that killed it was the expense and proprietary nature of the different systems. Most of the sets used active glasses that were/are proprietary and were $100 each. Most sets only came with one or two sets of glasses, if any. Want to have a family movie night with your spouse and 2 or 3 kids? Please pony up several more hundred dollars.

I wonder if 3D could sort of be saved by essentially giving up control. For the set designs that use active glasses, I have to imagine the costs of including 3D are pretty small. The software for displaying the images is already developed and the transmitter that sends the timing signals to the glasses cannot be that expensive. The manufacturers could standardize the timing signals so that any pair of active glasses could be used and turn the glasses industry over to 3rd party vendors.

It's very sad that 3D got dropped by LG after they essentially perfected it with their 4K OLEDs. I feel that could have revived the whole 3D industry except that people did not know about this stunning improvement in 3D because it was never marketed. LG never advertised that they had the best 3D ever made, and TV showrooms didn't demonstrate it even if asked to do so. If they had done so, they would have sold like hotcakes (well, except for the high price, which would definitely interfere).

Everybody who visits my house and sees the 3D on my 4K OLED immediately wants one. Well, sorry, they don't make them any more (I even bought a spare). Even after having this set for a year, my jaw still drops to the floor over the incredible beauty of the 3D on this TV. For me at least, it beats HDR hands down.

I'm very sad that other people will not get the chance to enjoy what I am able to enjoy in my home at any time. It's a real tragedy in my book.

The best quality 3-D one can experience is with DLP projectors. DLP projectors in a dual IMAX or single projector 144Hz mode produces flicker free and eye strain free 3-D with much better motion and over all quality when compared to even OLED. Many projectors in 2017 still offer the 3-D feature and also Blu-ray 3-D discs are still being released.

I think there is a more selfish reason at play here... I think the silent vote (and the valid count) to remove the 3d feature from tv which will ultimately kill the software support over time came from the movie makers themselves... They just don't want to pay for the home conversion knowing that they can't charge a drastically higher premium for the home purchase of the movie. Removing this feature when tv tech has finally caught up is interesting indeed...

First of all did you research projectors for your article? Still being sold,not dead,duh. 3D has been assimilated by 4K no surprise if you are buying a TV. As for 3D BlueRays many BRD players have a conversion feature where you push a button and a 2D BRD converts to 3D. For example I just watched Roger Waters The Wall in Dolby Atmos in 3D. I didn't need to buy a 3D BRD my Sony UHPH1 has a 3D conversion feature and BAM you are there in 3D. BTW, 3D and Atmos were born to be together. Why not have 3D sound AND picture. It blew the 2D version away. Next there is a streaming service called VUDU that lets you stream 3D movies. Watch a movie like Godzilla or Live Die Repeat in 3D and it works great. Want to double the intensity use a 3D movie and add a Dolby Surround or Auromatic upmixer.

Mr. Pohlmann, I've been reading you for over 25 years, going back to the days of Wayne Green's DIGITAL AUDIO & COMPACT DISC REVIEW. I've read many pieces like this purporting to declare 3D TV "dead" and they're all usually problematic. The "debacle" (overcooked word choice) has not been 3D per se, but rather the lack of standardization in things such as glasses (active vs. passive), the frequency at which they operate and the method of transmission of the synchronization signal from display to glasses.

Perhaps most problematic in this piece is the following sentence: "3D is stigmatized to the extent that manufacturers apparently don’t even have faith in a potential 3D 4K OLED TV." To the extent 3D has been stigmatized, it has stemmed from problematic articles just like this in the audio/video press. I would argue that you're putting the cart before the horse here: The manufacturers could very well include 3D if they wished to do so in today's displays. It seems to me an a priori decision has been made not to do so because of HDR and WCG being the new kids in town to throw marketing dollars at, not because of any lack of "faith" in 3D. Companies generally speaking are agnostic: They'll have "faith" in anything that can make them money. And clearly there is still an audience for 3D at home in terms of an installed base of 3D BD and 3D display owners. We even have an online rental service in 3D-BlurayRental.com. I would argue 3D TV was *sabotaged* by nattering nabobs of negativity in the press which thereby caused it to be stigmatized.

I could go on. And I'm happy to see that other readers have brought up that 3D projectors are an ongoing concern, hardware that is disproportionately attractive to the home theater hobbyist community that this publication ostensibly serves. Which brings me to my broader point: When the software and hardware are still out there for folks to enjoy, what is the point of writing this kind of article purporting to declare the "death" of 3D when said article is being read moreso by guys who know its premise not to be true in the mainstream press?