What happened to 3D TVs: who's to blame and how to watch 3D video at home now
Do you remember the 3D fever in the TV market? If you didn't follow the development of technology fifteen years ago, let me remind you: the buzz was similar to the current one around artificial intelligence, only in TVs. And somehow, suddenly, everything disappeared. There are no more 3D TVs. How did this happen and what should a 3D lover do? Let's find out.
How it all started
It is popularly believed that the wave of interest in surround video was raised by the film Avatar by James Cameron. It was a real technological hit in 2009: not only with computer graphics and special effects, but also with 3D filming. The market backed the technology with dollars: according to some estimates, more than half of the film's revenue (more than a billion greenbacks) was generated at the box office by 3D screenings. The technology for delivering such video to homes already existed: Blu-ray discs. That's it, we have the killer content, the rest is up to the technology. And TV manufacturers are joining the race for budgets.
What technologies have been invented for home 3D
As expected, major brands have sought to promote some unique proprietary technologies, but globally, only two radically different approaches have been practised in the 3D TV market.
Active 3D (Shutter 3D). In this mode, the TV alternates between frames for the left and right eyes, and the glasses synchronised with it take turns closing the "extra" eye. Of course, very, very quickly (120 Hz) so that it is not noticeable. Everything is cool, we have a full-fledged picture in FullHD. But in addition to it, keep expensive and bulky battery-powered glasses, a reduced viewing angle, and a chance for a dose of headache from the imperceptible but still existing flashing. This side of the barricade has been chosen by such giants as Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic.
Passive (polarisation) 3D. Here, the TV shows both images simultaneously, and the glasses themselves separate them between the eyes using a polarising filter. It's also great: the glasses are cheap, simple and lightweight, and it's more comfortable to watch. But the clarity of the picture is halved due to the mathematically lower resolution. Let me remind you that there was no talk of mass 4K at the time, so they only "cut" FullHD, actually turning it into some 540p. In this corner of the ring, you could see models from LG, Philips, and Toshiba.
What was (not) watched in 3D
And here is where marketing collided with reality. There was never too much compatible content, even with all the advertising noise.
- Blu-ray has remained an expensive niche toy, unable to compete with the truly massive DVD.
- Games (and the technology was supported by the Playstation 3 and later the Xbox 360) often take longer than movies, and it was not that interesting to look at the game screen with glasses on for a long time.
- Television (ESPN, Sky, BBC) and streaming (even Netflix experimented with the format) also turned out to be too commonplace. Producing 3D content requires more money, and there is no return on investment. Would you pay extra to watch a three-dimensional "bachelor" while you cook borscht?
The economy was ultimately to blame for the decline of 3D TVs.
So which brand won?
You guessed it: no one. Both camps of manufacturers of two different 3D technologies made noise for about five years, and somewhere around 2016, this shop was quietly closed. New must-have TV specifications came on the scene: 4K (and now 8K), LED matrices, some HDR, and of course, artificial intelligence is next in line. And we no longer have 3D TVs in our stores.
What about cinemas?
Oh, this is a different matter. Firstly, a cinema is a show, not a background picture in the kitchen. It makes sense to sit for two hours in front of a huge screen with surround sound. Secondly, the picture is perceived differently here. 3D TVs "ate up" a considerable chunk of brightness, while powerful cinema projectors have more than enough to spare. Thirdly, the cinema will charge you more for a 3D screening, and you don't mind paying a little extra for such a spectacle (it's not like buying a TV), so the technology makes economic sense. By the way, Ukrainian cinemas prefer 3D with passive glasses. This is mainly IMAX technology with a proprietary dual projector or RealD with classic circular polarisation.
So, is there no way to watch 3D at home now?
Well, if there is a demand, even a niche demand, there will be some supply. Here are some ideas.
"Vintage" technology. You buy a used 3D TV, a Blu-ray player and a disc with Avatar - and you're in the peaceful and hopeful year of 2009.
Modern Hi-end. It's like a cinema, only on a home scale. JVC, BenQ, and a few other brands still offer 3D-enabled projectors (keep in mind that the prices are measured in thousands of dollars). Content is again taken from Blu-ray, semi-customised stereo files, or rely on 2D to 3D conversion technologies by the projector itself (some of them are a bit good at it).
Anaglyph video. These are the good old red and blue glasses for ten hryvnias and any screen that displays a video prepared for viewing. Such videos are even available on YouTube, but the effect is a bit off.
Virtual reality. Yes, you can shoot a three-dimensional video yourself, for example, on an iPhone, starting with version 16, and watch it on a Vision Pro VR headset. But this is a separate conversation, and I will talk about such devices one day.
So, maybe you still have an old 3D TV?
For those who want to know more