CES 2012 -The Year 3D Died?

[Andrew Robinson]

Last year I walked the show floor of CES asking folks if they'd seen (or remembered) Google TV. Minus a little showcase at the far corner of the Sony booth there was little presence for the Internet meets your HDTV technology. This year I don't think it will be there at all. Which got me thinking, is 3D going to be the new Google TV at CES this year? A feature many displays may have but won't really be demoing. If 3D isn't a draw or even being pushed at the show by any of the manufacturers can we call it dead?

[Jerry Del Colliano]

I think the year 3D died was like 1954 if I am not mistaken.

More than ever in a down economy - we needed a NOW or "it" technology and we got 3D. Bad timing for the CE business

[Tracy Rainwater]

3D just wasn't interesting enough to get people to run out in droves to buy it. I'm sure if the economy was better more people would have bought 3D equipment for the sake of 3D. Even then, the manufacturers still would have shot themselves in the foot by coming up with competing technologies. Will the CE Industry ever learn?

Let 3D fade into obscurity, make it a feature footnote where it belongs.

[KennyT]

I would like to think so but suspect you will see tons of 3D sets in the LVCC.

Each day cheaper and cheaper sets come out with 3D, seems we are being forced into it, though I'd rather have 4K.....

[pbc]

Seems 3D is still pretty popular at the movie theaters though. They just haven't been able to get it right from a passive perspective (i.e., without the need to purchase several super expensive glasses).

[David Vaughn]

It's not worth the premium that the CE manufacturers or the movie theaters/studios want to charge for it. Once the novelty wore off ("Avatar"), it became over-hyped and in the end a crappy movie in 3D is still just a crappy movie.

[David Susilo]

My biggest problem with 3D is the exorbitant price of the disc. In Canada, brand new 2D version tend to be $10 less than the 3D version. Certain titles like "Drive Angry" has $15 delta between 2D and 3D while "Piranha" is $10 in 2D and $35 in 3D.

That kills 3D more than anything else.

[mb.kinsman]

I think it was over promised and under delivered. There is no compelling reason to get a new set - most of us just upgraded in the last few years and I certainly have no desire to spend more just for a gimic. 3D has seldom been used effectively, content is lacking. It is not something people want that they did not have (as many of Apple's string of sucessful devices have proven to be). Best to let it die quietly.

[jaddie]

Several things have caused 3D to fail each time it's been introduced in theaters, and home is no different.

1. The glasses. People just don't want to wear glasses to watch entertainment every time. Once in a while, perhaps, if there's a decent pay off.

2. Dimmer picture. Light costs money. And with glasses you need a LOT more of it, even with the best systems.

3. 30% or more of the audience has trouble with 3D effects forward of the screen plane. Double vision, headaches, etc. 3D asks you to keep focus on the screen plane, but converge your eyes somewhere else, though less a factor at home it's still a big problem.

4. We are conditioned to accept narrative story telling in 2d. 3D will always distract from the story somewhat, if not completely. Most of the narrative entertainment we've watched in our lives is 24p 2D, and that visual "filter" is what we've come to expect. Anything else stands out as different, wrong, or taking you out of the story. 2D sets entertainment apart from "life". We aren't entertained by "life" usually, so stepping outside reality for entertainment is a good thing.

5. Additional expense, regardless of home or theater. Price wins universally, unless you can meet the qualifications of 5. above.

The only positive 3D has to offer is, well, 3D, which may or may not always be a positive. It's more trouble, more expensive, and uncomfortable. For any product to quickly achieve market success it must provide a perceived 10-fold improvement over its predecessor. 3D doesn't, never has. To universally win it has to be glasses-free, equally bright, comfortable, and so prolific as to be commonly accepted as the norm, and perceived as worth the extra cost (or bear no extra cost). Long way to go on that one.

[jakewash]

3D is and was thrust upon us by the Studios. It seems you can only see the big blockbuster movies in 3D and do not get the option to view in 2D, when this is happening it is kind of hard to say 3D is still big at the movie theater, you have no choice. As for HT in 3D the sooner this whole thing dies out the better, bring on 4K and even larger flat panel displays.