https://www.cnet.com/news/shambling-cor ... e=facebook

The BBC was supporting 3D, but they gave up - their last 3D outing was the 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who. Any 3D TV I tried seemed to be a fudge of goggles and com[promised resolution. I did see one TV I did like - at the Natural History Museum where they were screening excerpts fro a David Attenborough series using glasses free screens. That worked and, wonderfully, the resolution didn’t seem to be reduced to cope.

Also, just from my 3D photography lark perspective, the lack of 3D TVs = lack of modern 3D cameras. So I’ll be hanging on to my current clutch of cameras, and looking for better quality vintage film ones in the future.

I regularly watch 3D on my TV and I've always enjoyed. it. Currently have 2 films downloaded to watch. No it didn't take off as much as they wanted but I won't be replacing my TV for a while yet (hopefully unless it breaks) so I'll continue to download the occasional 3D film.

Presuming they carry on making them of course.

That's true. They still do quite a lot at cinemas, especially cartoons.

Stopping making 3D TV does rather kill the notion of sales of the 3D version beyond cinema - no easy to buy (and affordable) playback devices in the home.

Also a lot of films aren“t made in 3D, but are converted in post - there’s not much 3D kit out there of the calibre needed to make films, and what there is is painfully expensive.

Maybe we’ll see a resurgence when the market for 4K and 8K sets is saturated. By then, we should have glasses free 3D screens.

Caz is correct though - it's MUCH easier to make CGI rendered stuff in 3D than 'live action'. You don't need extra equipment or any of that, you just move the virtual camera slightly and render the frame again. Takes longer, yes, but CPU time is pretty cheap these days. Children's films may be the last bastion of 3D, which is slightly ironic given the panic there was when it all kicked off about how watching 3D was going to damage children's visual development.

THIS! I'm right about something for once lol


Joking aside I watched a kids 3D film last night. Yep I'm a soppy bugger and I cried. Very enjoyable and forgot I was wearing stupid glasses.

What was the film? The only kids one I've seen recently is Inside Out, it was just ok I spose.

Putting 3D glasses over my normal glasses is not a good experience and the resulting 3D effect is not very good.

I've only seen 2 3D films, Alice in Wonderland and The Martian. The first was so terrible, you just couldn't watch it in 3D, my eyes were hurting after 10 minutes, in fact I watched most of the film without the glasses on.

The Martian was better, I managed to watch it with the glasses on, but it felt like I was looking at toys rolling across sand, instead of vehicles. In fact the 2D version of the scenes I saw in the trailer were a lot better and worked more real than the 3D.

We bought a new TV last week, new, relatively high-end Sony UHD, HDR and Android, but no 3D. It wasn't something I even looked for when comparing the different TVs. I just went on 2D HD/UHD image quality. The Sony was about the best of the bunch. The expensive Samsungs were a little better with fast movement, but the image looked "plastic", whereas the Sony was almost as good with fast pans, but the image looked more natural.

I find 3D nothing but a distraction when I want charactrisation and story.

Which model did you go for

In the market for a new TV - just looking at the moment until I have saved a little more

Only parts of Alice in Wonderland was 3D, a lot wasn't converted. It’s supposed to be one of the worst, along side Clash of the Titans.

The key to putting 3D films together is to remember the fact that biology comes into play a lot more, and reaction times to edits is much slower than standard 2D. Some film makers understand this, and you get a film that’s easy to watch.

Yes - animated kids’ films will be easier to render, but you still have to get the pacing, 3D and editing right so that it’s comfortable to watch.

A _lot_ of money and effort has gone into making 3D workable in the film industry. I can’t see them throwing that away in a hurry, and I expect there will be a push to get proper glasses-free 3D TV screens working in a few years. We’ll see.

I think the German equivalent of this model:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-KD49XD808 ... android+4k

Ohh - how is the Android TV system - I have heard its a bit slow in responding

It is OK. Had some stutters in the Amazon Prim app with UHD content, but I also had problems with the DSL connection last week, so it could be connected.

The TV starts up fast enough (from stand-by). If you power off, it takes a couple of minutes to re-boot (just like a smartphone). It reacts fast enough, most of the time. It won't win any speed awards, but it if you go click...click...click, it keeps up. If you go clickclickclick, it takes a seond to catch up sometimes. There is a Google-Android remote control app and there is a Bravia companion app. The former replicates the 4 arrow buttons and OK or a trackpad and is basically useless if you are watching TV. The latter provides complete program details for the selected channels and should switch channels for you, but it doesn't seem to work 100% of the time - I think this is down to only the SD channels being listed in the app for the commercial channels and I have the HD channels programmed in the TV, but not 100% sure, I only played with it briefly yesterday. To be honest, the remote is a lot more intuitive than either app.

The on-screen TV guide is very quick, probably because it pulls the channel info from the Internet and doesn't have to download it from satellite or cable connection, which can take up to a minute on the old (non-smart) TV.