I think games giant Nintendo ruined the huge potential of non-glasses 3D with the lack of feature films for their 3DS games console. Had the Hollywood studios and NIntendo flooded the market with non-glasses 3DS films (sold at a fair price) in 2011 then it could have opened the floodgates for more non-glasses 3D tvs and non-glasses 3D broadcasts. As it stands, there are no 3D films for the 3DS, there are very few non-glasses 3D tvs on the market and they cost a fortune to buy even if you want one, so it seems we're stuck with glasses 3D for the home and most people can't be bothered with the hassle. The result is the BBC is ditching its 3D service.
I think Hollywood and Nintendo wasted a huge potential but even non-glasses 3D can give you a headache and you need to sit in the 'sweet spot' - an exact position to see the 3D. But the 3Ds with 3D films might have convinced other brands to push the tech into the home market but it hasn't happened thus far.
To be honest the 3D effect in most movies is so limited that you'd barely notice on a screen the size of the 3DS. Few 3D films really have a strong 3D effect (be that in depth or pop-out).
Nintendo's own cartoons released on the 3DS have a much better effect than most movies.
Half the problem with most of the 3D films out there is that producers reduce the depth so much (likely through fear of motion sickness or because they didn't fancy extra work needed to ensure no cross talk) that the 3D may as well not be there.
I see far better 3D in little student films on youtube than I do in most blockbuster movies.
I said on here a couple of years there simply wasn't the market for 3D at home in current forms, there just never has been.
3D does fairly well in the cinema of course, usually for a few years and then dies out again. This time round 3D seems to be lasting a bit longer in cinemas, but just because a technology takes off in cinemas doesn't mean it does well in the home where the viewing needs are different, the experience is different and the technology is normally expensive.
Visiting the cinema once every so often to see a 3D movie with the glasses is fine, trying to watch 3D most evenings at home having to wear the glasses a lot is a faff, can be expensive especially if you have a larger family and need to buy more glasses. Then of course there's the different forms of 3D technology used by the various manufacturers, which means glasses for some sets can be downright expensive and you generally have to buy your extra glasses from the same company that makes your TV, so they can inflate the costs. Maybe if they had all agreed a single 3D standard, with four pairs of glasses included and new pairs widely available from any manufacturer for just a couple of pounds and it might have been different.
3D TV will one day take off, but not until we can enjoy it in high quality without the need for glasses and (as is the case with some sets) not having to sit within a narrow viewing angle.
Comments
To be honest the 3D effect in most movies is so limited that you'd barely notice on a screen the size of the 3DS. Few 3D films really have a strong 3D effect (be that in depth or pop-out).
Nintendo's own cartoons released on the 3DS have a much better effect than most movies.
Half the problem with most of the 3D films out there is that producers reduce the depth so much (likely through fear of motion sickness or because they didn't fancy extra work needed to ensure no cross talk) that the 3D may as well not be there.
I see far better 3D in little student films on youtube than I do in most blockbuster movies.
3D does fairly well in the cinema of course, usually for a few years and then dies out again. This time round 3D seems to be lasting a bit longer in cinemas, but just because a technology takes off in cinemas doesn't mean it does well in the home where the viewing needs are different, the experience is different and the technology is normally expensive.
Visiting the cinema once every so often to see a 3D movie with the glasses is fine, trying to watch 3D most evenings at home having to wear the glasses a lot is a faff, can be expensive especially if you have a larger family and need to buy more glasses. Then of course there's the different forms of 3D technology used by the various manufacturers, which means glasses for some sets can be downright expensive and you generally have to buy your extra glasses from the same company that makes your TV, so they can inflate the costs. Maybe if they had all agreed a single 3D standard, with four pairs of glasses included and new pairs widely available from any manufacturer for just a couple of pounds and it might have been different.
3D TV will one day take off, but not until we can enjoy it in high quality without the need for glasses and (as is the case with some sets) not having to sit within a narrow viewing angle.