[12:45 Tue,7.July 2026 by Thomas Richter] |
Televisions with OLED and, increasingly, Micro-LED technology are the state-of-the-art, but who still remembers the 3D boom from about 16 years ago? In the[year 2010, 3D was the great hope](www.slashcam.de/artikel/Meinung/3D-2010--Boom-oder-Hype---alles-.html) of Hollywood studios, TV manufacturers, and camera makers alike, but[it soon became apparent](www.slashcam.de/artikel/Meinung/Was-macht-eigentlich---3D---alles-.html) that this hope would not be fulfilled: viewers refused to pay the extra price for 3D cinema screenings and did not buy new, more expensive 3D-capable televisions. Engadget has dedicated an insightful story to the history of the failed 3D revolution, an analysis of why the once-promising technology failed—yet again.
 The first part of James Cameron&s *Avatar*, filmed natively in 3D, and its box office gross of 2.9 billion dollars heralded the 3D boom in 2009—audiences seemed enthusiastic, and the tech industry, always on the lookout for the "next big thing" to drive hardware upgrades, sensed an opportunity. After all, who could argue against the idea that films should be displayed as realistically as possible? 3D seemed like the naturally better alternative for representing the real world on flat screens or monitors. However, according to Engadget, several factors caused this revolution to collapse: while more and more TVs supported 3D (at a hefty premium) and thus enabled three-dimensional television, it was only possible with the help of uncomfortable passive polarized or active shutter 3D glasses—both of which had their specific drawbacks, such as lower resolution or darkened images. The biggest problem: on the then-standard TV sizes of 40–52 inches, there was hardly any 3D immersion at typical viewing distances, and many users could not really get used to the 3D effect; the image appeared strange rather than realistic, or it caused nausea.  Anaglyph 3D glasses from the penultimate 3D hype The supply of 3D content also remained meager: the broadcast of sporadic 3D content was[discontinued by many channels as early as 2013](www.slashcam.de/news/single/Das-langsame-Ende-von-3D-TV-10768.html), and the availability of 3D via DVD or streaming was never large and was often of poor quality due to post-production conversion to 3D. ### 3D usage plummeted quickly A study by Precision Reports cited in the Engadget article quantifies the lack of interest at the time: only about 25 percent of households with a 3D TV used the feature at all during its peak, and after three years, that figure was less than 10 percent. As reasons for opting out, 65 percent cited a lack of content, 50 percent cited discomfort during longer sessions, and 42 percent cited the high costs. ### Successful: 4K, HDR—and larger screens More successful were the subsequent technical upgrades, which offered more visually compelling incentives to buy a new TV than 3D: significantly higher resolution via 4K and higher contrast via HDR—all while screen sizes grew ever larger and prices became increasingly affordable. 3D was also unlucky with its timing: larger displays with higher resolution that emerged later would have made a better 3D experience possible, but by then, 3D had already disappeared as a feature from televisions.  ### 3D flop in the cinema But 3D never really caught on in cinemas either: after the native 3D success of *Avatar*, film studios relied heavily on post-production 2D-to-3D conversions (such as in *Clash of the Titans*) with a correspondingly poor 3D experience, all while charging higher ticket prices than for standard screenings. Only a few productions, such as *Gravity*, *Hugo*, *Life of Pi*, *The Martian*, and native CG animations, truly utilized the possibilities of native 3D recording. The cinema audience responded with plummeting 3D shares of box office revenue. ### 3D Today Currently, 3D is merely a niche application—for example, Samsung&s Odyssey 3D monitor offers glasses-free 3D using light-field display technology and real-time eye tracking, adjusted to the distance and perspective of the user&s position, but this is aimed solely at gamers. A new universal 3D technology for the living room is not on the horizon for the time being, but good 3D representation is offered by VR headsets like Apple&s Vision Pro or Meta&s Quest, which can adapt their 3D images exactly to the perspective of the respective user.  more infos at bei www.engadget.comdeutsche Version dieser Seite: Warum scheiterte 3D im Kino und zuhause auf dem Fernseher? |
 |
|
|