[LeoPanthera]

During the brief moment that 3DTV was popular, almost all 3DTVs had a mode that could "convert" 2D to 3D, based on movement in the scene and other pre-learned cues. "Things that look like people should be in front of things that look like scenery", and so on.

I miss 3D. I loved it, and I was sad that it didn't catch on. It enjoyed a longer life in Europe, where 3D blu-rays were produced for a few more years after they stopped selling them in the US, and I imported and enjoyed several.

Maybe Apple's VR headset will be a 3D renaissance.

[jedberg]

The main reason at home 3D failed is because most people don't watch at home like they do at a theater.

At a theater you sit down knowing that you can't get up and leave until it's over. At home you are doing other things: eating, folding laundry, going to the bathroom, taking phone calls, answering the door, and so on. It's not conducive to wearing glasses.

Vision will have the same problem (as does any at home headset). I don't think it will lead to a 3D renaissance, at least not for a long time, until it becomes acceptable (and feasible) to walk around with it on all the time.

Otherwise we need to wait for holographic projectors that can make a 3D image without having to wear glasses that make it hard or impossible to look at other 3D objects.

[pawelduda]

I think that would be a problem with VR headsets, not these 3D glasses you could put on or take off in seconds?

[jedberg]

My parents had a 3D TV. It was a huge problem. You probably don't realize how often you look away from your TV when you're watching your TV.

[pawelduda]

While watching a movie, look away - maybe. Get up and walk around and do chores - we always pause if needed. I think it's a matter of establishing that to watch a movie, one needs to set aside time and commit to focus just on it, but then it becomes yet another barrier.

Different story for TV shows which often are background though.

[jedberg]

Yeah that's my point -- most people don't watch movies at home that way. They are just background distractions, even movies.

[naasking]

> My parents had a 3D TV. It was a huge problem.

A huge problem if you're not actually watching the movie, sure. But if you're doing something else, don't use the 3D mode.

[jedberg]

That's my point -- most people don't actually watch the movie at home. That's why 3D TV failed.

[naasking]

I don't think that's why. TVs without 3D are just cheaper, the early 3D tech just wasn't very good and took awhile to mature thus souring the market, 3D content was more expensive (or an extra expense, eg. buy the 3D and non-3D versions of a movie) and so people just went for the cheaper options overall. I've had an active 3D TV for 10+ years, and the 3D has not itself been a problem when I've watched with others.

The only time it's a problem is if someone currently experience a migraine is trying to watch, then they can get serious vertigo, but that's an issue caused by the migraine itself (visual auras and vertigo generally).

[pawelduda]

A lot of people wrote it off as unnecessary gimmick, I'd add that to list of reasons. VR 3D blows it out of water but then requires more effort to use.