3D was DOA because watching 3D movies didn't add any value to the storytelling. It might be back, but really the issue hasn't been technological, it just doesn't add enough value to get beyond gimmickry.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Debut Apple TV With 4K HDR Support at September Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3D was DOA because watching 3D movies didn't add any value to the storytelling. It might be back, but really the issue hasn't been technological, it just doesn't add enough value to get beyond gimmickry.
No you are being arrogant in trying to tell me what I SEE. No
Yes, it is foolish to "argue" with an arrogant person who is trying to use "science" to tell me what I see.
No amount of your junk "science" is going to convince me I can't see a difference.
How would you feel if I came up to you and said hey, that soda or whatever favorite food YOU like taste terrible and here's all the scientific reasons why I'm god and can tell YOU what YOU LIKE. I'm sure you'll go, "You are absolutely right, I can't argue with 'science' and your 'logic.' I'm going to stop eating my favorite food because you presented 'evidence' showing that my tastebuds are completely wrong and I'm just some stupid sheep who wasted my money and fell into marketing hype. Thank you, thank you for pointing out the error of my ways with your superior knowledge."
And yes there's so-called "science" on taste where morons attempt to do exactly this.
Last edited:
Ugghhh. And you can throw sound in there as well.
3D is and has remained gimmicky for a number of reasons some technical, some storytelling. Maybe someday when 3D is done without glasses, maybe it'll become a thing, but 3D has major technical problems to overcome and it hasn't faired well in the market. When manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, and LG stop shipping 3D panels that should tell you, there isn't a market for it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170040/Major-3D-TV-manufacturers-scrapping-sets.html
Blu Ray was DOA by rabid region coding.
SACD and DVD-A were DOA by rabid DRM.
[doublepost=1503740169][/doublepost]
There is a market for it, but most people don't give a **** about what they consume.
Blu-ray was DOA? What world are you living in? Last I checked it's been around for 10 yrs, sold millions of discs and has done very well.
Blu-ray was DOA (a Pyrrhic victory) because it launched in the ascendancy of streaming services. They had some hot years, I loved Blu-ray picture quality at the time of launch, but that's it. Streaming is more convenient. I love that movies I've purchased on iTunes get updated with new content or enhanced versions. Just, nothing about Blu-ray or any other disc format makes up for the fact you have this disc you have to store, find, and keep in good condition.
Last edited:
3D failed because it was terrible in most movie theaters. Currently local theaters are just too old and not managed well enough to really show it off properly. I hated 3D in theaters, but was surprised by how good it could be in a home environment
I refused to buy a Blu Ray player which was region locked.
Later, I bought a second hand one to listen to the cheap hybrid SACDs I got from Amazon and watch region-free 3D BD.
[doublepost=1503740605][/doublepost]
I mostly go to the movies to watch 3D now.
The problem with them is that most are **** conversion.
Last edited:
BD may be heading to be a niche market but I've just bought a new BD player capable of playing UHD BD discs (and 3D for those following that thread
)What's more internal UHD burners are also available
No doubt someone will now tell me movie discs are made from 2K originals or some such - please be aware some people create their own content.
Film PRINTS are normally equivalent to 2K, not negatives.
Many cinemas have 4K digital projectors from the beginning (Sony) or have upgraded them (Barco, Christie). But many movies were shot with 2K digital cameras.
3D in cinemas is usually 2K except IMAX, which uses 2 projectors. 3D in UHD BD players is still 2K.
Last edited:
What the hell does 'finished' mean? I guarantee you don't even know what you mean when you type that. The studio has all of the original captured scenes in their native resolution. That's why you get 'never-before-seen' bonus BS all the time on future releases because they intentionally hold BS back. They have everything.
WestWorld Season 1 is coming out on 4K Blu-ray. There’s a season 2 of the show coming out. I also imagine many of their shows are shot in 4K but are released at 1080p. And they’re also rapidly producing more content that could be released in 4K. I’m honestly confused about your question.
Thanks. What you reply is relevant in the movie & cinema business, and indeed for the cinema goer.
For my personal & work related use, having worked with HD over the last number of years, I now plan to film in UHD, view in UHD and archive video files at that same resolution. Keeping on topic - a 4K ATV would work well for me.
People prioritise picture quality over 3D.
BD may be heading to be a niche market but I've just bought a new BD player capable of playing UHD BD discs (and 3D for those following that thread
What's more internal UHD burners are also available
No doubt someone will now tell me movie discs are made from 2K originals or some such - please be aware some people create their own content.
It is niche.
I'm not so much worried about the source material. Really, that isn't the point. At this point many households no longer own physical media players or burners of any kind and we have plenty of documentation verifying the double-digit decline of Blu-ray and physical media generally. So this means investment in these type of devices will ultimately lead to heartache.
This trend against physical media was clear with the death of the CD. Not just the death of the CD, but the fact the stores dedicated to selling them also disappeared. For better or worse they were killed by the Internet. Now, we're looking at the fundamental shift in the way people consume media. Fewer people today are interested in 'buying' media, they want to 'subscribe.' This shift to subscription spells doom for high-end niche formats like UHD BD.
Last edited:
If they prioritized quality they would watch Blu Ray, not online.
A 3D movie watched in 2D is as worst quality as watching a dubbed movie.
I disagree. I don't think most people made a decision of either quality or 3D. I just think that many people did not want to put on special glasses to watch TV. Besides, many people ended up getting sick from using 3D, I am sure that didn't help either.
I think you are right. Streaming has grown so much, not because people were prioritizing quality, but prioritizing value and convenience.
Value, because for the cost of a new Blu Ray, a consumer could subscribe to a streaming service for a few months and have access to thousands of movies and shows.
Convenience, because those movies and shows can be watched on many different devices, without having to change a disc to change what you are watching.
Hey, I like dubbed movies, especially anime.
What "killed" it is the simple fact that it's been around for 10 yrs now and most people probably already have the movies that they want to get on the format and no amount of double/tripple dipping and repackaging is going to change that basic fact.
It also hurts that movies that have been released in the last 4 years, generally aren't worth purchasing - unless you are a collector clown like me and even I don't get most new releases and finally new release streaming quality and prices have finally gotten reasonable ($15 and a lot of times you can get deals for $10 or even $5).
I totally agree, I witnessed the death of the CD in 2002 when I started at university and everyone was ripping to their laptops - in 2002! Then in 2007, I witnessed all of my international friends downloading film. To them having a disc was alien! Today, the young are travelling. The media experience is all about multi-platform. If I buy a HD film, I want to watch it on my iPhone on the train to Paris or plane, on my MacBook and then, if I've got the time one evening, I will watch some of it on
I totally agree with you! I was in HMV in a huge city last Saturday afternoon and I counted TWO people browsing in the place. My first thought when I saw the BluRay and DVD discs was 'Oh my gosh, what an environmental disaster - all of that plastic and packaging'. I witnessed the death of the CD in 2002 when I started at university and saw everyone ripping discs to their laptops which were used for everything. in 2002! My international friends were downloading film in 2007. To them a disc would be alien. Even my most traditional friend has put his DVDs and player in a box in his loft! Us youngsters are all about travel and experience. If we buy / download a HD film we demand multiplatform - watch the film on our iPhones on the train going to Paris or flying to Bali, watch it on the MacBook with a morning espresso and maybe once a week, watch it on the big screen TV. The thought of a 4K Disc in 2017 is just insane stupid to us. How silly having to buy a box that only plays a disc! To us, very last century.
Agreed. The glasses were definitely The Deal Breaker, but I don't think the image downgrade helped.
I had given up on my BD/HT combo for playing multichannel SACD but, hopelessly, I decided to try again.
I was going to call it off again, when after fiddling a bit more, it started magically working.
Yes, it is through HDMI (LPCM).
It is so good, and I am playing at 44.1kHz / with fashion 4.1 2.4GHz wireless speakers.
I was going to call it off again, when after fiddling a bit more, it started magically working.
Yes, it is through HDMI (LPCM).
It is so good, and I am playing at 44.1kHz / with fashion 4.1 2.4GHz wireless speakers.
Last edited:
I'm going to need you to break it down for me then since I don't follow your logic. Can you please explain why you don't agree with the definition commonly used by academic/certification bodies, why you don't see it as an equation, why other forms of media who use "resolution" also use it to count the total number of distinct pixels or dots (megapixels in cameras, DPI in publishing, et al)and what value your definition has (would be helpful for you to write it out) over the common one?
I'm afraid I've broken it down to as simplest of form as I can already, as have several other members. There's a distinction between resolution and pixels. One is a two dimensional representation of the other, they aren't the same thing. If that's a distinction you are unable to make, you'll just keep using the terms interchangeably.
In dialog, you don't use resolution and pixels interchangeably. You don't say "my resolution is 1,000,000" why would you in arithmetic?
Can you direct me to a source that explains this? None of the stuff I've looked at yet uses "display resolution" in this way. To say nothing of source material (HDR, FPS, spatial resolution...), when I think of display and camera tech, "resolution" doesn't seem like a great indicator of how much detail your eyes resolve from the visuals. There's so much more to resolving detail than number of pixels or dots - color gamut, contrast, refresh rate... Does a 120hz display provide twice as much information as a 60 hz display?
[doublepost=1503769517][/doublepost]
I provided a framework for you to easily break it down into counterpoints. You could also reference an authoritative source.
? But you can in both dialogue and maths... Random House says a megapixel is "a unit equal to one million pixels, used to measure the resolution of a digital image". Resolution can be measured in megapixels, which is the preferred standard for cameras (since they all use a 3:2 aspect ratio), dots per inch, which is the standard in printing (since printing isn't limited to any particular size or aspect ratio), or x dimension times y dimension, which is the standard for rectangular displays which come in a multitude of aspect ratios.
If a camera has a resolution of 1 megapixel and you double the resolution, what is the new resolution? If a monitor has a resolution of 2 megapixels and you double the resolution, what is the new resolution?