Home / News / TV News / 3D TV nears its end - future flat for Samsung and LG

3D TV nears its end - future flat for Samsung and LG

by

3D

There's every indication that Samsung and LG are abandoning 3D for future TV sets.

CES 2016 brought with it a raft of exciting new TV sets from the usual players, particularly Samsung and LG. While 4K, HDR, and deeply connected smart UIs seem to be the future, however, there appears to be no place for 3D.

A recent report from Korea's ET News (via Pocket-lint) reveals that both Samsung and LG - the two biggest TV makers in the business - are turning their backs on home cinema 3D technology.

Samsung apparently won't be adding 3D to any new products, as it emerges that it hasn't placed any orders for 3D glasses with its suppliers.

Meanwhile, LG has confirmed that only its premium 2016 TV sets will sport 3D as a feature. This will represent a halving of its usual 3D-capable roster.

"Although 40% of all TVs last year had 3D functions, only 20% of TVs this year will have 3D function," an LG spokesperson told the publication.

If you're wondering why LG is still sticking with the feature at all when Samsung has seemingly opted to drop it altogether, the report suggests that it could be down to the lower production cost of LG's 3D system.

Related: Best TV 2016

LG also reckons that there remains some demand for 3D content among a small enthusiast home cinema crowd - hence only keeping the technology for its premium TV line.

With VR technology on the rise, the whole concept of 3D entertainment seems to be taking a very different form to that of a few years ago.

Check out our all you need to know about TVs video guide below:

Paul

February 8, 2016, 5:13 pm

I buy films in 3d as the effects are better but there are so many downsides, like headaches for some, contrast and definition reduction, the technology needs to improve.

Bugblatter

February 8, 2016, 8:49 pm

Passive 3D on my 4K OLED is amazing and the glasses are very cheap and light.

If 3D had been like this to start with it wouldn't have flopped.

Btw another nail in the coffin is that there's no standard for 3D UHD blurays.

bickle2

February 11, 2016, 9:44 am

Since there is no 4K 3D content, why would there be?

Alan Smithee

February 12, 2016, 9:56 am

Because several of the first UHD movies ARE 3D movies, but of course only presented in 2D.

Bugblatter

February 12, 2016, 12:22 pm

This isn't a chicken-and-egg situation; it's pretty clear the format has to come before the content.

Consider 'The Martian'. Available in 2D HD, 3D HD and 2D UHD. Really think they wouldn't have offered 3D UHD if they could have?

It's really annoying that we have to choose between 3D and UHD. Certainly for those on AVForums with the same set as me the prevailing opinion is to go for 3D as the upscaling of HD to UHD is pretty good.

bickle2

February 12, 2016, 12:26 pm

Because there is no 4K 3D content. No 3D version of any movie has a 4K 3D master. It's all 2K 3D theatrically regardless of what res the 2D master may be. If this changed tomorrow, and every 3D movie started mastering 4K, you'd still be 5 years away from there being enough content to justify a home format.

bickle2

February 12, 2016, 12:29 pm

There is no theatrical 4K 3D format. Which needs to come before studios will produce movies in it, which needs to come long before there is a home version

Bugblatter

February 12, 2016, 12:42 pm

I don't think that follows, even if we ignore Imax. They're shooting films in 3D UHD already, they just have no way to give that to us.

bickle2

February 12, 2016, 1:47 pm

No, they're not. Even if the acquisition format is on 4K cameras, the finished 3D master is 2K. Go to your theater and ask them. They will tell you the same. They might even show you the instruction sheet that comes with the hard drives that details the specs.

IMAX is an upscale., and uses dual 4K projectors for maximum brightness. Their 8K projectors won't be in for another year or so anywhere. Captain America 3 is the first movie to shoot with their new 6k cameras.

Bugblatter

February 12, 2016, 2:24 pm

You say "they're not" and then "even if they are...".

So for the Martian you think they had one UHD camera and another HD camera, or a UHD camera and separate 3D HD camera? Possible, but I'd be surprised if they didn't capture both eyes in UHD as it just seems a lot simpler.

I think you need to read up on Imax; it's not an upscale. Amongst other things Imax has produced 4K 3D cameras which have been used on films; limited usage so far but the cameras are there and the format exists.

bickle2

February 12, 2016, 2:57 pm

The Martian was shot on 4K cameras

IMAX is an up conversion for all not shot on film or their new cameras, as stated Cap3 is the first to use them. The DMR process is used to upconvert all films not native. See the blurb about Raiders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

You're obviously unaware of the difference between acquisition and mastering. No 3D movie being made today uses strict in-camera 3D. It is an extensive mix of conversion and camera "negative". The final 3D master is 2K. The conversion work is done at 2K. If you are seeing a movie in 3D, it's 2K, regardless of what format you're seeing it in.

It doesn't matter if you're showing it on a 4K projector. Just as a DVD doesn't magically become HD just because it's on a 1080p screen

Peter Ck

February 13, 2016, 6:07 am

It already has - 4K OLED with 1080p Passive 3D ;-)

Paul

February 14, 2016, 4:07 am

and yet thats not good enough

Peter Ck

February 16, 2016, 6:45 am

Really? What don't you like about it? I love it.

Paul

February 16, 2016, 2:19 pm

doesn't matter its not selling TVs is it

dan

March 6, 2016, 1:22 pm

I wonder, why would LG give up 3D? I understand that for Samsung that's not a big deal, their TVs all had that active 3D that was bad for some of the users (headaches, flickering).

But LG? Come on, passive 3D is very good, and in fact is the only reason you would buy their IPS panels instead of going VA with Samsung or others! Why would I stiil buy an IPS TV having poor contrast and awful black level, when the panel doesn't have any other advantages over VA? Passive 3D made me compromise and buy an LG 3D TV, despite the picture quality being obviously worse that for any VA-based TVs. Now I will simply buy a Samsung or a Panasonic.

Peter Ck

March 29, 2016, 2:46 am

Actually, it doesn't matter what everyone else is buying as long as I get what I want. Bizarrely, good picture quality never sells TVs :-/

Paul

March 29, 2016, 3:49 pm

stop trying to be fucking cute you know what i mean, it will die out

Peter Ck

March 30, 2016, 7:36 am


First of all, you complained about specific problems with 3D blu-ray playback and concluded that "the technology needs to improve".
I mention a solution to these woes which already exists, and you confusingly respond "that's not good enough".
You then reveal that you've changed the subject from flawed video technology to contrary marketplace economics, yet when I AGREE that most TV buyers aren't interested in image quality (but I don't care as long as I have the option), you attack me with profanity for no reason whatsoever?!
I can only assume you're suffering "3D headaches" from your inability to read, write or communicate effectively in the real world...

ashli

April 7, 2016, 6:34 pm

I really hope 3d tvs don't die out. I have a passive 3d tv and I absolutely love it. I love watching 3d movies with my kids. If the tv dies out that means movies will quit releasing 3d blu rays... which would totally suck.

mf9

April 16, 2016, 7:26 am

I own a stack of 3D blu-rays, with Samsung being my preferred manufacturer why would upgrade to 4K without 3D support? Especially as there is so little 4K content in the UK right now and rumours of 8K sets on the way.

Hing

January 21, 2017, 7:37 am

If you used LG passive 3D, you won't have the headaches. I tried the Active 3D of Samsung, Sony and I had headaches watching the 3D. LG passive 3D, I can watch it all day long.

comments powered by Disqus