> Most of the predictions on that list were outright silly. Anyone who thought 3DTV was anything more than a fad is delusional, a better prediction would have been that his son would never have to experience 3DTV.
That seems a bit harsh, considering that the 3D versions of major blockbuster movies do well in theaters. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that quite a few people would want to be able to get the 3D versions of those movies for home viewing.
A 3D TV is not much different from a 2D TV. Doesn't it mainly just need a higher refresh rate, and for some 3D technologies a higher vertical resolution? The higher end TVs from most manufacturers already often have twice the refresh rate of mid end TVs, and higher resolution (e.g., there are 8K TVs out now, even though most programming is 4K or less).
I'd have expected TV makers to continue offering 3D, but only on their high end models. It wouldn't really cost them much, and it would get those people that watch 3D movies in theaters and want the same version at home to buy a higher end TV than they would otherwise need.
> the 3D versions of major blockbuster movies do well in theaters.
Did well, past tense. 3D movies peaked in 2010 and box office sales declined annually. By 2019 they were less than 50% of their 2010 peak. TV makers stopped making 3D TVs after 2016.
You're right that 3D TVs were just high refresh rate TVs but they have to sync with shutter glasses so you can't easily do 3D without TV support.
The latest HDMI spec supports variable refresh rate so in theory you could now make a player capable of handling the shutter sync.
It was a fad just like in the 50s and 80s. It lasted longer this time but yeah 3D is dead.
The first article was written in 2012, box office numbers peaked in 2010. Everyone was wowed by Avatar in 2009, and then less impressed when the best 3D movie of 2010 was Avatar: Special Edition.
Almost no one cared about 3D movies in 2012 and it was only industry momentum and sunk cost fallacy that kept things going for as long as it did.
That seems a bit harsh, considering that the 3D versions of major blockbuster movies do well in theaters. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that quite a few people would want to be able to get the 3D versions of those movies for home viewing.
A 3D TV is not much different from a 2D TV. Doesn't it mainly just need a higher refresh rate, and for some 3D technologies a higher vertical resolution? The higher end TVs from most manufacturers already often have twice the refresh rate of mid end TVs, and higher resolution (e.g., there are 8K TVs out now, even though most programming is 4K or less).
I'd have expected TV makers to continue offering 3D, but only on their high end models. It wouldn't really cost them much, and it would get those people that watch 3D movies in theaters and want the same version at home to buy a higher end TV than they would otherwise need.