Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I bought a 3D TV and liked watching movies on it. Agree that being shot in 3D is better, but anything released in 3D in theaters was good enough.
I don't know why they died. Too bad. Did streaming kill 3D perhaps?
movies are inherently passive entertainment and the friction of needing glasses for everyone watching was probably enough to kill it for the average user. I think some people got headaches from the effect too and you couldn't really have some people watching without glasses at the same time.
The glorified pop-up books killed 3D. That's most of what people saw, so that was their perception of it.
strangely never heard the phrase but it describes them perfectly
Based on what I heard it was mainly cost vs benefit. It was mainly an expensive gimmick, as not only you had to buy more expensive equipment that had its limitations (expensive glasses that had to synchronise with the TV or very narrow fields of 3D), but also had to have channels with 3D (which might've cost extra) or more expensive media that was capable of delivering 3D.
While streaming could have been a contributing factor, due to it killing traditional TV channels and basically DVD sales, it seems that overall 3D cinema declined very fast as well. This is probably because how expensive it was for both cinemas and production companies, and production companies often resorted to cheaper alternatives rather than equipment that would actually film in 3D, leading to a much less satisfying effect. So as the 3D effects got shallower, the whole gimmick in theaters died, and probably the whole 3D fad.