Could curved video save 3D?

So most of you probably remember the 2012 fad of 3D TVs that came and went very quickly. Now, the big thing is curved TV.

I would dare to suggest, however, that the two formats actually benefit each other. In fact, in theory, curved could actually save 3D from the scrap heap.

Example: Here's a Sodality: Adaptation image of Ciem landing safely after dodging a truck that was tossed at her, in "flat" 3D red-cyan anaglyph:

Could curved video save 3D?
It looks... decent, in only this format. But... how much easier is it on the eyes if I were to use a curve TV-like filter distortion warp in Photoshop for the same image?

Could curved video save 3D?
Even without the 3D glasses, it looks more pleasant to my eye. Now try immersing with the glasses on...

So what do you think? Should Curved UHD 4K be 3D's golden ticket to another chance? We all know that flat TVs are bad at 3D. But could curves fix a lot of 3D's problems?


Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

  • 3d was useless... curved is useless

    They are grasping at straws now... trying to make a buck but it didn't work
    4k is alright, nothing crazy either because the leap from analog to digital 1080p was huge... and your eyes simply adjust to 1080p no problem

    Growth has slowed down big time here

  • Curved TV's are annoying. I like a flat view horizontal view, something a curved tv does not offer.

  • I think curved TV's are a trend started by TV manufacturers to try to get people to buy a more expensive TV.

    • Perhaps. However, my finding is that 3D and curved work really well *together*. The problem is, manufacturers have been selling these features separately.

      Auto-stereoscopic 3D with curved 8K TV at a high frame rate would be an amazingly immersive experience. But nobody wants to shell out that kind of money.

      So instead, manufacturers half-ass it. Like giving us the crust of a pizza, the cheese, or the pepperoni, but almost never all three at once.

      Curved and 3D complement each other quite well, I think. But without 3D, curved is of limited benefit. And without curved immersion, 3D never truly looks as real as it should. Combined, they work. Separately... they don't. That's my point.

      I realize in the era of Obamanomics, most would rather have a cheap 720p flatscreen they can haul around with them from the folks' house to grandma's, or what-not. Or just watch Netflix from the Kindle, and skip all the hassle.

    • 3D in general seems to have largely disappeared, at least compared to a couple years ago when it was touted as the next big thing.

    • The other reason for that is because, since 3D and curved were marketed separately and as competing rather than complementing features, the benefit of curves to fix the problem with most autostereoscopic displays was not taken advantage of.

      As a consequence, viewers had a very limited range of angles from which to view 3D and actually see the benefit.

      Therefore, manufacturers tried to get by selling the battery-powered glasses method, rather than the autostereoscopic method. Nobody wanted to wear those glasses. Nobody. And by requiring them, the manufacturers shot themselves in the foot - dooming 3D to the status of 2011-2012 time period curiosity.

      So now they are giving us curved - mostly without 3D, and certainly without autostereoscopy. But like I said, without 3D, there is little point to curved. New tech, defeated by marketing failures.

      It's almost as tragic to behold as how Playdom shot itself in the foot, leading to MAA being taken offline.

Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 1 more Xper point!

Recommended myTakes