I found this story pretty interesting because it is the exact opposite of what I see going on.

Static: Can 3-D TV come back from the dead? | News OK (http://newsok.com/static-can-3-d-tv-come-back-from-the-dead/article/3923108/?page=2)

I bought a 3D TV about 2 years ago and it is the single best electronic item I have ever purchased. Yes ESPN 3D went away but so what, all they ever showed were replays of SEC games from 3 or 4 years ago and the occasional live European Soccer game. I don't care if it is in 3D or not, the 2010 Auburn-Vanderbilt game doesn't make me want to tune in for 2 hours. Besides, 3NET has plenty of X-game type sports which are much better in 3D than football is (spoiler alert - football isn't that good in 3D).

As for movies, we have stopped seeing movies in 3D at the theater. Now we just watch the 2D version and use the money we save to buy the 3D version when it comes out. The 3D pack usually only cost $10 more and includes the 3D, BluRay, standard DVD, Digital Copy, AND an Ultraviolet versions all in one package. Even if I didn't own a 3D TV and would still buy the 3D pack just in case I bought one in the future.

I think people are making too big a deal out of wearing the glasses. I have the passive glasses which are no different than wearing reading glasses or sun glasses - both of which I already wear countless hours every day. I tried the active glasses which flicker back and forth between each eye and after about 20 minutes they gave me a headache so maybe that is what most people are complaining about. I have no side-effects from the passive glasses and use them for more than 2 hours at a time on several occasions. I'm not sure what the viewing angle restrictions are on the active glasses but the passive have like a 110 degree viewing angle, which means every seat in our living room has no problems seeing the image in 3D. Plus our TV swivels so it can be adjusted to any viewing angle.

Visio might be dropping out but they are at the low-end of the TV spectrum anyhow. That is like saying Kia is going to stop making their Supercar. People who are buying at the top end of the TV market aren't buying from manufacturers at the bottom (although now with several Chinese TVs the bottom did get lower - which is probably more likely the reason for refocusing at Visio). As for 4K TV's - yes they look good but until there is content in 4K all you can do is simulate it using the current signal - which is gimmick anyhow since you can't create pixels that aren't there.

I will agree that 'upgrade fatigue' was a real problem. I skipped a whole generation of TV buying because I knew I wanted a 3D TV as soon as they got into my price range. I went from a bulky 10 year old projection HD 1080i (which used a DVI cable) to the 55 inch LED 1080P 3D TV. If I had bought the intermediate plasma TV I probably would have held off on the 3D myself. Glad I waited.

On a final note. For anyone wanting a 3D TV, or any TV for that matter, skip the smart TVs. They will waste you about $200 to $1000 because they are redundant technology. I don't need both my TV and BluRay player having Netflix on them. Plus, for $35 you can turn any smart phone into a Netflix/Pandora/etc... player on any TV with an HDMI connection.

I don't see it as dead at all. I recently acquired a high-end 70" Sony TV. (KDL-70R550A 70-Inch) --it was "higher end" when I bought it. My folks bought a Samsung Smart TV. If I had it to do over again, I'd go with the Samsung for no other reason than the remote (picture is about the same). The Samsung Remote includes a full QWERTY keyboard on its reverse side which makes it so much less of a hassle to enter passwords, etc.

There's nothing on the horizon which really interests me. 4K has no content and I don't think there's enough difference in quality to justify the price difference.

3D will be back. Theaters make too much money from the increased ticket prices for it to go away.

I posted about this another thread but now that they can take 2D movies and convert them to 3D I think the market just opened up for 3D big time. I got the 3D versions of The Wizard of Oz and Jurassic Park for Christmas. I don't know how they did it but the 3D versions are incredible. It was like watching both movies for the very first time. If they start doing this to other older movies I will be replacing the vast majority of my movie library.

There's nothing on the horizon which really interests me. 4K has no content and I don't think there's enough difference in quality to justify the price difference.

While no 4K content is being released now, most any recent major film has a version stored in that, older content on 35mm has enough fidelity that 4K would benefit the quality if remastered to it, both though are likely to remain a nitche in the home tv market for the next several years. I could see it having a bigger impact for screens in public on closed circuit TV or sports broadcasting if they had a source of content.

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

I see most of the flopping was 3D demand at the time was never going fill the void the tailing off of the HD/digital upgrade boom like the manufactures tried to push. They wanted TVs to be on an upgrade cycle closer to computers than a major appliance and the majority of people did not go for it.

I see most of the flopping was 3D demand at the time was never going fill the void the tailing off of the HD/digital upgrade boom like the manufactures tried to push. They wanted TVs to be on an upgrade cycle closer to computers than a major appliance and the majority of people did not go for it.

Maybe they should do what the cell phone companies do and sign people to 2-year agreements and give them a new TV for $50 every two years. My TV was $650 on sale and I just got 4 cell phones for $4 (but each phone had a no contract price of $599). So I got $2400 worth of phones for a 2-year contract and my TV content provider gives me nothing except a slightly lower monthly price and I have to buy my own TV.

Looks like the market and various analysts, commentators, and even a movie production experts tend to agree with the demise of 3D:

Why 3-D TV Has Been an Epic Failure (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/13/why-3-d-tv-has-been-an-epic-failure.aspx)
The 3D Hype Bubble Is Now Completely Busted | TIME.com (http://techland.time.com/2012/07/13/the-3d-hype-bubble-is-now-completely-busted/)
Future looks flat for 3D TV (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/future-looks-flat-for-3d-tv-20130814-2rv1q.html)

Even the late Roger Ebert had an early vibe on the demise of 3D:
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. | Roger Ebert's Journal | Roger Ebert (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed)

And here's a remarkably sage and intelligent analysis from a 13-year-old junior reporter/blogger :
Why 3D Movies Are a Flop - The Granite Tower (http://www.thegranitetower.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=605)

The point is that regardless of our personal investments, 3D as a leading-edge marketing "gotta have it or I'm just not cool" notion is a flop. 3D may persist as a marginal extra feature among myriad others along the way, but as a standalone motivation for dropping the coin on a dedicated set and those infernal glasses...not so much.

The death of 3d is precisely in line with what I experience and those around me experienced. I know of no one who bought a 3D tv solely for the purpose of watching 3D content - they might have purchased a TV that happened to have 3D features as an incidental element among other, more desirable options. And this is among the crowd (not me) with a good deal of disposable income. And I never had any interest in it, so all the 3D hype was wasted on me.

3D in the movies was a double-edged sword; for all its hype, what some movie houses realized was the premium realized for 3D tickets cut audience sizes and revenue, and pushed many folks over to the 2D side. If you had a family of four heading to the movies, but one of them got headaches from the 3D business, that's usually four 3D seats not sold. And it wasn't headaches - there was nasuea, dizziness, and a hodgepodge of other oddities arising from the theatric immersion unique to the 3D presentation that just put people off. And it wasn't until 3D had been out a while before this was realized as a non-trivial phenomenon. Look at that article from Australia - note the comment from one sales type who said one of the first things people asked was "how do I turn it off?"

Did I see some 3D movies? Sure, but not because they were 3D. If that showing was at a convenient time, and I didn't mind paying the surcharge, I'd bite the bullet and go, but most of the time my family was completely happy with the 2D version. While there was interest in 3D early on, as there is with any new technology, the bottom line is that good movies that tell good stories with good characters don't really need the 3D gimmick. Put a different way, 3D never made a bad movie into a good one - see disasters like Mars Needs Moms in 2011. Even James Cameron offered that 3D wasn't what made Avatar the billion-dollar success it was.

Ultimately, retailers and manufacturers realized 3d was not much more than a gimmick in the 2010's than it was a gimmick in the 50's. Manufacturers and retailers saw the sales of HD sets leveling off, and manufactured the 3D notion to ramp up sales, but the broad public wasn't buying - and ESPN's decision to kill their 3D channel was merely the broader public admission of its failure. The glasses were but a part of the technology's failure - regardless of the type of glasses involved, people didn't want to go to that much effort to use them or expense to buy them. When other elements of technology emerged such that 3D became incidental, but not essential, that was the surest sign of any of its marginalization in the marketplace.

The rapid onset of 4K/UHD TV's represents a legitimate technology jump in the coming years, and while it likely won't become mainstream nearly as quickly as HD did, I think it has significantly stronger "legs" than 3D did or ever will, at least so long as glasses are a significant part of the equation to watch it.

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

The marketplace would disagree with this. 3D offerings are at their lowest since the fad started, and the folks who make the sets wouldn't stop making them if there were increasing demand.

The point is that regardless of our personal investments, 3D as a leading-edge marketing "gotta have it or I'm just not cool" notion is a flop. 3D may persist as a marginal extra feature among myriad others along the way, but as a standalone motivation for dropping the coin on a dedicated set and those infernal glasses...not so much.

The death of 3d is precisely in line with what I experience and those around me experienced. I know of no one who bought a 3D tv solely for the purpose of watching 3D content - they might have purchased a TV that happened to have 3D features as an incidental element among other, more desirable options. And this is among the crowd (not me) with a good deal of disposable income. And I never had any interest in it, so all the 3D hype was wasted on me.

What? 3D TVs are also 2D TVs. In fact, most 3D TVs also have the best 2D picture. I only have to use the glasses while I am watching 3D content, not while just watching regular TV. My 3D cost less than many 2D TVs that were sitting right next to it on the shelf. While I was buying mine there was a young couple looking at TVs. When the salesman pointed them to the 3D TVs they said they didn't want a 3D TV and picked a 2D that cost more. Maybe they thought they could only watch 3D content or had to wear the glasses all the time because why would someone intentionally pay more for less features (yet people do it everyday).

What? 3D TVs are also 2D TVs. In fact, most 3D TVs also have the best 2D picture. I only have to use the glasses while I am watching 3D content, not while just watching regular TV.

Okay, guess I'm not understanding the point - obviously 3D TV's are 2D as well, and obviously you only use the glasses to watch 3D content...???

The point I was making was that among the folks I have encountered, I know of no one that bought a TV solely on the basis of it being a 3D capable. One guy bought a TV he liked, and it happened to have 3D capability, and it came with a 3D movie I believe, which he said they watched once and tossed it in a drawer.

Just saying that 3D was a gimmick only slightly more successful than the old Circuit City DIVX disaster of about a decade-plus ago, although I'll admit the failure of DIVX was easier to predict than that of 3D :). Had a former co-worker who swore that DIVX was the way to go, he had a DIVX player, paid a pretty penny for it, and apparently didn't know his stock of movies became worthless once the service was shut down and the mechanism for authorizing playback was dead...

I think it is because overall, nobody cares about 3D and the price difference between TV models to make it 3D shows that it is clearly not worth it to consumers.

I also want to say that "smart" TVs are also a dead product. TV companies are branding their products as being "smart" and can play all of these web based applications right on your screen! Too bad almost everyone who would want a smart TV more than likely has multiple devices that achieve the same thing. Consumers are being suckered into paying hundreds more on a TV that is simply "wifi" enabled when they probably already have multiple devices that achieve the exact same thing.

Also I think overall brand identity of TVs is also meshing together. The traditionally "lower" quality brands are turning out to be just as good looking and long lasting as the "high" end brands. I think the TV market has become extremely favorable to consumers in terms of competition and prices falling for nice home theatre setups.

I think it is because overall, nobody cares about 3D and the price difference between TV models to make it 3D shows that it is clearly not worth it to consumers.

Also I think overall brand identity of TVs is also meshing together. The traditionall "lower" quality brands are turning out to be just as good looking and long lasting as the "high" end brands. I think the TV market becoming extremelty favorable to consumers in terms of competition and prices falling for nice home theatre setups.

Agree completely, anon. I had a really nice old 27" tube TV in my bedroom that I bought in 1987 for $1000. I bought a 31" HD replacement TV with many-fold superior picture (perfectly suitable for my purposes) about two summers ago for right at $200. Ridiculously cheap.

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

Well that settles it - I won't be buying a PS4. That decision doesn't even makes sense. Thanks goodness we own 3 PS3 so I should be okay well into the future.

I don't understand the smart tvs either. As I said in my original post, it is a redundant feature that cost a lot more. The TV doesn't even need internet access if a device attached to it has it.

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

Interesting. However, as I think about it, considering that most of the console vendors loathe privately owned media anyway, this isn't terribly surprising. I'm not even sure how much traction 3D BluRay will really have over the long haul, anyway.

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

Bingo. I think that's precisely what the manufacturers have realized - people will take it as a low-cost add-on or feature, but marketing it as a leading, must-have, reason-to-upgrade feature just didn't work. If people have it, like it, great, but they just weren't sold on it being a must-have feature.

The Internet/smart features are merely a different way of leveraging the codecs that are already in the firmware on those TV's, so the marginal additional cost on those sets is really small. The codecs don't care if the bits come from a BluRay disc or an Internet stream. I could be wrong, but I believe some of the licensing fees for the codecs are non-trivial, so they may add the "smart/internet" stuff as another way to leverage them and explain away some of the cost.

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

For me the 3D was cheaper than equivalent 2D TV. Right now you can buy a 3D 55" inch TV at Best Buy cheaper than you can a regular 2D TV (unless you are buying one of the Chinese knock-off TV brands like Seiki, Sceptre, Coby, or Hisense).

Had a roommate that had a 3D TV. We never used the 3D stuff.

Last TV I bought was a 35" non-flat screen, non-HD old style thing, over 10 years ago. Weighs about 1000 lbs. I'm gonna miss roommate's TV I think. :)

For me the 3D was cheaper than equivalent 2D TV. Right now you can buy a 3D 55" inch TV at Best Buy cheaper than you can a regular 2D TV (unless you are buying one of the Chinese knock-off TV brands like Seiki, Sceptre, Coby, or Hisense).

Not sure if its the case in this instance, but I believe many retailers are in the early stages of clearing out old or existing 3D inventory. Think you have a really good point in that there will probably be some really good deals on really good TV's as the stores slowly start to unload the 3D-specific units (well, those that were sold primarily with emphasis on 3D features but were limited elsewhere).

One of the knocks I have heard the most is that 3D content is lacking, but I am finding more 3D content than ever before. In the 2 years I have had it the only 3D content that has gone away is ESPN, but like I said, SEC football games from 5 years ago have no interest to me and that (coupled with old Big 10 basketball games) made up about 95% of their broadcast. If they would have had auto racing, championship games, playoff games, bowl games, or any other sports in 3D I would have watched it more - but they didn't.

One of the knocks I have heard the most is that 3D content is lacking, but I am finding more 3D content than ever before. In the 2 years I have had it the only 3D content that has gone away is ESPN, but like I said, SEC football games from 5 years ago have no interest to me and that (coupled with old Big 10 basketball games) made up about 95% of their broadcast. If they would have had auto racing, championship games, playoff games, bowl games, or any other sports in 3D I would have watched it more - but they didn't.

Yeah, but the problem was they couldn't get a "critical mass" of support for one of their premier offerings - and they threw the proverbial technology book at it. They did do at least one or two BCS title games in 3D, some soccer, possibly even some of the Masters -even (possibly?) some bowl games - and it just didn't catch on. Lots of technical ramp-up to support it, too, so if it couldn't be made big enough to sell the corresponding carrier channels to the various cable/dish outlets though one of their most heavily watched offerings, it wasn't hard to do the math and realize it wasn't going to sell for the lesser-watched stuff. I know Cox carried the ESPN 3D channel.

There was one of the articles above I posted about a big overseas 3D channel that had to shut down recently. The practical hassles of the way 3D was delivered, plus a lack of real, home-grown interest in it, just proved too much to overcome. And given the emergency of UHD/4K TV, I think they rightly opted to move their resources more in that direction.

And I'm sure if someone comes along with a critical-mass implementation of 3D that doesn't make folks vomit or induce headaches or whatever, ESPN will probably among the first on the bandwagon to provide it. But there are some "biotechnical" obstacles to overcome, as the guy who wrote Roger Ebert keenly noted. Just for me, I'll be interested to see how the 4K/UHD TV situation evolves. Lots of interesting potential there, perhaps even including some new geeky way to do 3D that's so out of the box it might actually be compelling :)

Thanks for the reminder - they did show the Masters in 3D but I think it was a week later. Golf in 3D actually made it interesting to watch on TV.

Here is a pretty good blog on why ESPN 3D didn't work out. It makes a lot of sense.

SENSIO Blog :: ESPN 3D: Goodbye, thank you and hope to see you soon! (http://sensio.tv/blog/en/post/espn-3d-goodbye-thank-you-and-hope-to-see-you-soon)

He does a good job of identifying the difference between watching broadcast TV and watching a movie and why glasses are a problem with tv shows.

Thanks for the reminder - they did show the Masters in 3D but I think it was a week later. Golf in 3D actually made it interesting to watch on TV.

Here is a pretty good blog on why ESPN 3D didn't work out. It makes a lot of sense.

SENSIO Blog :: ESPN 3D: Goodbye, thank you and hope to see you soon! (http://sensio.tv/blog/en/post/espn-3d-goodbye-thank-you-and-hope-to-see-you-soon)

He does a good job of identifying the difference between watching broadcast TV and watching a movie and why glasses are a problem with tv shows.

Very interesting take on the whole 3D business. I think he's right in that the industry shot itself in the foot by selling 3D so hard without the right "experience" to back it up - and I think a lot of that blame goes to the marketeers who were operating from the bunkers with a charter of "HDTV sales are flat, go push 3DTV as the next logical upgrade," when it really wasn't from a technology perspective. It was a content delivery method formed to exist within the constraints of digital media production. The home experience - when it comes down to nausea, headaches, and glasses, provides 3DTV an obstacle HD never had - or has only to a much lesser extent - with native content shot at the faster frame rates that makes the picture so clear and crisp that it kinda messes with some people's vision/processing.

That's why I think the smart money going forward for 3D has to look toward the potential in 4K/UHD. Staggeringly more picture info to transmit. Content production and delivery methods could be fundamentally different in ways the tech folks haven't even imagined yet. IMO, the first smarty tech folks that figure out a system to do good 3D without glasses will be the big money winner when all is said and done. Granted, 4K/UHD is a long ways off, but I also suspect that curve will accelerate (as most technology things do), so the potential may not be as far off as it might seem.

SHould be fun to watch it unfold.

The timing also could not have been worse, slotted between most anyone interested in a new TV recently upgrading and a recession.

The difference between a TV capable displaying 3D TV and a 2D is the refresh rate of the pixels. A TV has to have a 240mhz refresh rate which is becoming the standard for all new TVs with or without 3D becoming popular. So will 3D TV die? No, but it probably won’t be marketed as much because people don’t like the glasses.

Once the glasses go, 3D will take off.

Just bought my 3D tv three months ago and I'm digging my kids cartoons much more when I can watch them in 3D

What is weird is the wife and I enjoy that format much more than our two kids under 5 lol

I have really nice Sony 54" flatscreen that I purchase about four years ago. It suits my needs perfectly, so for me, newer TVs with the gimmick of also being 3D-capable don't provide much of an incentive to upgrade. I've seen the demos in the store, I've seen 3D content at a friend's house who has one - meh, it's not worth another upgrade. Of course if my TV dies and there's a new one that I like the specs of just happens to also be 3D, fine. It's not a deal-breaker for me though.

I think that in the next few years UHD will gain a lot of traction as content comes out that takes advantage of it and then I'll consider another upgrade (maybe).

I have really nice Sony 54" flatscreen that I purchase about four years ago. It suits my needs perfectly, so for me, newer TVs with the gimmick of also being 3D-capable don't provide much of an incentive to upgrade. I've seen the demos in the store, I've seen 3D content at a friend's house who has one - meh, it's not worth another upgrade. Of course if my TV dies and there's a new one that I like the specs of just happens to also be 3D, fine. It's not a deal-breaker for me though.

I think that in the next few years UHD will gain a lot of traction as content comes out that takes advantage of it and then I'll consider another upgrade (maybe).

I think the higher resolutions possible with UHD aren't quite as fundamentally intriguing as are the possibilities opening up merely due to the increased amount of data being tossed around. Higher resolutions in a home environment hit the decreasing marginal returns curve pretty quickly, as you can only set a TV so far away from your eyeballs in most homes/living rooms such that the smaller pixels/higher pixel density go beyond what your eye can resolve, and don't contribute much to the perception of a better picture.

The other aspect of 4K TV that will be interesting to watch is what happens to the broadcast side - I think it was a fairly substantial technical achievement to squeeze 1080i into the OTA broadcast spectrum, and surely there's not enough bandwidth for 4x 1080P content to be delivered OTA....could be wrong on that, of course...but not all conventional stations have switched over to native HD broadcasts due to the expense...

I think the higher resolutions possible with UHD aren't quite as fundamentally intriguing as are the possibilities opening up merely due to the increased amount of data being tossed around. Higher resolutions in a home environment hit the decreasing marginal returns curve pretty quickly, as you can only set a TV so far away from your eyeballs in most homes/living rooms such that the smaller pixels/higher pixel density go beyond what your eye can resolve, and don't contribute much to the perception of a better picture.

The other aspect of 4K TV that will be interesting to watch is what happens to the broadcast side - I think it was a fairly substantial technical achievement to squeeze 1080i into the OTA broadcast spectrum, and surely there's not enough bandwidth for 4x 1080P content to be delivered OTA....could be wrong on that, of course...but not all conventional stations have switched over to native HD broadcasts due to the expense...

The analog to digital switch actually gave about a 4x boost in capacity of existing cable lines and OTA (though I think some of the spectrum was sold off that was not being used in the digital segments so re-merging what had been the previous full channel may not be feasible), so it should be there if they wanted to use it. Though I think content would probably be available faster for internet streams at that resolution. If you have access to an ISP that delivers via cable or fiber than it is not a technical issue, they may not price it in a way that is favorable for either having it stream seamlessly or the volume of data per month not hit caps but that is more on we do not have a competitive market for cable or high speed internet.

The analog to digital switch actually gave about a 4x boost in capacity of existing cable lines and OTA (though I think some of the spectrum was sold off that was not being used in the digital segments so re-merging what had been the previous full channel may not be feasible), so it should be there if they wanted to use it. Though I think content would probably be available faster for internet streams at that resolution. If you have access to an ISP that delivers via cable or fiber than it is not a technical issue, they may not price it in a way that is favorable for either having it stream seamlessly or the volume of data per month not hit caps but that is more on we do not have a competitive market for cable or high speed internet.

I was thinking that cable ISP's would be frothing at the mouth at the chance to price streaming data at rates/volumes capable of supporting 4K streams. :)

One thing I think 4K will do is drastically improve the technical potential of true a la carte programming, which would effectively and finally kill off the current cable TV model of selling 4,931 channels, only 12 of which most people actually watch.

The problems with the glasses is that when you watch regular TV programming you only spend a fraction of the time actually watching the television. The rest of the time is interacting with the other viewers in the room, checking the clock on the wall, going to the bathroom, getting up to go to the kitchen, typing on the laptop, playing Candy Crunch, etc.... You either have to take the glasses off, at which point you can't watch the TV, or try to do those things with the glasses on. This is opposed to watching a 3D movie where you sit there focused on the movie for 2 hours. Maybe this is why wearing the glasses never bothered me because watching movies are all I use it for.

As for 4K, they are making the exact same presentation mistake 3D TV did. They are showing you a demo in the store that best represents the technology, but unless you plan to watch 2 hours of downtown Pittsburg marveling at how you can see baseball players on the field from 5 miles away it isn't going to mean squat if you are really watching Big Bang Theory at home. Very few movies or TV shows want you focusing on the background (which BTW is blurry anyhow).

As for 4K, they are making the exact same presentation mistake 3D TV did. They are showing you a demo in the store that best represents the technology, but unless you plan to watch 2 hours of downtown Pittsburg marveling at how you can see baseball players on the field from 5 miles away it isn't going to mean squat if you are really watching Big Bang Theory at home. Very few movies or TV shows want you focusing on the background (which BTW is blurry anyhow).

Not quite sure I agree with this entirely, because all the 4K demos are doing is just what the original HD demos did. 3D was pitched hard and fast as an absolutely must-have technology, but I think they're doing a good job of explaining 4K as "next-gen" technology - hard not to when you see the Samsung unit sell for $150K :)

I don't think they're really even pushing the change in picture quality as much as they are the higher resolutions and implicitly higher data rates that are possible, particularly given that virtually none of these sets are available as a practical matter at retail just yet. The only pub they're getting is on TV, and, much like the lack of value in showing off color TV on old black and white sets, you can't possibly get much marketing value from a commercial featuring a 4K picture on maybe a 1080i or 1080p screen. The technology and its potential are really what's at the fore for the moment, at least.

3D debuted to a big meh. It was moslty marketing. People want a good store with good characters, not a Michael Bay explosion-fest in 3D.

But 4K is also marketing. For one there's no content. I know that Netflix and the like say that they'll stream 4K in the future but that claim is very suspect since they stream their "HD" content at 5 or 6Mbps. But it's all about pixel count. It only has to have a certian amount of pixels to be able to use the term HD or 4K. It's easily marketable and the general public is easily fooled by it. The marketing for it is "More/bigger numbers = better." Also, you'll only begin to notice the difference in resolution between HD and 4K on TVs 70+ inches.

OLED is where it's at. I just hope that by the time I'm able to afford one, they'll make flat ones as well as or instead of the curved ones. You're going to see a whole lot more difference in picture quality with black levels, color ratio and bit depth. In fact Vizio just came out recently saying that they have a TV that approaches the Rec2020 color gamut. But picture quality improvements based on such things aren't as easy to market as "this number is bigger than that number."

I figure in the next 5-10 years, resolution for TVs is going to top out. At least for the average consumer. You can only fit so many inches of TV in a regular house and you can only sit so many feet away from the screen in your house before you're knocking out walls. I think the biggest improvements in picture quality is going to be in the realm of color gamut, black levels and bit depth. That's where you're going to get the most bang for your buck.

BLAH. Forget 3D. Give me 2D and cheaper ticket price. Same movie.

3D debuted to a big meh. It was moslty marketing. People want a good store with good characters, not a Michael Bay explosion-fest in 3D.

But 4K is also marketing. For one there's no content. I know that Netflix and the like say that they'll stream 4K in the future but that claim is very suspect since they stream their "HD" content at 5 or 6Mbps. But it's all about pixel count. It only has to have a certian amount of pixels to be able to use the term HD or 4K. It's easily marketable and the general public is easily fooled by it. The marketing for it is "More/bigger numbers = better." Also, you'll only begin to notice the difference in resolution between HD and 4K on TVs 70+ inches.

OLED is where it's at. I just hope that by the time I'm able to afford one, they'll make flat ones as well as or instead of the curved ones. You're going to see a whole lot more difference in picture quality with black levels, color ratio and bit depth. In fact Vizio just came out recently saying that they have a TV that approaches the Rec2020 color gamut. But picture quality improvements based on such things aren't as easy to market as "this number is bigger than that number."

I figure in the next 5-10 years, resolution for TVs is going to top out. At least for the average consumer. You can only fit so many inches of TV in a regular house and you can only sit so many feet away from the screen in your house before you're knocking out walls. I think the biggest improvements in picture quality is going to be in the realm of color gamut, black levels and bit depth. That's where you're going to get the most bang for your buck.

I expect 4K will eventually happen but it will be a slower uptake than HD TV was, computer monitors will almost surely be commonly using it before anything but the largest TVs will. The content may not be released now but most mainstream movies have a 4K master copy at the studio already and 35mm film transitions from older titles will still benefit over a 1080p version, while it would not be shocking if a couple 4K channels on cable starts showing up it will probably be a long time before that is mainstream. The way TV/monitor manufacturing has been going the last ten/fifteen years suggests that it is likely to happen.

It really depends on the content where it starts being noticeable; scenes with a lot of movement, explosions, text or things with extremely crisp lines/curves (especially cartoons) all more prone to have noticeable benifits. Also remember distance matters too, I use a 40 inch tv as my monitor on my gaming desktop, so when watching netflix or a dvd on my computer from about three or four feet away from the screen it gives almost the same perspective as watching at a theater and bumping up to 4K would be immediately noticeable for media and computer usage. Plus at that point the pixels per inch for TVs would be higher than the baseline for a computer monitor in the practical range of size options, so it probably would be the end of computer monitors and TVs being separate categories of devices.

I found this story pretty interesting because it is the exact opposite of what I see going on.

Static: Can 3-D TV come back from the dead? | News OK (http://newsok.com/static-can-3-d-tv-come-back-from-the-dead/article/3923108/?page=2)

I bought a 3D TV about 2 years ago and it is the single best electronic item I have ever purchased. Yes ESPN 3D went away but so what, all they ever showed were replays of SEC games from 3 or 4 years ago and the occasional live European Soccer game. I don't care if it is in 3D or not, the 2010 Auburn-Vanderbilt game doesn't make me want to tune in for 2 hours. Besides, 3NET has plenty of X-game type sports which are much better in 3D than football is (spoiler alert - football isn't that good in 3D).

As for movies, we have stopped seeing movies in 3D at the theater. Now we just watch the 2D version and use the money we save to buy the 3D version when it comes out. The 3D pack usually only cost $10 more and includes the 3D, BluRay, standard DVD, Digital Copy, AND an Ultraviolet versions all in one package. Even if I didn't own a 3D TV and would still buy the 3D pack just in case I bought one in the future.

I think people are making too big a deal out of wearing the glasses. I have the passive glasses which are no different than wearing reading glasses or sun glasses - both of which I already wear countless hours every day. I tried the active glasses which flicker back and forth between each eye and after about 20 minutes they gave me a headache so maybe that is what most people are complaining about. I have no side-effects from the passive glasses and use them for more than 2 hours at a time on several occasions. I'm not sure what the viewing angle restrictions are on the active glasses but the passive have like a 110 degree viewing angle, which means every seat in our living room has no problems seeing the image in 3D. Plus our TV swivels so it can be adjusted to any viewing angle.

Visio might be dropping out but they are at the low-end of the TV spectrum anyhow. That is like saying Kia is going to stop making their Supercar. People who are buying at the top end of the TV market aren't buying from manufacturers at the bottom (although now with several Chinese TVs the bottom did get lower - which is probably more likely the reason for refocusing at Visio). As for 4K TV's - yes they look good but until there is content in 4K all you can do is simulate it using the current signal - which is gimmick anyhow since you can't create pixels that aren't there.

I will agree that 'upgrade fatigue' was a real problem. I skipped a whole generation of TV buying because I knew I wanted a 3D TV as soon as they got into my price range. I went from a bulky 10 year old projection HD 1080i (which used a DVI cable) to the 55 inch LED 1080P 3D TV. If I had bought the intermediate plasma TV I probably would have held off on the 3D myself. Glad I waited.

On a final note. For anyone wanting a 3D TV, or any TV for that matter, skip the smart TVs. They will waste you about $200 to $1000 because they are redundant technology. I don't need both my TV and BluRay player having Netflix on them. Plus, for $35 you can turn any smart phone into a Netflix/Pandora/etc... player on any TV with an HDMI connection.

1080p used to be "high end". 3D isn't high end. If Vizio is dropping out of the 3D game, then that is a TREMENDOUS blow because Vizio is a major player. They just are.

I expect 4K will eventually happen but it will be a slower uptake than HD TV was, computer monitors will almost surely be commonly using it before anything but the largest TVs will. The content may not be released now but most mainstream movies have a 4K master copy at the studio already and 35mm film transitions from older titles will still benefit over a 1080p version, while it would not be shocking if a couple 4K channels on cable starts showing up it will probably be a long time before that is mainstream. The way TV/monitor manufacturing has been going the last ten/fifteen years suggests that it is likely to happen.

It really depends on the content where it starts being noticeable; scenes with a lot of movement, explosions, text or things with extremely crisp lines/curves (especially cartoons) all more prone to have noticeable benifits. Also remember distance matters too, I use a 40 inch tv as my monitor on my gaming desktop, so when watching netflix or a dvd on my computer from about three or four feet away from the screen it gives almost the same perspective as watching at a theater and bumping up to 4K would be immediately noticeable for media and computer usage. Plus at that point the pixels per inch for TVs would be higher than the baseline for a computer monitor in the practical range of size options, so it probably would be the end of computer monitors and TVs being separate categories of devices.

I think the division between computer monitor and tv are already disappearing except for maybe at the office.

As far as scenes with lotf of movment etc., that depends more on display technology than screen resolution. That's why plasma is so much better than LCD (LED) when it comes to motion on screen, whether it be a movie or a live sports event. Plasma effectively has no refresh rate, although they tell you it's 600Mhz. That's the reason you don't get the soap opera effect when watching a movie on plasma and you don't get trailing or blockiness when watching sports on plasma.

I know 4K is going to happen. I just think for the money, many people will be disappointed with the lack of difference on anything smaller than 70". Although those who spend the big $ as early adopters of 4K are going to tell you it's night and day difference.

Budget TV resolution rumble: 720p plasma vs. 4K LED LCD | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57599449-221/budget-tv-resolution-rumble-720p-plasma-vs-4k-led-lcd/)