Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

I was the opposite and it was detrimental working in a lab with stereo 3d. One of the main guys could not see 3d and he was great at perfecting the calibration because of it. I was awful at calibration because 3d shot into view so easily.

I also cant see 3D movies for the same reason. Cant see magic eye puzzles either.