内容来源：https://www.engadget.com/2206391/why-3d-tvs-failed/

内容总结：

3D电视为何昙花一现？好莱坞3D电影也遇冷

曾几何时，3D电视被视为家庭娱乐的未来。2010年代初，在《阿凡达》《驯龙高手》等好莱坞3D大片热潮推动下，电视厂商纷纷将3D功能作为标配。然而，到2015年，随着4K和HDR技术崛起，3D电视在家用市场几乎销声匿迹。这背后究竟出了什么问题？

使用体验成“硬伤”

3D电视的“劝退”因素首当其冲就是麻烦。用户需要额外购买价格不菲的3D眼镜——被动式眼镜每副10至20美元，主动式眼镜则高达50美元且需频繁充电。此外，还需要支持3D的蓝光播放器以及价格更高的3D蓝光碟片。更恼人的是，观看时若距离过远，42英寸甚至50英寸电视根本营造不出沉浸感。而被动式3D技术还会将1080p分辨率“砍半”，影响画质。

内容匮乏也是致命伤。BBC和ESPN等电视台在2013年就放弃了3D节目播出。BBC 3D主管曾坦言：“在英国，人们对3D电视热情不高。在家看3D太折腾了——看电视前还得先找眼镜。”数据显示，2010至2018年高峰期，仅有约25%的3D电视用户真正使用过该功能；三年后，这一比例降至10%以下。用户弃用原因中，内容不足占65%，长时间观看不适占50%，设备成本高占42%。

好莱坞的3D泡沫

2009至2010年，《阿凡达》和《爱丽丝梦游仙境》的票房成功让好莱坞对3D趋之若鹜，影院也借机收取更高票价。但粗制滥造的后期转制3D电影很快让观众失去信任。2012年，《勇敢传说》《马达加斯加3》的3D票房已出现严重下滑。制片人杰弗里·卡森伯格直言：“我们一再让观众失望，从兴奋期待变成了不信任。观众已经用脚投票了。”

真正能发挥3D潜力的电影屈指可数——除了《阿凡达》，仅有《地心引力》《雨果》《少年派的奇幻漂流》《火星救援》等几部原生3D拍摄的佳作。CG动画片如《驯龙高手》《飞屋环游记》效果尚可，但整体而言，优质内容寥寥无几。

如今想看3D电影怎么办？

如今若想在家重温3D电影，选择非常有限：高端投影仪（如明基、XGIMI品牌，配套主动式眼镜需额外购买）价格不菲；苹果Vision Pro支持Disney+等平台的3D电影，但售价高达3690美元；Meta Quest等VR头显也可播放3D视频，但租片流程较繁琐。

尽管市场研究机构预测，到2036年裸眼3D电视可能增长15%，但目前相关产品仍存在视角受限、需眼球追踪等技术瓶颈。或许，我们只能等待全息电视真正落地的那一天了。

中文翻译：

3D电视为何失败，以及好莱坞3D电影的问题。
OLED的崛起和内容的匮乏，让3D电视成了昙花一现的潮流。
如今，随着Micro RGB电视可能兴起、OLED技术不断发展，我们很容易忘记，3D电视曾一度无处不在。2010年代初期，受好莱坞对《阿凡达》《驯龙高手》等3D影片的狂热推动，电视厂商几乎将3D技术塞进了自家大多数产品中。但到了2015年，随着电视行业开始聚焦4K和HDR电视，3D技术在家用领域彻底消失了。问题出在哪里？
答案并不复杂：3D在家中使用起来太麻烦，而好莱坞为了收取更高的票价，又用大量低质量的3D电影让市场过度饱和。对于家庭娱乐而言，便利性才是王道，而3D电视恰恰与之背道而驰。

使用3D电视的痛苦
尽管2010年至2015年间发布的许多电视都支持3D，但要使用这一功能，你得先跨过一连串烦人的门槛。你得买3D眼镜——被动式镜框售价10到20美元，主动式眼镜则要50美元以上，而且需要频繁充电。你还得确保你的蓝光播放器支持3D光盘。此外，你还得为这些3D蓝光影碟支付溢价，前提是你还能找到有现货的。
对于那些跨过这些障碍的极客影迷来说，3D蓝光倒也能较好地还原影院中的3D体验。但效果很大程度上取决于电视的尺寸和观看距离。如果你离一台42英寸甚至50英寸的电视太远，你很难真正沉浸在《阿凡达》的潘多拉世界中。如果你想和一群人一起收看3D节目，那就更麻烦了——你得买一大堆额外的眼镜，或者指望你那些同好朋友们自带。
最糟糕的是，使用被动式眼镜的3D电视实际上会让1080p的分辨率减半，因为它需要为左右眼分别传输图像。3D投影仪和高端电视避免了这一问题，因为它们依赖主动式眼镜，但这类镜框价格高昂且电池续航有限，使得团体观影几乎不可能实现。
除了3D蓝光光盘，想找到其他3D内容也很困难。BBC和ESPN等电视台曾播出过少量3D节目和比赛，但都在2013年放弃了这一格式。“我从未看到英国对3D电视有太大的需求，”BBC的3D项目负责人金·希林劳在2013年接受《广播时报》采访时表示（据《独立报》转载），“在家里看3D是件相当麻烦的事。你得在打开电视前先找到眼镜。我认为人们看电视和看电影时的专注方式不同。去电影院时，人们习惯只做一件事。我认为这正是3D电视普及情况令人失望的原因之一。”

随着3D电视的热潮消退，具备HDR功能的4K电视开始出现，并带来了更直观的好处。它们比早期的高清电视明显更清晰、更明亮，并且有Netflix和其他流媒体服务提供的大量4K内容作为支撑。你无需购买蓝光播放器，无需戴上眼镜，也无需费力寻找特殊内容。难怪4K会大获成功。（即使你不看4K内容，这些新电视也能让你的旧标清和高清节目看起来比以往更好。）
根据Precision Reports最近的一项研究，在2010年至2018年的高峰期，约有25%拥有3D电视的家庭实际使用了这一技术。三年后，继续使用这一技术的家庭占比不到10%。同一份报告还发现，65%的用户因内容匮乏停止使用3D，50%的用户因长时间观看感到不适而放弃，42%的用户则因设备成本过高而放弃。
尽管存在诸多问题，Precision Reports也预测，得益于裸眼3D电视、商业应用和游戏的发展，到2036年，3D电视品类将增长15%。就个人而言，我至今对任何裸眼3D电视都提不起兴趣，而且它们通常不支持多人观看，因为其功能依赖于精密的眼球追踪技术。

好莱坞3D电影的问题
在2009年和2010年《阿凡达》《爱丽丝梦游仙境》（真正跨过10亿美元票房门槛的最差影片之一）等3D电影票房大卖之后，电影制片厂被3D的奇观效果鼓舞。这是一个能吸引观众的新鲜事物，更妙的是，影院还能为此收取溢价。但没过多久，观众就开始反感了。据《好莱坞报道》称，到2012年，皮克斯的《勇敢传说》和《马达加斯加3》等大片的3D票房出现了严重下滑。
“票价太高了，”一位制片厂发行商在2012年向《好莱坞报道》表示，“我们已经把观影变成了一种预约式的活动，至少在国内是这样。再也没有随意的观影了。”
更糟糕的是，随着制片厂滥用这种技术，3D电影的实际质量急剧下降。詹姆斯·卡梅隆围绕真正的立体3D摄像机系统精心打造了《阿凡达》，而《爱丽丝梦游仙境》《诸神之战》等其他影片则只是简单地将2D画面升级为3D。这种升级技术的结果千差万别，但大多数情况下，它产生的3D电影缺乏原生3D拍摄的那种景深感。（我在媒体场看《诸神之战》时，整部电影就像一团模糊的泥浆。）
“我们多次让观众失望，正因为如此，我认为现在存在真正的不信任——而一年半前，对于那些真正提供了优质体验的第一批3D电影，观众还充满真实的兴奋、热情和回报，”制片人杰弗里·卡岑伯格（后来也是Quibi的联合创始人）在2011年对《好莱坞报道》表示，“现在，这一切被严重破坏了……看着十多年来电影行业最大的机遇受到损害，真的令人心碎。观众已经发声了，而且声音很大。”
作为在3D电影鼎盛时期定期撰写影评的人，我发现只有少数电影真正发挥了3D的潜力。除了《阿凡达》，还有阿方索·卡隆的《地心引力》、马丁·斯科塞斯的《雨果》、李安的《少年派的奇幻漂流》和雷德利·斯科特的《火星救援》。这些电影都是原生3D拍摄，并由好莱坞最有才华的导演执导。《驯龙高手》《飞屋环游记》等CG动画电影可以轻松做成原生3D，也推动了沉浸感的极限。这一小批真正优秀的作品库，是3D电视未能真正腾飞的另一个原因。即使是这项技术的忠实拥趸，选择也并不多。
如今，我们依然能在影院看到大型3D电影，但除了《阿凡达》续集（它们也在试图推动高帧率画面的概念），几乎没有人再拍摄原生3D了。相反，由于克里斯托弗·诺兰的执着，IMAX的大画幅2D胶片技术获得了更多关注。

如今在家哪里看3D电影
除非你家里还留着3D电视和蓝光播放器，否则如今想方便地看3D电影并不容易……剧透警告：大多数可行的选择都会让你破费。
许多现代投影仪支持3D，其中明基的型号在网上评价最好。如果你预算更充裕，我们评测过并给出8.5分（满分10分）的极米Titan Noir Max投影仪也兼容3D内容。它的售价是6000美元。你还需要为所有人购买足够的主动快门式眼镜，这又是一笔额外开销。
其次是VR。苹果的Vision Pro在其电视应用和Disney+应用中支持3D电影，根据我的经验，效果非常震撼。遗憾的是，你得掏出3690美元才能体验。
你也可以在Meta Quest头戴设备上使用各种应用观看3D电影，比如Bigscreen VR，但在Vision Pro上，搜索和租借电影的过程并不那么便捷。任何VR头戴设备都能播放3D视频文件，因为它们原生支持立体3D，你还可以在Xreal的One Pro等智能眼镜上观看。
也许有一天，我们终将获得能真正支持多人观看的裸眼3D电视。但在这之前，我们可能得先等到全息电视成为现实。

英文来源：

Why 3D TVs failed and the trouble with 3D in Hollywood.
The rise of OLED and a lack of content made 3D TVs a short-lived fad.
As we gear up for the potential rise of Micro RGB TVs and the evolution of OLED, it's easy to forget that, for a brief moment, 3D TVs were everywhere. TV makers shoved the technology into most of their sets in the early 2010s, following Hollywood's obsession with 3D releases like Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon. But by 2015, as the TV industry started to focus on 4K and HDR-equipped TVs, 3D had completely disappeared at home. What went wrong?
There are a few easy answers: 3D was just a pain to use at home, and Hollywood also oversaturated the market with low-quality 3D releases because they commanded higher ticket prices. Convenience is king for home entertainment, and 3D TVs proved to be anything but.
The pain of using 3D TVs
While many TVs released between 2010 and 2015 supported 3D, using the feature required clearing a series of annoying hurdles. You had to buy 3D glasses, which ranged from $10 to $20 for passive frames, to upwards of $50 for active glasses that required constant charging. You had to make sure your Blu-ray player supported 3D discs. And you had to pay a premium for those 3D Blu-rays, assuming you could find them in stock.
For the niche media geeks who cleared those roadblocks, 3D Blu-rays did a decent job of replicating the theatrical 3D experience. But the results depended heavily on the size and viewing distance of your TV. If you're too far away from a 42-inch or even 50-inch set, you won't really be immersed by Avatar's world of Pandora. It was also extra annoying if you wanted to have a 3D watch party with a crowd — you'd either have to buy a ton of extra glasses, or hope your nerdy friends had their own.
Worst of all, 3D TVs with passive glasses effectively halved the resolution of 1080p, since they had to deliver a separate image. 3D projectors and higher-end TVs avoided that issue since they relied on active glasses, but the expense and battery limitations of those frames made viewing parties all but impossible.
Outside of 3D Blu-rays, it was also tough to find much 3D content. Networks like the BBC and ESPN broadcast a handful of 3D shows and games, but they both gave up on the format in 2013. "I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK," Kim Shillinglaw, the BBC's head of 3D, said in a 2013 interview with Radio Times (via The Independent). "Watching 3D is quite a hassly experience in the home. You have got to find your glasses before switching on the TV. I think when people watch TV they concentrate in a different way. When people go to the cinema they go and are used to doing one thing. I think that's one of the reasons that take up of 3D TV has been disappointing."
As the hype around 3D TVs waned, 4K sets with HDR started to crop up with more immediate benefits. They looked noticeably sharper and brighter than earlier HDTVs, and they were buoyed by a ton of 4K content from Netflix and other streaming services. There was no need to buy a Blu-ray player, no need to put on glasses and no need to look hard for special content. It's no wonder 4K took off. (And even if you're not viewing 4K content, those newer TVs still made your older SD and HD shows look better than ever.)
According to a recent study by Precision Reports, around 25 percent of households with 3D TVs actually used the technology during the peak period between 2010 and 2018. Less than 10 percent of households kept using the technology after three years. The same report also found that 65 percent of users stopped using 3D because of a lack of content, 50 percent noted discomfort for long viewing sessions and 42 percent gave up due to high equipment costs.
Despite the many issues, though, Precision Reports also predicts that the 3D TV category will grow by 15 percent by 2036 thanks to the rise of glasses-free 3D sets, commercial implementations and gaming. I've yet to be impressed by any glasses-free 3D TVs, personally, and they typically don't support multiple viewers since they rely on sophisticated eye tracking to function.
The trouble with 3D in Hollywood
After the initial rush of 3D box office hits like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland (truly one of the worst films to cross the $1 billion mark) in 2009 and 2010, movie studios were emboldened by the spectacle of 3D. It was a shiny new thing that could entice audiences, and even better, it was something that theaters could charge a premium for. But it didn't take too long for audiences to start revolting. By 2012, major films like Pixar's Brave and Madagascar 3 saw serious drops in their 3D ticket sales, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
"Prices are too high," one studio distributor told THR in 2012. "We've turned our business into appointment moviegoing, at least domestically. There's no more generic moviegoing."
It didn't help that the actual quality of 3D films fell precipitously as studios drove the technology into the ground. While James Cameron meticulously built Avatar around a true stereoscopic 3D camera system, other releases like Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were simply upscaled to 3D from 2D. The results of that upscaling technology varied widely, but for the most part, it led to 3D films without the same sense of depth as something natively shot in 3D. (When I saw Clash of the Titans in a press screening, the entire film looked like a muddy mess.)
"We have disappointed our audience multiple times now, and because of that I think there is genuine distrust — whereas a year and a half ago, there was genuine excitement, enthusiasm and reward for the first group of 3D films that actually delivered a quality experience," producer Jeffrey Katzenberg (and future Quibi co-founder) told THR in 2011. "Now that's been seriously undermined... It's really heartbreaking to see what has been the single greatest opportunity that has happened to the film business in over a decade being harmed. The audience has spoken, and they have spoken really loudly."
As someone who was regularly reviewing movies during the heyday of 3D cinema, I found there were only a handful of films that truly took advantage of its potential. Beyond Avatar, there was Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, Martin Scorsese's Hugo, Ang Lee's Life of Pi, and Ridley Scott's The Martian. Each of those films were natively shot in 3D and helmed by some of the most talented directors in Hollywood. CG films like How to Train Your Dragon and Up, which were easily produced in native 3D, also pushed the limits of immersion. This small library of genuinely great titles was yet another reason 3D TVs didn't really take off. Even the technology's biggest fans didn't have much to choose from.
These days we're still seeing major 3D releases in theaters, but aside from the Avatar sequels (which are also trying to push the idea of high-frame-rate footage), practically nobody is shooting natively in 3D. Instead, there's more hype around IMAX's large-scale 2D film technology, thanks to the obsession of one Christopher Nolan.
Where to watch 3D movies at home today
Unless you've kept a 3D TV and Blu-ray player around, there aren't many easy ways to watch 3D movies today... And spoiler alert, most of the capable available options will cost you.
Many modern projectors support 3D, with BenQ models being among the most well-received online. If you have a lot more money to spare, the XGIMI Titan Noir Max projector that we reviewed and awarded a score of 8.5 (out of 10) is also compatible with 3D content. It will set you back $6,000. You'll also need to buy enough active shutter glasses for your entire group, which will cost you more.
Then there is VR. Apple's Vision Pro supports 3D movies in its TV and Disney+ apps, and I can tell you from experience that it all looks spectacular. Unfortunately, you have to shell out $3,690 to experience it.
You can also view 3D movies with a variety of apps on the Meta Quest headsets, including Bigscreen VR, but the process of finding and renting films isn't as easy on the Vision Pro. Any VR headset can play 3D video files, since they natively support stereoscopic 3D, and you can also view them on smart glasses like Xreal's One Pro.
Perhaps one day, we'll finally get glasses-free 3D TVs that can actually work with multiple viewers. But we may just have to wait until holographic TVs are a reality.