At the time, all 3D blueray releases included both a 3D disc and a 2D disc. Theoretically they can co-exist on the same disc, unless the movie was extremely long. I was, indeed, willing to pay a LITTLE more for the 3D. But often they greatly overcharged, so I would wait for it to go on sale.

>"3d works in theaters. You can make it work by spending big piles of money. Do you want to spend big piles of money to watch TV at home? Maybe you do, but not enough other people do."

What are you even talking about? My 3D TV gives me almost the same visual experience as in a theater. The apparent screen is the same size from my typical theater-sitting perspective, and it is the same exact content. The only thing that is different is that the theater uses static polarized glasses and my TV uses active shutters. The driving frequencies of the active shutters is high and not noticeable, so it looks about the same as the static glasses in the theater.

There wasn't any huge cost for my 3D TV, it was a few hundred more than the same quality non-3D TV at the time and included 3 pair of glasses. It was maybe a 10% upcharge. Other than software changes and the glasses, there is nothing else needed to make any LCD TV into a 3D TV (it requires a bluetooth receiver, but that is already present to support the RF remote). If you don't include the glasses, which are simple/cheap devices, there is zero actual additional production cost to have 3D as an option on higher-end LCD TV's and only a tiny cost on lower-end ones.

>"My city, and all the surrounding cities have been doing this for decades with an optical system"

I should have mentioned this is in the USA.

My city, and all the surrounding cities have been doing this for decades with an optical system that detects emergency lighting on vehicles and immediately stops all opposing traffic and gives green to everything in the direction the emergency vehicle is traveling (straight, left, right). I don't know the range of the system, but I have seen it activated many times.

Sometimes it is annoying, because it will throw off the cycle (start over). And if there is ANOTHER emergency vehicle not far behind, it will short-circuit again before it gets to part of the opposing traffic. I have sat through what would have equated to more than 4 full light cycles before.

>"Is there any 3D TV you can watch without stupid glasses? What I've seen is: if 3D is being displayed, the image is blurred if you don't have stupid glasses on. Maybe I've missed something though."

There were some attempts at "no glasses" 3D, but they use a lenticular lens (like the 3D Gameboy). So you have to sit in one of the "sweet spots", perfectly still. No way that would catch on. So essentially the answer to your first question is "no".

Of course you can't watch a 3D program without 3D glasses on, you will see the left and right eye frames as the same time with both eyes. That is why it is fuzzy/freaky :) It will also be twice as bright (which would be annoying as well).

I can do you better. My major cable company thinks that in 2026, "HD" means 720p. Every channel is only 720p.

>"Not everyone can see 3D"

And not everyone can hear in stereo. Doesn't mean things should only be in mono. And not everyone has good 360 degree sound perception, doesn't mean we should abolish surround sound. And not everyone can see full color.... you get the idea.

3D video, even done well/correctly, isn't for everyone. Nobody is suggesting it should be forced on people :)

Some people (like me) can't stand high framerate and "motion smoothing". Some love it. Most don't seem to notice or care either way. I am all for making it available, as long as it can be adjusted and also turned completely off.

>"It's a novelty that adds no lasting value to anything. There's only so many times you can be bothered to see random junk popping out of the screen."

If there is random junk popping out of the screen, then it is exactly the kind of crap content that gives 3D a bad reputation. Done properly, 3D should and will add positively to the immersive experience. Maybe you haven't seen anything done well? I have a number of movies that were natively shot and mastered in 3D and look fantastic.

>"People will get bigger TVs"

I don't think it matters. It could be a 150" TV. If viewed at the typical 10 to 15 feet away, I still suspect 99+% of the public would not be able to tell which is 4K and which is 8K when we are talking about motion video. A small number might be able to tell with a static photo. 4K hit a hugely diminishing-return point.

And if you start getting insanely big TV's, then normal distance from it will be annoying. So you would need to sit much further away, and at that point you will not notice any resolution change again. Not even factoring in how 98+% of people would have no place to put a 200" TV.

>"...maybe enough time has passed that 3d could be tried again?"

It should be. 3D is not about resolution, but adding depth. While nobody will see any difference between 4K and 8K video (few can differentiate 2K and 4K at normal distance), EVERYONE will notice 3D. Some might not like it (I do), or want to bother with it, but it is certainly a major feature. And for content filmed correctly, it can add a lot to the experience.

3D failed in the market due to:

1) The lack of buyable content (3D Bluray).
2) The price-inflation of that content (shouldn't cost more).
3) The lack of OTA 3D content (antenna, cable, streaming).
4) Some content being poorly implemented or simulated 3D crap of 2D films.
5) For some it gave them headaches or a bad viewing experience.
6) Some didn't like wearing or dealing with the glasses.
7) Some earlier designs had displays too dark or slow to deal with 3D glasses (not a problem for a long time now).

Most of those issues can still be addressed and greatly improved. Although forced-perspective 3D will always cause viewing issues for some people.

>"It wasn't hard to predict that 8K TVs wouldn't take off," the article concludes. "In addition to being too expensive for many households, there's been virtually zero native 8K content available to make investing in an 8K display worthwhile..."

Completely skirts that nobody will be able to see any difference between 4K and 8K on any living-room sized TV viewed from a normal distance. Most people can't even see a difference between 2K and 4K in motion video.

>"Define "better".

Why native packages are better than containers: Smaller. Faster to install. Faster to remove. Faster to update. Uses less disk space. Often has faster performance. Is easier to manage/change what it is doing. It is less complex. Is easier to ensure configuration won't change after updates. Sometimes uses less running memory. Is easier to update in some cases. Is more secure in many cases (because it can have other dependencies updated without having to rebuild a whole container, which vendors usually don't do as quickly. Also because it has a smaller attack surface).

>"There's a reason many thigns are containerisier.

Yes. Pretty much one- to make it more compatible across distros.

>"Your complaint is off topic."

Then so is yours. My posting pointed out that releasing it only as a container and only for Wayland will limit those willing to use it. That seems pretty much on-topic to me. But, whatever.

Good explanation, but I already knew all that :)

I still hate containers. They are inefficient, waste tons of space, and are much more complex. I want native packages when possible. Ubuntu and certain other distros are forcing what should be native packages, like Firefox, LibreOffice, etc.... (NON proprietary software) to be containers. As for proprietary software, let's face it, all they need to target is a few systems and it will cover most of the rest. It isn't difficult for them to put out a new native packages for Ubuntu (and that will cover Mint, which you should be using instead of Ubuntu, anyway, and dozens of other distros), and EL/Fedora/etc. They can even contain a few static libraries, if needed. THEN also offer a container as well to cover anything else and also for those who want/like containers. This can be automated on their end. Choice is good.

LOL- thanks

>"So to be clear what you said:"

It thought it was pretty clear. I don't like containers because native packages are better, I don't like or use Wayland, and I left NVidia because of poor support. And although I am not a gamer, and don't like their choices of how it is offered, and I don't game, it is still a good thing and I hope they develop it even more and offer other choices.

>"I'm not surprised you wasted your time, I'm surprised someone modded you up for your irrelevant (by your own admission) nonsense"

Then read it again. It wasn't nonsense, nor irrelevant. Perhaps the modder liked that I support it DESPITE it not being offered in a way I would like if it were something I would use.

>"You should be supporting this, especially since you have no skin in the game yourself."

Isn't that exactly what I wrote?