Is 3D the future?

[Adam Grunseth]

I love watching 3D movies in theaters today, and I am really excited about the prospect of 3D television at home. With ESPN launching a 3D sports channel, I can't help but wonder if 3D is the future and 2D is on its way out the door.

With that said, should I be shooting in 3D for projects I want to future proof?

A few things are making me think that 2D will be around for a while longer yet. First, as far as I understand, 3D viewing still requires some sort of glasses. I just don't see people putting on a pair of glasses for casual at home viewing. Second, people like to lounge at home when they watch TV, often laying down. This means their eyes are not side by side anymore, but one above the other, which kinda of ruins the 3D effect. And then finally, the widespread adoption of HDTV has taken much longer than most people seemed to have originally thought it would. I can't imagine the 3DTV adoption will occur at a rate much faster.

I am curious to know the thoughts of others here at DVinfo. When do you think 3D television will take over? When will 2D acquisition become obsolete?

[Andrew Smith]

I don't think so, simply because High-Def 2D is "good enough".

Ultimately, content is king.

Andrew

[Andy Wilkinson]

Just look how long it's taken HD to take off...and then there is the "glasses" thing (although one company is working on a 3D technology that does not need them, but it's barely standard definition at present). I think 3D will not be important in our immediate future (outside the cinema experience from Hollywood) but long term, sans glasses, will be...and I'm thinking 15 years area/maybe longer. Access to (2D, not even HD) video on the move via web is where it's currently at/will be for a some time I think (with a progression more and more to HD, still in 2D) - I hope so as that's what I based my business model on!

[Graham Hickling]

My first thought is that it will be like 5.1 surround sound. At first that was exciting, but not really feasible for the prosumer/small operator. Then cheap encoders and other tools arrived, and more folks were setting up 5.1 speaker systems in home theaters - so things looked promising. But since then .... for a lot of 'casual' DVD viewing/listening, many people don't bother with all those speakers, or if they do they dont sit at the 'sweet point' anyway. Or they are listening/viewing on portables or laptops or with headphones ... back in stereo again.

So my prediction is that 3D will gain traction if they can come up with dual 3D/2D methods, where you can watch in 3D in a 'home theater'-type setting, but revert easily to casual 2D viewing in many other settings. But if it's 3D that that turns to gook if you dont have the fancy glasses, or aren't sitting in the sweet spot, or you are lying sideways then I suspect it will an uphill climb to wide acceptance. Just my $0.02.

[David Heath]

I think it's important to differentiate between the display end of the business and the production of material.

I do think 3D screens will become the "norm" to buy (in the same way HD is now), even by those who have little real interest in it (yet). Main reason is that there's very little difference in technology between 2D and 3D versions of a given plasma or LCD screen - it's mainly in the way it's fed. This also means 2D viewing is not compromised in any way - owning a 3D receiver doesn't make your 2D viewing any worse.

I can think of three main genres that will speed up the adoption. Firstly is gaming. I asked my teenage sons what they would think of 3D computer games, and from "wow, when can we get one!?" I'm drawing a few conclusions. And note the advantages go beyond just seeing the image with depth - you could feed one players view as "left eye", the other as "right eye", then shutter the glasses so that each player saw their own separate view on the same screen. Much better than the current method of doing it as split screen.

Second is sport, where camera positions are fixed, an event is predictable in TV terms if not as regards the result. And third is movies, where the budgets are largely high anyway (so the extra costs of 3D production are more easily absorbed), and shots are under control in a way they are not in (say) a wildlife documentary.

As far as compatability, then my understanding is that the left eye signal may be regarded as the 2D compatible signal.

So my prediction is for quite high sales of screens quite soon, and also for most high profile computer games to offer a 3D option within quite a short space of time. (And if you've got a 2D set, you get it in 2D.) I also predict an increasing amount of sport to be available in 3D, starting with the most high profile events, and a similar picture with movies.

I also predict the bulk of general broadcast programming to remain 2D for many years.

[Adam Stanislav]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

With that said, should I be shooting in 3D for projects I want to future proof?

If you can shoot in 3D, by all means do. You can always deliver it in 2D now and in 3D later.

And if you cannot, it is probably going to get today's kids to grow up used to playing 3D games and being used to wearing the glasses before the general population expects 3D everywhere.

Even then, hey Casablanca is in black and white with mono sound and people still watch it. So is It's a Wonderful Life. If you produce something memorable, people will watch it even if you shoot it on 8 mm film. If not, even IMAX in 3D will not make them come. Well, maybe a little at first, but not in the long run.

[Graham Hickling]

This is relevant article just posted, which among other things answers my question about whether a 3D program will be viewable in 2D: 3D TV: Why you'll (someday) own one whether you like it or not

[Aric Mannion]

There's no way all content will become to 3D one day -no way. It's not like HD in that all the old shows already exist on film and can be updated to the higher resolution. There are things that will never be in 3D. Also since shooting requires so much knowledge of how to achieve 3D images, most idiots in the business won't even make watchable stuff.
How could everything become 3D? Who is going to rotoscope every piece of media ever? How much content even exists in HD for that matter? 3D is great but everything will not be in 3D anytime soon. Unless of course "everything" only refers to new Hollywood movies.

[Nigel Horsley]

Sony believes 30-50% of its flat screen TV sales will be for its 3D-ready models within three years. At CES nearly all the major TV manufacturers had leapt in with their 3D-ready models. I was particularly impressed with JVC's. There does seem to be an almost perfect confluence of technologies and broadband accessibility to finally make it all happen. However, my prediction is there'll be a chronic shortage of 'comfortable' content as bad 3D can make people headachy and nauseous very quickly. Conventional twin camera produced 3D is a tricky art to get right, whereas single lens, single camera technology, while not having as much 'wow' factor, does not cause eyestrain. This was proven time and time again in arthroscopy, laparoscopy and nasal surgery procedures on live humans. Eliminating one camera has enormous positive implications for bringing 3D capture capability cost-effectively to cellphones, camcorders and laptop cameras. Thank goodness Avatar has proven to be a staggering success.

[Bill Koehler]

I would think a huge impediment to 3D would be any kind of special glasses requirement. I already wear glasses all the time. It is not an option. Large numbers of the people I know also wear glasses. Keeping track of all the remotes is already a pain. My interest in yet another piece of gear to keep track of, and yet another pair of lens surfaces to look through, to watch TV is very very limited. It's easy for me to imagine lots of other people having the same reaction.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'd prefer if the 3d was less Viewmaster, "look at the effect" and was something that served the story. 3D for games, simulations and technical operations is another ball game in which the viewer is an active participant rather than an audience member. It's the story that immerses you, not having parts of the set and floaty bits moving though the head of the person sitting 2 rows in front of you.

Sony want to sell more TV once the HD sets hit saturation. You can also get 21:9 sets, which considering a large amount of television being screened is and will continue to be 4:3 repeats and new TV material is 16:9 and most features are 1.85 is a waste of real estate.

[Mark OConnell]

Stopped into the local Sony store today and saw the 3D TV demo. It looked pretty good, but for some reason left a funky aftertaste. Reminiscent of arcade games, dime store jewelry or cheap cologne, something very synthetic. Just a first impression, who knows, maybe I'll warm up to it. I agree with Graham that it could fill a niche similar to that for surround sound, something nice for special programming, but not what you'd want for the evening news. For the home theatre set it'll be a no brainer, for me it would be pretty far down on the list of things to buy if there were extra money lying around.

[Andrew Smith]

Only just of late have we had 3D sample TVs arrive in Australia and the reviews are good.

That said, you will be wearing the 3D glasses that will have LED shuttering and infra-red signal from the TV unit to synchronise with. This brings a limitation with it as to how far from the TV you can be and still get 3D viewing.

Both press and retail are saying that it will be sometime in April that 3D capable sets arrive for sale to the public.

Andrew

[Giroud Francois]

french Canal+ will broadcast a new 3D channel at end of year.

[Adam Stanislav]

Originally Posted by Andrew Smith

This brings a limitation with it as to how far from the TV you can be and still get 3D viewing.

Remote controls use infrared light. So, theoretically you should be able to sit as far as you do now. What it would restrict is your head movement as you would have to keep your head pointed toward the IR light.