Sony plans to put 3D televisions in homes by the end of next year

[Barry Green]

Is this actually news though? My Samsung DLP TV is already 3-D ready and has been for a year and a half... It's got a port on it for 3-D glasses, it runs at 1920x1080x60p for projecting left-eye/right-eye, etc...

[Robert M Wright]

Aside from considerable obstacles to 3DTV becoming mainstream, like format wars, getting folks to actually put on special glasses regularly, etc., there's a fundamental problem with the economics of production. How many films, realistically, would see increases in revenue large enough to justify the increased production costs (even if everyone on the planet had a 3DTV in their living room)? I know I'm sure not going to run out and buy/rent a crappy movie just because it's in 3D, and by the same token, I'm not going to pass up a good flick just because it's in 2D either.

[Scott Anderson]

I have to disagree with the naysayers who state that 3D will not go mainstream.

Sure, there will always be a segment of people who refuse to wear pola glasses "just to watch TV". There will be those who are hard-wired for 3D to cause eyestrain. For several years to come, there will be a price premium that will delay mainstream adoption.

But, unlike the SD / HD argument, where consumers can often not see a difference, 3D will almost certainly provide a "wow" moment the first time you don a set of pola specs in your local Best Buy.

This year's NAB was chock full of 3D LCD and plasma panels. It seemed that everywhere you looked, someone was hocking some piece of tech, and if it was even remotely related to 3D, they had a flat panel and a box of glasses to ooh and ahh over. It reminds me of about 6 or 8 years ago, when every Tom, Dick and Harry just had to have a plasma flat panel set up because it was the new, hot tech. Fast forward those years and now you can't hardly buy a TV that's not at least 720p.

In theaters, 3D versions of available movies outstrip 2D versions in the same market quite handily. There's a solid, demonstrated fanbase for 3D out there. And I'm here to tell you that polarized glasses 1080p is every bit as compelling as current theatrical 3D. Heck, it's practically the same technology - just replace your 2K projector with 1080p panels (not much of a loss). Of course, there are real issues with adjusting 3D depth for a smaller screen, but in time, it will become a known commodity and just part of the video mastering process.

I'm not saying that theater-going becomes obsolete, or that every show will soon be in 3D. Star Wars IS going to be remastered in 3D - that's a fact. The Maltese Falcon, not so much. Dr. Phil in 3D? Jeez, I hope not. But there's plenty of room for big event films, animation, concerts, and let's not forget sports.

If the long gestating promise of OLED or similar tech comes to pass, and manufacturing costs keep plummeting the way they have, adding 3D capability becomes almost a non-issue. And 3D Blu-ray is coming. I say give it another 6-8 years, and "3D-capable" becomes just another selling point, and available on most sets, players and cable providers.

[Chris McMahon]

If I wanted a 3D TV, I'd cut out the bottom and the glass on a 13" CRT, put it on my head like a helmet, and walk around town.

Just sayin'.

[Simon Wyndham]

Sure, there will always be a segment of people who refuse to wear pola glasses "just to watch TV".

There will be a lot of people who refuse. The need for glasses is a big issue because it makes watching inconvenient. Not least for those people who wear normal glasses for TV watching already!

3D in cinemas is popular compared to the 2D versions of the same film. But I think going to the cinema is different to home watching because it is more of a one off event.

My own opinion is also that 3D needs a gigantic screen to be effective and to make it worthwhile. The IMAX films are great examples. Because the screen fills your entire field of view, aside from the frame rate it really feels as if you are in the film. You don't get that at home, even with some of the largest televisions.

A primary reason for 3D is to immerse the viewer in the scene. As it is it is just a gimmick that cannot catch on for a very, very long time, if at all. As others have pointed out there needs to be content, and the camera equipment to shoot it. Having to shoot with two cameras side by side is cumbersome and not in the least bit practical. If they could make a camera with a stereo lens capability then it would effectively need the processing of two cameras anyway. Think of the price of a camcorder like that.

I think that Sky are rather mad for launching a 3D channel. For a premium you'll have lots of the same programmes repeated over and over due to the lack of content plus the odd sporting event.

Then we have issues of competing 3D formats between Sony and Panasonic. Another format war, great.

What really annoys me about 3D is that the screens need to be capable of extremely high refresh rates. Why can't they put all that effort into something useful like achieving 200fps progressive scan HD instead? Then we can finally banish interlacing into the bowls of history.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

What really annoys me about 3D is that the screens need to be capable of extremely high refresh rates. Why can't they put all that effort into something useful like achieving 200fps progressive scan HD instead? Then we can finally banish interlacing into the bowls of history.

I agree on frame rate. Also agree on interlace too but at least that has the temporal motion of the higher frame rate and on TV's like my 240hz Sony Bravia looks wonderful. To impose 3D on top of the juddering motion of 24p with the editors who think they have to use every trick in their NLE and keep cutting at 120 beats/min will make everyone sick very quickly. I was all set to watch what should have been a documentary on a construction project on Treasure HD only to find the editor choose to use a style more appropriate to a music video!!!! No I think music videos may have longer clips to see the artist!!! More and more of these programs have atrocious editing. Lots of technology not a lot of talent!! What will these guys do with 3D thrown into the mix.

Ron Evans

[David Heath]

A feature of whenever a new technology appears is that most of the views expressed tend to be polarised, either "everything else is dead!", or "that'll never catch on!"

And most often the truth is somewhere between. When the telephone was first introduced in the UK (and no, I'm not speaking from memory :-) ) it was apparently the same. People were heard to say "this'll mean the death of letter writing within a couple of years" OR "never catch on - there are so many boys to run telegrams that what's the point?"

And the truth was neither of those. The postal service didn't whither away, but obviously the telephone did become of huge importance.

Barry Green makes a very good point. Unlike many other technologies (colour TV, HD, DVDs etc) it doesn't really require much of a modification to existing screen designs to make them 3D capable - it's not like the difference between a colour TV and a black and white. And as such, it would make sense for a manufacturer to be selling little else but "3D ready" screens within a short space of time. Sure, few of them may get used for such, but if it makes them little more expensive, why not?

So to the consumer, they spend much of their life as conventional 2D TVs, then at major events (sport is the most obvious) glasses are put on.

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

The need for glasses is a big issue because it makes watching inconvenient. Not least for those people who wear normal glasses for TV watching already!

Yes, I agree, and it means everybody watching has to wear them, or nobody. But for the sort of scenario above (where the television is used conventionally most of the time) I can see it generating enough interest to make it worthwhile.

If it really started to catch on, I can also see a market for prescription 3d glasses.

As others have pointed out there needs to be content, and the camera equipment to shoot it. Having to shoot with two cameras side by side is cumbersome and not in the least bit practical. If they could make a camera with a stereo lens capability then it would effectively need the processing of two cameras anyway.

Not necessarily - certainly two lenses ganged together, but they could feed an optical system which laid the images side by side on a single chip.

I think that Sky are rather mad for launching a 3D channel.

Here I disagree. The BBC had been toying with HD for a long time in the BBC, making some content for sale overseas in HD, but with little ambition to broadcast HD here. Then Sky announced their HD plans. Now look at it - with Sky solidly making the running. Sometimes it pays to let somebody else make the mistakes, sometimes it pays to be ahead of the game.

It marks them out as "different" and "innovative" and I bet their marketing people are pleased about that.

Then we have issues of competing 3D formats between Sony and Panasonic. Another format war, great.

No disagreement here. But it may be a lot less damaging than Betamax/VHS or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

Simple reason is that it's likely to be largely decided by what the main broadcasters do in any individual country. If Sky decide to use the Sony system in the UK, and you decide you want the ability to receive it, what set are you going to buy? (And vice versa if they chose Panasonics system.)

A strong incentive to be first to market.

[Gabe Strong]

Originally Posted by David Heath

A feature of whenever a new technology appears is that most of the views expressed tend to be polarised, either "everything else is dead!", or "that'll never catch on!"

And most often the truth is somewhere between.

I would never try to guess anymore whether a new technology will catch on or not.
So many times it seems to hinge on the whims of very fickle consumers. I have
no idea, what people will find to be 'worth their money'. I can only say what
I myself will or will not buy. 3D TV set falls solidly in the 'will not'.

[Andrew Smith]

I'm wondering if it would be possible for 3D to become the new "broadcast standard". Not for the quality of the image, but something by which the "big boys" can be far ahead of Joe amateur and his family video camera.

Imaging and recording technology (especially 3-chip handycams) has enabled the home user to shoot video that closes the gap. Perhaps 3D can be used to widen that gap again? Imagine if the news was shot in 3D and therefore it is more real and credible?

Just a thought.

Andrew

[David Barnett]

Good point Andrew, it's a possibility. Did anyone see the college football game being shot & shown in 3d?!

It was USC vs Ohio State & it was being shown to students at USC on a very big screen 3D tv.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding standardization, SMPTE (Hollywood) is active in the 3D space. CEA (consumer electronics) is active, but has no published 3D standards at this time. ATSC (broadcast) took early action, but it has stalled. The difficulty for broadcasters is that bandwidth costs money, and it's not clear that 3D will bring in more revenue. MPEG is looking at efficient 3D compression techniques.

One can guess that the Blu-ray Disc Association and HDMI LLC are active as well, but these are private bodies, so visibility is limited.

The bottom line is that there is no standardized 3D ecosystem out there right now, but people are working on it. There are 3D products out there, but you have to be really careful that all the pieces fit together correctly. For instance, 3D can be encoded within a frame using a checkerboard, vertical, or horizontal lines. It can also be done from frame to frame with active glasses. If the source uses one technique and the display another, you won't see a 3D result.

[Larry Price]

I vaguely recall reading something several years ago about how the movie industry was looking to 3D to lure people out of their living rooms and back to theaters since 3D was something that probably couldn't be duplicated at home. Ooops! Now what are production companies and theater owners going to do?

And unlike Gabe Strong, if this technology takes off, I will buy it, provided they make it work well and price it where I an afford it. But then, I've always been an early adopter and a gadget freak!

[Dan Brockett]

I am surprised nobody in this thread has seen the Philips 3D lenticular technology. A friend of mine signed on as a dealer. He has a 42" plasma that has built-in lenticular 3D, no glasses needed. The 3D effect was astounding, it really was surreal. The 42" set is around U.S. $10k. 3D glasses are already outdated, that is old technology.

Problem is on the consumer end or even in the broadcast end of things, there is no standardization., you have dozens of competing technologies, different file formats, different stereoscopic production techniques, etc. It is the Wild West out there as far as 3D technology.

After experiencing the Philips technology as well as several 3D theatrical experiences, to me, 3D is a gimmick. A cool gimmick, but nothing that I think will leapfrog forward as far as being a must have for consumers, etc. I don't see it advancing beyond a niche segment for high end films and sports for many, many years. He has a bunch of commercials and 3D demos and while they are cool to look at, the 3D effect is just that, an effect. No different than having a Yamaha DSP effects unit in your living room for your audio system. Sure, it would be fun, but would having all of those cool sound treatments really be an integral part of your listening experience? No, it would still be a gimmick, an effect. 3D is the same.

Dan

[Simon Wyndham]

Haven't Philips said that they aren't interested in actually producing consumer 3D displays until the format war has ended?

[Alister Chapman]

There shouldn't need to be a format war with 3D. Take a look at what YouTube have done with their 3D player. You simply choose from a drop down menu which format you want and the clip is played in the chosen manner on the fly. It will be the same with broadcasters or DVD/BluRay. The signal is encoded, transmitted to a receiver and then the receiver decodes the 3D outputting it in the format that the monitor or TV accepts. The user simply set the receiver to output the signal in the correct manner, even 2D if they want.