Sony HDR-TD10 3D camcorder announced at CES

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

In a few years time almost every TV sold will probably be 3D capable, whether you choose to add the glasses or not is another question. Just like today when it's almost impossible to buy an SD TV, yet not everyone subscribes to, or has an HD service.

Exactly so, Alister, and this is the point that a lot of people may be missing.

In the past, a new technology has meant completely new hardware, typically inherently more expensive than what it replaces, and may compromise viewing of what went before.

Colour TV is a good example. The early sets were more expensive, power hungry, less reliable than monochrome Tvs of the period, and the registration errors meant they weren't as good for viewing black and white material as a "true" monochrome receiver.

3D is not like that. Fundamentally the receivers are the same, and having a 3D TV does not affect it's 2D performance. The only difference is the ability to synchronise shuttering with two inputs signals, and there's no technical reason why that should add anything appreciable to the price. So yes, in a very short space of time, expect virtually all the sets on sale to be "3D capable". It may even be in manufacturers interests to make the basic price CHEAPER than non-3D capable equivalents - and hope to more than make up the difference on selling the extras such as glasses. ("Well, we weren't really going to buy a 3D TV, but it was cheaper, and then we thought, you know, since we've got it it seems kinda silly not to have a couple of pairs of glasses just to try it out.......")

Yes, I think it'll be a long time before the majority of viewing happens in 3D, but what I'm hearing from the younger members of my family (the ones that play computer game) is that they can't wait until the gaming industry really embraces 3D. I'm also hearing that the technology enables such things as playing a multi-player game with each player seeing their own point of view on the same screen.

This is all apart from the industrial, scientific, medical uses that may come about. Even if people aren't asking for it, maybe it might make sense to promote it, especially for such as weddings? Obviously with a 2D copy as well!

[Mark OConnell]

3D makes total sense for the gamers. That's the one place where it can really add significantly to the experience. Hollywood's embrace of 3D will probably, ironically, drive even more entertainment dollars to the game industry. For the majority of the content on TV at this time I don't think that 3D would really add anything.

[Dave Blackhurst]

That simple phrase hits the nail - "really add significantly to the experience".

Since a fair number of people have ADVERSE reactions to 3D, in some ways it's a NEGATIVE until the tech is sorted out so it doesn't cause "side effects". I've looked at a couple different 3DTV's, I actually found the Panasonic to be sort of intriguing - the demo was good enough to draw me in, and eyestrain wasn't noticeable... the Sony I looked at, SOME of the content was OK, but one part of the demo I HAD to take the glasses off!

It's a pretty good chance that the price differential will narrow or disappear fairly rapidly, but until the glasses "disappear" and you're walking past a 3DTV in the store and go "WHOA", it's going to be a tougher sell than what the manufacturers wish. Here's my take on "barriers to adoption".

Glasses - first, you have to get the potential buyer or "purchase influencer" to put those things ON, and there's some reluctance.

Adverse effects - enough of the population that would buy these toys has issues with watching 3D - myself and brother in law both have "issues", and would be the "ideal customer profile". So no 3DTV sales there, and we each influence our own sphere of "non-techies".

Price - I agree with the "if it costs the same, why not?" argument - IMO one of the reasons BR has been so slow to be picked up is the additional cost over a perfectly satisfactory DVD player for the "average" buyer. HD does look really significantly better if the entire signal/data chain is properly optimized, but even SD looks better now that HD is at more points in the chain.


3D will have to have some compelling selling proposition, and IMO right now it doesn't - I've watched a number of movies that were released in 3D, on DVD, in 2D - I don't think I missed anything, and the movies were likely equally enjoyable in 2D on a DVD as they would be in 3D.

But to return to the origins of this thread, the consumer can shortly go into a store and have SEVERAL 3D consumer cameras to choose from, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Sony TD10 on the national and local news coverage of CES in the last couple days - if I could throw a "3D stick" at a 3DTV, I'd have probably hit a TD10 onscreen!

The introduction of these cameras is making a strong impression, and the idea that the consumer can create 3D content just as easily as 2D, and at a relatively low price point may push 3D toward the tipping point. I think it's significant that the TD says you can view the 3D on the camera's screen (presuming it works... it doesn't work well on the P&S Sony I've got...). Right off the bat, that will make people want a "tee vee" that doesn't need glasses...