HDTV Almanac - 3D HDTV Is Unstoppable

[alfredpoor]

I don’t know exactly how it will happen, or even whether or not I think it’s a good idea, but brace yourself; 3D television is coming to a living room near you. Just as the local cinema created demand for the color television and stereo sound (and later, surround sound) that are now standard features [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/08/hdtv_almanac_3d_hdtv_is_unstoppable.php]Read Column[/url]

[tvman]

Will 3D need glasses?

[alfredpoor]

Excellent question. Most analysts seem to be of the opinion that 3D can't succeed unless it is "autostereoscopic", which means no glasses needed. Based on what I know about human vision physiology, I cannot see how 3D can succeed without glasses. In fact, I envision a possible future where 3D glasses become as much a part of our personal hardware configuration as a Bluetooth headset. So my answer is yes, glasses will be required.

Alfred

[miller]

Am I alone in thinking that 3D should just go away? Sure, it's cool, but it's just too much work. I'd much rather sit down with a good DVD or Blu-ray and enjoy the movie, than to be distracted by a 3D picture.

And like tvman alluded to ... who wants to wear glasses to watch a movie if you don't have to?

I've tried 3D on many occasions, and I just can't seem to get immersed enough in the film as I can just watching "regular" old Blu-ray or DVD.

And a side note: If the movie industry is trying to leverage 3D as a way to get people back to the theaters ... they shouldn't be charging more for the 3D showings than a regular showing. Especially since most of the movies out right now are Disney in 3D ... who's going to spend $60-$80 to take their family to see a 3D movie?

Personally, I'd rather pay more for the 2D version, but maybe that's just me.

Just my 2 cents

- Miller

[alfredpoor]

Miller, you and I are not far apart on this. I'm very susceptible to some of the eyestrain effects of 3D displays, and would agree that to this point, the technology has been used more for novelty than dramatic effect.

But that's changing. Just as Hollywood went overboard with other technologies when they first came out -- color, wide screens, surround sound -- it will take time for the cinematographers to learn to use the effects judiciously to support the story telling. The fact is that the hardware for filming and post-produciton is improving rapidly, and the movie makers are going to move beyond the sensational use of 3D effects. But I do believe that they are becoming more skilled, just as they have with computer-generated content, and that in time 3D will enhance the immersion effect of a movie. I'm looking forward to seeing what Cameron will do with AVATAR.

As for whether or not people are willing the spend more for 3D in a local cinema, while you and I may not be in that market segment, the sales figures leave no doubt that a significant portion are quite willing to pay more for 3D.

Alfred

[alfredpoor]

I have been invited to speak to the Philadelphia Area Computer Society (PACS) about 3D HDTV on Saturday, December 19, 2009, from noon to 1 PM. If you're in the Philadelphia area and would like to attend, more information is available at <a href="http://pacsnet.org/meetings.php">http://pacsnet.org/meetings.php</a>.

Alfred

[akirby]

We just saw UP! in 3D and I have to admit that I actually forgot it was in 3D - there were no overt 3D special effects (at least none that I can remember) to distract you from the movie itself. I thought it was very well done and that this was the future of 3D movies.

That said, I don't think I would go out of my way for it, either - and I don't like the idea of having to wear glasses all the time.

I do think it could be a huge advantage in the video game world though.

[alfredpoor]

I haven't seen UP! yet, but I've heard that it made masterful use of 3D effects, or at least what passes for "masterful" to this point. Keep in mind that once objects get beyond a dozen feet in front of us, stereovision becomes the least important source of depth cues, so it really doesn't take much "3D" effect to be plenty.

As for gaming, 3D does not offer as much of an advantage as you might think, and it can actually hinder play. I'm not a serious gamer, but the 3D effects won't let you "see around" an obstacle, even though it feels like it should. Images with multiple view points -- such as holograms -- will let you do this, but your typical game only takes a 2D image and then applies depth information to that data. Even this creates a significant additional load on the system processing power, with the result that your display might be some milliseconds slower than you competition's 2D image. And in some games, that's enough of a handicap to get you fragged.

Alfred

[akirby]

I was thinking more of race games like Gran Turismo where the depth perception might help. And I understand that it would probably take a huge leap in technology to render it real time.