HDTV Almanac - 2010: Year of 3DTV?

[alfredpoor]

Hannah Montana and U2 proved it. Chicken Little and UP! proved it. 3D movies are a big hit for Hollywood, and becoming a key part of the industry’s strategic plans. In spite of being available at far fewer cinema screens than traditional 2D movies, the 3D versions consistently pull in more revenue than their flat [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/09/hdtv_almanac_2010_year_of_3dtv.php]Read Column[/url]

[Shane]

Based on what I saw at CEDIA, there's a long way to go. Only JVC had a 3D set that was actually watchable. Sony, Panasonic, DP (digitalprojection) and Mitsubishi all are using an "Active" 3D system with shuttered glasses that is almost unwatchable. It makes your eyes work to hard to see the image and there are all sorts of motion artifacts.

JVC - Good
All others - Not worthy

- Shane

[alfredpoor]

I don't doubt that you saw problems with the sets at CEDIA, but I don't expect that these are fatal flaws that can't be resolved by next year.

First, I do believe that glasses of some sort are the answer, and active glasses are a lot less expensive in the long run than passive, unless you're willing to give up half the screen resolution, and even then active may still be less expensive.

Second, few content producers are using 3D well. We're still locked in the "smell-O-rama" era where it's a gimicky toy that they can't resist playing with. 3D should be like spices in a dish; if you notice it, it's too much. We're still waiting for the Alfred Hitchcock of 3D to come along, but I have great hopes for Cameron's "AVATAR".

Crosstalk between images is a problem with the shutter glasses, and it can make it difficult to watch. I expect it will get better quickly, however, because unlike HD, 3D is an effect that customers can clearly identify and will want if it's done right.

Alfred

[gtyler]

I have pretty poor eyes and have worn glasses since 1st grade. One of my eyes is substantially better than the other and it affects focus. My experience with 3D movies up to this point is - in a word - yawn. The polarized glasses seem to work better than those older green/ red glasses. I have yet to see a demo without having to wear any glasses, but I'd really be interested in that. I expect most consumers would prefer it - even if the effect was not quite as dramatic. I watch most of my content on an LCD front projector showing on a painted 100" wall. I am waiting for a good reason to upgrade my 1366x768 projector. I would like a quieter projector with a higher contrast ratio and 1080p. I can get that today, but I need more of a push before I spend $3k. Now I'm thinking about LED light source and 3D capability. So how long do I have to wait until it's mainstream?

[alfredpoor]

One of the big problems for some people is that their eyes have to focus one place while they aim at another, either closer or further from the focal point. The technical terms are accomodation and vergence, and I'm very susceptible to the problem myself.

You can get 1080p projectors for $1,800 or less these days, but I expect it will be a while before you have many 3D capable models at affordable prices. At this point, I think your only home choice is the DPI DLP projector, which is very expensive. I expect that the projector makers will wait a bit to see how the 3D flat panel sales go first.

Alfred

[gtyler]

Assuming that one of these standards gets widely adopted soon, how much cost does it add to a projector? The manufacturers are looking for a differentiating factor, so I would think that many would take a chance if it's not too expensive.

Let's say I can't wait for 3D to upgrade my projector.

My main issue with my projector was noise.
I was expecting LED projector lighting modules would take off.
Wouldn't they be nearly silent?
Why haven't I heard much about this outside of the LCD flat panels?

[alfredpoor]

LED projectors are taking off rapidly, but for many reasons, high brightness LEDs are still quite expensive compared with other light sources (as is also the case with flat panels). LEDs also produce heat, so you don't eliminate the need for a cooling fan.

3D is not too easy to add to an inexpensive projector. If you use active glasses, you need to be able to strobe the light; this is not easy to do with UHP lamps, but LEDs should be able to handle it. If you use passive glasses, then you need a screen that preserves the polarization, and you need a color-wheel-type polarizer to process the left and right eye images. This has to be synched precisely to the content, which is not trivial. There are solid state (non-mechanical) solutions to the polarizing problem, but this currently is an expensive solution.

As 3D takes hold in flat panels, expect to see the price for it in projectors to come down. But it will take time.

Alfred

[hharris4earthlink]

I can imagine the pitch that was made in corporate board rooms. A chart was displayed that showed profits from theater 3D. People are clamoring for 3D, and this is the proof! Other charts showed projected costs for technology development of home systems against extrapolation of home viewers based on theater viewers. Can we afford to be left behind? We need to act now before our competitors do! Then charts were shown for analogous home system technology development from VHS to Blu-ray. Horror stories were told of companies that got on the band wagon too late.

Now don't get me wrong. I think 3D will eventually serve a niche market in home systems, but not with the current technology. My bet is a future successful home 3D technology will not require glasses and will not cause eyestrain for extended viewing times. That probably means some sort of holographic system which implies some bright engineer has found a way to lower the required enormous holographic bandwidth.

[alfredpoor]

hharris, you make some good points, but I think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Here's the boardroom conversation: We've got 120 Hz refresh, but everyone else does too. We've got high gamut, low energy LED backlights, but everyone else does too. We've got five HDMI ports, super-slim panels, Internet connection, Yahoo! widgets, NetFlix streaming movies, and synthesized surround sound, but so does everyone else. How are we going to differentiate our products? We can add 3D, and it won't cost much, and we can probably charge a premium for it.

And here's next year's boardroom conversation: I know there isn't a lot of 3D content yet, but everyone else has 3D-capable sets, and we need to have it too if we're going to be competitive. And since we're late to the party, we'll offer it at no extra charge. And then they'll all have to match our price.

I don't believe that we'll see autostereoscopic (no glasses) in the home in any significant numbers for at least a dozen years. Starting next year, active glasses solutions will take hold quickly. Consumers are comfortable with the glasses in the theaters, and lots of surveys indicate that it won't be a significant problem for the home. And there are already solutions available that will show full 1080p in 3D (that's full resolution to each eye) and can fit in the ATSC broadcast bandwidth requirements using MPEG-4 compression.

3D will come faster that you might think.

Alfred

[hharris4earthlink]

Alfred, I can think of an analogy that supports your scenario. I was an early adopter of surround sound, and I had to wait until it became the norm for television, but, even so, the added expense was worth it to me because it greatly added to the immersive feeling of a show.

On the other hand, if surround sound had required wearing earphones at first, I don't think I would have been an early adopter. That's where I differ from your scenario.

I can only hope you're right. If even partially successful, it would almost certainly free up development money for my imagined bandwidth-limited holographic system.

Speaking of enhanced television, have you been following Sony's interactive TV development? It's ability to intimately and intelligently interact with the 3D space of the viewer speaks of a future scenario that may be the forerunner of an entirely new role for television: your artificially intelligent partner that not only understands where your body is in 3D space but is able to interact using voice recognition and speech synthesis. I you haven't already, you should check out their demo. In one example, not only does a simulated character on the TV understand human speech, but when a real human hands a paper to a character on the screen, the character was able to read it! (Must be seen to be believed.)