HDTV Almanac - 3DTV Shipment Forecasts Increase

[alfredpoor]

The market research firm DisplaySearch is now forecasting that about 3.4 million 3DTVs will be shipped in 20210, for about a 5% share of the total worldwide HDTV market. One of its competitors in the display market research business is iSupply, which now predicts that about 4.2 million 3DTVs will ship this year. DisplaySearch’s prediction [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/07/hdtv-almanac-3dtv-shipment-forecasts-increase.php]Read Column[/url]

[peter m. wilson]

Hi,

I suggest that by 2014 all tv shipments will be 3D capable. It would take the confusion out of the marketplace, and encourage the developers of software and programming to accelerate 3D products.

Peter M.

[alfredpoor]

I expect that you're right, but only because the cost delta for 3D-capable will be close to zero by then (just as it is for 1080p over 720p for most flat panel TVs already). I would be surprised if more than 50% of them will be used for 3D, and the enormous installed base of legacy displays will mean that backward compatibility with 2D displays will be required for quite a while.

Alfred

[miller]

I suggest that by 2014 all tv shipments will be 3D capable. It would take the confusion out of the marketplace, and encourage the developers of software and programming to accelerate 3D products.

Interesting. If I might pose a few counter-points (my own opinions/observations):

- Glasses to watch TV? Maybe in the theater you can get away with it, but sitting at home with the wife/family? I don't think so. And for group events with friends (Super Bowl, etc.), I just don't see it happening.

- Shutter-effect. I can't do it. I can't watch more than a minute or two without going all buggy-eyed. And 5 minutes or more starts to give me a headache.

- Immersiveness. I get into movies, and TV shows. 3D needs to augment the experience, not get in the way of it. Why do all the directors/producers/etc think they need to throw things in your face all of a sudden, just because there's 3D?

I would not be sad if 3D fizzled and died. Don't tie up cable/satellite/broadcast bandwidth with 3D rubbish. Sorry if this is not a popular opinion on this board, but that's how I see it.

Just my 2 cents,

- Miller

[alfredpoor]

Don't tie up cable/satellite/broadcast bandwidth with 3D rubbish.
- Miller

I'm always happy to hear anyone's two cents, especially if they make me reexamine my current position on a subject.

Note that there are 3D encoding systems available that do not require any additional bandwidth than what's required for ATSC HD broadcasts. Even at full resolution for both eyes, H.264 compression with "2Dplus delta" (the left image plus just the differences for the right image) generally results in a smaller data stream than MPEG2 for a full resolution 2D image.

And if this mode is used, then the "delta" data can be ignored and you get a perfect 2D image, so backward compatibility is made pretty simple.

Alfred

[miller]

Yes, but most HD channels are in MPEG4 now, not MPEG2 (at least from cable/sat.). So comparing an MPEG4-compressed 3D transmission to an MPEG2 HD (non-3D) transmission is not necessarily apples to apples.

I get the concept, but that "delta" still takes up space. Full res 3D HD = Full res 2D HD + Delta > Full res 2D HD.

And that's assuming that the broadcasters choose to implement this potentially most-efficient method (if that is the case). Traditionally though, broadcasters do what's best for the pocketbook/shareholders, not what's best for the consumer's immersiveness (i.e. resolution).

I just don't see the added value of 3D, even at no $$ cost. There are still other costs I'm not willing to pay.

I will say that I do see added value for gaming systems ... perhaps even sports, although those can sometimes be group affairs, which don't really lend themselves well to 3D.

Imagine this: A gaming system that supports 3D output, but having the option to show either a 3D image, or two separate 2D images (if you're playing with another person). For co-op game play, this "dual view" concept using 3D technology could be VERY cool. I wonder if anyone's going that direction yet. THAT, I would pay a premium for.

- Miller

[alfredpoor]

most HD channels are in MPEG4 now, not MPEG2 (at least from cable/sat.).
- Miller

I'm not arguing the value of 3D. I happen to like it when it's done right and think it adds value to the experience of some of the programming that I like, including sports. But I get it that other people don't care, or actively don't like it.

As for the point I was making, I was very careful about my comparison. To me, the ATSC channel bandwidth requirements are the reasonable standard. Sure, satellite and some cable services are now using MPEG4, but they're still squeezing the heck out of the signal and it shows. I don't have the facts, but I expect that they are allocating quite a lot less than the ATSC requirement to their channels. So yes, maybe 3D will cause even more trouble for cable and satellite services which have to struggle to cram as much programming as they can through a narrow pipe. Over the air does not have this limitation, and so I'm willing to hold that up as the standard that should be an acceptable bandwidth requirement. And using that standard, 3D can be done today in full resolution without losing any additional image quality to compression.

Alfred