The auto-stereoscopic (glasses-free) 3DTV technology is usually criticized by many in the press, especially those that have only seen the first generations of prototypes. The negative comments are mainly about the limited number of viewing positions, the low resolution of the image on each viewing zone (eye) and the disruption of the 3D effect when changing positions.
"For those reasons I understand many may feel that it could take several years for auto-stereoscopic 3DTVs to be available at nationwide retail chains at competitive pricing that is comparable to current glasses-required 3DTVs . . . "
I seriously doubt lower price would trump the inferior viewing experience. Current 3D TV is a hard sell even when working perfectly because of the glasses requirement and the eyestrain that occurs when you're focusing on an object that only appears to be where you're focusing. The main problem with auto-stereoscopic 3D is it requires your head to be held steadily in one position to get the effect. (Imagine doing that for two hours!) There are head-tracking systems that eliminate that restraint, but that limits the number of possible viewers to one.
The danger here is that multiple 3D TV concepts, some of which work badly at best, will sour the entire market.
IMHO what we really need is an inexpensive way to do 3D holograms. (As a side note, I was amused when Star Wars showed future holographic TV as performing at only low resolution, rightly anticipating the massive holographic data stream required.)
You did not say where you got lost on the quoted paragraph.
I repeat, one thing is the readiness of auto-stereoscopic for retail at a competitive price, which as I said it will take time; but another thing is the readiness as a technology without the problems seen in most prototypes, which will take much less time, and judging by 3DFusion not for too long, they are doing it now for digital signage and working on it for the home.
The quality issues you mention were mentioned in the article and my recommendation to you is the same I did at the end of the article: visit technology advances in Asia (i.e. Taiwan’s AUO) and other parts of the world, visit 3DFusion in NYC, or visit a 3D show where they may show their technology, then you will realize that generalizing about those problems across the industry is not accurate.
On the next articles I cover the subject of multiple technologies you mention (and I disagree with your statement), and how I consider 3D as just a feature of an HDTV for now, but mainly as one innovation step toward a future display technology; holography could be part of it, although the prototypes I have seen showed the current limitations on how to record the multiple volumetric views and how to display them, in a practical manner, for other than digital signage of simple objects for advertising.
I'm sure there are TVs out there now that address many of the problems I've mentioned, but there's one problem with 3D TV that can never be solved because of its very nature. This isn't a trivial problem, and in my estimation it could very well kill the whole concept. The problem occurs when the eyes are focusing on an image that isn't actually in the position you've tricked the brain to think it is. (It isn't nice to fool mother nature.) James Cameron partially solved this problem by putting the object that would normally be focused on in the plane of the screen and, of course, that can be done with TV also. But that's only a band-aid solution that reduces the resulting eye-strain but does not eliminate it. As much I like the idea of 3D TV, for this reason I'm afraid this problem could very well be a time-bomb that could sink the entire concept until the day holography becomes affordable.
Your position seems to endorse the idea that the CE industry and the consumers must sit on the current HD technology for decades and do nothing until holography is made practical and economical for the home.
3DTV is only one step between those two points, and the step permits the industry and consumers to adapt and learn from the lessons and mistakes to take the following step and improve upon. There is no sense in holding all the evolving steps in a lab for decades until holography arrives.
As a consumer you are free to ignore all the in between products and patiently wait until such time, if you are still alive, I do not. Other consumers rather take every step as a good opportunity to gradually replace the various TVs at home when they are due for replacement, others may ignore some of those steps if their TVs do not need replacement at such points and there is no motivation to spend on unneeded sets.
Cameron used depth with caution to make the 3D experience a pleasure rather than risking discomfort. The issue of the variation between the focus point and the convergence point, which does not occur on viewing real life (although with certain exceptions), is “part” of the reason some viewers claimed fatigue or visual discomfort, but at least 80% of the viewers were satisfied with the 3D experience.
However, some issues can be produced by vision problems a person naturally has and was undetected until 3D was shown to them, which could also explain learning disabilities, work limitations for certain jobs such as assembly lines, medical, surgery, astronaut, etc., and 3D may provide a beneficial tool to help people identify those problems and improve their way of life, not as just an entertainment objective.
I attended yesterday a Symposium by the American Optometrist Association and 3D @ Home Consortium in NYC where they joined efforts to help the public with science and facts about 3D and vision health, rather than uninformed negativism.
You admit there is a problem and then claim most people will be satisfied and scientific objections are merely negativism? As I explained, current 3D methodology subjects the hunan eye and brain to conditions that it has not evolved to process. That alone should ring some alarm bells. It's true personal discomfort will vary dependent on viewing time and the skill and methodology of the producer. As I mentioned, James Cameron's specific methodology seemed to work well for most people in the context of a two-hour movie. But 3D over long periods of time such as that expected in viewing a television set is almost certainly a disaster waiting to happen.
However I have an open mind. If you want to refute this objection, please list scientific, peer-reviewed papers that support your conjecture. Articles written by people who are not scientists and especially those with connections to the business of television need not apply. Name calling is even less convincing.
I do not think you are reading with a clear mind either the series of articles or the posts.
I said clearly that there are issues 5-20% of people claimed when viewing 3DTV or 3D at the local theater. The “ring the bell” you mentioned is an event that already happened and I provided a link to the Symposium that addressed this particular issue on the post right before this one, are you reading?
Most of the information out there is not based on scientific research. Companies like LG Display claimed they did research at CES 2011 for their switch from active-shutter to passive glasses but the research did not conclude that 3DTV was to be generally avoided for daily 3DTV viewing, and I also reported and shown the posters of their findings on my other articles on this series:
The Symposium above declared that they will perform research and public education/tests on theaters and TVs for people to self-identify if they have a problem and go to the doctor to determine if they have a vision/health problem that 3D brought to surface (and 3DTV may actually be the lesser of their problems).
This is why the 3D & Home Consortium established the joined effort with the American Optometrist Association, and the Team 5 of the consortium was formed to exclusively address the vision/heath issues of 3DTV, which is lead by a professionally-life-long-expert from Intel about the subject.
Instead of me providing again all the information that is already published and you can read, why don’t you provide scientific information that proves that daily viewing of 3DTV is not scientifically/factually healthy for the majority of the population and because of that 3DTV should be discontinued?
Your position (“almost certainly a disaster”, as you said) is based on your personal opinion and perception that convergence/focus disparity causes a generalized problem to the whole population. My position continuous to be that issues have been identified (reportedly by 5-10% of viewers) regardless of the 3D glasses they use, some of those were found to have natural vision problems that 3D fortunately brought to the surface (not caused), and due to that the scientific/research steps mentioned above have started.
I'm wondering when we evolved to watch 3d simulations on 2d surfaces (any non-3d movie or TV), or even to read on a flat surface? Given that the former has only been around for about 100 years and the latter about 500 (since Guttenberg) we have not had time to evolve to either. And both can tire the eyes - especially when either is poorly done. And both are tricking the brain to focus on a fixed plane when naturally we focus and converge in a constant dynamic (not fixing the eye muscles on the one plane).
No I am not so naieve to have missed the lessor percentage issue of people who do not adjust to 3d (I have not read the AOA article so I will stop here).
Now, for a real question - would, or does holographic projection prevent the 3d issue? In my first thoughts, it would seem that the light is not focused in space, it only appears to be. It is actually emanating from the surface (or depth of the thin holograph's material) Thus even a holograph would present the same issue - the focal plane is flat. I will go research.
I have worked in the field of 3D viewing for over 10 years. In that time, I have made a couple of annodotal observations. More research should be done.
1. 3D viewing gets easier and less stressful the longer you are exposed to it. As others have pointed out the focus plane (the screen) and where the object is located are different. Our brain is used to modifying the eye muscles to focus in at the depth of the object. At first this can be stressful and some people have trouble with it. However, over time the brain seems to adapt and 3D becomes less stressful.
2. About 20% of people have difficulty with 3D viewing. Some people see it, but don't like it. Some people have depth perception problems in real life. Some get around this by moving there head. However, this doesn't work with today's 3D viewing. Some people have problems seperating focus from location. It is not clear if these people can be trained in 3D viewing.
3. 3D should not be the focus of the material. The focus should be on the story you are telling. 3D just enhances the story, just like sounds, music, cinematography, special effects, etc. do.
Good timing, most of your observations were mentioned by the doctors on the 3D Vision and Health Symposium I attended last week at SUNNY College of Optometry.
Some additional factors that were mentioned is that viewing 3D can also help determine if the eye muscles are operating as they should, many vision deficiencies could be corrected if addressed on time, but unfortunately many others cannot after the window of correction closes.
For example, only 7% of children younger than 7 years of age were subjected to eye exams. The majority of exams people take pass as healthy when they are not (I believe that number was about 75% of false success).
The overall consensus of the Optometrist presentations is that the system is broken and 3D viewing can and should be used as an opportunity that can let people identify issues that could bring them to the Dr. when otherwise they would not, as simple as asking someone if they view depth on a 3D image test.
3 to 9 million people that experienced 3D were identified to have health issue problems, and a vast majority of people do not check their vision because they feel they do not have problems with it.
I touched this subject with the lead presenter (the Dr. that will actually perform further research on 3D), I told him that my view on this is that the sample has to be extended, the 9 million people may be the 20% (of about 40 million) that may have experienced 3D, but the sample covers about 10% of the US population (40 of about 350 million).
I asked him to consider evaluating if the 20% ratio will grow (or reduce) when the other 300 million in the US that did not yet experience 3D actually do (at home or at the theater). After witnessing the presentations by these doctors my primary concern is not about 3D as a feature on a TV, but actually about so many millions of people that have abandoned their vision when 80% of the human learning is related to vision and they do not know they have a problem.
Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri are the only 3 states that require eye exams for children entering school. Many children are treated with prescription drugs for reading/learning/attention disabilities when the source of the problem could actually be vision related, and 3D could help them and their parents identify issues informally on their own, which could trigger a doctor’s visit and an opportunity to hopefully correct the problems on time and enhance their quality of life.
Regarding holography, one of the doctors briefly mentioned that the issue of disparity of points of convergence and focus that makes the brain and eye muscles to work differently in 3D viewing (than real life objects viewing) is not believed to be existing in holography, but more research is needed.
Another front they are planning to open (to bring more people to test their vision) is to work with the health insurance industry to include vision exams as part of their plans.
I agree with you about the use of 3D for story-telling and not using 3D as a show off tool to sell movie tickets. Along those lines one of the presenters said that imaging 5 to 20 feet away should be used as sweet spot to avoid forcing the extreme viewing of the content. I do not have handy the details of Cameron’s Avatar filming technique but judging by the mild 3D effect on the movie I would assume he was within those parameters.
If I am still alive by the time holography becomes a practical consumer product I will probably be covering the subject as I am doing with 3D over the past couple of years (and HD since the 80s).
The article you mention was already responded by others in the industry several weeks ago.
Neither the article nor the responses to that article provide the evidence you have been asking for, to support or negate your opinion of “disaster waiting to happen” with scientific facts and research.
The “case closed” can only happen when that kind of evidence is available, and as disclosed on the Symposium above, vision Doctors and the 3D&Home Consortium are working on it and hopefully we will have feedback soon.
No one questioned your mental health. Please keep the exchanges factual and respectful.
I sympathize with the industry. A huge amount of money has been bet on this technology, and a lot of investors stand to lose a lot of money, but the reality is, and I'm speaking as a retired NASA scientist here, they went into this without really understanding the science and, compounding the problem, they're trying to demonize people who would stand in the way of profits, a strategy that is highly unprofessional to say the least. You have a lot of nerve to lecture me on the subject.
The basic problem is we're asking the brain to work overtime in a way it was not evolved to perform. It works for awhile, but then come the headaches . . .
Not to say that the technology can't work for short periods of time. It can. But for regular viewing? Give me a break. I've always been a 3D buff. When I was a teenager I loved 3D comics and even experimented with it at home. But this technology is a time bomb that will go off eventually and investors would be well advised to bail while there's still time.
hh - no one is requiring anyone to do anything they do not want to do, or to watch anything that gives them headaches, or to watch 3D TV all the time.
There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage.
There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience.
The article you are referring to, refers to a Cinematographer who is primarily a SOUND guy. While he may film and edit and design sound - he has no expertise in the viewing of movies in the context of the inner workings of the human eye-brain interface (that we know of). His opinion was shoved in our face by a fine movie reviewer - that is not known for any other expertise.
What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags.
I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much. But I seriously doubt I would watch more than specific 3D created movies or shows. This simply because of the ~20' effect. After that, it's all more or less 2D anyway even if object are slightly moving around (we are mostly focusing at one point). The real effects are mostly in close ups. I don't want to watch anything that was not designed and story appropriate for that.
And in the end. Who are these investors that are going to suffer? And what company has bet the farm? Heck if Toshiba didn't implode over HD DVD what expenditure will take to cause damage here? I have no idea of the numbers but I serious doubt that dangerous amounts have been invested. Chips and glasses for the most part and for TV transmission encoding.
If you want truly horrible customer experience, protest Cloverfield and the shake technique. They Should have issued Barf bags for that one - almost everyone I know got sick.
"hh - no one is requiring anyone to do anything they do not want to do, or to watch anything that gives them headaches, or to watch 3D TV all the time."
So if someone markets a drug, say, that turns out to have a deadly side effect, the companies manufacturing the drug could claim, hey, we didn't require you to actually take the drug? We just put it out there. It's not our fault if you actually took it. Guess what would happen if they actually used that argument.
I don't think you understand the concept of consumer protection in the USA. It's proactive which means the government can takes steps to prevent harm before it happens.
"There is no evidence that anyone is subtley suffering from 3D TV such that the government needs to regulate it. Unlike things like cigarettes where we were lied to and it takes years and years to do damage."
It's true that watching 3D TV won't kill you so it's not in the same category as cigarettes. It is true the government did not stop cigarette smoking, instead they used the deadly addiction as a profitable revenue stream for the benefit of the rich. Analogously I suppose the government could tax 3D and claim they were protecting the public while supporting the wealthy manufactures. More likely 3D TV will be a short-lived phenomenon. It's hard to enjoy something that makes your eyes hurt.
"There is no evidence anyone has been handcuffed to their chair to watch 3D, nor that any but a smaller percentage gets anymore than irritated by it. No evidence there is a class action suite pending for people feeling slighted by the experience."
Nobody handcuffed people to a chair to make them smoke either, but they still died from cancer. It's a little early for a class action suit. 3D TV has only just begun, so that's a non-argument. The problem with 3D TV is it subverts the normal brain-eye vision system into something it has not evolved to do. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
"What we do know is that many of us have watched lots of 3D movies and bought lots of 3D TVs and NO ONE is being force to buy or watch them. The market is proving that the people are happy enough to tell their friends and the market is building. They do not have to watch in 3D. They don't even have to watch lousy post production 3D. But the movie market is proving that this is not a problem. 3D is doing EXTREMELY well. Without having to issue barf bags."
I've read that about 300,000 sets have been sold, mainly Samsung. (Somebody correct me if this isn't correct.) According to what I've read on professional websites, the 3D market is largely still untapped. I've gone to several mainstream stores and noticed a very strange behavior. Six months ago, the stores typically wouldn't give me a demo saying their existing sets (or glasses) weren't working. (This was in LA.) Now they'll give me a very short demo and then quickly stop it after a few minutes. You tell me what that means. I didn't like even the short demo. It was dark and strobey.
"I personally have not purchased a 3D TV nor watched much."
Yeah, I kinda figured that.
I'll only respond to the last comment - the rest of my comments can be reviewed in their contexts.
I do not depend on my personal experience for objective comments, only subjective. I try to look at the bigger picture, broader evidence. And I do not see any evidence that 3D is either injuring, particularly annoying people (beyond those who can not adapt), nor is there any evidence it is damaging to the human system.
On my own experience I have seen my daughter nearly throw up at a showing of Avatar, but that was because of a screening in a non-specified theater. That is, it was on a white screen not a silver screen and it was very dark, could not saturate the eyes and was flickery. Ugly and exacerbated the issues. But that theater was sold to a reputable firm who updated all the projectors and screens. And now their RealD is great.
Interesting that you seem pro-goverment intervention. I though in our previous discussions you lean a bit conservative and would not be interested in that. I guess we'll get to learn more of each other over time.
"On my own experience I have seen my daughter nearly throw up at a showing of Avatar"
You certainly make a compelling case for 3D. But seriously, enough of the negatives. We should look for solutions, and I believe there is one on the horizon. (I have no personal connection to what I'm about to recommend.)
See the paper "Digital Holographic Data Reconstruction with Data Compression" by Takanori Nomura (and others) as an example of what I'm about to recommend.
Obviously holography would be the ideal way to show 3D in the living room but there's a problem. The movie "Star Wars" forecast future television as holography, but even in Lucas's high-tech vision the resolution was iffy, a recognition of the enormous bandwidth a true holographic image requires. (Well, there was also the problem of interstellar distances if you want to quibble .) The solution to this is to perform some heavy duty data compression. I believe this may be our ultimate solution to 3D image transmission. No glasses are required with holography and, as the paper claims, both high image quality and high compression ratios can be maintained with lower data rates.
But seriously, enough of the negatives. We should look for solutions, and I believe there is one on the horizon. (I have no personal connection to what I'm about to recommend.)