HDTV Almanac - CES 2011: Are TV Makers Doing an “Osborne”?

Alfred,

I think you're 100% correct, on every count. And I'm surprised that others (including the manufs) are not seeing this.

First off, the multiple viewing zones will not work in the typical American home, and will be judged unacceptable. It's too high a price for ditching the glasses. Not even mentioning the loss in HD PQ that is incurred. Trading HDTV for 3DTV is not something I'm willing to do, though admittedly some may.

> I believe that by demonstrating no-glasses 3DTVs, the manufacturers are actually inhibiting the sales of the existing models, while consumers wait for a no-glasses solution that will either be unacceptable or unaffordable (or both!) If you’re waiting for a competitive no-glasses 3DTV for your living room, I believe that you’ve got a long wait ahead of you. <

Yep. People will wait for the holy grail, then when they see what the constraints are will say, "I can't believe I waited for THAT! I thought it was going to be so much better, and it's actually worse". But by then, the damage will have already been done.

Manufacturers are very impatient. They're not seeing the sales volumes they'd like for the current 3DTVs, and have decided that the solution is more options. IT MUST be because people don't like wearing the active glasses. After all, the industry pundits have written time and again that the glasses are "goofy". That must be it. Of course, the fact that there are very few 3D movies available on disc, and very little 3D content elsewhere (e.g. sat), certainly couldn't be the reason that people are reluctant to go out and spend a lot of money now for very little "pay-off"?

So they've decided to shoot themselves in the foot (or some other, more vital body part), by introducing more options. Lots and lots of options. So we'll have active-glasses, passive-glasses, and no-glasses. And several versions of each. Wow! I can't think of a better recipe for the majority of people to just sit things out for a couple years, buy none of the options, and wait for the dust to settle.

You mentioned Osborne (which really dates you because they're absolutely ancient ), but in that situation it was a case of announcing a new product way too early. That killed current sales. In this case, it's more like an issue of mass confusion, of multiple choices. Since no one knows which format will win, they'll buy into none of them. Perhaps another analogy would be quadraphonic sound, which as you may recall added more dimensions in the audio realm, similar to how 3DTV adds another dimension in the visual realm. Despite a lot of hype, quad never took off either, and a big part of that was due to competing formats. History repeats itself.

- Tim

I suggest to look at the 3D subject from a different perspective, not as a confusion but rather as a choice that the wallet, human condition, and style of viewing solves a need for everyone, considering that everyone is different than the other. And ALWAYS as an extra feature.

Some choices are more expensive for those that strive for image quality, some offer a solution to a problem some people have with their sensitivity to the flicker of active shutter technology, or the head inclination/bed viewing, some offer a lower price at lower resolution and the same cheap glasses they use at the local theater (passive polarized), some offer better resolution and image quality (active-shutter) for those that usually do not care for Super Bowl type of group viewing and the extra $150 cost per pair of glasses.

Some people are not ready anyway but would like to see how the various choices evolve in capabilities and price, including auto-stereoscopic 3D, which in theory solves all of the above but TODAY offers a solution that most products have limitations in their first phase of development, such as number of viewers, resolution per view, ability to soften the breaks on the viewing zones (the issue Alfred mentions).

However, the autostereoscopic solution is either a) not available for purchase (NOW), b) its image conditions in some manufacturers is not comparable to the other two solutions (if there is flexibility with wearing 3D glasses), or c) is relatively expensive NOW in some cases. However, price, as always, maybe no object to some that have problems with any kind of glasses, health wise or not.

I suggest opening your minds and rethinking the issues and the alternatives.

Would you rather have the industry push down your throat active-shutter as the only option while keeping passive and glasses-free technologies behind the curtain until they make the call to give you a surprise after you bought your 3DTV and make you feel is too late? Would you rather have someone showing you the improvements and pricing on every technology as they grow so you can make an informed decision at the right time for your exact needs? (And not feel cheated because they did not tell you?).

When 1080i and 480P displays where sold in the first phase of HD, and later 720P displays showed a better picture, and later 1080p displays showed an even better picture, would you rather have hoped for all those technologies to be shown before signing any check if they were actually available in parallel?

Someone viewing from far away may had made an informed decision of 480p or 720p is good enough, no need to fork out the dollars for a 1080p if the resolution cannot be seen from that distance (or to the eyes at any distance), others having the need for higher resolution might have said “I just bought my 720P projector because I had no choice, it was the best it was at that time, and now manufacturer XX comes out a while later with a 1080p projector when that is what I need it in the first place?

I suggest extending the scope of your research; you will find out that the hugging couple would actually not have any trouble with this:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/01/glassesfree-3d-at-ces-2011-improving-but-no-cigar-except-for-the-queen-of-ces.php

And they will have much less problem with a 47” panel with a 27views image and seamless breaks between the viewing zones (on the works).

Ultimately, it is the couple’s decision to choose price and technology to meet their needs, and for that they need choices, and a press that informs the whole story whithout personal steering.

However, after so much hugging I anticipate their TV viewing would be for only 5 minutes before they proceed to enjoy a better part of their lives, in 3D, without glasses.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Rodolfo,

good points, and I would certainly prefer to know all the options, rather than have them hidden. But what this really highlights is that 3D in general is far from "ready for prime-time", IMO. In spite of the fact that it's being sold and promoted (way too early, from my perspective).

In no area is that clearer than the lack of HD content. Case in point, I already own a fully-functional 3D-capable 61" screen. Last pre-Christmas, I considered adding a 3D-Blu-ray player, a couple sets of glasses, and buying every halfway decent 3D movie on the market (obviously NOT those limited by exclusive contracts to specific platforms). The number of movies was so small (at that time) that the total cost amounted to almost $100/movie! That's WAY out of line (for me anyway). Since then, a few more releases have appeared on Blu-ray, but the costs would still be ~$70 per film. What they need to do is increase the size of the denominator in that equation significantly (get lots more 3D films out on Blu-ray), to make that equation work.

I'm willing to wait a year (or two, or three) for that to happen. In the meantime, I'm keeping my wallet closed.

- Tim

BTW, there's another glasses-free technology soon to appear, that involves "blinking really fast". I kid you not. According to a news-piece on Engadget, a pair of small electrical stimulators cause your eyelids to open and close in sync with the screen images.

While this does remove the glasses from the equation, eliminating chroma-shifts and loss of brightness from polarizers and LCD shutters, I'm not so sure it's something that will be safe or good for you in the long run. Or maybe even in the short run. It seems like a serious abuse of the neuro-muscular system.

- Tim

My first post responded to the first issue of the thread: parallelism in product manufacturing, which, as expressed, some preferred to have only one option and not know about the parallel options/technology. I am now responding to your content availability issue.

In Nov 1998, and for the following couple of years, HDTV was in the same boat than 3D now, very few content, chicken and egg situation, but that did not stop me (and many millions) from experimenting with the technology, the antennas, reception, DirecTV, etc.

Most people started to consider HDTV after several years after its introduction when the prices were a quarter of what we paid. By then all networks had prime time content, DirecTV, Dish Network and even Cable (which was slow at the start) joined and a viewer can see more HD on a daily basis, not just upscaled DVD, which was the primary driver on the first couple of years, when little HD content was available, but the scaling of the TV to 1080i (line-doubling at that time) of a 480i DVD was a major plus (no external scaler was required, saving $0000!).

Use that perspective. The first 3DTVs appeared just a few months ago in 2010; those are actually good quality HDTVs with additional 3D features. Use also that factor in your evaluation. Would lacking content persuade me from buying an HDTV for $10,000 in 1998/9? No. Neither I would discourage others to do the same if their soul was an early-adopter’s soul and they wanted a new TV, Neither would I push others to buy something they are not ready for. Most early-adopters would say “Just sit and enjoy every minute of good quality image of whatever content is out there, it will grow eventually and by then you would be ready hardware-wise”.

As you know all new technology at the beginning is expensive and immature. There was a difference between being a late-follower and an early-adopter in HDTV. 3D repeats that. Should I persuade you to buy a 3DTV or content you cannot afford or cannot enjoy often enough? No, the same goes in the opposite direction, it becomes a personal choice based on what is valuable for your case, for the price you are paying or can afford, and when you are doing it, as a passion or just watch TV.

In the mean time, journalism should inform the whole and clear story, the choices, why those choices exist, the technology differences, etc. in a neutral way, and stay away from pushing consumers down the path they personally would choose for their own homes/pockets/preference, especially if they are not fully informed.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo