3DTV Technologies – Which one for you?

[Rodolfo]

As mentioned on the previous article, 3DTV is being implemented by different technologies. According to some the approach causes unnecessary confusion, asserting that the various technologies may eliminate themselves if consumers decide they’d rather not spend on 3D when not knowing what to buy.

I see the choices of technologies as solutions to various issues and preferences people naturally have. A consumer may not...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/03/3dtv-technologies-which-one-for-you.php]Read Article[/url]

[jbowen01]

The entire 3D issue is just NOT an issue for me.....I have seen 3D in a friend's home media room and I just don't see how that will ever match the experience in the theater. I would much prefer to see the focus on larger, lighter (cheaper) flat panels. A honestly the 3D content basically sucks.....other than the Pixar films.

[720pete]

Rodolfo, you make some excellent points in your article. But there are very real problems implementing 3D, as opposed to the difficulties that HDTV experienced during its roll-out. (Remember, even a cyclops and a pirate with an eye patch can still enjoy 100% of an HDTV signal!

There are numerous reasons why 3D continues to roll out slowly. But several 2010 research studies showed that consumers perceive there to be a 'format war' in 3D (a la HD DVD vs. Blu-ray, ATSC vs. DVB, etc) and that it would keep them on the sidelines for a while. Whether that is a valid reason or just an excuse is hard to say.

We do know from numerous studies that there is an objection to wearing expensive powered eyewear to watch 3D, which is not the experience people have when they go to movie theaters. If you stop in at Best Buy and other retailers, you will see all of the damage sustained by active shutter glasses in day-to-day demo use. There's no expectation that kids would be any lighter on AS glasses. So that is a valid concern, as is the 'incompatible with other brands of 3D TVs' issue (even though that has 100% to do with IR signaling codes and nothing else).

Now, VIZIO, LG, and JVC are saying that consumers can watch 3D without AS glasses, and can in fact use less-expensive passive micropol eyewear from movie theaters. That is a lot more appealing message to consumers - just bring the glasses home from the theater, and if you break them, you can easily get more pairs for little expense. Never mind that passive 3D is a half-resolution format; the lower cost is the hook here. Of course, passive eyewear is incompatible with active shutter systems (a 'format war').

Toshiba's decision to push autostereo is, to me, motivated by the fact that they missed out on the active shutter game, even though they showed a ton of AS 3D LCD TV demos at CES a year ago. Toshiba's market share in LCD TV is small - not even in the top 5 worldwide, and barely in the top 6 in the USA - so going it alone down the autostereo road is one way to differentiate themselves from everyone else. And of course, their selling point ("you don't need any 3D glasses at all!") serves to muddy the waters even more for potential buyers of 3D TVs.

The eye disorder issues are another problem, and a real one at that. The 3D @Home Consortium is having an afternoon seminar on eye and health issues with 3D next Tuesday in NYC. I plan to be there, as there is so much we have to learn about 3D and some people's inability to watch it without headaches, nausea, disorientation, etc. Based on the studies I've seen so far by reputable researchers (Like Dr. Martin Banks of Cal-Berkeley), it would appear that least 15% of the population cannot watch 3D TV at all (and also 3D movies) due to a host of reasons. And that number may be higher.

When you put this all together - incompatible, expensive glasses; incompatible 3D viewing systems, health and eye disorders - none of which were ever problems for the conversion from SDTV to HDTV - you can understand why the public has been very hesitant to embrace 3D, let along pay a premium for it in a new TV. The slow roll-out of 3D content has also been a drag on the format. We may be 6-8 years or more before there is a substantial adoption of 3D viewing on a regular basis - it will take that long to turn over enough new TVs with 3D functionality built-in to drive adoption.

[Rodolfo]

Pete,

Even your Cyclops or your pirate with one eye can still see enough visual clues to detect some depth without the second eye.

Consumers did not buy HDTV at its beginning either, only 700,000 HDTVs were sold on the first 2 years (1999/2000, with little content available, if you can call video loops content):

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... eholds.php

In comparison, based on the current sales, about 5 million 3DTVs are expected to be sold by the end of its second year, which is about what HDTV sold on the first 4 years in total:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20023981-17.html

In other words, 3DTV is selling twice as fast than HDTV on their innovating years. Additionally, the first year of 3DTV has more 3D content than HD on its first year (HD was not even on cable).

Even when they look good are these numbers important? Not as they are measured, because 3DTVs are mainly higher quality HDTV models and sales expectations should be matched against similar TV models on the previous years, not as TVs only for a 3D purpose. Apples to apples.

I mentioned some of the subjects of the points you made, the difference is that I also mentioned alternatives and solutions within a constructive analysis trying to wear everyone’s shoes, rather than killing something that is just at its beginning. The 3DTV of today should actually be considered as just one step toward a much better display technology of the future. Today is just a feature of a high quality HDTV, a feature no one is forced to use.

Ironically, when we get to that better technology of the future it may stay with us for a while and evolve again into something even better, the nature of consumer electronics.

Some will say “they are only trying to sell another TV again”, I take it as a way to reach to a better future, by innovating, making and tolerating mistakes along the way, and learning and improving from those, rather than just criticizing the number of sold 3DTVs some wizard miscalculated and declare the technology dead.

Those in the press that write columns that kill every step of 3D, even the positive steps, are intentionally ignoring the true value of innovation within a larger vision to make people salivate with evening news negativism to bring food to their table, but that is certainly not my style.

I will also be at the 3D Vision and Health Symposium of the American Optometric Association in NYC next week. My flight arrives in the morning, if you like Italian cuisine I know of a good restaurant.



Take care Pete,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[720pete]

Rodolfo - first off, every analyst I communicate with believes the Futuresource predictions to be overly ambitious. However, if manufacturers simply include active shutter 3D functionality in every new TV sold - which they should, customers clearly won't pay a premium for it - then that number could be attained easily. But it means nothing as to actual 3D TV viewing, only market penetration of 3D-capable TVs. (Remember "HD-ready" TVs?)

I'm not opposed to 3D. But I think the launch of it last year was poorly handled, and didn't reflect market realities. People who just bought a new, big screen HDTV in the past 5 years aren't likely to run out and buy a new TV just to have 3D capabilities. Ditto Blu-ray players, although more of those are being sold to gain Netflix streaming access than anything else.

As for active shutter vs. passive vs. autostereo, I maintain that the average consumer will sit on the sidelines when they hear that there are three incompatible 3D TV formats. And of course, the preference of most viewers is to watch TV the way they always do, with a conventional remote control and no special eyewear. Changing the TV viewing paradigm is tough to do.

A bigger and more significant trend will be the migration to 4K resolution in TVs. It's coming (slowly but surely) and will solve a multitude of problems, including the half-resolution limitation of passive 3D and also the visible barriers in autostereo. Look for 4K product to start coming to market in larger screens sizes (50 inches and up) within 4-5 years. There are already HTPS LCD, DLP, and LCoS 4K imagers for projection.

[720pete]

Rodolfo, read this article - http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38943/p ... tter-tv-lg

Although the study was conducted by a TV manufacturer, I think it does bring out some good points about a preference for passive vs. active shutter 3D.

[Rodolfo]

Pete,

And your point is? This article is just touching the surface targeting a superficial type of readership.

I was actually at the private press presentation LG Display did at CES 2011 and I discussed the aspects on their switch from active-shutter to passive on this article:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... of-ces.php

Every manufacturer puts their bets and effort on something, in this case they put it on passive, in my opinion only because the glasses are cheap and they think that will help them sell more TVs, regardless how serious their visual issues reports were flashed to us in the room.

At the presentation they refused to talk about lack of image quality and half resolution when I asked why none of their “instructive” demos covered that subject. It was like talking to a wall.

One journalist from the UK asked them that since they now declare that 3DTV must be only passive due to their claim of health issues, what are they going to tell the millions of active-shutter owners of the previous LG Display 3DTVs the company pushed to the market. No answer, of course.

We always should put our effort in quality, just quality. 2D or 3D.

Passive 3D is only supplied in half resolution/quality to consumers to been able to show depth with the limited number of pixels a display has. The article comment of “It delivers 540 lines to each eye, resulting in a full HD 3D effect.” is misinforming consumers.

A 3D effect of DVD level of quality at low brightness is close to watching analog NTSC on an HDTV with sunglasses. Although it may look acceptable to many, judging by the many poor soul misinformed consumers that still believe they are watching HD from an S-Video/composite connector from the HD-STB. Who is to blame? Retail for not informing consumers correctly, however, they have to know the subject first, and we know the answer to that.

We should strive for quality on any display technology, otherwise we are not moving forward. I agree that 4K will help.

Regarding the UK 3D broadcast TV, obviously the writer is not well informed, they have already chosen the frame-compatible 3D format (Side-by-side and Top-Bottom) for broadcast, ignoring the quality preference of the majority of European broadcasters. And we are next. I have an article coming about the subject.

I guess you do not like Italian food.