Switched On: The two sides of 3DTV
By Ross Rubin 
posted January 22nd 2010 7:30PM
posted January 22nd 2010 7:30PM
Each week Ross Rubin contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.
Without a doubt, 3D was the keystone feature touted by every major TV and Blu-ray player manufacturer at CES 2010. But the 3D technology we'll see this year asks more of consumers than previous reinventions. As with HD, they will need new TVs, new video sources, and optimized content like Avatar to make the experience worthwhile.
But consumers will also likely need glasses -- and not particularly fashionable glasses -- to experience the 3D effect. It's a lot to ask customers, given just-completed 10-year transition to digital and high-definition television. Compare that to the roughly 30-year gap that separated the mainstream arrival of color and the first HDTV in the U.S.
It also remains to be seen how strong of a marketing push major electronics companies will put behind 3D. The shift to HD was aided by a government mandate that coincided with the shift from over-the-air analog broadcasts to digital broadcasts. And before there was much HD content on television, consumers embraced the dramatic form-factor shift from CRT to flat-panel televisions -- HD often just came along for the ride.
Major brands are eager to generate excitement for 3D, so they can command a premium and escape the spiral of commoditization. 3D is the highest priority for the Blu-ray camp in 2010. And even if 3D's chief backers make a strong push for a few years, they may shift attention away from 3D as OLED becomes more viable. OLED can improve the display of all content, not just a small sample of it.
Speaking of content, sports and movies are two important genres that can help drive adoption of 3D, just as they did with HD, although shooting live sports in 3D may be even more challenging than it was in the early days of HD. But 3D can't help everything. Even movies that are decades old -- for example, Blu-ray releases of Disney animated classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves -- look great when transferred HD. In contrast, it is difficult to recreate a 2D movie in 3D. (Exceptions include computer-rendered animated films such as the early Toy Story movies from Pixar.) Remember Ted Turner's experiments in colorizing black-and-white movies?
For these and other reasons, it's unclear whether 3D can truly become the third great TV revolution on par with HD -- but perhaps it doesn't have to. In the shorter term, at least, 3D could reach sustainable penetration level similar to other higher-end technologies like LED backlighting, high refresh rates, and internet connectivity have.
Like many other higher-end features, 3D will simply be part of a feature set that will attract buyers regardless of its inclusion. And as we've seen with these other high-end features, consumers are likely to opt for them as the cost comes down and the price difference between equipped and non-equipped models dwindles. That may never reach the difference between the price of a movie ticket to see a 3D versus a 2D movie, but it could soon reach the point where consumers are willing to experience the "right" content.
Ross Rubin is executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
But consumers will also likely need glasses -- and not particularly fashionable glasses -- to experience the 3D effect. It's a lot to ask customers, given just-completed 10-year transition to digital and high-definition television. Compare that to the roughly 30-year gap that separated the mainstream arrival of color and the first HDTV in the U.S.
It also remains to be seen how strong of a marketing push major electronics companies will put behind 3D. The shift to HD was aided by a government mandate that coincided with the shift from over-the-air analog broadcasts to digital broadcasts. And before there was much HD content on television, consumers embraced the dramatic form-factor shift from CRT to flat-panel televisions -- HD often just came along for the ride.
Major brands are eager to generate excitement for 3D, so they can command a premium and escape the spiral of commoditization. 3D is the highest priority for the Blu-ray camp in 2010. And even if 3D's chief backers make a strong push for a few years, they may shift attention away from 3D as OLED becomes more viable. OLED can improve the display of all content, not just a small sample of it.
It's unclear whether 3D can truly become the third great TV revolution on par with HD -- but perhaps it doesn't have to. |
Speaking of content, sports and movies are two important genres that can help drive adoption of 3D, just as they did with HD, although shooting live sports in 3D may be even more challenging than it was in the early days of HD. But 3D can't help everything. Even movies that are decades old -- for example, Blu-ray releases of Disney animated classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves -- look great when transferred HD. In contrast, it is difficult to recreate a 2D movie in 3D. (Exceptions include computer-rendered animated films such as the early Toy Story movies from Pixar.) Remember Ted Turner's experiments in colorizing black-and-white movies?
For these and other reasons, it's unclear whether 3D can truly become the third great TV revolution on par with HD -- but perhaps it doesn't have to. In the shorter term, at least, 3D could reach sustainable penetration level similar to other higher-end technologies like LED backlighting, high refresh rates, and internet connectivity have.
Like many other higher-end features, 3D will simply be part of a feature set that will attract buyers regardless of its inclusion. And as we've seen with these other high-end features, consumers are likely to opt for them as the cost comes down and the price difference between equipped and non-equipped models dwindles. That may never reach the difference between the price of a movie ticket to see a 3D versus a 2D movie, but it could soon reach the point where consumers are willing to experience the "right" content.
Ross Rubin is executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
I don't see me rushing out to buy a new $400 blu-ray player, and a new $4000 3D-TV. If I have to wear glasses, then no thanks.
I have already bought a $3000 kuro and a $300 PS3.
I WILL go to the theater and spend the extra $3 to see the movie in Real-D
@kj4gr
PS3 was confirmed to play 3d movies via a firmware update
Many people did not buy their HDTV yet and many current users will properly upgrade their HDTV by 2012 or so (If the world didn't end by then and of course if 3D become popular)
What next people will complain why i had to buy HDTV when my CRT was working fine? if you dont care about 3D then people shouldn't enter 3D topics because 3D wont be forced it's optional.
Don't we only need a high refresh rate TV to get 3D?
Oh, I thought that was a Mafia Don.
@kj4gr I agree about spending the extra $3 to see a movie in 3D. Avatar wouldn't have been the same without it.
Marshall Donnerbauer
@kj4gr Maybe they should really be improving the technology in theaters first. It was certainly a draw to me as is, even with it's drawbacks.
@Letigre
I can't help thinking that people are being deliberately led to believe that what they saw in the cinema Avatar's 3D is what they'll be seeing at home with this 3D stuff.
I think a lot of people are set to be deeply disappointed.
3D on a vast cinema screen in a darkened room is about a zillion miles away from what most are ever going to get in their normally lit living room at home on the brand new 32" - 50" HD TV most will have to buy to even see it
(the set must be able to do 120Hz/240Hz instead of faking it as an 'effect').
Personally I can't see it (with specs and at home) as anything more than a passing gimmick, again.
Just as we have now TV Co.s will periodically show some 3D films.
No biggeee.
@MFM123 A lot of early adopters will be the types that also have the money for dedicated media rooms. They'll be able to come close to optimal viewing conditions. It's the apartment dwellers and those of us that don't want/need anything bigger than 30" or so that home 3D will disappoint.
Also, I'm pretty certain non-3D will always have a market. TV didn't kill radio because there are plenty of times that you want media, but simply can't divert your visual attention (in the car, doing chores, cooking, etc.). Passive, low-attention TV watching *is* possible for things like cooking, but I wouldn't want to risk steam or hot oil damage on the glasses and I can't keep ideal distance requirements while running around a kitchen.
So a LOT more work is to be done if 3D will ever completely replace previous TV forms as colour totally replaced b/w.
@Treefingers *replace current TV forms
@MFM123
I actually was able to attend CES and watch a clip of Avatar in 3D on a typical 32 inch 3D television, and it was, if not even better, watching in a living room then in a theater...
@MFM123 Actually, I think it could be better on a home screen. Just as surround sound is actually better at home (with a reasonable investment). You can sit dead center, move your couch to the optimum distance, etc. This may not be ideal in large groups though (just as I find my surround sound cant accommodate more than 5 or 6 people before some people get out of the proper surround field). You don't want to try to watch a 3d movie at home from much of an angle to the tv. But I think the single person or two-person experience could actually be better in the home even on a smallish screen.
@kj4gr
they are trying to make it glasses free I think. I try and avoid glasses. I have contacts and there's no way I'm going to wear glasses for TV
So wait, a whole article on the penetration of 3D products into the consumer space, and you don't even mention porn? Really?
@cordis "Penetration" indeed being the key word.
@cordis Please, porn knows that the future is digital distribution, hence why most of the stuff these days are exclusively online.
I'm not so sure people will want to spend extra money on this technology. Now if one could say load a Bluray disk and watch 3-D movies with special glasses it could be a hit but as an everything thing I am doubtful it will become the next TV revolution.
We've seen the transition from b/w to color, analog to digital, standard to hi-def (resolution), smaller, thinner and lighter TVs yet the content has remained much the same. What's the next step?
Social Networking on TVs?
@Slvrgun
Choose Your Own Adventure TV shows
@Slvrgun Hopefully less reality shows. Those things are shit.
How come my local cinema is showing films in 3D without any noticeable modification except for the national healthcare issue £1 glasses but if I want to get 3D into my house I have to pay about £4000? We;re being ripped off!
@Armchaircritic
Only the early adopters (me, probably) will pay that much.
Can a 3D TV be much more expensive then the regular HDTV?
I won't be jumping on 3D set just yet, but as a Brazilian, I would love to watch the World Cup on 3D, specially since we might have a chance of winning.
@(Unverified)
As a Scot, I feel exactly the same. If you swap the 'football' for 'women's indoor curling', and the 'winning' for 'qualifying'.
@thunderbollock
And if you swap the 'qualifying' for 'drugs scandal'.
@(Unverified)
Brazil is not going to win the world cup. Sorry.
O.k First Off if you already own a ps3 regardless if it is the first version or the slim version you are at least party ready for 3-D. Second Some Mitsubishi T.Vs and Samsung t.vs Like myself luckily bought without even knowing it was 3-D Capable until I did further research online. So I guess other than the New 3-D Content all I need are 3-D Glasses and I'm set or so I think :)
I strongly believe that the 3-D movemement will need much more than AVATAR to make the transition happen most americans are just now barely grasping HDTV. I feel that NEW VIDEO GAMES would be KEY you would have everyone talking about the experience now being boring in regular 2-D and Over excited about 3-D Gaming. I feel that 3-D nor then or Now will ever go mainstream in the home.
One thing I also never hear anyone mentioning is Screen size! what makes IMAX 3-D look so amazing is that the screen pretty much covers all your field of view making the 3-D immersive. If you have a 50 or even 65" T.V and are watching at recommended distance, the picture will only cover approximately 60 to 65% of your field of view making the 3-D immersion somewhat limited to that view. Anyhow as much as I am dying to play games in 3-D and watching Movies in 3-D in my living room or Movie Room I don't see this catching on. I'm just being realistic. Most people WILL NOT specially in this economy invest in a new t.v set and 3-d capable blu ray players just to experience few movies. Not unless they come out with 3-D technology that doesn't require glasses and that is affordable, like maybe 10 years from now.
@mrknowldge
All 3D games are already 3D ready. I was playing games in 3D what seemed like years and years ago (Elsa Revelators, anyone?) and basically any game that uses direct 3D could be played with full 3D effect out of the box. Damn were those glasses humiliating though...
Hey! Thats picture reuse abuse.
3D with glasses = no chance
3D without glasses = sign me up
3D without glasses - works from only one small area in front of the tv
3D with glasses - works anywhere
3d with glasses - count me in
@(Unverified) You won't see good 3d without glasses for a very long time.
To make it usable, you'd need something like a massive array of MEMS lenses on the surface and very, very sophisticated head tracking. Engineers can only dream of that kind of stuff right now.
@MioTheGreat Or, somebody invents something much simpler which no one has thought of yet.
Like most things, it's going to look incredibly hard and/or impossible to do - unless you know how.
@(Unverified)
Im guessing that they are going to make them both integrated to the system, if you are alone or with someone no glasses needed, but if you are many then apply the glasses
also why no one has talked about HOLOGRAMS no more? arent they 3d too?
@8th Gamer Golograms are complicated, and they can't replicate human vision anyway.
@ddhboy
Golograms!? Whats that?
Im talking about Holograms, not like what CNN did with one person standing.
Think of it as 3D TV..... but no glass barrier (the screen of the TV)
I believe we are heading to that direction, hopefully in this Decade
That guy in the picture looks like he crapped his pants. I blame those glasses.
3D is really nice and all, however, I just don't see it being a part of everyones living room. You would need many pairs of 3D glasses, which right now, are too expensive. And what if you're having people over and wanna see a movie and you don't have enough glasses to go around? The quality of the movies is unwatchable without the glasses. I think that the only reason they all introduced 3D is because they have nothing else to give us. They did huge TVs, then they has plasmas, then they did super thin TVs, LED backlit TVs, so the only thing left is 3D. For now anyway. I really hope that someday we'll have some sort of a holographic thing built into the TVs, to maybe make it more realistic and see 3D without having to wear those glasses.
Honestly, I love the idea of 3D, I just hate the idea of wearing the glasses. I have to already wear optical glasses, and I'm really not looking forward to wear another pair to watch a movie. And sadly, you can't have one without the other, so I think that I'll stick with regular TV for now.
@mtnDewFTW
an almost but not quite comprehensive list... what about full screen wall TV? (there's a good example in one of the Back to The Future Movies), here the entire living room wall is a TV, and when BigBrother 25-3D isn't on it can show your favourite panoramic vista... instead of painting your wall beige you will instead, for example, have a live view of the Alps, or your favourite Beach etc.
I wish you could tell me what the different brands and technology of 3D looked best. I have never been able to compare the shutter glasses to the polarized versions, is there a big difference? what is best? I have only seen Avatar in the theater with the polerized glasses, is the shutter much type better, is there a visual difference between the 2? Of the other types of 3D tech what are the visual differences? I have been looking for this info, but its like no one wants to compares these types and brands.
skip 3d and goto straight to Holographics
@(Unverified)
..and implement Skype into it. I'd love to be able to pop up onto my friend's table, suited as Princess Leia and say "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope."
I'd love to have Avatar in IMAX 3D in the living room, and whatever future content comes out. But the cost is too high and the technology sucks. Sorry but running an LCD at a high refresh rate and using shutter glasses is just terrible. I wouldn't even consider it.
3-D can look really impressive and I'm fully behind it when used properly, but I don't think it's ready for roll out into home theaters. I normally wear glasses, which makes the current necessity to wear another pair to view 3-D content a deal breaker. I can also see 3-D being a problem for people who get motion sick, especially when it comes to games.
My feeling is that the TV manufactures know that 3-D isn't really ready yet, but it makes a good talking point when trying to sell a more expensive HD set to someone upgrading.
@kc0
well, I'm off to see Avatar3D tonight... I'll be very interested to see if it gives me a migraine. Re: games, CodMW2 gives me an insta-migraine, so much so that I now can't play it.... here it's not the movement but the strobing gun-muzzle-flash effect, ouch!
- er, when I say "insta" I mean after 4 h solid play!
- even when my head is totally fucked I still want more!!
And then there's all of the people who get headaches from watching 3D movies. For every 3D movie they produce, they had better also produce a 2D one.
@johnkzin
As far as I know, the blu-ray will contain both versions.
@johnkzin There are also people like myself who only have one eye. It's impossible for me to see 3D at all. So if there's not a 2D version, I won't be able to watch it.
Literally every single person I know has purchased a regular HDTV in the last three years. Nobody is going to scrap that investment for a 3D TV. This thing is dead before it started.
Well, for something like this to succeed and be a huge money maker with a sky-high adoption rate, then these two conditions have to be met for the general public. Both together have to equal the perceived value of the extra cost, or greater (100%). :
1) A "noticeable" improvement in quality.
or
2) A drastic improvement in convenience.
Furthermore the amount above 100% is directly proportional to the speed of adoption.
B/W TV 1)=75% 2)=75%, 150% WIN, radio with pictures, high adoption
COLOR TV1 )=95% 2)=05%, 100% WIN, lifelike pictures that move, high adoption
VHS 1)=35% 2)=65%,100% WIN, home recording and playback, high adoption
BETAMAX 1)=05% 2)=65%,70% LOSS, low adoption results in failed format
D-VHS 1)=40% 2)=0%, 40% LOSS, high cost and low adoption results in failed format
DVD 1)=90% 2)=80%, 170% WIN, great improvement in picture and instance access, hard wearing physical media, high adoption
BLUE-RAY 1)=90% 2)=9%, 99% LOSS, but is marginally moving to the win side, not enough improvement in perceived quality but may make up the difference in extra features.
PVR/DVR 1)=25% 2)=90%, WIN 115% will end up with high adoption but at a slow rate.
3D 1)=10% 2)=-50%, -40% LOSS, No major jump in quality, inconvenience of glasses, extra cost. I could see this rise to +25% with a "glasses-less" solution, but not for many, many years.
Thanks to Avatar (god bless it), there's been much discussion about the future of 3D and lots of talk about how "some" things will work in 3D, but others would not. I think this is rubbish. Clearly, the immersive and layered experience of Avatar would work as well with the local news, as it would with specially produced content. The only exception would be works that were created in 2D, as Rubin mentions. Will all our tv's be 3D? You betcha. All this hesitation about this new paradigm makes me think of where we've come - from radio to b&w tv; to color tv; to flat panel hi def. The very next step is 3D. The speed of its adoption will be equal to the availability of suitable content. Next year? No. 10 years? Maybe. But come it will.
@BobY
There are major problems with the current tech used to create a 3-D experience. It works well in a controlled environment like a movie theater, but in people's homes the facts like glasses are required and the viewing angle is bad are probably going to keep even people who own a 3-D ready TV from using that feature much.
There is also the matter of cost. Avatar cost of a lot of money to produce, and no TV show is ever going to come anywhere near that budget. The news is never going to be the same sort of experience, and 3-D adds nothing content wise if you're watching a show full of talking heads. There are TV shows, like the Super Bowl, that will embrace 3-D, but it'll be a gimmick.
I agree that sooner or later we'll make the jump to 3-D. I just don't think we'll be doing it until they manage to perfect 3-D without glasses.