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.
@kc0 Abd we won't be doing it until the networks recoup their costs of switching to HD in the first place. It's like no one can recall just how badly the networks were dragged kicking and screaming to HDTV. Pretty much none of the stations on broadcast or cable for that matter are true HD stations 24 hrs a day. Could you imagine the fury of an executive who just spent millions upping his station to HD, who is then told he has to throw away all this expensive technology to upgrade to 3d? Even if 3d tvs are commercially ducessful, were atleast a decade away from meaningful content.
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.
I bought a 52'' last year. I purposely didn't buy a bedroom TV while waiting for the 3D TV's to hit the market. Although I left myself open to be able to buy one without ditching a TV. I shot myself in the foot by buying a 52'' which is way to big for my small bedroom. That means I'd have to buy a 40'' for the bedroom and almost seems pointless going that small but we'll see.
If 3D died today and never came back I wouldn't be sad, I might even be happy.
Lets try and find some new innovative technology, not bring back something that has died 3 times in the last 5 decades
@InnocentEd
You have obviously not seen new 3d. it's not the same as red/blue 3d. Its sad that they even share the name 3d. Please go see Avatar in 3d before speaking again, because if you haven't, then you don't know what current 3d is. Its like when they called plasmas at 800x600 resolution "HD"; it really wasn't. Then when 1080p came, a lot of tv companies called it "Full HD" or "True HD". Old 3d is like those fake HD plasmas, while new 3d could be called "True 3D".
@LazarusDark
Actually I have seen several new films including Avatar twice. In IMAX and in RealD. I still feel the same way...so you shouldn't assume anything just because somebody doesn't like something. I am not alone in how I feel and I take back nothing
I agree with Ross. 3d in the home has some seriously large hurdles to overcome to make a big impact.
Active shutter technology, while impressive, might have been a mistake on the part of the industry. it demands too much. Asking people to replace one device in their home theaters (especially after so many have already done so in 2008 and 2009) to get the latest and greatest is one thing. But asking them to replace their whole setup and buy a few extra pairs of expensive glasses is asking way too much.
And without significant adoption, I'm guessing that content providers won't put that much effort into it which slows adoption further and makes providers wonder if all the extra costs are worth it.
I'll wait for holograms.
@Neros Fiddle Exactly. 3D tech will take off if I don't have to do anything special to see 3D. Make it better, industry, and we might buy it!
No. Get out. Adults don't want 3D, kids want it. Let's buy them a $199 viewer, not a $2500 TV. Make it stop.
I am actually really excited about 3-D content. Sure, I don't expect (or want) it for every movie and show out there, but for some content, it's the only way to fly. I felt pretty bummed after watching Avatar, realizing that I would not be able to experience the movie again in that way any time soon. I want 3-D, and I'm willing to pay good money for it, too.
Yeah, sure I bought a 50" 1080p TV last year. So what? I like many others will gladly move it to another room, sell or donate it with a 3-D replacement as soon as a quality, standardized version is available.
I'm surprised there are so many people complaining about needing glasses or having to upgrade a TV for a cool viewing experience. It's called progress, people. Star Trek Holodecks are still a bit out of reach. But I'll buy one of those as soon as they're available, too.
@gmendoza
"standardized version is available."
- there's the rub!
Then & only then will I consider it.
This is a website about technology, I find it troubling that most of the feedback for 3d TV is negative, even in the podcast. I for one got HDTV way back in 2001, I paid 3500 for my 47" big body Mitsubishi. Even though there wasnt HD cable or satellite services in my area. The best I had was my $500 480p DVD player, I had to wait a year to get any real HD on my TV from my xbox1. I'm excited for 3d HDTV, I want one and will upgrade all my stuff as needed to
get it. On top off all this for all you nay Sayers all of the regular TVswill go down in price. People act as if you are forced to by 3d, as of now you will have to want it to get it. Even later down the line it will be more of an extra feature then anything.
@PurvisJames
I think that the negative comments spring from two main quarters.
1). Cost. people are not ready to lay out the money for this technology.
2). The glasses are just not wanted.
It is a compliment to this website that such a massive step in entertainment should be so poorly received. My take on reading these commnts is that people just do not think that 3D is ready yet.
Personally I find HD overrated. Sure you can read the titles better but I was also able to see far more errors in the scenes and backgrounds that were hidden in regular TV.
We should also remember that 3D TV is not true 3D. The viewer is limited to a single viewpoint. Ya can't look further round a building if you move your head.
@PurvisJames
Just because someone is a tech enthusiast does not mean every new idea brought to market is a smart one. I may think 3d is cool but I don't think its cool enough to make me go buy all new equipment. TV's aren;t like cell phones. There is a much longer upgrade cycle for the mainstream with regard to their TV purchasing.
And the Engadget HD guys are not negative about 3d at all (Ben Draughbaugh especially). They are both big supporters. I respect Ben's opinion but I still think the economics of the whole thing are going keep 3d as a niche technology in the home.
@rederikus
re: HDTV "but I was also able to see far more errors"
indeed, the older actors look soooo much wrinklier, uuugh!!!
But, just watched 2F2F:TokyoDrift in HD and the bronzed babes looked soooooo good.... now if only they were in 3D!
Can these mentally limited companies say "autostereoscopic display", people who threw down big on LASIK to ditch the glasses and contacts are not at all going to find the idea of putting on glasses to see in 3D even remotely funny unless you get an IMAX experience to go with it. Auto 3D is the only way people are going to adopt 3D monitors to any significant degree of market penetration. Say it with me (display size, power efficiency, resolution, contrast, color rendering, and cost) not another dimension. Give us more inches for less $ that operates on less power~ Bust on with the large format OLED technology that has yet to hit the shelves aside from that massively overpriced diminutively sized XEL-1 that sony dropped on the 3 people interesting in spending $2K+ for an 11inch TV...LOL
3D is pointless if you have to wear glasses, I hope this dies right were it was born, in the head of the idiot who came up with this.
3D? No thanks, I'll spare myself the headache.
"and not particularly fashionable glasses"
Please tell me why I should give a shit if glasses are fashionable or not. I'm not a Mac user after all.
Do they do the job?
Are they comfortable?
If the answers are yes then bring it on. As it stands all this pissing and moaning about glasses is about as sane as complaining that the Wiimote has a wrist strap.
@John Doe Nope - glasses fundamentally change the watching experience. Most people out there would probably prefer if they had good enough eye-sight to not need glasses. Yet now I need them to watch .. TV? Not even to watch TV - to have a marginally better viewing experience? Meh. Dead in the water.
Even if it didn't need glasses, the marginally better experience paired with high cost would need lots of marketing behind it to take off.
Having to wear glasses, and content that looks bad without these glasses to me is as good as a 100% guarantee that it won't catch on.
I believe a lot of companies know this, and think it only has a slim chance, but since they have nothing else to really make a big ruckus about, they all advertise 3D. HD LCD TVs are excellent and cheap already, difficult to distinguish yourself from others.
3DTV wont be popular until there's 3D porn... Isnt porn the reason we evolved to VHS and DVD... and oh, lets not forget internet
3D will be a standard feature in any HDTV in a couple of years, trust me.
Not because 3D content will be ubiquitous, but because making a HDTV "3D ready" is incredibly cheap, at least when you use shutter glasses:
Take a TV with a good refresh rate (120Hz or higher), all you need to add is an IR transmitter for shutter sync and a software update to deal with the 3D input. Thats it. Not counting the glasses, the price difference in pure material costs is probably less than the price difference on a movie ticket.
TV sets will become a thing of the past as more and more homes build "puppet show" theaters for a true 3D experience.
they already have 3d movies. why make it more complicated? i like 2d best
The only way i'll buy 1 is if there is no $150 glasses
its not gonna be the revolution its just more expensive cardboard red and blue glasses and a good looking tv with a sticker
Everyone's ignoring another major problem with 3D TV. A large percentage of people can't use it. I don't have binocular vision and a significant percentage of people around the world don't, either. That makes 3D TV useless (actually, less than useless because the image is messed up for me). Even if they could do it without the silly glasses (one more thing to keep track of by the remote - and if you have a party, you probably won't have enough glasses to go around), it just won't work for lots of people.
I would gladly pay $2,000 more for a TV with a better picture. I'd gladly pay $10,000 for an 80" slim perfect picture TV. I wouldn't pay a nickel for 3D.
Get ready for the insanely overpriced Monster 3D glasses , costing many times the price of 3D glasses available on the internet . Of course it will be the only brand available at Best Buy and other electronic stores !
@mrknowldge
All 3D games are already 3D-ready (on the PC anyway). 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 to wear though...
We literally JUST got a HDTV this year. This is madness.
Note that the correct title of the film is "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"
Another disadvantage of 3D is that if I watch 3D movie I want to focus my eyes on anything I want, not only where camera is focused.
@Taai Not any more or less than with 2D stuff. In 3D stuff and 2D stuff, you can focus on anything that the camera is focused on, everything else will have some degree of blur to it. Maybe my eyes are just broken, but no matter what I do, this 2D shot ( http://www.motorcycleaddicts.org/attachments/learned-hard-way/8470d1207494178-motorsports-photography-part-2-blur-not-blur-6099.jpg ) has blurry people in the background. No different from 3D.
My exhaustive opinion on 3D and 3DTV:
3D images and videos are every bit as natural as color images and videos. For both color and 3D there are small portions of the population who can't perceive the color/3D, but for everyone else, it's a part of the normal way they experience the natural world. When you try to argue against 3D on the principle of price and needing new equipment and calling it a gimmick, think back to the adoption of color TVs. Aren't you glad that we're all using color displays now? Doesn't an argument about how "we don't really need color, we know what color stuff is anyway, plus we'll need new cameras and TVs and..." seem silly today? How is that any different from arguments opposed to 3D? Plain and simple, 3D is not a gimmick.
3D in the home is quite simply awesome. Games are intense and engrossing, video is every bit as good as in the theaters. Better in some ways, because you have even less of a chance of a distracting silhouette blocking an otherwise flawless 3D scene.
Would 3D be better without glasses? Yes. Absolutely. Is that at all feasible today? Not for several people at once. People who are crying for 3D without glasses can rejoice in knowing that 3D specs don't prevent such displays from working, and the displays do exist... they're just more complicated and less flexible. You don't want glasses? Fine. I hope you don't want friends to watch either.
People are looking at this the wrong way, completely. Just because a bunch of companies put out 3D-ready stuff doesn't mean that they expect the whole world to buy new TVs in 2010. Alright, so you bought a new TV in 2009 and you can't see yourself spending $3000 on a new one for a few more years. So get one in a few years. A lot of people these days don't even have HDTVs (and if they do, they're sub-1080p), and yet enthusiasts on this site have had some form of better-than-SD TV for a decade. A decade of availability and a lot of people still haven't switched over! But I doubt people here would say that HD is a failure, nobody will ever buy new equipment for that, no movies or TV shows will ever be shot in that. It just takes time; on the order of years.
What can we realistically expect from 3D in 2010? PC and PS3 getting improved software and hardware support for 3D games and movies, some premium 3D-capable TVs and Blu-ray players from most major companies, and maybe a few dozen -proper- 3D Blu-ray releases (anything CG, Avatar, and some of the better movies which were released already with red/blue 3D glasses). Selection will be slim. Price premiums will exist. But for people who accept that 3D will be the future and want to see it just that bit sooner, an extra $1000 will be a small price to pay. I mean, just think about how much some enthusiasts blow on surround sound equipment. In 2011 we'll get some 3DTV channels, improved selection and lowered pricing on 3D equipment, and maybe a few dozen more movies. It might take years for 3D filmmaking to become more widespread than CG, Disney and Avatar, but if there's one thing that is certain, it's that 3D screenings of movies are making up an increasing fraction of total movie viewings.
As far as the TV bit is concerned, I see this as being the weakest part of the net for catching 3D adopters. Things which hampered widespread broadcast of HDTV--increased bandwidth requirements, low amount of existing content, higher capture and editing costs for new content, etc--are all still very much the case for 3D. Sports might be nice, news could be slightly more entertaining, broadcasting the slim selection of actual 3D movies on a 48 hour loop will get old fast. The 'cinematic TV shows' that people seem to enjoy more and more these days will find it hard to adapt to 3D, because working with 3D stuff means you can't just use green screens or overlay simple digital effects, you have to have a full 3D representation of the effect which fits perfectly into the captured live action footage. I've learned this from games--an animated 2D texture which is supposed to look like a smoke cloud or some fire looks exactly like an animated 2D texture. You can feel its flatness. So suddenly, any sort of digital special effect will have to be done in 3D and placed with great spatial accuracy. That takes money, and most TV episodes don't have a lot of that to work with.
3DTV might be hitting double digits in marketplace adoption in 2020. Before that, I make no bets. 3D itself will (obviously) become bigger sooner than that, gamers and home theater enthusiasts will serve as early adopters and see to that. Maybe in 2015, when there are lots of quality titles out in 3D and you can get a 2D display for $1000 or a comparable 3D display for $1200, people here will be singing a different tune.
Addendum pertaining to glasses and display technologies:
As I already said, there exist now and will continue to exist solutions which don't require glasses. Tech might improve here, this is ultimately the supposed holy grail for 3D, so we should hope it does to quiet the "as long as it needs glasses..." crowd.
Speaking of glasses and crowds, the "doomsday" scenario for home 3D is when you've got a lot of people over and you want to watch a movie. Ignoring that this isn't that common of an occurrence (and if it is, buy more glasses, it's not like they won't get used!), for which you could simply say "Sorry guys, can't do it in 3D, too many people", it doesn't have to be the huge deal that everyone makes it out to be.
Ever see what they do in 3D theaters? Two projectors, different polarity. It's also possible to have one projector with alternating polarities, I believe. At least one company is working on a TV which displays two images simultaneously on different polarities. What's this mean? The $50-150 shutter glasses, the ones with real glass and batteries built into them, won't be a necessity. If you have small kids or anticipate large crowds, or for any other reason don't want $50 glasses which can break easily, just opt for one of those setups and get $5 passive polarized glasses. You'll pay less for the glasses for everyone at a party than you will for the food they'll consume, and the former won't be a recurring cost.
They're still working heavily on 3D that doesn't require glasses. Currently for it to work you need to be dead centre in front, even slightly off centre it doesn't work. When they finally get it working chances are that it will require a different type of screen, so everyone who bought one of these TVs will then need to go out and buy a new TV
@anthonyqld Only if they want that kind of screen, of course. In the same way that you can choose between LCD, OLED, Plasma, DLP, etc to see your 2D picture, you'll be able to choose between several different 3D approaches, based on quality, price, strengths and weaknesses. The approaches, to name a few, include: special screen with no glasses, one screen per eye (probably only useful for those personal viewing visors they sell in airline magazines), polarized passive glasses, active shutter glasses, red/blue glasses, and glasses/screens which use slightly different RGB wavelengths for each eye and lens.
...honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see 3D Blu-ray players offering a ghetto 3D mode where they make one image red-tinted and the other blue-tinted, for display on standard TVs with cheap glasses D:
Why does this story have a picture of Dr. Strangelove, and why is he out of his wheelchair?
Why does Ross Rubin get Such a professional intro-byline? No bullshit about coffee and bagels? No conceited babble about the wit that only he can provide? He must not be passionate about technology or witty.
re: AVATAR 3D
....saw it last night: JUST AWESOME! WOW!!
I for one welcome our new 3D overlords.
@OrsonX
However...
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire [blue tree huggers] from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/5BACEBB2ADA9B395CC2576A500144889
3D inevitable but not in the near future , "THERE IS NO CONTENT YET"
@(Unverified)
When TV first appeared in people's homes, there was a lot of wrestling.
For 3D TV, we'll probably get a lot of football (American and otherwise) and basketball. In a couple of years, the Olympics.
Plus, unfortunately, "Reality" shows. The X-Factor in 3D. Wife Swap in 3D. The Biggest Loser. Dancing with the Stars. Stuff like that.
Okay. I love 3D, but now I'm depressed.
3D Avatar was great but I think I would have had the same experience with the 2D version. The movie was amazing, not the 3D experience.
My theory is this:
1. Samsung invented the LED TV
2. Panasonic had to do something to play catch up: hence 3D TV
3. Knowing there will not be many supporters, Panasonic had to hype it up with an amazing show to impress CNET. I really don't know how they're getting the support they deserve. To me it's unnecessary to watch things in 3D and would rather not.
4. However, there is a future to 3D Gaming and that's about it. Playing sports games will be better since you can see the distance much better but I can only see how it will only benefit from real actions like playing Wii with perfect accuracy (like how hard you throw a ball to get the right distance).
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4342437.html
I still think the best innovation to TV is the LED TV because it saves electricity AND it's SUPER THIN. Think about the smaller electricity bill and less heat from the TV. Who knows where this is going.
3D is going to be alot to ask general consumers to upgrade to. Ppl are still buying HDTV and not hooking them up to HD sources thinking thatehat they are seeing is HD, or that over the air HD progrming is good enough. I work at AT&T; our focus now is to get ppl to switch from cable to satelite which offer 2.5x the HD content than cable as well as more 1080p content. Ppl don't care about that crap, especially of it is only going to cost them more $$$!
So asking them to fork over $X000s for newer 3d ready tvs, and $X00's of dollars for glasses is going to be alot. Not to mention that ppl probably won't be as wowed at Avatar in their homes as the were in the theatre.
3d won't die, it won't replace 2d media types. It will probably just be an extra media type that is an available option like the slingbox, or TiVo, or YouTube.... Just another way for our media to be delivered.
video games will drive 3d just like they drove HDTVs. we already play 3D games but just not in 3D, it is a logical step for video games and a possible gimmick for video, depending on things like content and glasses required. if you want to watch something on TV in 3D and you have people over who didn't bring their 3D glasses god-forbid you won't be able to. if you are watching Tv and you want to surf the channels you have to remove, put back on, remove etc. Video games are a different story as there is usually only 1 or 2 people playing at once (Wii aside)