Unified Industry Wide Support for 3D

If there is one thing that was made abundantly clear at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas this year (2010), it was that the entire consumer electronics industry is strongly pushing for a switch to 3D. Riding on the enormous success of James Cameron’s latest movie, Avatar, many of the big name electronics manufacturers are making a strong case for bringing an authentic 3D experience to the consumer’s living room. This time around the timing seems perfect. Over 60% of Avatar’s ticket sales were for 3D viewings of the movie, a startling statistic given that the number of 3D capable screens around the world are far outnumbered by their regular 2D counterparts.

Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Vizio, Sharp (see, I wasn’t exaggerating about the industry wide bit) and a number of other manufacturers have all announced new 3D capable models that they will be releasing over the course of 2010. Never before have we seen such widespread industry support for 3D, and this will certainly go a long way in helping bring 3D to the masses.

“Where is the 3D Content?”

Many people seem to whine about the lack of 3D content and that this lack of 3D content guarantees the failure of this industry push towards 3D. After all, content is king right? There are some issues with this criticism however.

  1. 3D TVs have only just been announced in CES 2010 and only a handful of 3D ready TVs have already been released. While there isn’t too much 3D content available at the moment, this is only because 3D content and 3D-content capable hardware have to mutually co-exist. No one is going to produce 3D content before the hardware to view it exists and is widely available to consumers.
  2. ESPN, DirectTV, Discovery Channel and UK’s Sky have pledged support for delivering 3D content as early as 2010. ESPN has already procured the necessary equipment for shooting live events in 3D and plan to air football and NBA in 3D in the near future. A number of other content providers are also joining ranks and pledging support for delivering more 3D content. While 3D content is still at a nascent stage, we have to keep in mind that these are still early days. However, with all the industry support so far, the signs seem very positive.

Hollywood is also backing this push to 3D with over 20 3D movies to be released over 2010. Keep in mind also that every 3D animated film will likely be available in 3D as this medium enables an effortless transition for producing movies in 3D. These numbers will only increase, especially if there is widespread interest in 3D content as witnessed by the success of Avatar in 3D.

3D TVs are Backward Compatible with Regular 2D

This is one of the chief reasons why I believe that 3D will eventually succeed over time. Pretty much all the proposed 3D technologies that are being developed by various electronics manufacturers are compatible with regular 2D content. This of course is for a good reason as it would be suicidal on the part of device manufacturers to make their 3D sets not compatible with conventional 2D content given that there is a long transition period ahead as we make the switch from 2D to 3D (and perhaps it will never be a complete 100% switch).

Displays requiring active shutter glasses are pretty much your regular high performance LCD or Plasma TV with a high refresh rate (120-240 Hz) and the ability to sync with your active shutter glasses. However, they are perfectly capable displays for 2D content as well and there shouldn’t be any real decrease in performance or image quality. Additionally, the high refresh rates of newer 3D TVs will actually be a bonus for regular 2D content as this refresh rate boost will help smooth the display of fast paced 2D scenes and sporting events. Finally, the prices of the TVs themselves aren’t going to be all that much more than regular TVs. Sure, there will be a premium for early adopters, but as with any technology, the prices will drop as the technology becomes more widespread and manufacturers spend more resources on improving their fabrication and production facilities (just as in the case of LCD/Plasma TVs). If you don’t want 3D at all, you could still buy a 3D capable set for roughly the same price as regular TVs and just skip buying 3D glasses and any other accessories that you might need for viewing 3D content on your new TV. All in all, it’s a win-win situation either way and this is one of the main reasons why I believe that in the long run adoption of 3D TVs and hence 3D in general will win.

Those who seem to take the greatest offense to the notion of the widespread adoption of 3D seem to be the ones who have invested a lot of money in expensive home theater equipment that is not 3D capable. While unfortunate, that is always the price you pay when it comes to anything technology related. You can never expect a guaranty that your new fangled gadgets that you spent a fortune on won’t go obsolete within the next few months or years.

No! 3D Content isn’t That Expensive to Create

Another argument that is thrown around a lot of times is regarding how expensive it is to create 3D content and that this massive expense will be the primary reason for 3D to fail. This is something I’ve never quite understood. With recent advances in 3D technology, a lot of it pioneered by James Cameron in conjunction with Vince Pace the cost of filming in 3D has actually decreased. In addition, the advances made by Cameron and co now enables directors to shoot in Stereoscopic 3D without being restricted by an unwieldy and massive 3D camera as was the case a few years ago. In fact, Sony recently announced the development of a single lens 3D camera capable of recording video at a staggering frame rate of 240 fps! (Press Release by Sony regarding their Single Lens 3D Camera)

Panasonic also announced a Professional twin-lens camcorder at CES 2010 while other manufacturers such as DXG are pushing towards creating sub $200 personal 3D camcorders. All in all, there is a lot of thrust in improving the technology in this field and the price of creating 3D content is going to drop rapidly. The same arguments could have been made against digital video cameras when they first appeared on the scene but now they are all prevalent.

Finally, I have to point out that while many people argue that Avatar proves that is costs many many millions to make a realistic 3D experience they are misguided in making this conclusion. Avatar cost the amount it did because:

  1. It was revolutionizing the field and was doing a lot of things new and for the first time. This automatically meant that more money and work had to go into setting things up. However with the industry embracing 3D and all the recent advances in the area, this cost barrier is already breaking down.
  2. A HUGE component of Avatar’s budget was on realistic motion capture technology as well as for all the fancy and mind blowing 3D animation. You have to remember to separate these costs when making conclusions about 3D. Yes, if you want to make a virtual 3D movie that features virtual characters like in Avatar, then you will still need a LOT of money. However, if you’re interested in creating 3D content, and filming live actors/sports/events in 3D then the costs are nothing to be too afraid of.

Kids Love 3D!

This might sound a bit silly, but it is true. Kids adore 3D, even the gimmicky variety! For kids, nothing is more exciting when it comes to watching TV/Movies than to have your favorite characters pop out of the screen while performing their hilarious antics. In the last few years there has been a great number of 3D animated movies that are family and kid oriented. Pixar, Dreamworks and Disney have been leading the way but there have been a number of smaller animation houses with their own franchises such as Ice Age by Blue Sky Studios. As mentioned earlier in this article, it takes no effort to convert a 3D animated movie into a true 3D movie since the conversion is done entirely in software and the entire ‘digital set’ of these movies is natively in virtual 3D.

So if you have kids, you might actually be even more tempted to get 3D for their enjoyment. Additionally, as kids are exposed to good 3D experiences in theaters and in their own homes, they will be more favorable towards it as a new medium as compared to some of us adults. In the long run, they will be the ones going out and buying 3D TVs when they leave home and have their own money to purchase a television set. Of course, that is many years down the line, but it is still a valid point. The point I am trying to make in this article is that 3D will definitely win, it is just a matter of time. There are still plenty of variables when it comes to the time line and how soon it will be widely adopted but I don’t see any way that it won’t be adopted at all in the long run.

2D is pure Cinema, 3D is a Hack. Waaah! Call the WAAHMBULANCE

I don’t understand this ridiculous notion that somehow 2D is classy and that good films in 2D can be considered as classic masterpieces and an art form while anything in 3D is dismissed off as hackery and gimmicky. I think the sooner people realize that 3D is just another medium, the easier it will be for them to accept it’s place in film and tv. It doesn’t have to be the end all and be all. If an artist (director, videographer etc) wants to create something using the 3D medium, he or she will have the opportunity to do so. If not, they can still make their work using conventional 2D as their medium. Neither is better or worse, and both have their pros and cons allowing the content creator to exploit them to their advantage. Also keep in mind that 3D is a new medium and one that will take some getting used to before film makers learn to truly understand its strengths and exploit them to bring their artistic vision to their audience. I can see directors like Tim Burton salivating at the prospect of bringing his warped yet fantastic worlds into true 3D and allowing his audience to experience it just as he envisions it in his head.

Don’t Judge 3D Based on the Viewing of Upconverted (2D->3D) Movies

You have to keep in mind that at the moment many of the Hollywood movies in 3D are actually not shot in 3D. Instead, they convert 2D movies into 3D manually with the help of artists and fancy algorithms that help determine the Z-depth of elements in every scene of a movie. While this technology has come a long way, it still doesn’t work perfectly and gives you a feeling of each object appearing as a flat plane in the 3D film. Watch Avatar before you judge the new 3D, or even better, watch a live sporting event in 3D (should be possible soon at Sony Style Stores and other Electronics stores) before passing 3D off as gimmicky and cheap.  New 3D movies along with live sporting events in 3D will be shot in true 3D, i.e., with a stereoscopic 3D camera without any significant 3D post processing. This enables the best 3D experience and with recent advances by Sony, Panasonic and others in the creation of 3D videocameras, this is how future 3D content will look like.

“3D TVs Cause Flicker and Give me Headaches”

This is a complaint made by some who have experienced recent 3D technology only to find that they are amongst the small percentage of people who are sensitive to low refresh rates (I’m one of them). Currently some of the first generation 3D ready TV displays have a refresh rate of 120 Hz. This means that each eye will see a refresh rate of 60 Hz (half the TV refresh rate) as the frame for the left and right eye are displayed in a sequential manner (frame-sequential) on the display.  So if you’re like me and sensitive to CRT monitors running at a refresh rate of 60 Hz (I need a minimum of 75 Hz to be happy) then you will want to wait for some of the newer displays that will be released later in 2010 that have a refresh rate of 240 Hz. This gives you 120 Hz per eye, high enough to reduce any issues with flicker. In addition regular 24 fps video (most movies) won’t exhibit any judder on these 240 Hz displays using 5:5 pull down.

New 3D technology overcomes previous limitations that caused 3D to fail

Old 3D technology from many years ago never really caught on, and for good reason. Some of the issues it faced are listed below along with how new technology overcomes these previous limitations

  1. Poor color fidelity – Using Anaglyph technology, images were split into to chromatically opposite colors so that by using tinted glasses the viewer was able to view a unique image for each eye thus providing a 3D effect. However, the use of these tinted glasses drastically changed the appearance of colors and in general resulted in a poor 3D experience. With the use of new Polarized or Active Shutter technology, this has been done away with as the image displayed on the screen represents the true color and each eye piece does not distort the image color in any way (apart from lowering the incoming brightness of the image by a small amount).
  2. Nausea and Headaches – These side effects were predominantly due to the analog nature of 3D films many years ago when the films for the left and right eye view were projected simultaneously but were hard to keep in sync with one another. This resulted in an uncomfortable viewing experience, confusing the viewers brain due to the unrealistic and unnatural visual stimulation.  No surprises then that headaches and a feeling of nausea were commonly associated with 3D viewings back then. Current 3D displays however, are digitally synced so no such issues exist and these “3D Symptoms” are thankfully a thing of the past.
  3. Unrealistic 3D – This was primarily caused due to the images for the left and right eye being unnaturally spaced thus causing eye strain and producing an unnatural 3D experience. However, current 3D video capture technology coupled with the projection of both left and right eye images by the same device ensures that such effects are mitigated in new 3D displays.

3D doesn’t seem to be fragmented by format wars

Another important reason why I believe that 3D will ultimately succeed is that all the consumer electronics giants aren’t squabbling over standards and specifications as was the case in the HDDVD and BluRay wars. The specifications for 3D in BluRay have already been decided upon and all manufacturers will be producing 3D displays that will be able to display all 3D content. This will still leave them free to use their own display technology to actually display the video content to the viewer in 3D, thus keeping innovation alive in 3D display technology. It is nice and reassuring to know that any 3D TV you buy will work with a 3D BluRay player or with ESPN or Discovery’s new 3D channel. This is very positive news for the widespread future adoption of 3D.

Say Hello to 3D Porn, Bye bye to dating. So long Humanity!

Yes, I know, I am exaggerating :) , but NEVER, EVER underestimate the power of porn to drive technology. We all know the oft repeated story of how Sony’s Betamax lost out to VHS because they refused to embrace porn thus ultimately losing market share and the format wars. Now you can hate 3D all you want, you can say that you would never wear stupid glasses to watch a movie or TV in 3D, but ladies and gentlemen, I guaranty you that 99% of people will have no qualms about putting those same goofy, stupid glasses on if it means that they get to enjoy their weekly/daily/hourly porn fix in 3D rather than regular 2D. And that my friends, is the ultimate nail in the coffin for any arguments against the success of 3D!  Check this link if you don’t believe me: Porn studios lead the stampede into 3D TV

Summary

Wow! Congratulations if you’re still reading this :) . I think I’ve listed a pretty comprehensive list of reasons why I believe that 3D will eventually succeed. While many have been quick to write off 3D as just another gimmick, if you read through this article you will realize that there are many things different this time around and the question we should all be asking is WHEN 3D will be widely adopted, not IF.

Related Articles you might find interesting