TV makers pushing 3D at home
Are people as interested in 3D at home as manufacturers think? These IFA-goers appear to be, anyway.
(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)Many of the biggest names in consumer technology are pushing not only 3D cinema, but watching 3D movies and playing 3D games at home.
Earlier this week, Sony CEO Howard Stringer promised Blu-ray players, PlayStation 3, and laptops that will be "3D compatible" next year. Panasonic used the upcoming James Cameron flick "Avatar" to push its "Full HD 3D" idea, and Nvidia and JVC are also showing off monitors and TVs that will make even PC video game playing three-dimensional.
Despite their obvious enthusiasm for the idea, so far there isn't much evidence that consumers actually want 3D in their homes. Most people are still getting used to paying extra to watch it in the theaters while sporting a pair of plastic spectacles, and some still complain that it's hard on the eyes to watch anything in 3D longer than 10 minutes. So why are gadget makers so excited about it?
Because of two factors: First, people are watching 3D films. The box office totals of recent hits like "Up," "Monsters vs. Aliens," and "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs," show that there is indeed interest in the format.
The Philips 21:9 3D-capable TV on display at IFA in Berlin.
(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)But most of all, the companies that make consumer electronics see it as something else to sell that will distinguish their brand from the rest of the pack and from what they currently have at home. Blu-ray prices are coming down and the format is now solidly successful. And HDTVs, which became a must-have item, are becoming a commodity as well. Manufacturers are always on the lookout for some new twist that will compel users to upgrade, and for now, that appears to be 3D in the home.
Some trepidations
And while there is a race to be first to have a hit product for 3D at home, not everyone is onboard. Both Philips and Toshiba say they have tested the waters of 3D at home, but say it doesn't feel very inviting just yet.
In their massive booth here at IFA, Philips is showing prototypes of their 21:9 ultrawidescreen TV and a Blu-ray player, both of which are 3D-capable. Yet, interestingly, they have "no immediate plans to launch any commercial 3D TV products in the short term," the company said during their press conference Thursday. The technology, they are freely admitting, "isn't quite there."
Toshiba executives are voicing the same concern. "3D is quite interesting, and we're considering it," said Sascha Lange, head of marketing for visual products at Toshiba. "But currently we can't make any clear announcement about timing."
While that could be interpreted as Philips and Toshiba being overly conservative, that's likely not the case. The thing is, for all of Sony and Panasonic's attempts to convince people that they do want to watch everything on their home TVs in more than two dimensions, they don't have actual products yet. And the reason--something that Philips said outright here at the show, and something Sony mentioned but tried to gloss over--is the lack of an accepted standard for 3D video.
Philips, which like most of them, is an active member of the Blu-ray standards association working on 3D, said the reason it's not doing 3D at home yet is because a standard has yet to be agreed upon.
Sony acknowledged that, too. On Wednesday here Stringer said, "3D is clearly on its way to the mass market, but there are a variety of issues yet to be addressed." He didn't elaborate, but it's pretty clear he was referring to this standards problem.
Besides there not being a standard for 3D video yet, there's not even a standard technology for distributing 3D films in theaters. That's the reason why, depending upon which theater you go to, you'll be issued one of three different kinds of 3D glasses.
That lack of agreement has extended into the living room, and it helps to explain that some of the more successful 3D films ("U2: 3D," for example) have yet to make it to disc. The quality just isn't the same and trying to recreate the same effect people remember from theaters on a variety of different Blu-ray players and TVs is nearly impossible now. Dolby is even creating a business based on the lack of standard.
It's not to say the standards issue won't get ironed out, or that movie watchers won't ever want to watch 3D films at home, but that appears to still be a ways off.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 

It's all about viewing distance. You can get some pretty nice 3D effects sitting in front of an ordinary-sized computer monitor.
Inventors, put on your thinking caps: Invent a virtual 2D/3D headset / visor that would recreate the experience right in front of your eyes The experience would replicate sitting in front of an IMAX or 70mm screen, complete with digital surround sound and HD clarity! The devices out there now are a poor substitute with horrible video quality! Hey think about this, you could even add an optional "audience mode" where you would see peoples heads in front of you making it appear you are sitting in a theater (but leave the ringing cell phones out please) Anyways, this is far out there I know but I hope to see something like this in the next 10 years. No one has really looked into virtual reality cinema that I know of. I would buy something like this for sure. Comments?
This idea is right up there with those recommendations to sit back and off center in a theater so you can "hear the surround sound" (ie destroy the sound stage and listen to an individual speaker instead of being immersed as intended).
VR helmets will never be more than a niche though because nobody wants to sit around with a helmet on to watch tv. You might be able to sell a few to use with computers, but turning a tv into a single-person experience is not a winning proposition, aside from the sensory deprivation and discomfort of having to wear your screen.
Also, in the midst of a deep recession, I don't think many people are going to want to spend, say, two thousand dollars to upgrade their equipment either.
What most people have now is probably "good enough" for their needs. That is the toughest competition of all---if something is good enough, why spend money to buy more?
A little detail is 3-D currently would take twice the bandwidth, until the compression algorithms become 3-D aware and can compress between left-right images. There also are potential designs where the screen can direct two different beams to light at slightly different angles, so your left and right eyes see different images with no glasses. Holograms basically do this. You might be able to design a screen material that reflects horizontal and vertical polarized light at slightly different angles, and us the DLP with polarizing color wheel and special screen. This is not available you local Best Buy yet.
I think consumers are a lot smarter about technology changes after the HDTV shift. Early adopters spent big bucks only to have their expensive technology made obsolete quickly. All HD sources now need HDMI with copy protection, and none of the earlier HTDV's had HDMI. I suspect they will not make that mistake again. The expected lifetime of a TV is like 7-12 years, so we may be looking at 5+ years from now before the HTDV people just bought is considered ready for replacement. Without large numbers of viewers, there will not be much financial incentive to make 3-D program material, and we will have the HDTV chicken and egg issue all over again. It took like 45 years to migrate off the old TV technology, so am not optimistic we will see widespread 3-D TV anytime soon. It might be a product feature for gamers and such, who generate their own 3-D content with some adjustment of the 3-D graphics rendering.
Of course maybe we should just bypass front/rear screen 3-D HDTV, and go directly to immersive 3-D, where each viewer wears glasses with imagers and accelerometers. Certainly for generated 3-D, like games, a virtual reality style 3-D will be a lot more attractive than being an observer of a single 3-D screen image.
Since adult entertainment has not infrequently been a major force behind TV like technology advances, just consider the difference between watching 3-D porno on the screen and being in the middle of immersive 3-D porno. 3-D on a screen is a pretty small improvement compared to virtual reality (immersive 3-D). I don't believe any of these companies are talking about immersive 3-D.
Immersive 3-D likely needs dramatically different cinematography than 2-D and 3-D on a screen. Just think about the difference between watching a 3-D screen of 3-D porno actor/actress verses being in the body of an immersive 3-D actor/actress. Or consider the difference between being in the quarterback?s body instead of being in the grandstands, if you want to use a tamer example. Screen 3-D technology would not respond to YOUR motion, so the experience of reality is diminished. Screen 3-D seems like it would be like being in the grandstands, with your head clamped in vise, so you don?t get to shift your perceptual position.
'tis simple, no?
Our glasses only work with 120Hz displays so we can drive a full 60Hz per eye. The problem with older technology was that they were indeed limited to 30Hz per eye, which caused a ton of flickering, tearing and nausea.
3D Vision doesn't have any of those problems because of our strict 120Hz requirements.
The standard Polarization glasses are not that standard, for instance there are polarizing lens that are at 45-45 degrees there are linear and circular polarizing filters.
Having said that Anaglyph also have issues in that there are Red, Blue, Cyan, Green in all sorts of combination.
So its fairly obvious there are some standards issues as well as the technical ones.
I just hope they go with the best looking version that does not require wires or transmitters,
3D glasses if just using special polarized filters are more that acceptable in my opinion.
google found a quick link to "Berezin" who make all types of "3dglasses" have a read there for some more info, and check out their Terminator 3D glasses.
There was a 3D monitor that I tried to see at last years Tech Show Computex at Taipei Taiwan but i couldn't track it down in time, Zalman made it and it has some interesting reviews.
Zalman ZM-M220W TRIMON 3D monitor.
http://www.zalman.com/ENG/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=219
This link has a lot of basic information about how they built the screen,it's worth a look.
MrCyberdude
Anytime you have competing standards consumers and manufactures sit on the fence. Without a large installed based development cost can?t be spread out enough so it makes the costs prohibitive.
What you need are a collection of large companies with enough clout to take the lead and drive a standard through. This would be where the PC Gaming Alliance (PCGA) with key members like Intel, MS, AMD, and Nvidia could actually do something for the PC gaming industry. If they all agreed to 1920X1080 and true 120 hz or better as a minimum standard for single displays and also allow 1920X1080 dual projection. Baked in support in all future hardware and software, supported developers and manufacturing this would eliminate the chicken and egg issue as every new purchase would have the tech ready to enable. Vista, WIN 7, Nvidia, and few displays already have it support for 120 hz single source monitors, and if you have two or more vid cards dual display output for polarization projection system is a snap. Now it is just time to make this standard throughout the rest of the industry so market penetration and development cost issues can be resolved.
I've experienced both the dual projection and the LCD Nvidia shutter glass solution and they add a depth of realism that is lacking in normal games.
Of course that would place the PC back on top as the king of gaming systems and make the current generation of consoles scramble.
Link to PC gaming alliance members. http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/ABOUT/OurMembers/tabid/409/Default.aspx
Where are the holographic TVs? Give us holograms, damn it!
If you can't live in the REAL world for your kicks, why bother wasting all that O2 breathing?
- by markdoiron September 7, 2009 4:49 AM PDT
- I'm probably just a Luddite, but I find that 5.1/7.1 "surround sound" is artificial in nature. Many of the sounds are coming from all the wrong places. This is because the technology allows the content creator to do it; not because the content demands it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (32 Comments)My (albeit limited) experience with 3D has been similar: Content created to "wow", but not based on what the real world is like. It's okay when you want to be briefly impressed, but more than a bit tedious when trying to take in serious material. So, unless the content creators decide to make both surround sound (read the theory of it folks: It doesn't require the high power for those rear channels that the gear makers are providing), and 3D content designed to be real rather than to impress, I'll stick with my 2D HDTV and stereo. --mark d.