Related Sections: HDTV Home Theater Shift
SHIFT: Why 3D HDTV will never take off
3D HDTV is stupid and will never be commercially successful. I know that's the kind of statement that might come back to bite me in the ass in five years, but I have a lot of objections to the idea. Some are obvious (glasses), some inside baseball (no standardized format), some technological (shortage of cable TV bandwidth), and some may be premature (new equipment to buy?). I'll explore all my anti-3D reasoning after the Continue jump, along with the one possible way 3D HDTV could succeed.
I'm not a Luddite, just a cynic. If man were meant to watch 3D TV, we'd be able to see in 3… uh, okay, bad analogy. Guess I'll have to resort to logic.
At CES, I saw an impressive 3D HDTV demo from Panasonic. In the demo, a regular plasma TV and a Blu-ray player "capable of distributing full High Definition (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) images to the left eye and right eye" were used. But a number of companies have 3D formats of their own (including Samsung, Mitsubishi and Philips). Some require glasses and some don't, but no demo I've seen is as impressive as Panasonic's.
What's needed is one system, and Panasonic has been the most aggressive about pushing its system as a standard. But remember how tenaciously Toshiba held out with HD DVD? Given the potential royalty dollars at stake, don't expect any universal standard to be agreed upon anytime soon, no matter how superior anyone's solution is.
Geeks Who Wear Glasses…
With Panasonic's system, and many others, you still need to wear special glasses. Would you wear glasses to watch TV, even if it were to watch really cool 3D HDTV?
Even if you would, would the rest of your viewing companions? Watching movies in a dark theater is a solitary activity, even with a date. Watching TV at home, however, is often a social activity. After seeing something memorable, we often glance at our viewing companions to affirm our appreciation of the moment. But 3D glasses are dark. It'll be hard to share a moment if you can't see your companion's eyes.
On a pure logistical level, how many pairs of glasses do you buy and keep handy? One for every member of the family? What if you invite friends and family over for a 3D movie night? Do you make it BYO3DG?
And where do you keep all these glasses? Unless you're OCD, you're sure to lose them, or accidentally sit on them, or spill food on them, or the dog will try to eat them, etc. At least they don't need batteries.
A Niche of a Niche
Panasonic's idea is 3D Blu-ray. But Blu-ray isn't much of a platform onto which to staple a sub-platform.
For example, the Blu-ray Disc Association says Blu-ray has a U.S. household penetration rate of just 7.5% — and that includes the PlayStation 3, which represents the bulk of Blu-ray hardware sales. Blu-ray discs cost twice as much as their DVD counterparts, further hindering widespread adoption.
And already Blu-ray is being threatened by HD cable, satellite and VOD programming, as well as the growing volume of streaming HD content, all obviating the need for packaged Blu-ray media and separate Blu-ray hardware.
Plus, you might need a special Blu-ray player to play 3D Blu-ray discs.
No, regardless of how low hardware prices go, Blu-ray is likely to remain only a segment of a shrinking DVD market. Since Blu-ray won't be mainstream for years — if ever — how will 3D Blu-ray catch on?
Viagra TV
If 3D HDTV is going to catch on, it would likely have to be available not only as packaged media, but broadcast as well. But as far as I know, no one has proposed a workable broadcast 3D format.
No, if 3D is to succeed, it'll be as packaged content that has to be super compelling. Panasonic's 3D demo footage of basketball and football games was astounding — I felt as if Kobe was going to pass me the ball. I've never experienced a sporting event as if I were on the court or field.
But sports is only viable delivered as a live broadcast, so forget being able to watch a CC Sabathia fastball seeming to come right at your head.
So what kind of packaged media would consumers find compelling enough to adopt a vivid, lifelike, puts-you-in-the-middle-of full high-definition 3D action format that requires you to wear dark glasses indoors?
Probably only a format that you'd also want to wear a raincoat while watching.
As discomfiting as it may be for the HDTV hardware and software industry, home video boomed because of pornography. But the Internet's easy access and no-physical-boxes-to-hide-from-the-wife aspect has shifted the bulk of the porn business to the Web.
If Panasonic wants us to adopt 3D Blu-ray, perhaps instead of recruiting James Cameron as a pitchman, it ought to consider Katie Morgan.
By not important at 8:20 PM ON 01/22/09
Many of the facts you mention are just wrong, and many of the others are simply opinions. It is very brave of you to make such claims with such lack of understanding.
By ham88 at 9:14 PM ON 01/22/09
I think its kind of silly for someone to say things are wrong, and not to elaborate on it. It just makes said person look like an idiot.
By Kirin at 9:37 PM ON 01/22/09
There are definitely many hurdles to overcome for 3D to make its way into our living rooms, not the least of which is the current recession that will keep consumers from rushing out to buy new hardware. But there are 3D technologies that eliminate the use of glasses at least, which is called autostereoscopy or "glasses-free 3D". There's promise on that end!
By joshikins at 10:55 PM ON 01/22/09
This is just dumb. I will admit you brought up some good points, but come on. Technology advances. Sooner or later 3dTV will be standard, or at least something like it. At some point there will be a breakthrough which will make it plausible. Don't believe me? Bill Gates once said "We will never make a 32-bit operating system." via wikiquote. But wait, not only do we have a 32 bit operating system now, we have a 64 bit operating system! Another saying that applies, there are three ways to deal with change, go with it, ignore it, or work against it. If you ignore it, you get left behind, if you go against it, you get thrown behind. Your only option is to move with it.
By roddy at 11:35 PM ON 01/22/09
i used 3d glasses at seaworld australia to watch a film , they were clear glasses and modern looking and it was a thrill to see a shark coming straight at me !!!!! and i guess because i own the domain name hd3d.tv ..... you would know i am a fan !! there is no doubt its the future
By noah at 12:13 AM ON 01/23/09
I've only seen a couple 3D films in theater (nothing on tv, obviously), and they suffer from 1 pitfall- blurring during fast action sequences. I know big screens with standard 35mm will blur more than a digital movie, but these were digital.
Also, the content needs to be filmed in a manner that makes it look like objects come out at you instead of just looking like a diorama box.
By MDC at 1:20 AM ON 01/23/09
You know what will help push 3D TV? Gaming platforms, Porn (as stated in the article), and On-Line Games. Even in a bad economy like the one we're currently facing is escapist entertainment. People will always want to escape the real world by spending time on these types of entertainment. By these industries forcing a 3-D revolution, I can see 3-D TV going live by the end on the year (if they wanted to push that hard). People are people with, or without a great economy so it goes without saying that these entertainment industries will be the biggest push for the technology of 3-D TV.
By Moe at 1:30 AM ON 01/23/09
Just watch Chuck on February 2nd and judge for yourself if it's good or not. The whole episode is in 3D. You just need to get the glasses. Just check there to know where to get the glasses http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/broadcasttelevision-200915113639-dreamworksmonster.html I will personally judge after I see it.
By Ron at 2:08 AM ON 01/23/09
Well Stu I'm not going to be rude. I don't agree with you especially since even the PS3 supports it. I disagree because I WANT this to happen, and I have to think positive. I didn't think the Wii or a clunky DS would take off either. I'm sure 3DTV will take off though.
By Anonymous at 7:44 AM ON 01/23/09
Most of the points against 3d TVs is the use of glasses. But there are 3d TVs that don't require the use of glasses.
During a recent conference I attended (VRST 2008), they had on show one of these TVs.
So before you say they will never take off because you need to wear glasses, you should make some research.
By blizzarddemon at 11:53 AM ON 01/23/09
Okay okay, we've heard from all sides on this matter, but the fact of the matter is 3D visual technology NEVER has succeeded in taking the market. It's always been expensive, bulk prone, and ,while even being a theoretically intriguing technology, it falls short because of impracticality.
It failed in photography, film, and almost every media imaginable for the simple reason that has only the ability to entertain a single viewer at a time, and only through the use of glasses or visors.
Look at the history of virtual reality technology in the 90's, the stereo photography movements of the 60s, the 3D movie's in the 50's. While they all offer the most immersible viewing experience by even today's standards, NONE of these technologies are even remotely mainstream today.
I'm not saying I hate the tech, heavens no, in fact I wish they would become a success, but they will not. Until a solution can be made on how to make it simple, practical, cheap, and without the use of some damn apparatus attached to my noggin, it will continue coming up short of being the success it should be.
By blizzarddemon at 12:11 PM ON 01/23/09
I'll take back my statement about it failing, it might have a chance, but unfortunately till I see it for myself, all I can say it I don't think it'll do well.
Pictures and statements by companies are one thing, living its an entirely different matter.
By Joshikins at 3:55 PM ON 01/23/09
Was this just bad timing or does somebody at device just not like you? http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/super_bowl_xlii_1.php Kind of embarrassing eh?
By DustMan at 7:40 PM ON 01/23/09
The issue with 3D is less an issue of the technology, but the need it fulfills. Even many of the more modern 3D films released only really use 3D in some cheap, showy "this is 3D" way. It rarely is used in a way that integrates it and makes it part of the story. It would be as if the first talkies all felt the need to include overbearing sound effects to show off the technology.
In the end, the move to 3D from 2D doesn't truly add anything to the storytelling format. It has as much use as the alternate angle functions that we see oh so often on DVDs these days.
By ChrisMohrSr at 7:47 PM ON 01/23/09
When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion.
The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usuall reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now ready to present that garbage to young people today, who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the mind of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story.
Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly not a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is certainly true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway.
Christopher R. Mohr Sr.
By Interested Watcher at 2:00 PM ON 01/25/09
Good grief.
All the chatter about what is, for most people, 'just TV'.
Get a life.
Go outside & open your eyes.
It's the most amazing high definition and fully 3D.
By Sirenyde at 5:31 AM ON 01/27/09
No you get a life... bitch.
By Steve-o at 2:46 AM ON 01/28/09
The major hurdle is making 3D which doesn't require compromises such as special glasses, having to sit in one particular spot, or limiting the number of viewers. The other issues are matters of much simpler engineering or just corporate politics, which history tells us will get ironed out eventually, one way or another.
By wsteele.nyc at 1:54 AM ON 01/29/09
This really just comes down to two things. Technology and of course more importantly, economics. Glasses free 3 dimensional display technology has been available to medical industry for several years now. It's even starting to become more mainstream in hospitals.
Does anybody remember the first plasma displays? They were a minimum of $15K. I remember less than four years ago that it was estimated that OLED technology was at least ten more years away. We now have commercially available OLED displays.
How about a video projector that fits in the palm of your hand for less than $400? Soon to be in cell phones. How about digital ink actually used on a special edition magazine?
What was science fiction merely 20 years ago is literally becoming the way of life. Although I cannot be %100 certain that 3D technology will take off, we are seeing more and more major motion pictures being released in 3D and doing quite well.
Parts of Batman Dark Knight were filmed in 3D and guess where it sold out the most? That's right IMAX. Don't quote me on this, but I think it was the first major motion picture to receive it's highest gross sales from IMAX theaters. And don't get me started on how awesome Beowulf was in 3D at IMAX! Yes the glasses a bit annoying, but totally worth the inconvenience.
So in conclusion I think that down the road to HD3D stands a chance and this upcoming airing of Chuck in 3D will give us a glimpse of how much further we have to go. OK... Enough of this, I have to go work on inventing EmotiVision TM, not to be confused with ElmoVision (already working on that one with Sesame Street). A special technology that will make you feel what each character is feeling. Who wouldn't want to watch a EmotiVision TM enhanced episode of 24? I've always wondered what it feels like to have my fingernails torn off.
www.wheresmymedia.com
By whybother at 8:15 PM ON 02/11/09
Everyone please!!! just stop and think. This whole entire website - as much as i love reading and seeing all the great new technologies - is mostly annoying to read. Most of these writers such as stewart wolpin are just talking out of their asses. These are not professional writers nor are they any experts who knows what the F their talking about. Just enjoy the photos and judge for yourselves.
By Robert at 5:26 PM ON 04/20/09
I find it hard to believe that a future technology website would actually be against 3D HDTV technology. Many people believe this kind of technology WILL take off in the near future, and will not require the glasses as it has in the past and as it does now.
But then again, it takes an open mind to understand the possibilities. This writer sounds just like the guys who said "a flying machine, noooo, that's impossible".
By MyPsyche at 4:00 AM ON 05/30/09
This 3D thing offers interesting experience.
It also has some practical inconvenience for the time being.
So it is going to be in some singles home while the main may not care about for next five years.
Techonolgy improvement needed. One TV that can display both 3d and 2D. A DVD that is also capable reading both 3D and 2D contends. Finally with glass may be ok for a while until without glass technology is available.
By end of 2010 some people (yougsters) may have it in their home.
MyPsyche
By UMustBKidding at 4:34 AM ON 09/19/09
I never ceases to amaze me how short-sighted people can be. Of course 3D TV will become a reality ... and sooner rather than later.
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
UMustBKidding:
I never ceases to amaze me how short-sighted people can be. Of course 3D TV will become a reality ... and sooner ra...More »