3D TV

July 5, 2013

3D TV, another ridiculous idea not being embraced by the public:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23195479

R,

Keith Walters · July 5, 2013

3D TV, another ridiculous idea not being embraced by the public:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23195479

R,

They started that here about 3 years ago, and similarly it was a total failure.

Generally, sales of digital TVs have been in flatline for at least 12 months. Not terribly many people seem to be interested in High-end TVs; "Smart TVs" are merely the current wank in a long line of desperate attempts to persuade people that their perfectly functional existing A-V apparatus no longer cuts the mustard. Other examples are ultra-thin LCD panels (where there's nowhere to put workable speakers), and of course 3D. Marketing heresy I know, but I suspect that everybody who wants a digital TV has now got one...

3D broadcasts were always going to be a non-starter, since all current designs require a dedicated channel that can't be decoded by non-3D TVs. Attempts at modifying the MPEG standards to produce compatible 3D signals that can also be decoded by existing TVs (rather like NTSC or PAL) have been a dismal failure. The standard would have to be redesigned from the ground up.

The biggest problem is the amount of worthwhile programming available. The only really convincing live action 3D movies I have seen have all been shot flat with the perspective information added in Post. But this can only be done by using a large amount of green-screen-ing and synthetic assembly of elements that would normally be all captured in the one shot. Trying to add 3D to movies that were never intended to be shown that way never really works.

Trying to shoot sporting events with stereoscopic camera rigs never really works either, because of the unpredictable nature of the action, and unlike movie production, you can't go back and do another take!

The other thing that I find interesting is the apparently unassailable assumption that the viewing public all desperately crave huge viewing screens, and that the only thing that's held them back to date is the cost, (and previously, bulk) of the bigger sizes.

But sales of extra-large screen sizes have been disappointing, even despite heavy discounting. I can even see this trend where I work. I have accumulated a fairly large collection of unbranded sample TVs that technically are supposed to be destroyed and dumped, but we are allowed to give them away to staff. I have no trouble getting rid of screen sizes 32" and smaller, but larger sizes, you literally can't give them away! I now have (literally!) a TV in every room of the house, and I'm seriously thinking of installing some in the bathrooms as well! I don't think too many other people in the world have a digiral TV in their garden shed...

Alan Duckworth · July 6, 2013

I remember seeing the first of the 3D TV demos at the Consumer Electronics Show some years ago, and thinking to myself "nobody is going to wear these stupid glasses in their living room". And....you need a pair of glasses for every person who might drop by. Without compelling content, it was a losing concept from the get-go - but obviously the industry had other ideas.

If....big if....they can get the "glasses-less" video display technology to look good, maybe there is a fighting chance - again assuming content. I have been impressed, no - wrong word - surprised, at the tablet-sized 3D glasses-less display demos that I have seen. Is that the future???

July 6, 2013

Why not just give everyone a virtual reality helmet? Why do we even need TVs? Big or small?

Just put on your virtual helmet and you'll be watching a TV bigger than a movie screen! Or IMAX! Whatever you want.

R,

Alan Duckworth · July 6, 2013

Inspired by Richard's post, I think I found the future - from September 2012 [so already waaay out-of-date], an interesting study from Ericsson http://www.telecomlead.com/latest-news/67-percent-use-tablets-smartphones-or-laptops-for-tv-viewing-ericsson-study/

Keith Walters · July 6, 2013

Why not just give everyone a virtual reality helmet? Why do we even need TVs? Big or small?

Just put on your virtual helmet and you'll be watching a TV bigger than a movie screen! Or IMAX! Whatever you want.

R,

I'd be prepared to bet at least $5 that that's exactly what's going to happen.

Current generation 3D on something derived from Google Glass is bound to be a winner. You wouldn't need crummy polarizing or super anaylglyph glasses, and you can individually adjust the focus for each eye. Imagine being able to pass the time commuting in your own little cinema. And if 3D is not for you, you could still have 2D with the illusion of a huge screen.

Adaptive 3D that actually changes the view to match your head movements so it looks like a genuine 3D image is probably some way off. In fact it will probably only ever be feasible for fully CGI features.

But I'll put another $5 on the Next Big Thing being "Photorealistic" CGI, where the images are indistinguishable from live action. The potential for that is possibly disturbing. "Colorizing" old B&W movies is already old hat, but imagine if they could be digitally "re-shot" by combining advanced motion capture with advanced CGI.

George Ebersole · July 6, 2013

When this topic was first broached a few years back I was reminded of a local KNTV Channel 11 story out of San Jose back in 1988 or 1989.

Two guys working out of their garage actually came up with a 3D television that didn't require you to wear any glasses of any sort. The concept wasn't to project the image out at you, as per current 3D technology, but to create the experience of looking out a window. And they did so by syncing up two TVs and two cameras.

I have a hard time thinking anyone would spend any kind of money on a technology that is essentially a passing fad, but then again it is the general public.

I sure do wish I could find that link. Almost as much as I wish I could scrounge up some work.

Freya Black · July 6, 2013

I have to say I was more surprised to learn that the BBC were producing a Dr Who episode in 3D than I was by the latest announcement.

http://www.redsharknews.com/distribution/item/869-bbc-turns-away-from-3d

We all knew 3D TV was destined to be a flop but I think this announcement does signal the end, in spite of what the BBC might try and say.

Freya

Adrian Sierkowski · July 6, 2013

I for one say good riddance.

I finally actually enjoyed 3-D and that was on the Transformers ride over @ Universal, though even after the 5 minutes, my head still bothered me and my eyes hurt.

TV at home, really, is quite often a passive experience. Something on in the background as background noise while you go out cooking or whatever... not the same active viewing you'd get in a theater, or on a ride.

George Ebersole · July 6, 2013

Yeah, can you imagine watching a baseball game in 3D? Golf? Football? The news?

Adrian Sierkowski · July 6, 2013

The only 3-d I'd really invest in for my house would be a holodeck. But that's not coming to a best-buy near me anytime soon. (plus i have no reason to get a new tv when my HDTV is working fine.)

Freya Black · July 6, 2013

At BVE a couple of years ago and saw some video of timelapse in 3D. I wore the silly goggles for a couple of minutes and took them off when I'd had enough. It was kind of fun. I can't imagine sitting in a cinema for hours with the goggles on but I guess people do it all the time.

My thoughts were that "this would be fantastic for art installations" where you can just stick on the glasses and take them off a few minutes later when you've had enough. I think that would be a lot of fun!

Freya

Adrian Sierkowski · July 6, 2013

3-d for art would be quite interesting and something fun to experience.

I could also see some people trying to play with it maybe for travelogue filming/documentary ect and those other "event films."

I would love to see ISS in 3-D I have to say. Or a space walk in 3-D, but I digress. I haven't got much of a problem with 3-d even for theatrical, as it's basically and event and for the most part you'll be looking @ the screen. 'course as soon as you take people out of a theater and "real life," (aka ADD) takes over those glasses quite quickly become rather burdensome.

July 6, 2013

Yeah, can you imagine watching a baseball game in 3D? Golf? Football? The news?

Awesome! Fighting baseball players coming at you in 3D! Punches & kicks coming right into your living room!!

R,

George Ebersole · July 6, 2013

So Richard votes for bench clearers in 3D. Cool.

Alan Duckworth · July 7, 2013

At BVE a couple of years ago and saw some video of timelapse in 3D. I wore the silly goggles for a couple of minutes and took them off when I'd had enough. It was kind of fun. I can't imagine sitting in a cinema for hours with the goggles on but I guess people do it all the time.

My thoughts were that "this would be fantastic for art installations" where you can just stick on the glasses and take them off a few minutes later when you've had enough. I think that would be a lot of fun!

Freya

Our local Art Gallery currently has an exhibit of 3D black & white anaglyph photos. The photos are re-stagings of Edward Curtis images using toys instead of people.

George Ebersole · July 10, 2013

They started that here about 3 years ago, and similarly it was a total failure.

Generally, sales of digital TVs have been in flatline for at least 12 months. Not terribly many people seem to be interested in High-end TVs; "Smart TVs" are merely the current wank in a long line of desperate attempts to persuade people that their perfectly functional existing A-V apparatus no longer cuts the mustard. Other examples are ultra-thin LCD panels (where there's nowhere to put workable speakers), and of course 3D. Marketing heresy I know, but I suspect that everybody who wants a digital TV has now got one...

3D broadcasts were always going to be a non-starter, since all current designs require a dedicated channel that can't be decoded by non-3D TVs. Attempts at modifying the MPEG standards to produce compatible 3D signals that can also be decoded by existing TVs (rather like NTSC or PAL) have been a dismal failure. The standard would have to be redesigned from the ground up.

The biggest problem is the amount of worthwhile programming available. The only really convincing live action 3D movies I have seen have all been shot flat with the perspective information added in Post. But this can only be done by using a large amount of green-screen-ing and synthetic assembly of elements that would normally be all captured in the one shot. Trying to add 3D to movies that were never intended to be shown that way never really works.

Trying to shoot sporting events with stereoscopic camera rigs never really works either, because of the unpredictable nature of the action, and unlike movie production, you can't go back and do another take!

The other thing that I find interesting is the apparently unassailable assumption that the viewing public all desperately crave huge viewing screens, and that the only thing that's held them back to date is the cost, (and previously, bulk) of the bigger sizes.

But sales of extra-large screen sizes have been disappointing, even despite heavy discounting. I can even see this trend where I work. I have accumulated a fairly large collection of unbranded sample TVs that technically are supposed to be destroyed and dumped, but we are allowed to give them away to staff. I have no trouble getting rid of screen sizes 32" and smaller, but larger sizes, you literally can't give them away! I now have (literally!) a TV in every room of the house, and I'm seriously thinking of installing some in the bathrooms as well! I don't think too many other people in the world have a digiral TV in their garden shed...

I think I like this post the best. Keith, you bring up some really excellent points. I think companies have assumed that there's a desire for personal movie screens in homes. Heck, some of my best TV spending moments were with my old portable B&W from Kmart sitting in the corner of my bedroom on a hot summer night watching Godzilla. I mean, would I have benefitted from a six foot wide screen? If my window was open the neighbors would see this kid watching Godzilla devastate downtown Tokyo for the umpteenth time.

And not that I'm a big reality show guy in the first place. In fact I can't stand the genre, but even if I did, then how is watching drek like Survivor on that same screen make it a better experience? Star Trek II or Star Wars, yeah, okay, but American Ninja? I don't think so.

I think the "keeping up with the Joneses widescreen super-huge TV thing is going to peter out like the big blockbuster CGI b-flicks. At some point those Survivor and American Ninja viewers are going to grow up and want something more.

Just me.

Alan Duckworth · July 12, 2013

I remember seeing the first of the 3D TV demos at the Consumer Electronics Show some years ago, and thinking to myself "nobody is going to wear these stupid glasses in their living room". And....you need a pair of glasses for every person who might drop by. Without compelling content, it was a losing concept from the get-go - but obviously the industry had other ideas.

If....big if....they can get the "glasses-less" video display technology to look good, maybe there is a fighting chance - again assuming content. I have been impressed, no - wrong word - surprised, at the tablet-sized 3D glasses-less display demos that I have seen. Is that the future???

From The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/glasses-free-3d-tech-makers-583895