3D Is More Than Hype but Less Than Hoped

http://www.glgroup.com/News/3D-Is-More-Than-Hype-but-Less-Than-Hoped-51593.html

November 21, 2010

Summary

The article by Olin Coles looks at the topic from the standpoint of a gadget fan rather than from the viewpoint of a display expert. I just few home from Latin Display 2010 in São Paulo where experts in human vision, display manufacture and TV technology shared their latest findings. They noted several advances toward acceptable, affordable 3D systems for consumer use but their consensus was that these would take several more years to realize.

Analysis

Brazilian development agencies attracted international participation in this formerly regional conference and I met people known worldwide as top in their field. For example, Adi Abileah, who chairs the committee developing the international standard for 3D display measurement and characterization, gave a half day lecture on the subject. This year’s program was sponsored by the Latin American chapter of Society for Information Display (SID) with participation of the International Display Research Conference (IDRC). It was a great place to catch up with academics and manufacturers from all over the world.

 

Paul Gagnon of DisplaySearch, a global market research arm of The NPD Group, set the tone by announcing a second revision to his 3D TV forecast for 2010. As before, DisplaySearch reduced its expectations and now forecasts 3D TV sets to comprise only 1.5% of all sets this year. The consensus view among participants was that 3D TV sets available today are the result of manufacture-out rather than market-in development. Flat-panel makers wanted to stimulate demand for more expensive LED backlight and higher frame-rate technologies, so they bundled these features into their panels expecting that the additional cost of 3D viewing would be borne by consumers who purchased shutter glasses.

 

Consumer reluctance to purchase shutter glasses and the lack of standards to ensure interoperability between brands of glasses and televisions are well known. What is less known are the problems or trade-offs manufacturers, film producers and broadcasters face. I will mention two of these. First, as the article mentions, directors can obtain 3D cameras today. Still, they may choose to shoot in 2D. Staging and composing many traditional scenes can generate disturbing effects in 3D systems, so directors must design their story boards and staging specifically for 3D. Some find that unacceptable, which is one reason there is little 3D content available today. Another reason is that post-production conversion of existing 2D content may generate unfortunate results. Second, 3D camera systems and imaging methods should vary by the viewing distance. The ideal set-up for producing 3D in an iPhone or iPad type of device differs from that preferred for living room TV distances. Considerations for filming iMax movies are yet another matter. Understanding such factors requires a long technical discussion but perhaps readers can appreciate the difference between focusing on real-life objects that have different physical locations (distances from our eyes) and on images of objects that lie in a single plane (the same screen distance).

 

In addition to these basic challenges of producing good 3D media in distinct user environments, display-related companies face trade-offs between TV set cost and performance. Display makers are exploring several methods for showing 3D without glasses (various autosteroscopic technologies) but each of these can reduce apparent picture brightness, reduce perceived image resolution or increase cost. Most attendees at LatinDisplay 2010 hope such trade-offs can be realized in acceptable ways this decade. For now, however, all of us have to deal with an over-hyped technology.