
Let's just say it: 3D TV is a joke.  - technologizer
http://technologizer.com/2010/09/03/3d-tv/
======
wazoox
Even 1080p isn't really working yet. All systems I've seen out of high-end
post production gear (yes, that includes broadcasting gear) have visual timing
problems. Maybe I'm biased because I've worked in professional video and TV
for too long, but I'm tired of seeing gradually worse quality becoming the
norm (compression artifacts, poor color, bad timing, poor sound sync are more
and more common) because apparently quantity trumps quality.

So what's the last trend in "quantity trumps quality"? Adding a 3d dimension
of course! I've looked at some 3D streams during the World Cup, just to check,
on my 2D set. How does this work? Simple, halved horizontal resolution. Oh,
BTW it's 720p, so that means actual resolution is 640x720. 5% more pixels than
good ol' PAL, that's basically a step back to low def. Hu.

Did I mentioned that the first time the industry tried to impose 3D on an
unwilling public was in 1958, with Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"? Wow, now
that's a _new_ technology!

~~~
cma
640x720 _PER EYE_ ; you still get a 720p amount of pixels, your brain just has
to combine them; which it does in spades.

~~~
wazoox
When I look at 2D 720p, I see 1280x720 per eye too... When you encode a new
information with the same bandwidth, there must be a trade-off.

~~~
cma
Take a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_problem> . The
reduction in fidelity to provide depth perception isn't nearly 1/2 the pixels.

------
jdietrich
A couple of wagers:

The Nintendo 3DS will be a massive driver for stereoscopic gaming, both in
increasing demand for it and in creating a base of knowledge amongst
developers on how to make use of stereoscopy.

Gaming or porn (probably gaming) will put stereoscopic displays in a lot of
living rooms. We're well on our way to critical mass in terms of distribution.

Over the next 10 years or so, stereoscopy will fade into the background, in
much the same way as stereo or surround sound has - some people will ignore it
completely, others will be fanatical about it, but it will be a normal part of
the film-making process.

We've been here before with sound. Listen to early stereophonic records and
you'll hear what we're seeing now with stereoscopy - crudely exaggerated
balances designed to show off the technology. "Revolver" by The Beatles is a
good example - the record is quite uncomfortable to listen to on headphones
because tracks are panned hard left or right, creating a completely artificial
sound. Classical recordings sounded good in stereo quite quickly because the
engineers just stuck two microphones in front of an orchestra, but pop records
took a lot of development to sound natural and pleasing, most significantly
the development of good stereo reverb.

Likewise in stereoscopy, we're currently seeing stereoscopic images with a
hugely exaggerated depth effect, partly to show off the technology, partly
because the technology and technique still needs to mature. We have films not
shot stereoscopically being rendered to 3d, stereoscopic images being
digitally 'widened' and all sorts of other shenanigans. There just isn't a
body of technique for stereoscopic cinematography, so directors and DPs are
struggling to figure it out.

I reject the argument that stereoscopy will fail now because it has failed
previously. We now have a critical mass of technology that has massively
reduced the cost of filming, editing and exhibiting stereoscopic pictures. We
have overcome most of the significant technical problems, although this is not
evenly distributed yet. This time around, stereoscopy is a big deal precisely
because it won't be a big deal for very long.

~~~
MrRage
> "Revolver" by The Beatles is a good example - the record is quite
> uncomfortable to listen to on headphones because tracks are panned hard left
> or right, creating a completely artificial sound.

The Beatles were only preset for the mono mixing of most of their albums; they
were not there for stereo mixes of albums like "Revolver." This probably just
reinforces what you're saying, but I would like to think if they were around
when the stereo version was mixed there wouldn't be as much hard panning. I
believe they mixed "Abbey Road" in stereo and the mixing vastly better.

~~~
Hoff
Alan Parsons did become rather well-known for his abilities as an audio
engineer.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Parsons>

------
noonespecial
3D's just fine. I'm sure it'll sell a bunch of TV's the same way printing
'MEGA-BASS" on boomboxes and hooking the crossover to a little switch sold
those in the 80's.

They can have their 3d. Just please, _please_ don't make the 2d experience
worse in order to shoehorn this nonsense into what should just be passive wall
monitors. If there must be 3d on most tvs, _please provide an easy way to turn
it off_.

~~~
TheNewAndy
One thing I noticed was that when sport is being broadcast in 3d, they will
use some completely useless camera angles which have lots of people at
different distances. Although I don't watch a lot of sport, I've only noticed
this in games where they are available in 3d.

------
dkokelley
The problem with 3D TV adoption:

    
    
      -Lack of 3D content
      -Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem.
      -Increased cost
      -Decreased 2D quality
      -Extra equipment required for some implementations
    

If 3D TV had a single standard that content producers could use to create
their 3D content, and if consumers could watch it on TVs that required no
extra equipment, and if the vast majority of 2D content still looked good on
3D displays, AND if the cost is not prohibitive, then 3D TV will have a shot
at thriving in the market. As it stands right now, I think the best
application for 3D displays is in specialized research and design, and limited
consumer experiences (Avatar, shows at Disneyland, etc.).

~~~
nl
_Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem._

That's not true - there is a 3D broadcast standard. There's no standard
glasses/TV interface, but that is a separate problem

 _Decreased 2D quality_

There's no reason why 3D TVs should have decreased 2D quality. IF they do
that's a problem with the current implementations, but something that is
fixable.

I think the only hope for 3D TV is gaming. Everything else seems pointless to
me.

~~~
dkokelley
You're right about the 3D standards. Creating raw 3D content is one thing -
use two cameras at perspectives that mimic the human eyes. I think I meant to
say that the standards for publishing weren't there. You could release a 3D
film for one standard, and it would be useless on another. It seems similar to
the HD DVD and BluRay problem. The filming wasn't an issue, it was choosing
which standard to package it with that was causing the issue.

------
jschuur
I have a lazy eye, so 3D doesn't work on me, so I upvoted this on principle.

I refuse to bow down to my stereoscopic overlords.

~~~
brettnak
I do too. My friends always want to go to 3d movies and are confused when I
refuse to go. It takes me about 5 - 10 minutes to explain that while they're
seeing 3d, I'm seeing a 2d movie tinted red.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Interesting, I certainly do get some of the effect but don't find it very
pleasant to watch. Like when they float the subtitles right in format of you,
it almost hurts my eyes.

~~~
timthorn
It probably does hurt your eyes. You're perceiving an object at a certain
distance away, but your eyes have to focus on a fixed plane against all their
training,

------
sprout
The real problem with 3D video is that it requires a lot of production work to
get right. You can't just record in 3D and expect it to work. You have to
carefully manage focal length. And when it comes right down to it, it only
adds things to carefully crafted shots like the bioluminescent plants in
Avatar, or the birds flying through hallelujah mountains.

And the fact is 90% of television doesn't have visuals that are going to
benefit from that. The remaining 10%, few people will miss it when it's gone.
There just isn't a huge value proposition for most styles of video, and
there's not a clear case that 3D video is a superior art form to 2D, it just
costs more and takes more production time.

~~~
Avshalom
>>The real problem with 3D video is that it requires a lot of production work
to get right.

This, it should be pointed out, is going to be the dominant problem, making 3d
that doesn't make your eyes bleed is hard. It's also why 3d porn is unlikely
to take off anytime soon, porn isn't in the business of high production values
and carefully thought out cinematography. It will end up with people's eyes
hurting after 5 minutes of constantly re focusing.

------
WilliamLP
I think like many other nascent entertainment technologies, the first really
profitable use cases for this could be porn and gaming.

~~~
richardw
Social location-based porn gaming...app.

~~~
ronnier
Yes, disrupt that space.

------
slashcom
"As a medium, 3D remains remarkably self-trivializing. Virtually nobody who
works with it can resist thrusting stuff at the camera, just to make clear to
viewers that they’re experiencing the miracle of the third dimension."

Reminds me of a film class a took. The professor explained how when
prerecorded sound was first introduced into film, the movies ended up people
just talking to each other. It took some time for them to get over the novelty
of the technology and use it artfully.

But I agree. 3D is way over-marketed and overhyped.

------
JanezStupar
I also think that this is a fad - and only industry fad if I may add. I don't
believe that people will start throwing out their 2D HD sets just because of
3D.

It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living
room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses.

But I kinda like the emergence of 3D sets - because it will probably bring
down prices on 2D sets, which is good. And I guess that people might start
buying 3D sets - if they phase out 2D sets and not increase the price too
much. But people buying and using stuff - that's completely different on the
other side - I divine that entertainment industry will try to charge even more
for 3D movies than what they charge for already overpriced 2D movies - and
that certainly WILL kill 3D.

And also it is interesting to see corporate drones all droning to the same
failed hype.

Call me when the holo-TV is ready. kthxbye

~~~
viraptor
> It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living
> room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses.

I believe that the argument for "radio > tv" sounded very similar. People said
that it would require doing stupid things like sitting and concentrating on
what's on the screen, instead of "just listening".

~~~
JanezStupar
Similar, maybe - but spending evenings on couch with polarization glasses on
my nose, enduring headaches really seems way more unpleasant to me :)

If you're after an analogy - people have been trying to build various 3D
mouses for quite some time now and this one
([http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en](http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en))
seems in the same league as 3D TV - regarding inconvenience to the user.

I have a similar opinion about speech recognition as interface. Why would I
want to talk to a computer ("Turn on the Lights!") - when it ought to just
"recognize" that I'd like more lighting - so I'm just gonna wait for Brain-
Computer Interfaces and Holo-TV :)

------
kevinh
I thought the iPad was a joke, and by all accounts it seems to be a success,
so I'm wary of judging a product's future success based on my own personal
opinions.

~~~
points
The iPad is a joke. I've yet to see a normal person owning one (But then I
don't live in the valley either).

It's a toy for people who have more money than they know what to do with.

~~~
cubicle67
I raise your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence.

I know 5 people personally who own iPads. All are over 30, two are male, 3 are
female and all except 1 are what I'd consider "normal" people (non tech type
people). I also happened to sit behind two people using them on the train on
Friday. Oh, and I'm most definitely not in the valley.

~~~
mrtron
Evidence from Asia:

I saw about 5 Kindles and around 10 iPads on my last flight.

There was a huge lineup in a store selling iPads and iPhone 4G's for a big
markup in HK.

People are loving those products and buying them. Definitely premium goods,
but there is no denying the popularity of these items.

It is easy to doubt these premium goods like 3D TV's and iPads...but there are
a huge number of people who replace their phone every 6 months and their TV
every 2 years.

------
acon
3D TV could work if producers showed restraint and only used it to add depth
behind the frame, instead of throwing stuff at the audience for effect.
Clipping of objects thrown towards you really kills the experience for me.

I think it will work for sports and nature shows. In the same way BBC's Planet
Earth is great in HD I think some future production of the same kind will work
great in 3D. Let's face it, that is basically what Avatar is – a gorgeous
nature show set on an alien planet. At least that was the best part of it for
me.

------
nanairo
So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been:

1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because
polarised glasses cut half of the light

2- But most of all every time something is coming towards me in the film is
impressive only until it reaches the edge of the screen... at which point I
get one massive reminder that I am watching a film and not reality and it
completely kills my suspension of disbelief. Maybe with time I'll get use to
it, but so far I've been much more aware that I was in a cinema when watching
3D... ironically it was a lot less _immersive_. ;)

Where I do think it can have a positive effect is either where the film maker
makes careful use not to go beyond the screen's size (for example "How to
train a dragon" was quite nice in 3D because of all the dogfighting which was
a lot clearer in 3D), or in sports where the director can be sure the ball and
the players will stay within a certain area.

~~~
mrtron
Avatar was brilliantly glowing and didn't feel dark at all. Am I the only one?

~~~
bd
It's harder to tell when you watch just 3d because eyes can adapt pretty well
to low light.

I removed my 3d glasses while watching the Avatar to check how it looks. It
was indeed much brighter and afterwards 3d felt quite dim (for some time, till
my eyes didn't adapt again).

Brighter 2d felt right and 3d was dim as opposed to 3d feeling normal and 2d
being too bright.

It's a bit like changing between good desktop LCD and notebook. If you work
just on notebook, it feels perfectly ok, but if you have it side by side with
a good monitor, it looks quite bad.

------
b3b0p
Peoples expectations for 3D TV is a bit higher than some illusion produced by
wearing some glasses staring directly at the correct angle at a flat screen.

I'll look at 3D TV when it is similar to a Star Wars 3D hologram. I don't
think I'm alone. No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D
illusion.

~~~
kscaldef
_No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion._

Really? Because I remember a lot of people here a few months ago saying that
you were wasting your money if you _didn't_ pay extra to see Avatar in 3D.

Personally, I agree with you. I hate 3D movies. I'll go out of my way to see
the non-3D version. But, there's plenty of people willing to pony up the extra
$4 for it.

~~~
erikstarck
I think it works better on the cinema.

The cinema is and should be kind of an alternative reality. You enter this
large, dark room and from now on you're in an artificial fantasy. Wearing
goggles almost adds to the experience.

Your living room is something different.

------
erikstarck
Agree. The Star Wars sequence where Luke and Obi-Wan plays the "you're my only
hope"-message from Princess Leia would look so much less cool if they were
forced to wear 3D goggles. Now where's the holograms?

------
mprovost
Sports is the thing that's going to sell 3D TVs and there's no mention of it
in the article. The broadcasters are investing a lot in their live sports 3D
tech and it looks good.

~~~
rapind
I couldn't agree more. I checked out the directv sample at the Sony booth last
CES and both football and soccer looked amazing. Sports will be a massive
driver.

I can see 3d TVs starting their life in man caves all over the world. I'm not
sure they'll move out of the cave up to the living room, but who knows once
people get used to them.

I also think there'll be a lot of improvement on the eyewear situation.

~~~
eru
Man caves: So porn should help sports to drive adoption?

~~~
rapind
I would bet porn will be a pretty big driver of 3d as well, but man cave
doesn't necessarily refer to porn. Man Cave = basement where you get away from
the family (for good or bad) for a couple of hours and watch your
hockey/football/soccer/golf/nascar/whatever.

I love the term.

------
mark_l_watson
I have to disagree: my Dad bought a 3D TV about 2 months ago, and with the LCD
shutter glasses the visual quality is good and it is a lot of fun (at least we
all enjoyed the few movies my Dad had). My Dad makes his own blu-ray videos,
is totally into video editing,is very fussy about quality, and likes the new
TV for regular blu-ray viewing.

About 16 years ago in our SAIC virtuality lab (we made a few prototype race
car simulators, starting with taking 3 days of lessons at Laguna Seca from
NASCAR drivers) we had LCD shutter glasses to experiment with and even back
then the quality was stunning.

Before you diss on 3D TV, try watching a movie in a comfortable home setting
with friends and see how much fun you have.

------
pontifier
Some 3D is admittedly bad. Some is terrible, such as when someone incorrectly
swaps the L and R images. But when 3D is done right you aren't looking at a
screen any more. For me at least, with 3D games, what I have instead is a
window to another world, a window that things can come through. A window that
makes me feel like a giant with little people playthings that jump at my
command... plus playing a tomb raider game in 3D is just awesome.

------
auxbuss
The medium is great, but the current implementations are v0.1 alphas.
Unfortunately, marketing will buff and shine, or attempt to, until reality
bites.

As they say in the music business, "You can't polish a turd".

Now, v2.0 should be interesting, when the goggles and the crappy picture have
been axed, and the content isn't focused on the "gee whiz".

------
mrtron
I just saw the latest 3D TV (no glasses required) demo'd in HK.

Every previous 3D TV looked like garbage. This one seemed to add a new level
of depth to the movie without being blurry or looking ridiculous.

It is coming, and it is stupid to ignore it. People love 3D movies and 3D tv
too, and the market will drive the products.

------
danilocampos
Let's all hope that 3D television with expensive, goofy spectacles is to 2010
what Laserdisc was to the 80's.

~~~
brc
The crazy part about laserdisc? You had to get up and flip the disc over
halfway through the movie!

~~~
c1sc0
I remember Laserdisc mostly as the thing that almost killed the BBC Domesday
Project: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project>

------
igrekel
The real question for me is why so much 3D TV and more importantly, why now??

Are they only trying to make things more difficult to copy a movie? Or just
another excuse to have people purchase new hardware as the cycle for HD is not
even over? Or is it a reason to justify HD and put those extra pixels to use?

------
est
The so called 3D TV on today's market is really 2D x 2. Sometimes it's even 3D
for one spot, one person only.

I guess real 3D, or holographic TV could be rotated at any POV like in-game
cameras.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127195>

~~~
eru
It would probably be enough to make it as 3D as a theatre. Theatre scenes do
not have to look good from behind.

------
forensic
3D TV right now is badly used in everything EXCEPT animated features.

Pixar does 3D right. Toy Story, Up, etc benefit greatly from 3D and it is used
well.

Non-animated shows haven't yet figured out how to use it. But they will. And
when they do 3D TVs will become the norm.

------
afterburner
The author mentions blurriness and ghosting; I must say, with the Sony and
Panasonic demos in stores, I noticed no such problems. And it would be pretty
nice for games. The glasses and lack of content are a real drawback, though.

~~~
wccrawford
I tried the Samsung products in the store, and they were perfect. I ended up
buying a cheaper Samsung model (one that wasn't on display) and the ghosting
is really bad.

Is it the TV? Is it my environment? I dunno. But I wasn't willing to pay twice
the price to go up to the next set, and I really, really like 3D, so I kept
mine. When the next generation comes out, and they've got things worked out a
little better, I'll likely buy one of the better sets.

I enjoy the 3D on it, but it could be better.

------
dusing
We just finished our first 3D commercial production (airs on ESPN3D this
weekend) and it felt a little hoakey the whole time, but damned if it didn't
look really cool in the end. I hope someone enjoys it cause I'm not buying
one.

------
igrekel
No one seem to mention one of the things that annoy me the most with 3D
movies: the focus. If you are looking at something different than what the
director wants or expects you to look at, it all blurry because its out of
focus.

------
andrewcamel
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11178043>

I'm skeptical just like this reporter, but at the same time, I would really
like to see 3D more widely available.

------
DannoHung
I dunno, I think three dimensional video is an exciting medium once creators
get over the novelty factor. It's going to be quite popular once the
technology for glasses free displays are in homes.

------
JoeAltmaier
I'll only buy it if the dial goes up to 11.

------
aaronmoodie
hi guys, first post here.

As it stands now, 3D tv is going to be a flash in the pan. Advancements in
tech is about making things easier, not more difficult/annoying to use.

Having to wear ($200) glasses to watch tv takes all the ease out of it, and as
silencio mentioned, is pointless when watching a movie/game with friends.

~~~
rapind
I hear you but I think it depends on the situation. Headphones can be annoying
but it sounds so much better. You don't wear them at a party but there are
still plenty of situations where you do.

~~~
aaronmoodie
True, but the benefits of having personal, portable music outweigh the
annoyance of having to wear headphones. And as you said, you don't wear them
in social situations, which is exactly what will be required with 3D tv. It is
in effect like having a party and making everyone wear headphones.

Sure, it might sound better, but is it worth the hassle?

~~~
rapind
Yeah I don't think it's great for the social TV watching. But plenty of people
also watch TV solo, and play video games solo, etc.

The effect is pretty astounding in sports and video games, which might be
enough to get away from the nerd stigma and maybe even make it a must have for
some people.

I don't think it's a fad this time. This article didn't even cover the main
attractions, which makes me think the author is either ignorant of the topic
he's covering, or he's biased.

I'm personally not a huge pusher of 3d tv. In fact I'll probably wait until
it's more mainstream and prices have dropped before I grab one. But yes, after
seeing sports and video games in 3d at CES I will definitely get one
eventually. Hopefully with more comfortable and less nerdy eyewear (just a
matter of time before Oakley designs a set).

~~~
aaronmoodie
True. I for one would also love to play games in 3D. I always tend to think of
sports as more of a social viewing event though, but I guess there are many
people who watch it on their own.

It will be interesting to see how it goes, but I'm still not convinced it will
be the next big thing. I guess that's partially because overall I don't find
it that exciting.

~~~
rapind
One thing to keep in mind is that the eyewear is bound to get better, and
won't be that limiting in terms of social situations. Do you socialize with
sunglasses on? I do often enough, so why can't the 3d eyewear be framed the
same way?

I agree that it's not necessarily the _next big thing_ , but I definitely
think there's a market for it, and it's not a fad as the article suggests.

------
olegkikin
3D is the future. Even if these first attempts aren't perfect, we will get
there.

~~~
sorbus
So, why is it the future? Is it the future because it's a huge improvement
over current technology, presenting compelling reasons to move over to it, or
is it the future because everything thinks that it's the next big thing, to
make people buy stuff again, and produce an ongoing revenue stream in the form
of horribly expensive glasses needed for it to work?

~~~
DannoHung
Because binocular vision represents one ofthe complete capacities for human
sensation. It's about as big a jump as it was from mono to stereo in terms of
fidelity.

It's one step closer to total sensory immersion.

~~~
nanairo
But binocular vision is only one of the many ways that our brain uses to
create the perception of depth... and not even the main one at that.

We use the knowledge of what covers what, the size of objects/people, and the
parallax effect. The first two can already be done with 2D and the latter
cannot be done in 3D either (at least not with a lot of the cheap stuff out
there). Which is why it doesn't seem that big of a deal when you look at
something in 3D (though surely it helps a bit).

------
petervandijck
Amen.

~~~
silencio
Indeed. I just recently shopped around and bought a new TV. As someone that
had a budget of upwards of $2k, everyone and their mother in every store I
went to, including Fry's and Costco, were pushing 3D TVs at me. They all
needed $200+ glasses to work (that's just awesome when you have lots of
friends over...), were all giving me nothing other than 3D to justify the
increased cost, and nobody really mentioned what I already knew: there's a
dearth of 3D content out there. I think every store that had a 3D TV I could
try out was permanently tuned to either ESPN 3D or the manufacturer's demo
video.

By the time my new 46" Samsung LED TV needs replaced (I give it 5 years at the
earliest), I bet neither the 3D technology nor the content will have improved
significantly. I haven't seen much 3D content that adds rather than detracts
in a very uniquely gimmicky way, ever, and I don't see all the studios and
manufacturers agreeing to a common set of standards very soon...

~~~
prawn
At least it's driven down prices on decent non-3D TVs. Got a nice 55" recently
that has two USB ports and plays all my AVIs/etc straight off external drives.

------
nazgulnarsil
This argument only holds true if people buy TV's to watch stuff on them. TV's
aren't about watching stuff. At least they aren't only about watching stuff.

~~~
hnal943
What are they for, then?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
big screen TV's used to differentiate the haves from the have nots. we need a
new generation of pointlessly expensive TV's to fulfill this niche.

