I’m not working myself into a tizzy over Panasonic’s announcement that it has released a 3D television. I had my first HDTV in the year 2000. But notably, did not actually receive any content in HD until 2002. DVDs did look very good on it, but there were no Blu*Ray or HD DVDs available in the year 2000.
Will it take years for 3D to catch on at home?
Business Week went long on writing about Panasonic’s announcement of a new 50″ 3D television, but did get right to the truth about why Panasonic actually cares:
For Panasonic’s strategy to work, it has had to cozy up to movie studios. The man behind the effort is Eisuke Tsuyuzaki, chief technology officer for Panasonic’s North American Operations. More than two years ago, Tsuyuzaki started offering studios Panasonic’s technical expertise in converting 3D movies to DVDs. The mission now is to get major studios to support Blu-ray as the standard DVD format for high-definition 3D videos, Tsuyuzaki said during a recent interview at the Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory, in Universal City, Calif.
The DVD thing, I completely understand. But here’s what I don’t get:
Why do I need a new TV to see 3D?
Answer: I don’t!
I can see 3D on my TV today. The problem is , just like with Panasonic’s spiffy new TV they announced, you still have to wear special 3D glasses. Business Week buried that until near the bottom of its article, and it might be the single biggest issue in slowing adoption of 3D.
Update: However, Panasonic is offering new and improved 3D technology with this TV that will enable viewers with “active shutter” glasses to see better 3D than the traditional blue/red tech employed for 3D TV viewing.
The 3D Technology is already decent if you’re wearing the glasses. You don’t need a new TV for that!
If you have a high definition widescreen, the 3D technology available is already very good. Last year’s Super Bowl campaign where there was a 3D ad for Monsters vs. Aliens and a 3D episode of Chuck taught me a couple of things:
1.) The technology itself is awesome. When I viewed the demos available online that were specifically intended to ONLY be watched in 3D, I was surprised by just how fantastic the quality was. Stuff literally jumped out of my screen. And it was much, much more pronounced on my big screen TV than it was when viewing the same demo’s on my 24″ computer monitor (though in full screen mode, it was very noticeable and cool even there)
2.)While not a problem for special 3D DVDs, the one reason besides any bandwidth compression issues why you won’t see much 3D content from the TV networks anytime soon is that in order to create shows that look REALLY cool in 3D for those wearing the glasses, the content becomes practically unwatchable for those who are not wearing the glasses.
Again, that’s not a problem with the DVDs. The bigger obstacle there might be convincing the masses to wear glasses. But do I need a new TV for that? No.
(just to get this in again!) Update: However, Panasonic is offering new and improved 3D technology with this TV that will enable viewers with “active shutter” glasses to see better 3D than the traditional blue/red tech employed for 3D TV viewing. Also, commercial availability isn’t expected until 2010.
I’m not friggin’ wearing the glasses. Sorry, not going to happen. I consider my peripheral vision to be important, and I also like to have my head at a comfortable angle when watching TV. I also, FWIW, have always found glasses uncomfortable and have been glad for vision that doesn’t need them.
3D is not like HD. HD was necessary, because SD was crap. There’s never been anything good about NTSC or PAL television, with washed out colours and horizontal lines across the screen, and getting rid of them for the virtually print quality of LCD or Plasma 720p or 1080p couldn’t come soon enough. I was on board as soon as I could afford a TV.
3D doesn’t add to that. It adds inconvenience, discomfort, and a reduction in quality, and all so that a filmmaker can occasionally create a cheap thrill by throwing something at the screen (which half the time ends up breaking into two as it gets closer.)
I can’t wait for this fad to be dead. And if it’s not a flash in the pan, then I don’t expect to be watching as much in future.
Just out of curiosity, have you seen any of the new 3D movies in theaters over the past few years? The technology they use now is not the red-blue, headache-inducing glasses like the Superbowl/Chuck promo, but instead it relies on projecting two images simultaneously on the screen. It is about a million times better (both in clarity, realism, and non-headache-inducingness) than the blue/red glasses technology that TVs are using now. I saw Coraline in 3d at the theater and was blown away, and I was sadly disappointed when I bought the DVD that the 3d is nowhere even close to the same.
That being said, I’m not sure if this new 3D television they’re making uses this dual projection tech, but if it does then its well, well worth the investment.
Sam B., ah, that makes some sense, thanks. So the 3D glasses that came with the Coraline DVD were blue/red?
Robert,
Yeah they were. The ones they use in theaters now don’t distort color at all, and the 3D is amazing. I highly recommend it =).
Sam B, I don’t know if the glasses with the Panasonic are the same as the theater, but they are not blue/red, they are “active shutter”. Either way, I’ve updated the post.
Words can’t express how annoyed I am about this… so I made a video to articulate why exactly it is that I hate 3-D. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAEZ5WO20GI
LOL Grady, nice rant!
The “active shutter technology” you refer to must be the hardware dependent version of 3D that is significantly better than anything we’ve seen so far (red/blue, polorized light). I’m all on board for this.
I would guess that as soon as people get over the newness and found ways to make it more convenient – it would add significantly to any video/movie experience. It would probably require changes to the ways in which films are made, since currently the viewer only experiences depth in a compressed 2D form…
With digital OTA, the issue could be solved by broadcasting both versions at once: 2D on the main stream (.1) and 3D on a secondary stream. Of course, most people are busy watching the inferior picture quality on their cable or satellite, and they don’t even realize just how much content is already hiding in the OTA substreams.
Seriously, no matter what the broadcast medium, why couldn’t channels use this type of approach, broadcasting both versions simultaneously as separate digital streams?