The Coming Problems For Rolling Out 3D TV 232
holy_calamity writes "Now that Sony has announced it will sell 3D-capable televisions in 2010, people are thinking more seriously about the rocky road leading to mainstream 3D TV adoption. New Scientist says that not only do program makers lack the technology to make shows in 3D, but that little is known about the creative problems posed by shooting shows that make use of a whole new dimension, and what works for audiences. Engadget's own pundit focuses on the more predictable problems of format wars between competing 3D display technologies. Suddenly 2010 seems a little too soon."
This is a simple decision for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
But...but... they need new technology! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services. The manufacturers need to invent a new "toy" that people will demand and spend copious amounts of cash. They need 3D to succeed.
Oh and forget Bluray. You say you already upgraded your movie collection from VHS to DVD to Bluray? That's a shame because the new technology will be 3D Crystal technology. They want us to keep repurchasing the same thing over-and-over.
(Yes I've turned cynical in my old age.)
Re:But...but... they need new technology! (Score:5, Insightful)
console wars (Score:5, Insightful)
The next generation game consoles will support 3D TV's. I suspect that much like the PS3 driving bluray adoption whatever format the winning console chooses will be the new 3D TV format of choice.
People forget but real HDTV's came out more than 9 years ago. In the start there wasn't any HD content to watch either; just upconverted DVD's. But now every one I know has a HDTV set.
Re:This is a simple decision for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most television will probably remain 2D, but the 3D tech integrated for those shows that are in 3D will probably require something like polarized glasses for at least the first generation.
It will take some time to transition to 3D. At first, it will be for special use. I can see HBO shelling out for a new series, and some movies made for 3D presentation (mostly animated films right now) will benefit. Provided viewers can accept it, as it becomes more common, it will become less expensive, and eventually fairly ubiquitous, such that the next generation may regard 2D as we often regard black & white.
Point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?
Re:This is a simple decision for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.
Agreed. No way in hell I'm wearing anything extra to watch TV on a daily basis.
Maybe the occasional special program or event... I could probably put on some goofy glasses to watch the Super Bowl, for example...
But on a day-to-day basis? Not happening.
Re:But...but... they need new technology! (Score:4, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how people insist on fixating on the visuals.
These are just one part of the movie. The entire "experience" needs to be
properly set up.Also, a properly configured surround sound setup goes a
lot further to create that "cinema experience" at home. This is likely
why a surprising number of people are unimpressed with HDTV or Bluray.
A much smaller screen, a well done sound system and a DVD can yield you
a much more effective "cinematic experience" than most HDTV setups.
This is why Lucas pushed for better sound in cinemas.
Fah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Production challenges (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, 3D is hard and limits your ability to use cheap tricks to make scenes look the way a producer wants.
For a big blockbuster movie, I can see it being worth the cash. You can drop megamillions on producing a movie and run a reasonable expectation of making it back over a relatively short period. 3D would just be added to the list of expensive special effects, and some people will pay a premium for the 3D version for home if it's available. But I really only see this useful for big blockbuster films.
For regular TV shows? Umm, no. Not anytime soon, at least. There will probably be a few shows that will be produced just because they want to be first to 3D, but they'll probably be about the same quality as a /. "first post" message thread.
You can take months and months to shoot a single movie and everyone can be OK with that because it's a movie - it's a one-shot deal and audiences expect a lot so you have to produce something special. For a TV show, you have to release 16 or 38 minutes of footage (once you chop out the commercials and credits from a 30- or 60-minute show) EVERY WEEK, for at least 10-15 weeks out of the year (used to be in the 20s, but most series release a lot fewer shows now).
So, release one movie a year, you have to create ~100-110 minutes of actual show. To release one short (10-episode) season of a "1-hour" show, you've got to create 380 minutes. Your return probably isn't going to be nearly as high, so you simply can't afford to sustain 3D filming for that amount of time year after year and make good money, unless 3D becomes a HUGE ratings boom for your show.
Add to that the complexity of setting up certain convincing shots (long lenses that can give the appearance of an actor being in the middle of an explosion when in reality he's hundreds of feet away, perspective shots, etc), and TV shows would have to either get a lot more expensive, or a lot shorter. Most shows wouldn't even be candidates. Reality shows, sitcoms, talk shows - what would be the point? Cinematic-quality shows like the "X-Files" would be excellent candidates, but they are cinematic quality because the producers used a LOT of camera tricks, so those would be priced right out of reach.
Still, there will probably be a demand built eventually. That's why I conditioned it with "not anytime soon". Possibly someday... but in order to have a big ratings boost because of 3D, you've got to have people watching and desiring 3D shows, which means they all need 3D gear at home, and they won't do that en masse until there's enough content to watch. Home video in 3D will start the adoption because movies are easy to justify in 3D. If that takes off some TV shows might eventually follow once adoption is high enough to get the eyeballs in, and filming becomes cheap enough to afford it.
Re:Psychological issues with seeing 3-D (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah current 3D tech isn't really current at all - but the old 3D tech with some new shoes. The liquid crystal glasses with an external screen are the root cause of most of the issues - the off to on speed is rapid, but it still lets some light through and the 3D effect is only as good as the constraints as your distance and orientation to the screen.
Most of the problems go away once you put two separate images in the glasses themselves.
(1) Yep, as I mention, the LC glasses and/or polarised lenses don't really give two separate images per eye - there's no way to completely eliminate the image bleeding between eyes with them.
(2) The screen is static to your micro head movements - everyone has micro movements of their head while sitting and a fixed screen some distance away doesn't actually reflect these micro movements and you get bad parallax feedback - giving the brain a hint that the 3D isn't "real". Getting older makes us more sensitive to these parallax cues thanks to experience :-)
(3) Due to the tech problems (LC / polarised light).
Roll on decent 3D glasses where the screen is in the glasses - the ultimate of course would be to put the image directly on the retina but I haven't heard anything about this for quite some time now.
Go the the "meant to be seen" 3d site - there's a lot of enthusiasts currently playing with the tec and there are a number of head mounted displays on the market that put the images directly infront of the eyes. The resolution currently sucks and it's mostly limited to 3D gaming for the moment, but it's coming :-)
BTW - for anyone who thinks that the "no glasses" thing is a necessity for decent 3D - well due to (2) above - you will never quite "get" immersive 3D.
Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (Score:2, Insightful)