3DTV, where have I heard this before?
You need new camera's. Educate directors, production crews. You need new editing environments, new hardware, new software. You need bigger pipes, more bandwidth. A new 'premium' subscription. You need a new screen, a new optical disc player, new discs. Subtitles look weird.
Sounds exactly like what we needed to get high def content into our living rooms, and it will be what we need to get 3D into our living rooms. Plus glasses. Maybe.
It is clear that 3D is picking up in cinemas, with the offer becoming more diverse and appealing every week. And there was that whole Avatar thing. In most cases, when it actually adds depth to the experience (see what I did there), I am a fan of 3D movies. They can be more engaging (Avatar), add value to the storyline (not Avatar), be more fun (Up) and leave a bigger impression (My Bloody Valentine) than their flat counterparts. The technology has evolved to the point where watching a big screen movie in 3D does not actually reduce the quality of the experience. For cinema owners, going 3D is of course an investment, but can be appealing for audiences and offers something new, something extra compared to the home theatre experience. At least for now.
3D is making the move to the living room. And from where I'm standing, it is not going to be pretty.
If we go by what manufacturers showed the world at the last CES conference in Vegas (overview of CNet's CES coverage here), 2010 is going to be the year of 3D in the living room. But the little list of new things production and distribution companies, and consumers will need, is no exaggeration. It is a refresh of the whole value network, comparable to that required to get HDTV of the ground. True, many standardisation issues have been solved by HDTV, like connectors (HDMI), optical discs (Blu Ray), and compression techniques (MPEG-4 and H.264). But many remain.
The bigger investment will be required from end users, with new screens, new Blu Ray players, and, depending on who you're buying from, new set top boxes. This will be a process that will take time, just like in the case of HDTV. It will probably happen in the long run, but I'm not sure it will be 2010. Which brings me to the last thing we will need.
Those glasses.
There are different technologies out there, from the classic (and horrible) red-and-blue glasses to active shutter glasses that are heavy, expensive (around $100 a pop), require batteries and communicate with your screen (also horrible). Gizmodo has a good overview of the different types of 3D technology out there.
Another option are the new screen technologies that do not require glasses and give a 3D effect. My personal experience with these TV sets is... not good. I have seen them in action on several occasions now, and the way the tech works today is simply not good enough. You need to be in the correct angle in front of the screen, or the whole image messes up. Do you really want to reposition yourself the whole time you're watching something? Or when there's five of you watching something? Plus the image really is not sharp enough and feels like a leap back from HDTV.
So do you see yourself sitting on the couch wearing these things? I'm not feeling it (yet), but stranger things have happened. Anyone aware of some user research on the topic? I would be interested to see how people feel about this.
In the mean time, curious about 3D, but too hip to wear the stupid cinema-owned glasses? Try these on for size.
If you're interested in 3DTV, HD Guru has a new section dedicated to the topic.
Lastly, let's not forget about the 98 people on Facebook who can't see the 3D effect. :-)
What are your thoughts on 3D in the living room?
