CES: First Reaction to 3D TV
I had several opportunities to check out 3D TV at CES, which I did mainly because the hype was big. I don't regularly review displays, so my intent here is not to comment on the technology or the technical quality of what one could see. This blog is more about what I think an educated consumer would say in response to 3D.
Basically, I came away from time in the Samsung and Sony displays unimpressed. 3D is indeed very 3 dimensional. In fact to my eyes the effect was so exaggerated and unnatural that it didn't serve to be immersive; rather, it was a distraction. 3D TV depth often occurs in very clearly defined layers (which isn't how reality works -- it is continuous). 3D TV depth also seems to vary from scene to scene, not because of the distance of the horizon but because of the way the processing is done. This is particularly artificial when depth telescopes within a scene.
These are early days. Producers will probably learn to do this better. Processors and displays will get better. The effect might be much different with a larger screen. But right now it feels like typical home theater bass: overblown, ugly and unhelpful. Maybe I'm too happy with reality? Maybe I'm too sold on the idea that movies tell stories? Maybe I'm paying attention?
Interested in comments from others who've seen the technology.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I saw the demos at CEDIA this past year, and to me it was like watching a Viewmaster display, with 2D objects in 3D space. The only demo that worked for Sony was the Gran Turismo demo from the PS3, since they can more easily render the depth from that I imagine. I would want 3D to look real, however, and not like a fancy episode of South Park.
In reality, 3D doesn't look real because effects are exaggerated, although the sound is astonishing and virtual effects are impressive to some people but for me I agree with the author it's nice to watch a movie that is a resemblance of reality. neo healar review
I see the first major acceptance in the home of 3D HDTV, besides porno which is always a leader in new home video technology (if you don't believe me, research the history of home VHS and DVD acceptance), will be in sports. I saw a demo at Pace Technologies in Burbank of portions of a Clippers game in 3D HDTV. It was shown on a big screen and I felt like I had courtside seats (Billy Crystal eat your heart out). 3D will make a huge difference in how we view live sports events in our homes.
I, too, saw the Sony 3-D display and I agree with Tom's comments. I would go further still. The layers that Tom refers to -- although they create a sense of depth -- have no depth themselves. For example, a person in the foreground will indeed stand out from the background, but that person will appear extremely two-dimensional. So what we have is layers of cardboard. Tom also didn't mention that motion in 3-D is consistently blurred. Things only snap back into focus -- and into multiple dimensions -- when the motion stops. I am unsure as to whether any of the traits that Tom and I have cataloged are fixable with current technology.
Alan, I agree with you, however, we won't have true 3D images in our home until we have home video holography. Most people will accept the gee-wizz factor of the illusion of depth as the studios and networks try to find new ways to keep us buying their films and hold our interest between commercials.
The current state of home 3D viewing reminds me of HP's comment about the sound of early CD playback. I may be paraphrasing, but it believe he described the sound as "Paper ships on a cardboard sea".
One thing I can predict with a high degree of certainty, is that the technology of home entertainment will keep advancing, and, just as it did with CDs, improvements in 3D HDTV for the home will be forthcoming both in software and hardware.
Larry
I did not go to CES, however I saw several 3D demos at another convention earlier this year, including LG early protos. The demos I saw had content that was not overdone. For example, the football game had depth into the screen, not out of it, and was very linear and natural. I actually felt like I was at the game. Boy, that really sold me on 3D TV.
I think the key to public acceptance will be natural, linear depth, and not layered gimmics in front of the screen. Like HDTV, the producers and camera crews should eventually learn the best positioning, angles, and post processing to generate a natural looking image.
I visited the LG, Toshiba, Samsung, and a few other booths at CES. Everyone had what seemed to me like a special process for making 3-D. Cell TV, turns regular TV into 3-D. Some used the flicker technology which requires special 3-D (and expensive) glasses, others used linear or circular polorized glasses. This reminds me of the Betamax VS VHS fiasco. The public will not buy the expensive and heavy flicker technology glasses to watch movies or video content at home. IMAX seems to be a major contributor to 3-D and they use the linear polorized glasses. They are fairly inexpensive and work very well. I think the key word here is inexpensive. Let's face it. Kids will be watching movies. They have a tendency to break things. Moms and dads aren't going to be willing to spend a small fortune to keep them in the "flicker" glasses. I think the linear polorized technology will eventually win out.
It would have been interesting to compare the 3D panels with 3D projectors. Optoma was showing 3D projection with their new 720p model HD66, which is already shipping.
Why no mention of Panasonic's 3-D plasma offerings (with active shutter) ?
This seems the most promising of the lot.
Chris Martens mentioned to me that he felt Panasonic's demo seemed to be the best and Sony's the worst. But I don't know what that means exactly (I didn't visit Panasonic) so I'll leave it to him to fill in the details.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
It really appears that LCD display technology suffers far too much image latency to be able to corrently present the alternating right and left images at 120Hz or higher refresh rate. This results in a lot of image blurring and right/left image crosstalk that is expecially noticable with any fast motion in the video. Plasma is generally better and DLP projectors appear to be the best technology right now in this performance aspect.
Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from Dotbot.
MTS Converter
I saw the Panasonic 3D display at CEDIA, and was impressed by the sports presentations, and the sports-related footage of the opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics.
I think when the 3D is used to make you feel like you're watching reality, it's quite compelling. When they try to get clever and startle you or make things fly out of the screen, it immediately loses all appeal.
From good seats, Avatar was jaw-dropping in the theater. I expect that on a home projector, it could be equally compelling.
Avatar is a driving force now for 3D given its profits for the studios and, presumably, manufacturers that will purportedly duplicate that experience. 3D sources, formats, glasses are will be challenges, and I refer the reader to the NYTimes Pogue CES article for a good summary of 3D along with the comments and article above.
I saw Avatar in 3D IMAX, and thought that certain looked odd, with characters appearing like 2D cut-outs within a 3D space as noted above. Otherwise 3D was fairly impressive with the effect non-intrusive and truly additive.
3D is awesome. Ive invested at every go-around. However, 3D requiring goggles is going to remain a niche market.
Its so obvious yet these corporations just keep fishing the same hole hoping to catch the big one. With appropriate and sustained investment they could have created a profitable business model long ago.
I dont use my projector every day but I did invest a lot in it and Im on my fourth one.
Sadly, 3D will again be quickly dropped as these corporations wont settle for anything less than sweeping adoption. After all, they arent pioneers or visionaries, merely stockholders and executives. Too bad, 3D really is awesome.
I saw just about every 3D TV demo at CES and can attest that the technology is not quite "ready for prime time." The best of the lot was Panasonic and it, indeed, blew me away with its depth and clarity. The other demo which was amazing was Sony's OLED 3D demo of an aquarium. It could not have looked more real. Other demos suffered from retinal rivalry - where images presented to each eye are sufficiently different that they cannot be fused. This can lead to headaches very quickly. Also, the real-time 2D to 3D conversion done by Toshiba using the cell processor of PlayStation 3 fame looked terrible.
The only viable technology for full-resolution 3D TV at present is LCD shutter glasses. When they are designed with a little style, reviewers will stop describing them as "goofy." My wife commented that she hated all of the glasses except those made by Panasonic. She's a great barometer for the thinking of the female persuasion and, if she is willing to wear well-designed shutter glasses, the WAF is high.
Firstly, the technology WILL improve, prices WILL drop and consumers WILL ultimately put their hard earned money down...
Secondly, 3D TV will awe us with incredible imagery from IMAX, the Discovery Channel, live sports, and other wonders yet to be imagined!
The flip side is that it will also numb our brains with 3D TV's version of overdone infomercials, inane reality shows, bland soap operas and talk shows...
PS: Porn will only drive this market if the 3D effect is as natural as the flesh tones...