3D TV: Do We Even Want It?

By Michael Hawk on January 4th, 2010

• Link to StumbleUpon
• 2 Comments

With the release of James Cameron’s long gestating Avatar, a lot of talk has been circulating about the technology at the core of its existence.  In fact, I’ve read far more praising the stunning visuals than I’ve seen even discussing the lackluster story.  And what I hear the most is, “you must see it in 3D!!  It makes all the difference!”  No matter how good 3D projection gets, that is never a selling point for moi.

I understand what movies are and I understand what TV is as well.  It is flat.  It is a series of photographs sent to trick our minds into thinking they’re moving.  I like that.  I like the framed artistic aspirations of quality productions.  I don’t need more.  But much like story seems to be dying at the hands of reality television, cinematography is likely to suffer dearly beneath the coming reign of 3D TV.

Is it coming you say?  Oh yes my friends, it is trampling down the vineyards as we speak.  Why even the Blu-ray Disc Association has finally agreed on a universal codex (cleverly dubbed “Blu-ray 3D”) to house the information on Blu-ray discs.

 There are no barriers to content now and hardware and firmware updates will soon follow.  Even PS3 consoles are already forward compatible with the technology and most high def sets are ready as well.

To get into the technical aspects of how this all works would be one of the most boring articles I could ever write!  My mind is numb from researching this stuff, but rest assured gadget nerds, there are plenty of resources out there for you.  For the rest of us, it comes down to two concepts: glasses and no glasses.  The glasses are exactly what you’re experiencing in cinemas today.  They’re good and the home models are way more comfortable than the freebies at the multiplex.

The weirder concept is autostereoscopy.  TV sets that require no additional gear and somehow trick your eyes into thinking they’re seeing 3D images.   It is based in how the displays actually project the image and there are a number of high end, videophile type companies working on these for early adopter comsumers.  So far, the only major mass market company claiming to have the tech is Sharp, but that will likely change dramatically in the first quarter of 2010.  Not to mention, this tech is more than likely what will pop up in our computer systems.  They might con us into wearing special glasses when viewing TV, but that could be a hard sell for personal computing.

What are my problems with this idea of 3D TV?  First, active shutter 3D glasses are essentially, and the exact formula again is too boring to print, alternating shutters that are always blocking half of the image’s light from your brain.  Even when one shutter is open, it’s a little darker than normal.  So what you get is a dimmer picture, not unlike watching television with your Ray-Bans on.  It is good, but it is far from ideal.

Second, do we want producers to even have access to this tech in our homes?  Most of them seem fairly incapable of deciding how many cameras to use in a sitcom let alone how to incorporate a meaty plot into an extra dimension.  There is a right good chance quality will be tossed out with yesterday’s garbage in favor of visual feasts no better than the burning Yule log on your local stations come the Holidays.  I find it likely the art of creating the picture will be diminished by the mere presence of trying to impress you with 3D visuals.

Third, I wear glasses in my everyday life.  The only time I don’t is when I’m watching TV or at the movies.  I hardly want to replace one with a new $100 3D pair to enjoy Gary Unmarried.  I have enough crap hooked up to the set already.  Not to mention, while the tech is advanced, it also still inspires headaches, nausea, and even vomiting in people.  I get that from recent Heroes episodes anyway, so why am I buying special kit to make it happen faster?

Like it or not, big name brands are prepping an all out assault on our wallets with 3D TV’s.  Sony claims that at least half of their HDTV sales will be 3D over the next few years and they’re probably right.  I mean, if the pricing for an HD 3D ready set is similar, why not at least be prepared for it, right?  Conversely, Philips closed their 3D division.  So the final verdict is still a ways off as consumers continue to adopt Blu Ray and companies figure out if and how they can make money off of three dimensions.

Personally, until holograms, a la The Jetsons, are ready to beam down from my ceiling I could care less about seeing 3D in my home.  It might be interesting for some gaming systems or the occasional high definition movie, but overall why would I need it?  With sets half an inch thick in high def, I think TV has reached perfection.  Let’s just stop here and enjoy it and work on some quality content instead.

Update: On Tuesday the 5th of January, both Discovery Channel and ESPN announced the development of their own 3-D Channels.