3DTV: Not A Marketing Gimmick, Rather An Awesome Viewing Experience

I am writing this as a convert. Just a few days ago if anyone has asked me what I thought of 3DTV I would have grimaced a little, murmured a few niceties and ended my answer with a sentence containing the words “marketing gimmick.” They can only make televisions so much bigger and so much flatter, and an old boxy TV with a cathode ray tube is now a rare sight in places both public and private. So 3DTV technology must have been a godsend to the manufacturing executives. Another fad to generate more cash. Blu-ray never became a must-buy. Just something you thought about upgrading to when your DVD player needed replacing. It was only better, not different and better.

But now having seen a demonstration of 3DTV in action I can honestly say that this is not some incremental change in technology, but has all the signs of being a complete game changer. For a start, it works. And it works really well. You put on your goggles and away you go. In a way that’s it. You are now having a three-dimensional viewing experience in all its awesomeness. To be fair, I am not a great TV watcher and I didn’t watch this long enough for the novelty to wear off so I admit to bias, but if I had watched it for longer I would have been very disappointed to have to go back to a 2D viewing experience. During the demo, we did switch from 3D to 2D for comparison. Saying the picture looked flat is as jokey and dismissive as it sounds.

One of the great problems with all these new developments is the library of material available for viewing. But Dreamworks have been leading the way and the additional production costs will be reduced with widespread use. Sky are also planning a 3D channel later this year. Also you can check this page at the 3D@home consortium for a list of available 3D films. Enough to get you through many a winter evening methinks.

The technology for sourcing images is also proceeding rapidly. Panasonic will have a low-budget 3D camera available soon. The most interesting thing about it is the parallel lenses making it almost like a regular camera. It also records on SD cards. (Note: Because of my day job I have to add here that I am not endorsing Panasonic products.) It will not be long before documentaries, soap operas, chat shows and other mainstay programmes of traditional television will be recorded on 3D. Whatever 3DTV may be, it is certainly not a fad. There is now a clear inevitability about its future in the home.

The goggles themselves were rechargable and had an internal shutter rate to match the film. In this case it was 60 Hz. They were lightweight plastic items that were big enough to fit over regular spectacles. I found them very comfortable but it would be a drag if they slipped behind the seat cushion and got crushed. That, as far as I could tell, would be the only real downside of the technology.

The price of the package I saw was just under four thousand dollars. But prices after the early adopter phase always seem to drop and I don’t see why it would be different for this viewing system. Gadget Republic are reporting that sets should arrive in Ireland as early as April this year. This is a bit early in the game for me but I think I might be looking forward to what will be in my Christmas stocking for 2011.

6 thoughts on “3DTV: Not A Marketing Gimmick, Rather An Awesome Viewing Experience

  1. Terrific article Tom and has me even more excited than I was about 3DTV. Good to know I’m not just getting totally carried away and that the technology lives up to the expectation.


  2. It still seems to me that “3DTV” Branding is a marketing gimmick… the image is on the 3D Blu-Ray which can be viewed on any TV (or at least HDTV) with the goggles no?


  3. No, not any TV. The googles need to be able to sync with the image, the goggles in the image above were synced (as they say shuttered) at 60fps, for maximum affect. But that can change with the format. In Europe that setting could well be 50fps depending where you purchased your DVD. I should say that the goggles need to be charged too. A task which actually might save them disappearing behind the cushion:-)I do confess that I didn’t try them in non-sync mode. But then again why would I?


  4. The demo I watched in Harvey Norman was on an LG TV using passive technology – i.e. regular polarized specs so no shutter syncing required. From what I had read previously I didn’t expect this to be as good as active shutters but (and I haven’t seen an active demo) it was very impressive to my eyes.


  5. In a Newsweek article published in late April 2010 Roger Ebert, renowned American film critic, wrote a massive takedown of 3D Cinema. “Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D Movies – Newsweek.com http://j.mp/akrwRu”Devin Coldewey wrote a very interesting response on CrunchGear “A rebuttal of Roger Ebert’s diatribe against 3D cinema http://j.mp/bd7mmv” Not only does David respond in full to Roger’s criticisms he adds an interesting historical perspective as well. Recommended.Also there was an interesting discussion in this week’s Economist: A special report on television: Who needs it? | http://j.mp/avJ5dn “But the thing that will really drive people to buy 3-D sets, Mr Katzenberg and others agree, is sport. If the measure of a new visual technology is not that it looks cool but that it allows viewers to see things they have never seen before, sport is the clear winner.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s