You know that Best Buy commercial where a guy is having his new 3D TV delivered, only to see “now available: 4D TV!” on a billboard? (His daughter runs around the yard yelling “You bought the wrong TV, silly head!”) That’s a good preface for today’s story.
Have you just bought a HDTV? Well, guess what’s coming next: Ultra HDTV!
The main difference lies in the pixel count. Regular HDTV has a screen resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, while Ultra HDTV packs a whopping 7680 x 4320 pixels. That’s 16 times the screen quality of HDTV, and equal to IMAX resolution. To put it another way: if you’re familiar with digital camera resolutions, that is essentially a 33 megapixel image! So UHDTV should have a refresh rate high enough to enable 3D viewing without glasses (just like in the Best Buy ad, heh), and will likely feature full-quality, uncompressed audio options as well.
Keep in mind, however, this is currently just an experimental format. NHK, a Japanese public service broadcaster, has been working on this technology for awhile under the name “Super High Vision,” and it was only recently that the International Telecommunications Union’s Study Group on Broadcasting Service worked out the technical specifications. NHK demonstrated its UHDTV about a month ago, and in September a trial broadcast was made from London. The current plan is to show parts of the 2012 London Olympics in UHDTV.
However, UHDTV is likely a decade away from consumer release. After all, HDTVs were originally demonstrated in the late 1980s, but did not become widely available for more than a decade later. But we’re probably getting a preview of what the next major television format will be.
The Lion King notwithstanding . . . there is no better evidence of the slowdown in 3-D than this bit of news.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has sent a letter to movie theaters stating that as of May 2012, the company will no longer foot the bill for glasses for its 3-D movies. It’s estimated that studios spend $10 million for 3-D glasses for a blockbuster movie, and about $2 million for smaller flicks. In other words, glasses cost about 50 cents per movie ticket. So it’s not hard to see why Sony is trying to pass on this cost.
Studios–most notably, Disney–originally covered the cost for glasses in an effort to entice theaters to convert to 3-D technology. But they now say that this deal was never a long-term plan.
Will movie theater owners absorb the cost? They haven’t been too keen on the idea in the past. In fact, in 2009, Fox decided it would not cover the cost of glasses for its release of Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Regal Cinemas, the largest theater chain, responded by saying it would not show the film in 3-D at all. Fox changed its mind quickly.
From their perspective, theaters have already paid a hefty price to start showing 3-D, period. They have had to convert screens to have 3-D capability, and many had to purchase new digital projectors in order to fully show all the features–which employees had to be trained to run correctly. And theater owners already pay RealD–the company that produces the 3-D glasses–a royalty fee for each pair.
So who’s going to pick up the cost if both the studios and theaters continue to balk? Yes, that leaves YOU. Actually, this type of system is the norm in many other countries. Moviegoers already have to pay for their own glasses in the U.K., Italy, Spain, and Australia. In the U.K., for instance, patrons spend about $1.50 to buy a pair of glasses for a 3-D movie. Theaters point out that once you buy a pair of glasses, you can bring the glasses to the theater the next time and avoid another fee. But for Americans used to getting the glasses for free, this might be a hard behavior to change.
Sony has two huge movies opening in May 2012–The Amazing Spider-Man and Men in Black III. It will be interesting to see if moviegoers will be willing to cough up the dough for 3-D glasses, or if they will be content to see the films in regular 2-D. Remember, 3-D movies already carry a $3-$4 surcharge, and many consumers justifiably believe a cheap pair of 3-D glasses should come with that surcharge. So this situation could have a significant bearing on how 3-D grows in 2012, both in theaters and in the home market.
The movie studios’ push of 3D as “the next big thing” hasn’t quite panned out the way they thought it would. First, there isn’t enough good, well-done content: for every awesome Avatar, there’s about five Clash of the Titans. Movies used to be trumpeted “in 3D!!!”; now a prominent “also in 2D” appears on movie ads and posters as well. Theatrical audiences are tired of paying higher prices, as well as wearing dopey glasses for an entire 2 1/2-hour length film. Add to that competing format confusion, a struggling economy, and even health warnings, and you might have a recipe for disaster.
But Hollywood isn’t giving up yet. A week ago, Disney released its megahit The Lion King in 3D. The Lion King is a great movie–I remember when it first came out, and just being blown away by the opening “Circle of Life” sequence. But would anyone be interested in seeing a 17-year-old traditionally-animated movie in 3D? Even one that made $312 million during its original 1994 run?
Apparently, people were. The Lion King in 3D debuted with $8.8 million on its first day in release, and made $30.2 million total over its first weekend. (In fact, its weekend total was higher than what the other three newly-released movies made…combined.) Given this success, Disney obviously has high hopes for the movie’s debut on Blu-Ray 3D in October.
So can we expect to see more classic, high-profile movies in 3D as well? The Lion King is unique in that Disney was able to convert it for very low cost. For most movies, 3D conversion is an expensive, lengthy process, and studios would likely need a bigger promise of return for their investment. Plus, The Lion King made $1.5 billion in home video sales for Disney over the past 17 years; few other films can say the same. But it does show that when 3D is done right–for a great movie–audiences will come.
3D movies are the current hot thing at any multiplex. But will 3D technology someday become the standard for home video as well? Recently, an Australian production company decided to test out that idea and shoot the first wedding ever in 3D.
They soon found that their main limitation was handling each camera’s “point of convergence.” Never heard this video term? Just hold up a pencil about a foot away from yourself and focus on it. You should see a clear pencil with the background blurred behind it. This phenomenon occurs because our eyes aren’t actually pointed straight ahead; rather, our eyes angle very slightly, which allows them to converge and focus on something specific.
Likewise, if we want to replicate the same function with camera lenses, they also have to be pointed slightly inwards so that they converge on an object simultaneously. The Australian camera crew discovered that they needed to have a dedicated crewperson (called a stenographer) to ensure that each camera’s point of convergence was accurate.
Also, they found that they had to stay at least five feet away from their subjects, lest the lines of convergence would be skewed (creating a double image). And they had to limit quick camera motion, or viewers’ eyes would become fatigued from the constant change in focus.
So given all these hindrances, is consumer- or prosumer-shot 3D likely to become a reality? As with any current 3D technology, the program still requires viewers wear glasses. And adding another crewperson to any shoot, just to monitor the camera angles, adds expense to the production for the customer. Plus, most video production teams like to have as much filming flexibility as possible, while ensuring that the money they are earning offsets their time and equipment cost–and so most videographers will be loath to enter this field as well.
But then again, color and sound weren’t always part of home video either. Maybe we’re on our way to seeing every wedding bouquet flying out of the screen!
Earlier this month, Blu-Con was held in Beverly Hills (yes, there is a conference for everything!), and Andy Parsons, the chair of the Blu-Ray Disc Association’s U.S. Promotions Committee, updated the crowd on some statistics. In short:
– By the end of this year, 25 million U.S. households should have at least one Blu-Ray player connected to a TV. This number equals about one-fourth to one-fifth of the 115 million households in the United States. It also nearly matches DVD’s market penetration after its first five years (DVD was in 30 million homes at the end of 2002).
– Over the next five years, Blu-Ray is predicted to be in nearly half of U.S. households, and about a quarter of those players should be 3D-capable.
– Speaking of 3D, there are currently 19 Blu-Ray player models that possess 3D technology. By the end of 2011, most Blu-Ray players should be 3D-capable.
– There are about 3,000 programs currently available on Blu-Ray in the U.S. Sales numbers for Blu-Ray titles double every year. The sales of one recently-released title, Avatar, broke down as 80% DVD and 20% Blu-Ray (which is consistent with the household numbers mentioned above).
– Blu-Ray is also popular abroad. Europe has an estimated 10.9 million players, and is expected to have 30.7 million players by 2014. And the technology is huge in Japan, where 65% of all “video discs” are Blu-Rays (as opposed to only 35% regular DVDs).
What does this all mean? Well, first, that Blu-Ray is definitely here to stay for awhile. It’s doing well compared to standard DVD, and especially well considering the current economic climate. It certainly seems to be avoiding the fate of laserdisc.
What is more questionable? The 3D aspect. At the same convention, James Cameron discussed “autostereoscopic” 3D displays–largely considered the Holy Grail for 3D, because they would not require glasses. But at the same time, he cautioned that consumer deployment of the technology was probably a decade away, mainly because TVs would need to be double their current resolutions to handle the imagery. So while all these Blu-Ray players are 3D, that feature is going to have a much harder time catching on than regular HD.
Without a doubt, the biggest pain of enjoying a 3-D in your home is having to wear the glasses. (Isn’t this why so many people who need glasses prefer contact lenses?) So why aren’t television manufacturers working on 3-D TVs that don’t require glasses?
Actually, they are. Samsung and Toshiba, among others, have already announced that they will release glasses-free 3-D televisions in the next few years. And they already have televisions that can produce 3-D images that don’t require glasses.
The TVs just aren’t ready yet. The problem is threeefold. First, the current screens are only capable of producing low-resolution images. In addition, the TV panels are expensive to produce. And finally, and most important, watching 3-D video on these screens requires the viewer to remain motionless. Move just a little, and the 3-D image suddenly appears distorted.
Nevertheless, many companies are investing in 3-D technology. So it’s a sure bet that eventually, the problem of glasses-free 3-D TVs will be surmounted.
Although James Cameron would like us to believe otherwise, 3-D is nothing new. In the mid-1800s, a craze called 3-D stereoscopic photography swept the nation. Granted, this wasn’t video, but to average folks in 1850, it was the closest thing.
Stereoscopic photo cards are viewed through a device called a stereoscope. The card, which is placed inside the viewer, contains two side-by-side photos that appear to be the same photo–but aren’t. When the photos on the card were taken, the camera was moved slightly to the left or right, resulting in two slightly different images. When you look at the card through a stereoscope, each of your eyes sees a separate image, which results in your brain interpreting a 3-dimensional scene.
A stereoscope is used extensively in the movie The Blue Lagoon, which takes place in the mid-1800s. And yes, ’80s children, a Viewmaster is an obvious descendant!
Recently, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a fascinating story about stereoscopic photography and Queen’s guitarist, Brian May, who is an avid fan. Check it out, along with classic stereoscopic shots, on the Inquirerwebsite.
You’ve got an iPad, DVR, and Blu-Ray player. Is a 3-D TV the next big gadget you’ll need in your home? Electronics manufacturers would like you to think it is.
There’s no doubt that 3-D has had monster success at the box office over the past few months. And now every company from LG to Sony to Toshiba to Panasonic would like to sell you a 3-D TV or Blu-ray player so you can recreate the theater experience in your own home. Indeed, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) estimates that about 1.1 million of the 37+ million televisions sold in the U.S. this year will be 3-D-capable, and about 65% of Americans say they’d like to have a 3-D TV in their own home.
So it sounds like an easy purchase if you’re in the market for a new set, right? Not so fast. First, consider the price tag. A regular 50″ plasma HDTV sells for around $1,500. By comparison, a 3-D model of that same TV would be a full $1,000 higher: $2,500. Is that price worth it?
Well, consider: since 3-D production (or conversion) is costly, there is not too much content available yet to watch. ESPN’s 3-D network is scheduled to bow in June 2010, with a slate of 85 programmed events. Panasonic also plans to debut three 3-D channels, and Discovery, Sony, and IMAX are launching a 3-D service in 2011. DirecTV plans to carry at least some of these options. And of course, you will be able to buy 3-D movies on Blu-Ray as soon as they are available (just make sure you have a 3-D Blu-Ray player too). But other than that, 3-D programming is still very experimental, at least on regular TV.
And finally, there are the glasses. Who wants to wear dopey glasses just to watch TV? 3-D TVs typically come with battery-powered glasses that are superior to those available in movie theaters–but TVs usually only come with one set of glasses. So that means that when your family or your friends gather to be amazed by your new 3D TV, you’ll have to shell out around $150 for each person to watch. (And glasses are not cross-compatible between manufacturers’ different sets . . . naturally.) Companies are working on sets that won’t require glasses, but experts say that’s still 5-10 years away; and even then, you’ll have to sit in certain viewing areas to see the 3-D effect correctly.
Despite all this naysaying, the picture on a 3-D TV truly is breathtaking. If you’ve got the dough, by all means, go for it. But for most of us, practical 3-D adoption is still a few years away–no matter what the electronics manufacturers would want us to believe.
Have you been sold on 3D yet? If not, according to Jeffrey Katzenberg, you soon will be. Time recently sat down with the DreamWorks partner to discuss 3D technology. Some highlights:
– Katzenberg was convinced of the power of 3D by a special 2005 3D screening of The Polar Express at the IMAX theater in Los Angeles.
– He equates the leap to 3D with the leaps from silent film to sound, and from black-and-white to color.
– He believes 3D glasses will simply become a normal part of the moviegoing experience–the same way you take golf clubs when you go golfing.
– He thinks that most devices will eventually have 3D capabilities, from iPads to billboards.
He also notes that during the first quarter of 2010, DVD sales are down another serious notch, which indicates that folks are going back to theaters in droves. (Whether these occurrences are due to 3D or not may be a point of contention, however.) He cites a statistic from Samsung that claims 35 million TV sets will be sold in North America in 2010, and of that, 10% will be 3D capable–with the further prediction that that number will increase tenfold in 2011. Katzenberg claims that this is a super-fast adoption rate.
Are you one of those people who get carsick? If so, you might want to steer clear of the new crop of 3D TVs.
Samsung, which manufactures 3D HDTV displays, recently issued a warning that viewing their 3D TVs could cause some viewers to “experience an epileptic seizure or stroke when exposed to certain flashing images or lights contained in certain television pictures or video games.” The warning is specifically directed toward pregnant women, children, teens, anyone under the influence of alcohol, or anyone with a history of epilepsy.
Specific symptoms include eye twitching, convulsions, disorientation, lightheadedness, dizziness, nausea, and confusion. Fun, huh? (Of course, certain movies may do that to you anyway–3D notwithstanding.)
It’s worth noting that when virtual-reality was developed, the same sort of warnings were issued. However, 3D also carries a second major concern: that it may damage the developing relationship between the eye and the brain in young children.
Samsung specifically warns that you shouldn’t watch a 3D set if you are in bad physical condition, need sleep, or have been drinking. You also shouldn’t sit too close to the screen or watch the set for any extended period of time. And of course, don’t wear your 3D glasses for any purpose other than watching the TV.
So technology marches on, but it just might cause a seizure, stroke, or vomiting.
The Timeless DVD Blog covers video transfer, movies, technology, DVDs, VCRs, and much more. It is written by Jennica Musselman, the owner of Timeless DVD. We welcome relevant comments on our posts!
