The Future is Getting Much Brighter for 3D Home Entertainment

Industry experts, pundits and consumer electronics retailers gathered last week for a two day series of seminars and 3D technology showcase to discuss and review the strides made over the past year in marketing theatrical and home 3D content and technologies.

Theatrical aside, home 3D was the major topic with content, glasses and 3D-ready TVs monopolizing the discussions. The most encouraging statistics were the rising interest in home 3D over theatrical. A 20-minute online survey of 1,458 respondents ages 12-65 conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 12 by Interpret, LLC, an independent research company that examines trends in consumer attitudes and confusion surrounding 3D technologies, indicated that popularity for theatrical features was waning, likely due to hastily produced or overall poor content such as “Clash of the Titans” and “Step up 3D”, both receiving scathing reviews. It seems that although opinion was mixed as to exactly why, one thing is for sure, theatrical releases have introduced millions of people to excellent digital 3D that had up to then pigeon holed 3D as just a gimmick.

In fact, the survey concluded that 35% of consumers polled said they would definitely purchase a 3DTV within the next 12 months. That percentage is up from 13% from the first quarter of this year. Not surprisingly, this firm’s research mirrors that from others regarding 3D: Both price and the need to wear glasses rank as the top two obstacles between consumers and a 3DTV set. Research indicated the problem is less about comfort and durability for glasses and more about price. If the price of current active shutter glasses can get down to $30 or less in the next couple of years, the complaints about eyewear should dwindle.

The only time the glasses would need to be worn with the new sets is when 3D programming is presented…

Also, there’s some unhealthy confusion that’s helping to fuel the slow adaptation. For example, some consumers believe that they’ll need to wear the 3D glasses all the time, which isn’t true of course. The only time the glasses would need to be worn is with the new sets is when 3D programming is presented and even then, the consumer has the choice to watch that presentation in 3D or 2D, with or without glasses.

The main question posed by the research team was, “What makes you interested in buying a 3DTV within the next 12 months?” Some 68% believed that watching movies on a 3DTV would “make it more like a theater experience.”  67% liked “how realistic the 3D content looks” and, 55% liked “how immersive watching 3D is overall.” However, with all that positive feedback, 3DTV has been slow to catch on. There are three basic reasons for this: cost of 3DTVs, cost of glasses and lack of something to watch.

I believe the most impressive aspect of the summit was the all-out enthusiasm about the Third Dimension in general. There were a number of panels that confronted each of the problems and offered suggestions and solutions that would help assure the success of 3DTV in the home.  Implementation of home 3D, it was concluded, did not rest entirely on the shoulders of the manufacturers or even the content providers, but on consumer awareness of the advantages and the overcoming of all the mis-information and how important it was for the marketing effort to educate the public. The public’s education about 3D begins in the consumer electronics departments of retail chains and in upscale audio/video stores. Most manufacturers were offering training sessions of sales associates to focus on the many features of 3DTV, as well as what content efforts were lined up to fill the content void. Some retailers are bringing in “live” feeds from ESPN 3D and promoting the event in ads that invite everyone to see “The Wonderful World of 3D” for themselves.  It was concluded that more venues are needed to promote 3D like the Internet and mobile devices and through positive articles in major magazines.

Now, in an effort to help clear up confusion, I’d like to take this opportunity to offer a few hopefully un-confusing answers to some of the more basic questions surrounding 3DTV. First, the current cost of a 3DTV is the only downside of owning one.  Yes, 3DTVs cost more right now, but consumers need to realize there’s so much more to these TVs than just 3D, both now and in the future. 3DTVs usually cost more than $2,000 even without Blu-ray [players] and glasses, but the price curves are already more reasonable than it was during the transition to HDTV, when a plasma HDTV cost $10,000 or more back in 2000. They’re lighter and much thinner for instance. Many models can be hung on the wall just like a painting. There are more viewer options available, including games and connection to the Internet. The price premium over conventional HDTV is about 30% to 40%, which is problematic given that the average consumer price point for conventional HDTV is $900. It works out to about $700, (based upon current prices). To help move customers towards the higher ticket item, some dealers are even including a free Blu-ray player. So, if $700 more is too much to pay for 3D, my advice is to wait until the price comes down, which will probably be April 2011. If you can’t wait, and want to become one of the early adapters at less then $2,000, Mitsubishi just introduced a 65” DLP 3DTV for under $900.

3D with glasses is a nuisance at worst; at best they can transport the viewer into other worlds.

The 3D glasses seem to be a major sore spot with many potential viewers. People who don’t ordinarily wear eyeglasses find them an unwelcome intrusion on their freedom. Those individuals who already wear glasses often struggle trying to fit 3D glasses over their prescription eyeglasses. Granted, the need to watch 3D with glasses is a nuisance at worst; at best they can transport the viewer into other worlds. So, the viewer always has the choice to wear or not to wear the glasses. The second issue about glasses is the price, which can be as high a $175, depending on the manufacturer of the 3DTV you purchase. Because they cost less to manufacture, most manufacturers are offering 3DTVs that use electronic, shutter glasses instead of the polarized type used in the theaters. The shutter glasses are battery-operated and sophisticated. Some dealers are offering the customer some basic incentives like two pair of 3D glasses free with the purchase of a 3DTV.

There is an additional downside to the glasses issue, that of inter-compatibility.  Panasonic glasses aren’t compatible with Sony TVs; Sony glasses aren’t compatible with Samsung TVs, and so on. Each of the 3DTV manufacturers decided it would be a great idea to force their customers to purchase only their glasses, thus chalking up more profits. But, each of these manufacturers failed look at a major hurdle they would create by their shortsighted marketing. They weren’t able to see far enough ahead to recognize that this incompatibility would work against, and not for, greater profits. They were in essence, creating a roadblock. When a group of people wanted to get together and watch a 3D movie or a “live” sporting event the host of the gathering would need to provide every one of his or her guests with a particular pair of glasses that would work with their 3DTV. If glasses cost $149.95 and if the host has ten guests, that’s a lot of money to shell out.

One company out there is attempting to take some of the sting out of the cost and compatibility side and is offering lightweight, comfortable, inexpensive glasses that are compatible with all 2010 Samsung and Mitsubishi 3DTVs. The company is offering their Model SM Reality Glasses for about $99.95 msrp. They’re both comfortable and rechargeable and are aimed at the more price-conscious consumer. There’s also talk of introducing glasses that would be compatible with at least five, and possibly more, different 3DTVs. These could cost a little more, but they certainly would provide a major incentive over what you might call “prejudiced” glasses.

One last comment is to urge you to look at the glasses not as something you “have to do” but something you “get to do”, and a “ticket” into a new and totally different kind of experience. After all, without these glasses everything you see on TV are just flat images, painted on the inside of a piece of glass.

Compelling and immersion 3D content is the only ingredient that will drive the market…

Finally, the third and most significant problem that faces 3DTV and glasses sales, something that would justify all of the associated costs in adapting to 3D in your home… is something compelling to watch, and lots of it. The Discovery Channel is launching a 3D Channel in February 2011 and promises 24/7 programming. ESPN 3D is already providing a wide variety of sporting events including baseball, football, soccer, golf, auto racing and X Games, all “live” and in multidimensional 3D high definition. DirecTV is soon to launch their three 3D Channels along with National Geographic and WealthTV. Sky TV is broadcasting in Great Britain, Globo in Brazil and there are channels broadcasting in both Korea and Japan. So, broadcasters are making the effort to fill the pipeline with content, at least the promise of it. Compelling and immersive 3D content is the only ingredient that will drive the market and consumer acceptance will probably reach more than 40% by 2013.

If forecasts are even somewhat accurate, Hollywood won’t be able to crank their high budget features out fast enough to sustain the growth and that leaves it to the independents to pull up the slack. The greatest hindrance facing native 3D production, (native meaning content is photographed with two cameras – one camera for each eye’s view), is the costly and cumbersome 3D camera systems. The production equipment must be precision and usually the cost to produce in 3D can be 15% to 25% more than standard 2D, depending on whom you use and where the content is produced. This isn’t always the case, but most often is. On top of that there’s a shortage of qualified, experienced, personnel that has proven time and again an absolute necessity for professional 3D content production. If you’re interested in learning what theatrical features and DVDs are available today and what is forecast for the future, there’s The Illustrated 3D Movie List which is available online.

One final thought, 3D is so much more than just adding another color to the artist’s pallet. It’s an entirely new dimension that offers storytellers a new sandbox to play in, and a medium where viewers cease to be spectators and become participants in the experience they’re viewing.

Anthony Coogan is the Executive Producer and Stereoscopic Director for Stereomedia 3D Video & Film Productions since 1987.

link to original post: http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2010/09/21/3d-home-entertainment-the-future-is-getting-much-brighter/