News Stories

3-D Becomes a TV Commodity

[by Evan Ramstad, Wall Street Journal]

In just a year, 3-D has gone from the cutting edge of television technology to a simple feature that will be one of several considerations for potential buyers of the 2011 models rolling into stores in the next few weeks.

But that hasn’t stopped the two largest makers of TVs—Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Co., both of South Korea—from engaging in a bitter war of words over 3-D technology this month.

The dispute is over the best way to process three-dimensional images, whether to let the TV screen do it, as LG favors, or to let special viewing glasses do it, as Samsung does.

For consumers, the battle will determine whether they need to buy sets that require special glasses for about $100 a pair or simpler frames that cost about $10. But unlike previous video-industry squabbles, such as VHS versus Betamax videotapes, the outcome doesn’t affect programs or the purchase of other video devices.

For the TV makers, the fight is important because they have traditionally counted on new features like 3-D to justify premium prices, which boost profits in a business with razor-thin margins.

At the end of 2009, when the movie “Avatar” gave consumers a fresh taste of 3-D technology, manufacturers hoped that 3-D TVs would sustain margins that were given a boost from the introduction of ultra-thin screens earlier that year.

Instead, consumers shied away from 3-D models, put off by the lack of 3-D content, the extra cost and the inconvenience of the glasses needed to watch such TVs. The result was an inventory glut that forced manufacturers and retailers to cut the prices of 3-D TVs, reducing the hoped-for profits.

Already, retailers in the U.S. and elsewhere have dismantled special displays and sections that highlighted 3-D TVs. As new models emerge in stores in coming weeks, 3-D will join features like Internet connections and app-style interfaces that will distinguish the most expensive TVs.

The average price of a 3-D TV in the U.S. was $2,990 in February, according to research firm IHS iSuppli. But the premium that TV manufacturers and retailers can charge for the most feature-filled TVs will be narrower this year, analysts say. “It is basically like the industry has given up on profitability to gain market share,” says Riddhi Patel, video analyst at IHS iSuppli.

The division that includes TV manufacturing at Samsung had revenue of just over $50 billion last year but an operating profit margin of less than 1%. In the comparable unit at LG, the operating margin was around 2%.

Electronics retailers are also hurting from competition from online sellers and low-price chains like Costco Wholesale Corp. In the U.S., Ultimate Electronics, one of the last specialist chains, is being liquidated.

And last week, the chief executive of Best Buy Co., the largest U.S. electronics retailer, pointed to the fact that demand for 3-D TV “did not materialize as the industry had anticipated” as part of the reason for a 16% decline in quarterly profit. To help recover, a Best Buy executive said the company will boost its online offerings of TVs.

“For some part of the market, people no longer feel the need to go into the store to look at TVs,” said Paul Semenza, vice president at DisplaySearch.

In such an environment, Samsung and LG are betting that the viewers’ perception of 3-D technology could make a difference in sales and profits. Samsung sold 45 million TVs last year, compared with 30 million for LG. Samsung forecasts slower growth this year than LG does, a sign the gap between them will narrow.

To consumers, the chief difference between the two companies’ approach to 3-D is in the glasses needed to view images. Samsung uses battery-operated glasses that flicker dozens of times a second in time with the alternating images on the screen to produce the 3-D effect. LG uses non-battery glasses to reconstruct images that are divided on the screen, the same as in movie theaters.

Samsung for months lobbied industry-standards groups to reject LG’s approach as unsuitable for high-definition pictures. But the LG method was ultimately recognized as meeting high-definition standards in the U.S., Japan, China and Europe.

The dispute grew particularly tense earlier this month when a Samsung executive used an expletive in describing LG engineers to a group of Korean reporters, leading LG to threaten legal action. The Samsung executive sent an apology letter to LG this week, and LG accepted.

“It’s very embarrassing that the No. 1 and No. 2 players are in this fight,” said Kwon Young-soo, the chief executive of LG Display Co., a supplier of video components to LG and other manufacturers, after the expletive incident hit the Korean media.

Samsung in the past has hedged its bets on video technology, offering, for instance, videodisc machines that played both Blu-ray and HD-DVD formats. For 3-D, the company chose to concentrate on the battery-glasses approach because, a spokesman said, it “offers viewers the best combination of picture quality and viewing angle.”

See the original post here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576230594269604696.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

< PREVIOUS ARTICLES NEXT ARTICLES >

Specification for Naming VFX Image Sequences Released

ETC’s VFX Working Group has published a specification for best practices naming image sequences such as plates and comps. File naming is an essential tool for organizing the multitude of frames that are inputs and outputs from the VFX process. Prior to the publication of this specification, each organization had its own naming scheme, requiring custom processes for each partner, which often resulted in confusion and miscommunication.

The new ETC@USC specification focuses primarily on sequences of individual images. The initial use case was VFX plates, typically delivered as OpenEXR or DPX files. However, the team soon realized that the same naming conventions can apply to virtually any image sequence. Consequently, the specification was written to handle a wide array of assets and use cases.

To ensure all requirements are represented, the working group included over 2 dozen participants representing studios, VFX houses, tool creators, creatives and others.  The ETC@USC also worked closely with MovieLabs to ensure that the specification could be integrated as part of their 2030 Vision.

A key design criteria for this specification is compatibility with existing practices.  Chair of the VFX working group, Horst Sarubin of Universal Pictures, said: “Our studio is committed to being at the forefront of designing best industry practices to modernize and simplify workflows, and we believe this white paper succeeded in building a new foundation for tools to transfer files in the most efficient manner.”

This specification is compatible with other initiatives such as the Visual Effects Society (VES) Transfer Specifications. “We wanted to make it as seamless as possible for everyone to adopt this specification,” said working group co-chair and ETC@USC’s Erik Weaver. “To ensure all perspectives were represented we created a team of industry experts familiar with the handling of these materials and collaborated with a number of industry groups.”

“Collaboration between MovieLabs and important industry groups like the ETC is critical to implementing the 2030 Vision,” said Craig Seidel, SVP of MovieLabs. “This specification is a key step in defining the foundations for better software-defined workflows. We look forward to continued partnership with the ETC on implementing other critical elements of the 2030 Vision.”

The specification is available online for anyone to use.

Oops, something went wrong.