After the panel addressed the status and direction of 3D, a discussion ensued regarding the technologies behind it.
An audience member asked whether the glasses were here to stay, and Josh Greer of RealD said they were, because of the challenges surrounding autostereoscopic technology.
“With autostereoscopic, the bigger problem is content production. It takes anywhere from 3 to 1200 cameras per shot to shoot in autostereoscopic. It fundamentally requires a paradigm shift in video capture. Not that it won’t go that way, but it’s taken a long time just to get the industry to go to two cameras. You’ll begin seeing autostereoscopic in advertising, signage, in pachinko parlors in Japan,” he said. “But in your living room, I think it’s still 10 years out.”
An audience member asked about all the new TVs and set-top boxes that include a 2D-to-3D conversion chip.
“I’m not a big fan of real-time conversion yet,” said Greer. “It’s starting to look realer, but it is still by far not a useable experience. We all go to conferences, watch for 5 minutes, and think it’s cool. But try watching a football game for two hours in conversion. I prefer production of pure 3D content and moving in that direction.”
Eisuke Tsuyuzaki of Panasonic agreed. “Do we convert black and white into color? Do we convert VHS into HD? Probably not. My feeling is you should shoot it, store it, and keep it in pristine 3D condition throughout,” he said. “I’ve heard they’re considering converting Titanic to 3D. That’s a lot of money, but he can probably afford it now. But will that happen all the way down through all content? Probably not. That’s my point of view.”
“We feel the same way,” said Nandhu Nandhakumar of LG. “Once you watch real 3D content, it’s easy to see where the other stuff breaks down on occasion. We have decided to stick with producing content that is real 3D.”
In response to an audience question about backwards-compatible 3D-to-2D conversion, Greer emphasized that the two formats are really two different art forms.
“In the past we’ve taken stereoscopic and dropped one eye and called it monoscopic,” he said. “It’s okay, but we find most content creators are making different choices for 3D. It changes the pace, it changes the composition of shooting. A lot of creators would rather keep it in the same format they shot in. So, yes, you can convert it backwards, but a lot of people find it’s not the same content.”
One major topic of discussion that arose in the panel is the need to effectively educate the public about 3D technology. Consumers are confused about compatibility between displays, eyewear, content formats, set-top boxes, and other devices. There needs to be a way to train and inform retailers and their employees, so correct information trickles down to the consumer.
Moderator Rick Doherty of The Envisioneering Group held up a Fuji 3D personal camera being sold in Asia, and asked the panelists where they thought user-generated 3D content fits into the equation in the next five years.
“I think [user-generated 3D content] is way earlier than five years away. The key thing has got to be how many TVs we have in living rooms. That’s the catalyst,” said Tsuyuzaki. “Once we have a lot of TVs, then it makes sense to introduce 3D cameras. At Panasonic we observe 3D as transformational. It changes the landscape and transforms the consumer electronics business.”
“Looking at the [user-generated 3D] products, it’s not yet what it needs to be, but it’s very interesting,” said Nandhakumar. “It could come fast. The 3D wave has snowballed, and it caught people by surprise the speed at which it has grown. I think we can expect many more things to continue.”
Rick Doherty closed the session with optimism about the impact 3D will have on American society.
“3D is a tremendously powerful technology. I see possibilities in healthcare, government, defense, and other areas,” he said. “And I think we’ll see people making new friends, inviting people over to watch shows on the first 3D TV on the block. I think it’s going to be that big.”