Worst DIY Installs Ever Part 7
10 Must-Have Products for Your Next Install
6 Amazing High-End Home Theaters
8 Awesome Turntables for Spinning Vinyl
Print
Email
Comments (8)
Share
Joe Kane Compares 3D, Traditional Video
It's amazing that an old technology like stereoscopic imaging (3D) has once again become so popular with relatively no industry standardization.
Looking back at the history of 3D, it's actually been around since 1890 when engineers used a stereoscope to display images. Later as the technology progressed, red-green anaglyphs, frame sequencing and polarized imaging were introduced into the market. These early attempts set the stage for future iterations of 3D, and we are faced with the problem of too many 3D technologies in the market.
We will be taking a closer look at how these technologies apply to the residential and commercial display markets. There are several video standards organizations, some with long histories of writing standards. Others are also coming together for the first time in an attempt to specify how we do 3D.
Join CE Pro editor Jason Knott on June 17 at 3:00 PM EDT to understand how to maximize the excitement and sales potential of 3D. Learn more
Some of the video compromises trace back to when theater owners were asked to bring back "silver" screens to support the polarized version of projection 3D. These screens have hot-spotting issues and, in most cases, significantly shift the color of the image. That shift isn't uniform across all screens and it differs depending on the seating position.
In the days of black-and-white, the use of silver screens color shift wasn't an issue. But with the rebirth of 3D, consumers are again being asked to possibly compromise comfort and quality to watch 3D.
A recent study by the CEA highlights the concern for comfort, with 47 percent of those polled indicating they are less willing to buy a display if they need to wear glasses. Another 42 percent said they were less likely to purchase a display if it means they have to hold their head still to watch 3D.
Clearly, there are questions that need answering. Do consumers want 3D in the home? Will they wear glasses to view the 3D? Can 3D content be provided with sufficient quality and in a timely manner?
Regardless of these unanswered questions, the CE and movie communities are aggressively moving forward with 3D. Just in the electronics market alone experts are predicting 2010 global sales to range anywhere from 1.2 million to 4 million display units. We'll find out soon how important those viewing compromises are.
|
7 HDMI Troubleshooting Principles CEA: Cloud Will Thrive, So Will Local Storage, Services Say Goodbye to Huge Racks (and Other CE Megatrends) Appliance Retailers Invade CE Market CEA: Consumers Unaware of Smart Grid CEProLive!: Previewing the Virtual Exhibit Hall May 25 is CE Pro Chat Day; 7 Topics Scheduled More filed in CEProLive |
Get Started Now!
Access the archived event to gain full access to video presentations on demand, exhibitor booths and downloadable documents. Learn about growth opportunity in 3D, Smart Energy, Home Health, Commercial, Recurring Revenue, HDMI and more. Visit CEProLIVE! Register online free. |
CEProLIVE was a Great Event!
 Don't worry if you missed it. Here's a brief message from CE Pro's Jason Knott. How it Works Agenda Presentations & session info |
Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter
About the Author
8 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)
I don’t like 3d, but love high quality images.
I find Joe chooses his words wisely, but he has no background in 3D so he would need a lot of time to really understand it. It is one thing to talk about 3D and it is another to know how it is made. I would read information from IMAX, from Rod Archer at RealD, and Andrew Lee at MasterImage. These are the people who know more about 3D than anyone Else.
I would find someone who has knowledge in this area.
This article doesn’t mean anything.
@Kevin
I agree the guys at Master-mage and RealD understand the platform.
I disagree that Joe has little to add here.
Asking Imax and RealD about the technology is great. Asking them about the format’s future is silly. Of course they believe the future is bright, their investors would be bailing left and right otherwise.
It’s like asking Joel DeGray about K-Scape’s future. Joel knows the product well and has a wealth of knowledge to impart on it and its legal escapades, but of course he has a vested interest.
I think Joe can add a perspective that adresses what compromises in quality people are willing to make to get a third dimension, based on his experience in the HD introduction and adoption.
JMHO
Best
We asked Joe to be our expert because he is one of the most respected engineers in the video category (pro and consumer).
He also has no investment in the success of the format so his opinions can’t be conveyed one way or the other.
Thanks for inviting Joe Kane to comment on this subject. He is has been a ‘go to’ video information source for many years. I have often look to him to lay out the facts.
In that regard I have a question. Joe (or anyone who has a comment), is there any possibility that 3D TV processing may compromise the 2D performance of a TV or projector?
I had the pleasure of sitting in a dark room this week with Joe at Infocomm.
He was discussing the finer points of gain coating on screens and their micro-facets that make these coated screens incapable of displaying high resolution images, due to the facets being large enough to reflect pixel data away from the eyes.
He was showing his Affinity vinyl product, which due to its intrinsic gain properties, does not contain facets except at the level of the binding of the polymers, which is smaller than will affect projection data. He said to bring on your 32K projectors!
It was a great time, and talking to him in person, you get a real appreciation for his passion. We talked about him revolutionizing content creation, by producing products that are not afraid to show the faults in the production quality or transfer quality of the producers.
Thanks for your time Joe (I saw you Thursday, tall guy in a plaid shirt in the front row) and I look forward to reading further installments on the actual tradeoffs of 3D transfers.
Mark
Thank you everyone for taking the time to comment.
Regarding the above question - the question isn’t much different than asking what should current A/V processors do with 2D HDMI content? Some get it right, some get it wrong.
The 3D answer is to allow a bypass or pass through mode when the processor sees 2D material. The processor may also need a bypass mode for sequential 3D sources driving sequential 3D displays.
Will that happen? It is happening in a number of less expensive A/V processors for 2D so there is hope for 3D.
Thanks for doing this series Joe!
I think a videophile like yourself will add a lot to this debate that has been pinging around our community.
3D has been polarizing (pun intended) to say the least.
I always look forward to articles by someone like yourself with no stake in the outcome either way.
DPI has actually done a great job of staying fairly objective in their articles as well, to their own credit. They obviously stand to profit from 3D as a whole, as we all may potentially if we choose to, and you never know how much that colors the backdrop of their analysis, even if it is slight.
This is why I like CE Pro, because as much as we love Jason and Julie, they know when to pull in the big guns.