3D TVs related production gears are everywhere in the 2010 NAB Show. You can’t miss them even if you try.
Had a wonderful first day at NAB Show and I want to capture some of my thoughts about 3D before I head out to another exciting day at NAB.
3D & Money – Billions and hundreds of millions
Yes, we are talking about billions (Avatar, today’s figure: worldwide $2.7b) and hundreds of millions (Alice, as of today: 780m). And the millions of dollars spent by Sony, Panasonic, etc in R&D and making the production and consumer gears.
As a potential major new source of revenue for film studios, broadcasters, electronic gears makers, and others, I don’t fault them for wanting to backflip from a cliff in the dark of night into a rough sea that is also known for its golden opportunities like Avatar and Alice.
3D & Dramatic Content – The lessons from Avatar, Alice, and Titans
Jim’s Avatar was a story told with care, plus deep insight and understanding about the 3D technologies (both its pros and cons).
In contrast, Alice and Clash of the Titans were films originally shot in 2D and “up-converted” to 3D. Have a look of these two posts to see why I avoided them like the plague, “2D, 3D, IMAX fake 3D, and IMAX real 3D” and “Titans’ director underwhelmed by 3D conversion“.
3D & Sports/Live Content – The foreground trees, hands, and guitar headstock
I will check out more of the 3D sample footage in the NAB Show today, but from the footage I’ve seen so far, 3D’s strength is also its deadly weakness, I think.
It is human to pay attention to what is closest to us because it is in our gene to pay attention to things closer to us (is it a tiger?). But when watching 3D TV, tell me why I should care/pay more attention to the trees closest to the camera? Should I be distracted by that clipping hands in a concert just because it is closer to the camera? And in another concert footage, the guitar headstock happened to point at the camera, so it makes sense to have it become the focus?
My problem with the current iteration of the 3D technologies is that it seems to be too “distracting”. I am not sure will I articulate the following well, but step away from your computer later and try this. Look out into the distance. When we see things in the real world (our 4D world), we sort of “see everything and nothing at the same time“. We see everything but actually nothing until we focus our eyes onto something particular (like a building in the distance, an ad on the wall, or a pretty girl/guy in the crowd, etc). With the current iteration of 3D, the camera decided what our focuses are. And in the demo footage showcasing the best capabilities, unfortunately what stood out for me were the trees, the hands, and that stupid guitar headstock!
This may seem unconventional and paradoxical, but can 3D actually reduce our entertainment experience? Can the foreground objects become too distracting?
3D & Your money
If you are a consumer:
Are 3DTVs ready for prime time yet? Should you rush to buy a brand new 3DTV to replace your newish HDTV? Well, unless you have lots of money and nowhere to spend it (and have given lots to charity already), then may be buy one and be prepare to buy a new new one soon.
For the general public and for me, I don’t see the need to have a 3D TV set at home yet. They still need to come out with engaging programs plus sort out a common standard first (side by side or up and down).
Hmmm, this just come to me: How do you watch sports in 3D in a large group in a pub or a friend’s home? Will it be BYO-3DG (Bring Your Own 3D Glasses)?
If you are a TV or film producer:
I want to spend a few more days at NAB first before I make a more informed call on this. My gut feeling is the current iteration of 3D cannot be applied like a magic bullet. A new set of considerations along the transitions like silent to sound, and B&W to colour may be needed to be carefully thought out first.
I will write more later.
Filed under: Digital-Revolution, NABShow 
