Let's just say it: 3D TV is a joke.

Even 1080p isn't really working yet. All systems I've seen out of high-end post production gear (yes, that includes broadcasting gear) have visual timing problems. Maybe I'm biased because I've worked in professional video and TV for too long, but I'm tired of seeing gradually worse quality becoming the norm (compression artifacts, poor color, bad timing, poor sound sync are more and more common) because apparently quantity trumps quality.<p>So what's the last trend in "quantity trumps quality"? Adding a 3d dimension of course! I've looked at some 3D streams during the World Cup, just to check, on my 2D set. How does this work? Simple, halved horizontal resolution. Oh, BTW it's 720p, so that means actual resolution is 640x720. 5% more pixels than good ol' PAL, that's basically a step back to low def. Hu.<p>Did I mentioned that the first time the industry tried to impose 3D on an unwilling public was in 1958, with Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"? Wow, now that's a <i>new</i> technology!

A couple of wagers:<p>The Nintendo 3DS will be a massive driver for stereoscopic gaming, both in increasing demand for it and in creating a base of knowledge amongst developers on how to make use of stereoscopy.<p>Gaming or porn (probably gaming) will put stereoscopic displays in a lot of living rooms. We're well on our way to critical mass in terms of distribution.<p>Over the next 10 years or so, stereoscopy will fade into the background, in much the same way as stereo or surround sound has - some people will ignore it completely, others will be fanatical about it, but it will be a normal part of the film-making process.<p>We've been here before with sound. Listen to early stereophonic records and you'll hear what we're seeing now with stereoscopy - crudely exaggerated balances designed to show off the technology. "Revolver" by The Beatles is a good example - the record is quite uncomfortable to listen to on headphones because tracks are panned hard left or right, creating a completely artificial sound. Classical recordings sounded good in stereo quite quickly because the engineers just stuck two microphones in front of an orchestra, but pop records took a lot of development to sound natural and pleasing, most significantly the development of good stereo reverb.<p>Likewise in stereoscopy, we're currently seeing stereoscopic images with a hugely exaggerated depth effect, partly to show off the technology, partly because the technology and technique still needs to mature. We have films not shot stereoscopically being rendered to 3d, stereoscopic images being digitally 'widened' and all sorts of other shenanigans. There just isn't a body of technique for stereoscopic cinematography, so directors and DPs are struggling to figure it out.<p>I reject the argument that stereoscopy will fail now because it has failed previously. We now have a critical mass of technology that has massively reduced the cost of filming, editing and exhibiting stereoscopic pictures. We have overcome most of the significant technical problems, although this is not evenly distributed yet. This time around, stereoscopy is a big deal precisely because it won't be a big deal for very long.

3D's just fine. I'm sure it'll sell a bunch of TV's the same way printing 'MEGA-BASS" on boomboxes and hooking the crossover to a little switch sold those in the 80's.<p>They can have their 3d. Just please, <i>please</i> don't make the 2d experience worse in order to shoehorn this nonsense into what should just be passive wall monitors. If there must be 3d on most tvs, <i>please provide an easy way to turn it off</i>.

The problem with 3D TV adoption:<p><pre><code> -Lack of 3D content -Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem. -Increased cost -Decreased 2D quality -Extra equipment required for some implementations </code></pre> If 3D TV had a single standard that content producers could use to create their 3D content, and if consumers could watch it on TVs that required no extra equipment, and if the vast majority of 2D content still looked good on 3D displays, AND if the cost is not prohibitive, then 3D TV will have a shot at thriving in the market. As it stands right now, I think the best application for 3D displays is in specialized research and design, and limited consumer experiences (Avatar, shows at Disneyland, etc.).

I have a lazy eye, so 3D doesn't work on me, so I upvoted this on principle.<p>I refuse to bow down to my stereoscopic overlords.

The real problem with 3D video is that it requires a lot of production work to get right. You can't just record in 3D and expect it to work. You have to carefully manage focal length. And when it comes right down to it, it only adds things to carefully crafted shots like the bioluminescent plants in Avatar, or the birds flying through hallelujah mountains.<p>And the fact is 90% of television doesn't have visuals that are going to benefit from that. The remaining 10%, few people will miss it when it's gone. There just isn't a huge value proposition for most styles of video, and there's not a clear case that 3D video is a superior art form to 2D, it just costs more and takes more production time.

I think like many other nascent entertainment technologies, the first really profitable use cases for this could be porn and gaming.

"As a medium, 3D remains remarkably self-trivializing. Virtually nobody who works with it can resist thrusting stuff at the camera, just to make clear to viewers that they’re experiencing the miracle of the third dimension."<p>Reminds me of a film class a took. The professor explained how when prerecorded sound was first introduced into film, the movies ended up people just talking to each other. It took some time for them to get over the novelty of the technology and use it artfully.<p>But I agree. 3D is way over-marketed and overhyped.

I also think that this is a fad - and only industry fad if I may add. I don't believe that people will start throwing out their 2D HD sets just because of 3D.<p>It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses.<p>But I kinda like the emergence of 3D sets - because it will probably bring down prices on 2D sets, which is good. And I guess that people might start buying 3D sets - if they phase out 2D sets and not increase the price too much. But people buying and using stuff - that's completely different on the other side - I divine that entertainment industry will try to charge even more for 3D movies than what they charge for already overpriced 2D movies - and that certainly WILL kill 3D.<p>And also it is interesting to see corporate drones all droning to the same failed hype.<p>Call me when the holo-TV is ready. kthxbye

I thought the iPad was a joke, and by all accounts it seems to be a success, so I'm wary of judging a product's future success based on my own personal opinions.

3D TV could work if producers showed restraint and only used it to add depth behind the frame, instead of throwing stuff at the audience for effect. Clipping of objects thrown towards you really kills the experience for me.<p>I think it will work for sports and nature shows. In the same way BBC's Planet Earth is great in HD I think some future production of the same kind will work great in 3D. Let's face it, that is basically what Avatar is – a gorgeous nature show set on an alien planet. At least that was the best part of it for me.

So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been:<p>1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because polarised glasses cut half of the light<p>2- But most of all every time something is coming towards me in the film is impressive only until it reaches the edge of the screen... at which point I get one massive reminder that I am watching a film and not reality and it completely kills my suspension of disbelief. Maybe with time I'll get use to it, but so far I've been much more aware that I was in a cinema when watching 3D... ironically it was a lot less <i>immersive</i>. ;)<p>Where I do think it can have a positive effect is either where the film maker makes careful use not to go beyond the screen's size (for example "How to train a dragon" was quite nice in 3D because of all the dogfighting which was a lot clearer in 3D), or in sports where the director can be sure the ball and the players will stay within a certain area.

Peoples expectations for 3D TV is a bit higher than some illusion produced by wearing some glasses staring directly at the correct angle at a flat screen.<p>I'll look at 3D TV when it is similar to a Star Wars 3D hologram. I don't think I'm alone. No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion.

Agree. The Star Wars sequence where Luke and Obi-Wan plays the "you're my only hope"-message from Princess Leia would look so much less cool if they were forced to wear 3D goggles. Now where's the holograms?

Sports is the thing that's going to sell 3D TVs and there's no mention of it in the article. The broadcasters are investing a lot in their live sports 3D tech and it looks good.

I have to disagree: my Dad bought a 3D TV about 2 months ago, and with the LCD shutter glasses the visual quality is good and it is a lot of fun (at least we all enjoyed the few movies my Dad had). My Dad makes his own blu-ray videos, is totally into video editing,is very fussy about quality, and likes the new TV for regular blu-ray viewing.<p>About 16 years ago in our SAIC virtuality lab (we made a few prototype race car simulators, starting with taking 3 days of lessons at Laguna Seca from NASCAR drivers) we had LCD shutter glasses to experiment with and even back then the quality was stunning.<p>Before you diss on 3D TV, try watching a movie in a comfortable home setting with friends and see how much fun you have.

Some 3D is admittedly bad. Some is terrible, such as when someone incorrectly swaps the L and R images. But when 3D is done right you aren't looking at a screen any more. For me at least, with 3D games, what I have instead is a window to another world, a window that things can come through. A window that makes me feel like a giant with little people playthings that jump at my command... plus playing a tomb raider game in 3D is just awesome.

The medium is great, but the current implementations are v0.1 alphas. Unfortunately, marketing will buff and shine, or attempt to, until reality bites.<p>As they say in the music business, "You can't polish a turd".<p>Now, v2.0 should be interesting, when the goggles and the crappy picture have been axed, and the content isn't focused on the "gee whiz".

I just saw the latest 3D TV (no glasses required) demo'd in HK.<p>Every previous 3D TV looked like garbage. This one seemed to add a new level of depth to the movie without being blurry or looking ridiculous.<p>It is coming, and it is stupid to ignore it. People love 3D movies and 3D tv too, and the market will drive the products.

Let's all hope that 3D television with expensive, goofy spectacles is to 2010 what Laserdisc was to the 80's.

The real question for me is why so much 3D TV and more importantly, why now??<p>Are they only trying to make things more difficult to copy a movie? Or just another excuse to have people purchase new hardware as the cycle for HD is not even over? Or is it a reason to justify HD and put those extra pixels to use?

The so called 3D TV on today's market is really 2D x 2. Sometimes it's even 3D for one spot, one person only.<p>I guess real 3D, or holographic TV could be rotated at any POV like in-game cameras.<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127195" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127195</a>

3D TV right now is badly used in everything EXCEPT animated features.<p>Pixar does 3D right. Toy Story, Up, etc benefit greatly from 3D and it is used well.<p>Non-animated shows haven't yet figured out how to use it. But they will. And when they do 3D TVs will become the norm.

The author mentions blurriness and ghosting; I must say, with the Sony and Panasonic demos in stores, I noticed no such problems. And it would be pretty nice for games. The glasses and lack of content are a real drawback, though.

We just finished our first 3D commercial production (airs on ESPN3D this weekend) and it felt a little hoakey the whole time, but damned if it didn't look really cool in the end. I hope someone enjoys it cause I'm not buying one.

No one seem to mention one of the things that annoy me the most with 3D movies: the focus. If you are looking at something different than what the director wants or expects you to look at, it all blurry because its out of focus.

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11178043" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11178043</a><p>I'm skeptical just like this reporter, but at the same time, I would really like to see 3D more widely available.

I dunno, I think three dimensional video is an exciting medium once creators get over the novelty factor. It's going to be quite popular once the technology for glasses free displays are in homes.

I'll only buy it if the dial goes up to 11.

hi guys, first post here.<p>As it stands now, 3D tv is going to be a flash in the pan. Advancements in tech is about making things easier, not more difficult/annoying to use.<p>Having to wear ($200) glasses to watch tv takes all the ease out of it, and as silencio mentioned, is pointless when watching a movie/game with friends.

3D is the future. Even if these first attempts aren't perfect, we will get there.

Amen.

This argument only holds true if people buy TV's to watch stuff on them. TV's aren't about watching stuff. At least they aren't only about watching stuff.