It's easy to get caught up in the excitement surrounding 3D TV.
DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg proclaimed that: "2010 will be the year in which 3D is brought to the home." Stephen Gater, LG's Head of Marketing for Home Entertainment said: "we're witnessing the start of dramatic change in how we view TV."
While a bullish Samsung laid out its plans at CES. "Just as we created the LED market last year, we will lead the industry in the 3D market this year," boasted its US president Tim Baxter.
Although 3D telly prototypes have been knocking around at tech shows for the past few years, 2010 is being hailed as the year that the resurrected format finally becomes a commercial reality. And this time it will be more than a gimmick with cardboard red/cyan glasses.
2010 will be the year of the first Blu-ray 3D disc, the first commercially available '3D Ready' TVs, and the UK's first dedicated 3D TV channel from Sky.
No brainer?
So we'll have 3D-capable hardware and 3D content to watch on it. But do all these firsts really mark a tipping point for 3D TV and herald a bold new era of bespectacled home entertainment?
2009 was certainly a pivotal year for 3D cinema. Films such as Coraline, My Bloody Valentine and Up all played to packed crowds happily to wear thick-rimmed polarised glasses.
But it's James Cameron's Avatar that's become the poster child for the 3D revolution. The sci-fi spectacular has clawed in over $1.86 billion dollars at the global box office. Hollywood has subsequently embraced 3D.
3D MOVIES HERE TO STAY: James Cameron's Avatar has pushed 3D cinema into the mainstream
Over 50 3D films are due for release in the next few years and many more will be re-released in a new 3D version. Bringing the 3D experience into your living room seems like a no-brainer.
2012 "more likely"
But when you look closer it seems ambitious to suggest that 2010 will be the 'year of 3D TV'.
Although the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) guesstimates that 2.2 million 3D-capable TV sets will be sold this year, Sony Electronics' chief marketing officer Mike Fasulo pegs 2012 as a more likely timeframe for mass market 3D adoption.
Futuresource Consulting has predicted that 45 per cent of US homes will have a 3D TV by 2014 and DisplaySearch forecasts that consumers will spend $17 billion on 3D TVs by 2018.
Consider how long it has already taken HD to gain a foothold in the UK telly market. The satellite broadcaster Euro1080 launched Europe's first dedicated HD channel (HD1) back in 2004. Sky launched its own HD service two years later.
Yet by the start of 2010, Sky HD subscriptions have only just surpassed two million households. While that's a good built-in audience for Sky's forthcoming 3D channel, how many of these subscribers will want to splash out on a new 3D-ready HD TV so they can watch it?
One of the biggest sticking points to rapid 3D adoption is price. If you've just bought an HD TV, you're unlikely to buy another one just to watch a smattering of 3D TV content. On his blog, Forrester analyst James McQuivey puts things neatly into perspective.
TOO SOON FOR HOME 3D? The 3D revolution has arrived during the middle of the HD revolution. Consumers won't upgrade again so soon
"Between 2007 and 2009, over 40 million HD TVs were sold in the US," he explains, "most of them close to or below $1,000... Now we're going to ask those same people to spend between $2,000 and $4,000 to get a good 3D TV set with just two sets of active shutter glasses? Sorry, the credit card is going to stay in the wallet for this one."
Content the key - as ever
Another potential pitfall is 3D content. Not the availability of the content per se. But our attitude to it. For example, Sky recently showed the Arsenal vs Manchester United Premiership clash on 3D TVs in selected pubs across the UK. Eight rigs with 16 cameras captured all of the action at the Emirates. What impressed most?
According to Darren Long, Sky Sports' director of operations: "sport is all about emotion, and seeing it in 3D adds to the experience." But according to Dublin football fan John Cormican: "the best bit was when the players came out of the tunnel – it was amazing, they looked like they were running right past you."
GRAY AND KEYS: Sky's 3D football demo was considered a success, although only the low camera angles were most effective
As The Guardian points out in the same piece: "if you love football, the technology is irrelevant." The gimmicky approach to 3D is another problem. Movie plotting has often suffered under a deluge of special effects. Hello, Star Wars prequels. We're looking at you.
There's a danger that the craze for using 3D technology could also detract from the core elements of a good film – storytelling, believable characterisation and emotional engagement. For example, the #1-rated movie on IMDb is The Shawshank Redemption. Would filming it in 3D have made it any better? Would you enjoy it even more if it was converted to 3D by a Toshiba Cell TV? Just because you can add an extra dimension doesn't mean that you should.
Of course, 3D is already out of date in Korea, where 4D movie showings are all the rage. According to Variety.com, "the 4D screening [of Avatar] uses more than 30 effects during the 3D film's 162 minute run, including moving seats, smells of explosives, sprinkling water, laser lights and wind." Let's see Sony try and transfer that experience into your living room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liked this? Then check out The best 3D TVs you can buy this year
Sign up for TechRadar's free Weird Week in Tech newsletter
Get the oddest tech stories of the week, plus the most popular news and reviews delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up at http://www.techradar.com/register
Your comments (5) Click to add a new comment
torp
March 4th 2010
5. Bring it on! It's the year for me. I don't care about some journalist's budget thinking. I'm not a "new technology nut" and have been waiting for 10 years for the flat screen technology to give me something worth converting from my old 40 inch conventional TV CRT clunker. You wait if you want.
Alert a moderator
3dgizmo
February 9th 2010
4. 2010, 2011, 2012... point is, it's happening and that makes me a happy bunny. 3DTV is fun, exciting and I want it in my home ASAP.
Guy
http://www.3dtvreviewer.co.uk/
Alert a moderator
nickdalodger
February 9th 2010
3. I was very impressed with Christmas Carol at the Imax and also Avatar, the worry for me is that I always sit pretty central in the cinema and think this is the sweet spot, how will this translate to most peoples lounges, does it work well off center and how will it transfer down from the large screen to a 50"?
Also cost is a concern, if these screens are going to be say £200-£300 more this will take off, but £1000+ on top of the cost of the TV it just ain't going to happen.
Also there doesn't seem to be unity in terms of 1 standard, this will lead to more consumer confusion, can we think back to HD Ready/ Full HD... argghh
And content, this is my personal opinion but so far we only have 2 films worth buying Avatar and Christmas Carol, the likes of UP and other films seem to just to have the yoyo in your face fx's and not the immersion you feel with the likes of Avatar or Christmas Carol. Also I personally don't want all the old films converted into 3D and fear that all the studios will jump on this like Sony are, the same with new films as well..
I am a sucker for new tech and am waiting to see how this develops, the risk of being an early adopter at this point is like the HD DVD format, i.e will it go for a couple of years and then just flop.. we will have to wait and see
Alert a moderator
healeydave
February 8th 2010
2. I think the industry is running before it can walk. HD TV can hardly be called a success if you consider how fragmented it still is. You have a handful of HD channels. Those that are duplicated SD channels are often showing non-true HD content. The SD channels are going nowhere for years, I mean come on, the UK had a 10 year plan to switch from analog to digital and that's still dragging on. If there are still significant numbers if households to move to Digital TV when it only requires a £20 box, what chance does 3D have?
I personnally am not keen on having to don a pair of glasses everytime I want to watch TV and if it's only going to be for ocassional use, I fear it will be one of those "features" you bought into be rarely ever use.
Alert a moderator
tonymontana
February 8th 2010
1. I think they are pushing 3D in the wrong way not a lot of films look very good in 3D and are better left in 2D.
I think they should promote animation and sport foremost.
Animated movies look fantastic in 3D in my opinion. Some of those colourful Pixar movies lend themselves very well to 3D.
As for sport. Well I read about the Arsenal vs Manchester United game in 3D. It seemed like it didn't always light the world on fire but some of the shots were very impressive.
I was reading an article and what one of the men picked for the trial said was pretty interesting:
"To be honest, I can't really tell the difference with the wide shots of the game," Mr Robinson said.
"But when they show the replays and the ground shots, you really begin to feel like you're there."
"The only experience I'd had of 3D before was at Disney World," Mr Robinson said.
"This is a different experience to when things are animated to jump out of the screen at you. It's more subtle. It's definitely good though."
For me I think animated movies the likes of what Pixar and Dreamworks do is the best content with for 3D with sports. I'd like to see a boxing match in 3D.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments