PSN ID
by 3D is the next big thing in the HDTV industry, and all of the big players were showing off their 3D devices at the CEDIA show. But none of the demonstrations that we saw convinced us that 3D HDTV will be the next big thing that you need to buy. Here's our take on all of the prototype systems that were on show.
Firstly, a note about how these system work. All of the systems on display required a set of special glasses to work which use either a shutter or a polarized lens to show a slightly different image to each eye. How they do this differs between manufacturers: Panasonic, Sony and Mitsubishi used glasses with an active shutter, where an LCD shutter in the lens blinks on and off as the screen displays a different image. JVC's system uses polarized lenses. However the display does it, your brain then interprets the differences between these two images as depth, creating an illusion of 3D. That's the theory, anyway; we actually found that none of the demos was particularly convincing, and all had some limitations and problems tht ruined the effect.
Panasonic
Panasonic made the biggest splash by bringing their 3D demo truck to the show and demonstrating their system on a 105-inch plasma screen. Their system uses an active shutter pair of glasses that show differing images to each eye 30 times a second. They also claimed that each eye was seeing a full 1080p signal; other systems (such as the JVC) use an interlaced signal with only half of the vertical resolution of the Panasonic.
Their demo was a mixed bag: the clip from the movie Up had very little 3D feel, while the demo footage from the Olympics was more convincing. This had more depth and real 3D feel, but it rather broke down when objects started moving on the screen at high speed. For instance, a shot of soccer players on the field had a real feeling of depth, but the 3D effect of a shot of a skier shooting downhill broke down when the skier went past the camera at high speed. Also noticeable by their absence was any shots that involved a quick camera pan: all of the shots we saw involved slow pans or static cameras. We also found that their 3D glasses to be somewhat temperamental; they rely on a signal being sent from a special transmitter, and sometimes seemed to loose this signal.
Sony
Sony were showing a number of clips on a prototype system that uses glasses with an active shutter, which they claimed was running at 240Hz, showing each eye 120 frames a second. However, we again found that the effect was unconvincing; although some of the game footage that they were showing had a 3D feel, it often broke and became disorientating on the real world examples on show. The extra speed of the display also did not seem to make any significant difference to the effect; the 3D effect seemed to break down just as often as the others.
JVC
JVC is offering their 3D display to consumers: their GD-463D10 display can be purchased now for about $9,000. This display is really aimed at 3D content creators such as scientists and medical imaging companies, but they are hoping that a few early adopter home users might pick it up as well. It also differs in approach; the glasses contain a polarized lens, and an additional filter in the front of the display polarizes the light on alternate rows in different directions. This means that the left eye sees one interlaced frame, while the other eye sees the other.
The consequence of this is that the images have only half the vertical resolution of the systems from Panasonic and Sony, but they actually had the best overall 3D effect. The demo that JVC was showing was of a number of scientific visualizations, with arrows representing airflow and the like. The effect was consistent, but sometimes felt rather flat, with only limited depth. You can read more about our experiences with this display in our First Impressions Review of this display.
Mitsubishi
The last manufacturer to show a 3D demo was Mitsubishi, who was underlining the fact that many of their displays are 3D ready with a demonstration of one of their larger projection TVs that used active shutter glasses that used an interlaced signal to feed an image to each eye 30 times a second. This demo was the trailer for the horror film The Final Destination, complete with people falling onto spikes, nail guns randomly firing off to pin someone to a wall and a rock being fired from lawnmowers at high speed into someone's eye. Basically, a large amount of potential for death and destruction in glorious 3D. Unfortunately, we found the effect to be unconvincing; the images lacked depth and the 3D effect broke down on some scenes, producing a fuzzy blur on the screen and a distinct feeling of nausea in our stomachs that wasn't from the movie. You can read more about the 3D ready feature on Mitsubishi TVs in our First Impression Review of their 82-inch WD-82737 DLP HDTV.
The Not Ready for Prime Time Players
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the same thing is true of the 3D. This article is based on the experience of one person with decent eyesight trying these systems out, so it is possible that our less than perfect experience was down to some sort of interaction between our eyes and the system. Certainly, others that we spoke to seemed more enthusiastic about the technology. It's also worth noting that none of the glasses we tried were particularly comfortable, especially for those who wear glasses all of the time and who thus have to fit the 3D glasses over their existing ones.
One thing to note here is that none of the systems that we looked at here are final; the standards for how 3D content will be delivered to users are still being determined, so none of the systems look the same way that they will when you can finally buy a movie on 3D and watch it at home. This will no doubt have a significant impact on how the content looks, and it also means that the manufacturers who have not yet finished their products still have time to tweak their products before we start to see them on store shelves in 2010.
However, based on our experience so far, it seems that there is still a lot of work to do before 3D HDTV becomes a must-have feature. Part of this is the various companies agreeing on a standard for delivering this content to consumers that will work across all devices, and this hasn't been finished yet. But that's not the only part of the puzzle, and they also need to do a better job of tweaking the quality and convincing users that it is worth spending money on. And based on our experience, it looks like that might be a hard sell.
Firstly, a note about how these system work. All of the systems on display required a set of special glasses to work which use either a shutter or a polarized lens to show a slightly different image to each eye. How they do this differs between manufacturers: Panasonic, Sony and Mitsubishi used glasses with an active shutter, where an LCD shutter in the lens blinks on and off as the screen displays a different image. JVC's system uses polarized lenses. However the display does it, your brain then interprets the differences between these two images as depth, creating an illusion of 3D. That's the theory, anyway; we actually found that none of the demos was particularly convincing, and all had some limitations and problems tht ruined the effect.
Panasonic
Panasonic made the biggest splash by bringing their 3D demo truck to the show and demonstrating their system on a 105-inch plasma screen. Their system uses an active shutter pair of glasses that show differing images to each eye 30 times a second. They also claimed that each eye was seeing a full 1080p signal; other systems (such as the JVC) use an interlaced signal with only half of the vertical resolution of the Panasonic.
Their demo was a mixed bag: the clip from the movie Up had very little 3D feel, while the demo footage from the Olympics was more convincing. This had more depth and real 3D feel, but it rather broke down when objects started moving on the screen at high speed. For instance, a shot of soccer players on the field had a real feeling of depth, but the 3D effect of a shot of a skier shooting downhill broke down when the skier went past the camera at high speed. Also noticeable by their absence was any shots that involved a quick camera pan: all of the shots we saw involved slow pans or static cameras. We also found that their 3D glasses to be somewhat temperamental; they rely on a signal being sent from a special transmitter, and sometimes seemed to loose this signal.
Sony
Sony were showing a number of clips on a prototype system that uses glasses with an active shutter, which they claimed was running at 240Hz, showing each eye 120 frames a second. However, we again found that the effect was unconvincing; although some of the game footage that they were showing had a 3D feel, it often broke and became disorientating on the real world examples on show. The extra speed of the display also did not seem to make any significant difference to the effect; the 3D effect seemed to break down just as often as the others.
JVC
JVC is offering their 3D display to consumers: their GD-463D10 display can be purchased now for about $9,000. This display is really aimed at 3D content creators such as scientists and medical imaging companies, but they are hoping that a few early adopter home users might pick it up as well. It also differs in approach; the glasses contain a polarized lens, and an additional filter in the front of the display polarizes the light on alternate rows in different directions. This means that the left eye sees one interlaced frame, while the other eye sees the other.
The consequence of this is that the images have only half the vertical resolution of the systems from Panasonic and Sony, but they actually had the best overall 3D effect. The demo that JVC was showing was of a number of scientific visualizations, with arrows representing airflow and the like. The effect was consistent, but sometimes felt rather flat, with only limited depth. You can read more about our experiences with this display in our First Impressions Review of this display.
Mitsubishi
The last manufacturer to show a 3D demo was Mitsubishi, who was underlining the fact that many of their displays are 3D ready with a demonstration of one of their larger projection TVs that used active shutter glasses that used an interlaced signal to feed an image to each eye 30 times a second. This demo was the trailer for the horror film The Final Destination, complete with people falling onto spikes, nail guns randomly firing off to pin someone to a wall and a rock being fired from lawnmowers at high speed into someone's eye. Basically, a large amount of potential for death and destruction in glorious 3D. Unfortunately, we found the effect to be unconvincing; the images lacked depth and the 3D effect broke down on some scenes, producing a fuzzy blur on the screen and a distinct feeling of nausea in our stomachs that wasn't from the movie. You can read more about the 3D ready feature on Mitsubishi TVs in our First Impression Review of their 82-inch WD-82737 DLP HDTV.
The Not Ready for Prime Time Players
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the same thing is true of the 3D. This article is based on the experience of one person with decent eyesight trying these systems out, so it is possible that our less than perfect experience was down to some sort of interaction between our eyes and the system. Certainly, others that we spoke to seemed more enthusiastic about the technology. It's also worth noting that none of the glasses we tried were particularly comfortable, especially for those who wear glasses all of the time and who thus have to fit the 3D glasses over their existing ones.
One thing to note here is that none of the systems that we looked at here are final; the standards for how 3D content will be delivered to users are still being determined, so none of the systems look the same way that they will when you can finally buy a movie on 3D and watch it at home. This will no doubt have a significant impact on how the content looks, and it also means that the manufacturers who have not yet finished their products still have time to tweak their products before we start to see them on store shelves in 2010.
However, based on our experience so far, it seems that there is still a lot of work to do before 3D HDTV becomes a must-have feature. Part of this is the various companies agreeing on a standard for delivering this content to consumers that will work across all devices, and this hasn't been finished yet. But that's not the only part of the puzzle, and they also need to do a better job of tweaking the quality and convincing users that it is worth spending money on. And based on our experience, it looks like that might be a hard sell.
