Glasses-free 3D Still Years (and Years) Away
Do TV manufacturers not want 3D to succeed?Just before Thanksgiving, I noted how 3D HDTV makers couldn’t get retail 3D demos straight. Just before CES, I noted how 3D HDTV makers were further mucking up the 3D market by introducing passive 3D HDTV when consumers hadn’t quite figured out or flocked to active 3D technology.
Then, at CES, several makers including LG, Sony and Toshiba, have completed the 3D HDTV idiocy trilogy by demonstrating glasses-free 3D, aka autostereoscopic. Toshiba devoted the enormous west wall on their booth to hyping a glasses-free 3D future.Why demo glasses-free 3D?
I know that you know that they know that we know that affordable glasses-free 3D is a chimera, a myth, a ghost.
What the TV makers aren’t telling you is that the technology and the pricing for glasses-free 3DTV is more than just a few years off of being ready for the mass-market retail floor. Yet hyping this chimera, this myth, this ghost could further paralyze consumers by building a false expectation of any-minute-now glasses-free 3D.
What is glasses-free 3D?
Basically, glasses-free 3D is accomplished by way of placing a filter in front of the LCD panel. This filter refracts or deflects the light from the LCD to create distinct left eye-right eye images. There are two types of autostereoscopic filters: a slit picket fence-like filter called parallax barrier or a circular filter called lenticular. (More specific definitions and explanations of parallax barrier and lenticular filtering can be found here.)
You could see artifacts of these filters in the varying glasses-free demos; many bore a faint resemblance to those “holographic” cards you used to get in Cracker Jack boxes. On most of these autostereoscopic displays, shifting slightly in one direction or the other shifted the image. They all had narrow viewing angles, some defined by footprints you had to stand in to see the full 3D image.
Of all the autostereoscopic demos at CES, the most impressive was a 24.6-inch OLED Sony. I could see no filtering artifacts of any kind - but then we were kept around 15 feet away from the small screen.
What about 2D?
One thing was missing from these glasses-free 3D demos - what 2D would look like. But I know that you know that they know that we know what 2D would look like through a filter - crap. Which means this current crop of autostereoscopic displays will never see the glaring fluorescent lights of retail.
In order for glasses-free 3D to work, the filters have to essentially disappear, which means they have to digitized. And the elimination of any remaining artifacts likely will need 4K x 2K resolution displays.
The necessary combinations of technologies isn’t impossible - everyone concerned is working feverishly on them, and we may end up with one solution from Company A, a second solution from Company B and a third solution from Company C.
Why not show off new tech?
So, what’s wrong with showing off future technology at CES? Two things.
One, I can’t think of a case where a replacement technology was so highly hullaballooed immediately after the basic technology first went on sale. This is like saying to consumers, “Isn’t this great? Don’t buy it, though. Something better is coming.” (Something better would be nice but do we really want more consumer confusion than is shown here?)
Two, it sets up false consumer expectations. 3D HDTV sales are, shall we say, lower than expected, only an estimated 1.8 million sets in the U.S. according to most sources. Consumers’ major complaint: having to wear glasses in the living room to watch TV. Unpowered passive glasses are less odious, but they are still essentially indoor sunglasses - and according to Larry David, only blind people and a******* wear sunglasses indoors.
What do active shutter 3D plus passive 3D plus glasses-free 3D in the market equal? Consumer confusion and no one buying 3D.
Stewart is Digital Tech Consulting’s Senior Analyst.
Chas Callaway commented:
Alternating field 3D images with polarized pixels in the display would require only cheap polarized 3D glasses. Seems like it would work, eh?
But then, they couldn’t sell a few million $100 glasses.
Ken H / AVS Forums commented:
Mr. Wolpin is 100% correct.
I would add that in addition to creating consumer confusion about availability of a second generation of 3D technology (should I wait or should I buy?), current autostereo technology is extremely poor in comparison to active or passive stereo technology. Perhaps extreamly poor is utting it lightly.
This will only result in consumers being further put off from interest in 3D directly due to quality of the autostereo experience.
3dfan commented:
By far the most advanced glassed free 3D TV was shown in Las Vegas by a company out of NYC called 3DFusion…the quality of their video easily approached a good HD picture, and the 3D was completely natural (not gimmicky)…for the time being they seem to be concentrating on commercial uses (advertising etc…) and not on consumer use..you should keep your eyes on them..they are years ahead of what Toshiba,LG, and Sony previewed at CES..
ProfChuck commented:
There are at least three technologies that can produce glasses free television. One that many people have seen is in the lead in to CIS NY. The glowing globe with a rotating brain inside is a true 3d imaging system and it is commercially available however at considerable cost. Its limitations are similar to that of a fish tank. You get a real 3d image but it must fit inside the transparent enclosure. A large screen version would cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Another system consists of a variable focal length mirror placed in front of a more or less conventional display. The focal length is altered to show near and distant objects. The problem with this system is that it is noisy because the mirror is a mechanical device that vibrates to produce the 3d effect. The most realistic system is one that requires the greatest technology. It consists of a camera system mounted on the top of a very special television screen that detects the location of all of the pairs of eyes watching the program. It then sends right and left images into each viewers eyes thus producing the 3d effect.
roger grey commented:
Harry Elias is spinning in his grave.
Phil Metford commented:
One really wonders why our industry continues to try to commit suicide. We have barely introduced HDTV adequately, still have too many homes without access to digital programming, and still a dearth of HD content production.
The sudden shift to 3D is a typical knee-jerk reaction to the cinematic productions such as Avitar and Toy Story. What Japan and Korea engineers don’t understand is that those are experiences that should be enjoyed in the same manner as a Broadway show is.
Understand, I’m not a Luddite, and I’m certain that we will have usable home-based 3D TV, and further on we will have holographic home entertainment.
I just think that we should allow and encourage HD to mature before we completely screw up the marketplace and consumer expectations.
Phil Metford
Past Publisher
C.E.BIZ Corp.
Barrett Monroe commented:
The whole 3D thing is just a big waste of time.Picture quality should be the priority!Very few or as it is getting to the point where no retailer is capable of showing accurate picture quality or how to setup a flat panel with correct color,brightness,or contrast!
Don commented:
Just get me a really high quality 4K Projector for my theater and i’ll be happy. I don’t need 3D and glasses, or 3D and no glasses if it messes up my 2D image in any way. I’m actually one who cares about quality in audio and video.
SteveH commented:
I agree that glasses-free 3D is premature, but home 3DTV with glasses (active or passive) is never going to sell in the volumes that manufacturers hope for. The manufacturers are grasping at imaginary 3D straws.
Mr Marley commented:
It is just about impossible to make an acceptable profit selling consumer electronics. Case in point, Amazon has lower prices than our electronics distributor. Size matters to the manufacturer due their inability to make a decent margin. I watch with amazement as Sony chases VISIO with same feature package at a higher price. I chuckle when SONY claims they want be the largest TV vendor thereby giving up their high-end niche. Brand names mean nothing in today’s world. The answer is the lowest overhead reseller goes on and the traditional storefront goes away.
Alfred Poor commented:
A computer company named Osborne learned a hard lesson about announcing a technology before it is ready to ship, and how that can kill current sales dead. The TV makers who demo auto-stereoscopic 3DTV seem to be making the same mistake.
Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac
please email customercare@mypressplus.com or call 866-71-PRESS (866-717-7377).