Tech Talk with Dr Al: What Happened to 3D TV?
- Replies 5
Note from the Editor:
This article was kindly written for the SDC by member @Doctor Alan.
Very few people would remember the excellent children's comic ‘Eagle’ where we used to read about ‘Dan Dare’ in the 1950’s. There was a holographic TV where a person speaking was enclosed in an inverted ‘goldfish bowl’. I waited for well over half a century before 3D television was available and at a price we could afford.
The first cinema experience we had in 3D was at the drive-in at Chullora in NSW. During the (quite awful) horror movie, which only had short sections of 3D, there was a cue to put on our flimsy red/green paper 3D glasses with which we had been issued as we paid our admission – a booming voice said, ‘Put your mask on now!’. And we’d see the next small section in 3D – black and white. Later, of course, 3D movies used polarised lenses with a 90-degree polarisation between each lens. We could see the whole movie in 3D colour.
I was able to see a really good 3D movie at the 1985 Expo in Tokyo when I worked for Fujitsu and a similarly immersive experience for a Disney animated 3D movie in Hong Kong Disneyland in 2012.
The first of the 3D TVs used what is called ‘Passive’ 3D, in which the glasses one had to wear were simply polarised at 90 degrees to each other, like the cinemas. Later, we bought a Sony TV that used the ‘active’ 3D system, and each lens was switched in synchronism to the particular frame on the TV. We were able to enjoy Blu-ray movies such as Coraline and Avatar. There was not a great deal of content available, but the ‘active’ glasses were heavier and more expensive than the ‘passive’ ones.
How does 3D work in our daily lives?
Like nearly all animals, we have two eyes. Each eye sees a slightly different image, and our brain sorts this out to give us a ‘depth of field’ or ‘perspective’ of an object in front of us. In hunting – which we did to survive many years ago – it is an essential requirement to gauge distances from a prey or predator. Nowadays, of course, we need this information to drive and do many other things. It would, therefore, seem logical that we would prefer that this feature be recreated in the visual media, such as TV.
So, what was wrong with the idea?
To replicate the feature on our TV sets, we would have to be presented with two images of the same picture – one image for each eye, at the same time, one would think. Luckily, we have what is called ‘visual persistence’, so if the two images are shown in quick succession, our eyes are ‘tricked’ into thinking they occurred at the same time. Simple!
Unfortunately, because we would then have to have two images for everyone we’d see in two dimensions (2D), the images would not appear as bright. Also, the content shown would be twice the size (and twice the cost, accordingly) since every image would be duplicated. A normal DVD would not have enough volume, so Blu-Ray discs would have to be used, and the production cost would be a lot higher since all cameras used to film the content would have to be ‘3D’ cameras – a lot more expensive. Producers would not want to spend extra money unless they could be sure that the general public would want it, with the associated special glasses and Blu-Ray player for movies.
As already mentioned, lack of content, expensive glasses (if using the ‘active’ system), and poor marketing contributed to the demise of 3D TV. There was disinformation, too. It was said that the glasses had to be connected by wires to the TV (not so); glasses were expensive (not in the case of ‘passive’ glasses); and induced nausea and headaches (certainly not in all cases). Surveys showed that people didn’t simply sit and watch TV. They were also involved in other activities simultaneously, and it was inconvenient to wear 3D glasses. Coupled with all this was the fact that 3D content was more expensive to produce, so unless there was a huge demand for it, producers were more likely to stick to 2D content.
Another possible reason for the discontinuation of 3D TV was the fact that at the time it was introduced – about 2009/2010 – digital TV had just replaced analog TV, and people who had purchased new digital TVs were obviously reluctant to buy another TV straight away.
3D content was produced on Blu-ray disks, and if the consumer did not have a Blu-ray player, it would have been yet another expense for them.
I don’t think I’m particularly unique in my viewing habits. I was quite happy to watch TV while using glasses for movies and some other programs – other activities were certainly not on the menu. As I already mentioned, we’d been to 3D movies at the cinema and the drive-in over the intervening years and welcomed the arrival of 3D TV. We’d treat the 3D TV movies like those we watched at the cinema. I could understand, though, how people who had to use glasses with ‘progressive’ lenses to watch TV would not care to use 3D glasses of any sort.
What of the future?
Our first TV was actually made by my father in 1948 when we lived in a prefab in Lakers Rise in Woodmansterne, Surrey. He brought his radio and electronics skills back from his position in the RAF during the Second World War. It had a 9” screen, a brown ‘hardboard’ homemade cabinet, and there was only one station to watch – BBC, and it was on, as I recall, from 4 pm to 10 pm. I thought at the time that my aunt was ‘terribly rich’ because very soon afterwards, she’d bought a TV with a huge 12” screen! No wonder I fully embrace all this modern technology!
Like the supersonic Concorde, there are a number of inventions that I’d really like to see return, and one of these is 3D TV. Of course, we can still see 3D content. We can use a virtual reality (VR) headset and watch excellent 3D videos that make us feel like we are part of the experience. These devices have become a lot less expensive in recent years. We can simply find an app for our mobile phone, start it up and insert the phone into the headset. My problem with the device is that I have to remove the phone from its protective leather flip-case to use in the VR headset and make sure that the volume is set to the right level beforehand.
Consumers still like to see 3D content, and progress has been made to produce this without having to use glasses. Discussion of the technology used in 3D TV without glasses would be quite involved and would take up a lot of space to describe, but it really centres on sensors in the TV focussing on pairs of eyes in the viewing audience and presenting a different image to each eye depending upon the viewer’s position. Clever, eh?
For cinema-goers, researchers at MIT and elsewhere have already developed prototypes that can show 3D movies without glasses, and this may be just the development needed for the medium to attract fans back to the cinema. The process should be a lot simpler for 3D TV since the angles and depth of the viewing audience are a lot smaller, and a number of companies have been working towards re-introducing this technology. A company called ‘See-Front Technology’ is one of many companies involved in this research.
They also talk about holographic images on TV – I’d really like to be around long enough to see this! Those science fiction images I viewed in the ‘Eagle’ all those years ago could finally be made a reality!
Note from the Editor:
I remember the rise and fall of 3D quite well. In fact, my family also had glasses at home, like Alan, but the novelty wore off quickly. Would you like to see 3D entertainment return to the big screen?
Love Alan’s writing and want to read more? You might also like to read:
This article was kindly written for the SDC by member @Doctor Alan.
Very few people would remember the excellent children's comic ‘Eagle’ where we used to read about ‘Dan Dare’ in the 1950’s. There was a holographic TV where a person speaking was enclosed in an inverted ‘goldfish bowl’. I waited for well over half a century before 3D television was available and at a price we could afford.
The first cinema experience we had in 3D was at the drive-in at Chullora in NSW. During the (quite awful) horror movie, which only had short sections of 3D, there was a cue to put on our flimsy red/green paper 3D glasses with which we had been issued as we paid our admission – a booming voice said, ‘Put your mask on now!’. And we’d see the next small section in 3D – black and white. Later, of course, 3D movies used polarised lenses with a 90-degree polarisation between each lens. We could see the whole movie in 3D colour.
I was able to see a really good 3D movie at the 1985 Expo in Tokyo when I worked for Fujitsu and a similarly immersive experience for a Disney animated 3D movie in Hong Kong Disneyland in 2012.
The first of the 3D TVs used what is called ‘Passive’ 3D, in which the glasses one had to wear were simply polarised at 90 degrees to each other, like the cinemas. Later, we bought a Sony TV that used the ‘active’ 3D system, and each lens was switched in synchronism to the particular frame on the TV. We were able to enjoy Blu-ray movies such as Coraline and Avatar. There was not a great deal of content available, but the ‘active’ glasses were heavier and more expensive than the ‘passive’ ones.
Do you enjoy 3D movies? Image Credit: Shutterstock
How does 3D work in our daily lives?
Like nearly all animals, we have two eyes. Each eye sees a slightly different image, and our brain sorts this out to give us a ‘depth of field’ or ‘perspective’ of an object in front of us. In hunting – which we did to survive many years ago – it is an essential requirement to gauge distances from a prey or predator. Nowadays, of course, we need this information to drive and do many other things. It would, therefore, seem logical that we would prefer that this feature be recreated in the visual media, such as TV.
So, what was wrong with the idea?
To replicate the feature on our TV sets, we would have to be presented with two images of the same picture – one image for each eye, at the same time, one would think. Luckily, we have what is called ‘visual persistence’, so if the two images are shown in quick succession, our eyes are ‘tricked’ into thinking they occurred at the same time. Simple!
Unfortunately, because we would then have to have two images for everyone we’d see in two dimensions (2D), the images would not appear as bright. Also, the content shown would be twice the size (and twice the cost, accordingly) since every image would be duplicated. A normal DVD would not have enough volume, so Blu-Ray discs would have to be used, and the production cost would be a lot higher since all cameras used to film the content would have to be ‘3D’ cameras – a lot more expensive. Producers would not want to spend extra money unless they could be sure that the general public would want it, with the associated special glasses and Blu-Ray player for movies.
As already mentioned, lack of content, expensive glasses (if using the ‘active’ system), and poor marketing contributed to the demise of 3D TV. There was disinformation, too. It was said that the glasses had to be connected by wires to the TV (not so); glasses were expensive (not in the case of ‘passive’ glasses); and induced nausea and headaches (certainly not in all cases). Surveys showed that people didn’t simply sit and watch TV. They were also involved in other activities simultaneously, and it was inconvenient to wear 3D glasses. Coupled with all this was the fact that 3D content was more expensive to produce, so unless there was a huge demand for it, producers were more likely to stick to 2D content.
Another possible reason for the discontinuation of 3D TV was the fact that at the time it was introduced – about 2009/2010 – digital TV had just replaced analog TV, and people who had purchased new digital TVs were obviously reluctant to buy another TV straight away.
3D content was produced on Blu-ray disks, and if the consumer did not have a Blu-ray player, it would have been yet another expense for them.
I don’t think I’m particularly unique in my viewing habits. I was quite happy to watch TV while using glasses for movies and some other programs – other activities were certainly not on the menu. As I already mentioned, we’d been to 3D movies at the cinema and the drive-in over the intervening years and welcomed the arrival of 3D TV. We’d treat the 3D TV movies like those we watched at the cinema. I could understand, though, how people who had to use glasses with ‘progressive’ lenses to watch TV would not care to use 3D glasses of any sort.
What of the future?
Our first TV was actually made by my father in 1948 when we lived in a prefab in Lakers Rise in Woodmansterne, Surrey. He brought his radio and electronics skills back from his position in the RAF during the Second World War. It had a 9” screen, a brown ‘hardboard’ homemade cabinet, and there was only one station to watch – BBC, and it was on, as I recall, from 4 pm to 10 pm. I thought at the time that my aunt was ‘terribly rich’ because very soon afterwards, she’d bought a TV with a huge 12” screen! No wonder I fully embrace all this modern technology!
Like the supersonic Concorde, there are a number of inventions that I’d really like to see return, and one of these is 3D TV. Of course, we can still see 3D content. We can use a virtual reality (VR) headset and watch excellent 3D videos that make us feel like we are part of the experience. These devices have become a lot less expensive in recent years. We can simply find an app for our mobile phone, start it up and insert the phone into the headset. My problem with the device is that I have to remove the phone from its protective leather flip-case to use in the VR headset and make sure that the volume is set to the right level beforehand.
Consumers still like to see 3D content, and progress has been made to produce this without having to use glasses. Discussion of the technology used in 3D TV without glasses would be quite involved and would take up a lot of space to describe, but it really centres on sensors in the TV focussing on pairs of eyes in the viewing audience and presenting a different image to each eye depending upon the viewer’s position. Clever, eh?
For cinema-goers, researchers at MIT and elsewhere have already developed prototypes that can show 3D movies without glasses, and this may be just the development needed for the medium to attract fans back to the cinema. The process should be a lot simpler for 3D TV since the angles and depth of the viewing audience are a lot smaller, and a number of companies have been working towards re-introducing this technology. A company called ‘See-Front Technology’ is one of many companies involved in this research.
They also talk about holographic images on TV – I’d really like to be around long enough to see this! Those science fiction images I viewed in the ‘Eagle’ all those years ago could finally be made a reality!
Note from the Editor:
I remember the rise and fall of 3D quite well. In fact, my family also had glasses at home, like Alan, but the novelty wore off quickly. Would you like to see 3D entertainment return to the big screen?
Love Alan’s writing and want to read more? You might also like to read:
- Getting Smart About Smart TVs
- Alan G.’s Member Spotlight: ‘Almost Famous’
- Christmases I’ve Had
- Bluetooth Anti-Theft Adapter: Enhance your home security for under $20
- Finding a Part-Time Job
- The Problematic Prostate
- Alan G.’s Investment Scam Saga
- Holiday Hints: Things to Consider Before Your Next Trip
- Losing it: How a simple lifestyle change helped me shed 20kg
- As Safe as a Bank
.png){kind=icon}
