What Will 3D TV Look Like Down the Road?

The title of this post is a bit misleading, because of course no one knows how the 3D TV scene will look as it becomes a maturing technology.

I'm reminded of the situation that high definition TV faced when it was about to be introduced to the public at the end of the 1990s. After literally decades of development in the labs, and the switch from an analog to a digital system that many said could never be done, the final technology was dismissed by many reputable industry insiders.

The problem with HDTV, they said, was not with the technology. They all agreed HDTV pictures were a quantum leap over current analog broadcast television quality. But they said that HDTV would never be a business. It would fail because there was no financial incentive for television networks to switch out their gear and begin to shoot in HD.

With HDTV sets nearing 70 percent penetration, we know that those naysayers were wrong. And today, we're hearing similar complaints from those who believe that 3D won't happen for any number of reasons.

I recently came across a thought-provoking piece by Michael Grebb, executive editor of CableFAX. He doesn't doubt that 3D TV will come to pass, but he raises some interesting points.

For example, he notes that cinematographers will have to learn to shoot content in a completely different way. The shaky camera technique so popular in television dramas such as ER will have to go. Watching that kind of cinema verité technique in 3D would probably make a few people queasy.

Which means that the idea of simply converting existing content to 3D to get a new lease on life and a quick way to come up with 3D programs will have to be rethought, because a lot of existing shows simply may not work in 3D.

And how do you display subtitles and titles? Should they be processed so they appear to be hovering in front of the TV's frame, flush with it, or inside the frame? Or, should they move back and forth depending on what sort of action is taking place?

Should everything on TV eventually be in 3D, or should the technology just be reserved for epic events, like major sports, concerts, and the like?

A recent report from iSuppli shows that 3D TV sales will explode, from just over 4 million worldwide this year, to 78 million five years from now.

I have no doubt that this is correct; as Full HD 3D functionality becomes the norm for new TVs, people will expect it as part of a new TV purchase, just as consumers expect that every TV they buy today is a color TV.

The only question is what that great new compelling 3D content will look like. I can't wait to see how it shakes out.

3D in the Camera or the Control Room?

If you hadn't seen the Tim Burton film, Alice in Wonderland, you missed a fascinating motion picture. Burton is a very imaginative director who brings a unique vision to all of his work. Of course, you needed to have seen it in 3D (and eventually you'll be able to experience that at home, with a Panasonic Full HD 3D HDTV, once a Blu-ray version is released).

One thing that's interesting about this production is that, while Burton always intended the film to be in 3D, he didn't shoot it in 3D, but only converted it once the picture was in post-production. Still, the film looks great. But doesn't this run counter to my previous assertions that the best looking 3D imagery comes from productions originally shot in 3D?

This is the exception that proves the rule. Because Alice combines live-action with animation, the depth effect could be manipulated after the sequences were created. For example, the Cheshire Cat recedes into the distance as he disappears. In post, the filmmakers could decide how far in front of the screen he should start, and how far behind the screen he should recede.

But you can't make those kinds of decisions with live action without creating a disconnect between the visual experience and what one's brain expects reality to look like. While it's possible to alter the depth effect during a World Cup soccer match, if the effect doesn't match reality the scene would look truly bizarre.

I recently watched a 3D post-production supervisor alter the depth effect in a rock concert film. By adjusting the parallax, he was able to make the performer appear to be in front of the screen, and then move him to what would be perceived as hundreds of feet back. But because the performer was actually situated somewhere in-between, the effect was frankly weird; if the depth effect doesn't match up with reality, your brain will tell you something is wrong and you won't like the outcome.

Simply shooting Alice in 2D was difficult enough, one of the film's creators told me. To start creating 3D at the same time would have proven to be an extraordinarily difficult task. In this case, it works. But I wouldn't take that approach when we're shooting sports, concerts, or any actual events that involve live characters that need to be perceived at specific distances.