Is it worth investing in a 3D HDTV now?
Challenges of 3D TV in the Home

3D imaging has been around since the 1900's with the beginning of photography and the film industry, although the first true golden era of 3D movies come in the 50s. However, it was not before the mid-80s that things started to make a real headway. It was IMAX 3D and with it we saw the first active LCD shutter 3D glasses.

Since then, things changed a lot and 3D technology has become less expensive and more widely adopted.

It became so much relatively affordable that within the last few years, it even started to make a presence in the home. And there is no doubt that the first to have already experienced 3D in the home are those avid PC gamers.

The illusion of 3D leads to a totally different and more exciting viewing experience - and in PC gaming, 3D definitely leads to a world of its own. Yet, this is definitely not enough for the latest 3D TV to become the mainstream TV technology in the home. Why?

3D in Movie Theaters and 3D in the Home - a totally different experience!

While during these last few years, moviegoers have shown a clear preference to 3D movies, yet there is a significant difference between 3D in the Movie Theater and 3D TV; this is the smaller screen size in the home, and therefore the shorter supported viewing distance.

Studies show that the 3D comfort zone is a function of the viewing distance. In other words, the supported parallax range for a comfortable 3D viewing experience is directly related to the viewer distance from the screen. Work carried out by In-Three Partners in 3D show that while for a person in a movie theater sitting 40 feet away from the screen, the comfortable parallax ranges from negative 10-inches - corresponding to 20% of the distance between the viewer and the screen measured away from the viewer, to a positive parallax of 2.5-inches or infinity, in the case of 3D television this comfortable parallax range shrinks to just 2-inches - from a positive 1 inch to a negative 1-inch. These values corresponds to 70% of the viewer to screen distance away from the viewer, to approximately 165% of the screen distance for a person sitting approximately 6 feet away from a 60-inch diagonal screen.

This reduced parallax range for comfortable 3D with TV viewing arise because objects closer to the viewer exerts even more pressure on the brain to direct both the eyes converging and focusing muscles to the same spot in space. But because 3D TV only addresses stereopsis and therefore convergence, the two sets of eye muscles cannot match. This explains why there is the need to reduce the parallax to keep the 3D illusion at a comfortable distance away from the viewer.

As further detailed in our article on 3D viewing distance, this leads us to conclude that for best results with 3D TV viewing in the home, a larger screen is essential. At the same time, in view of the reduced parallax associated with comfortable 3D viewing in the home, some suggest a closer viewing distance than that normally associated with 2D TV viewing. This would help slightly enhance the otherwise mild 3D experience resulting from the reduced parallax.

This means that constrains in the home as a result of the smaller screen size of 3D HDTVs in comparison to the movie theater screens and the much closer viewing distance in the home, lead to a 3D TV viewing experience that while pleasing and exciting, cannot match the same immersive 3D experience in the theater.

Upgrade Reluctance

Many consumers have just purchase their first LCD or plasma HDTV to meet the recent Digital TV transition that ended in 2009. Many others who had already bought a flat panel TV a few years ago, has just purchased their second bigger screen HDTV to take advantage of the latest reduced pricing and improved feature specs such as internet connectivity and LED backlighting.

The majority of these consumers are definitely enjoying their TVs. For these to spend anything between $2,000 to $3,000 for a 3D-enabled mid-size HDTV is a lot of money. It is therefore no surprise that consumer polls on various sites including ours, showed that the extra-majority would not be investing in a 3D HDTV now.

Even if you were to take the millions still 'stuck' with their old CRT TV. These are definitely the ones that at the instant they opt to upgrade to a new TV, they will most probable go for a budget class HDTV rather than the latest expensive premium 3D HDTVs. And if there is anything that is really expensive, it is the latest 3D TVs!

And what about the not so few consumers who opted to buy what they thought would be a future-proof 3D-enabled TV in the recent past such as Mitsubishi and Samsung DLPs and plasma TVs? Without an add-on module, these TVs would never be able to show the latest full HD 3D TV we are talking about. The latter requires HDMI 1.4 to be able to work with the Blu-ray disc 3D standard released recently. These consumers may be considered early adopters of 3D TV but I do not thing that they would invest in the latest 3D HDTVs for the time being - at least not before they feel they have taken back their money's worth in TV viewing from their expensive HDTVs.

Luckily for Mitsubishi owners of 3D-enabled HDTVs released between 2007 and 2009, Mitsubishi promised to come up with an appropriate box to enable its DLP TVs to display the latest 3D TV. But these DLP HDTVs will not deliver full 1080p 60Hz 3D because the Texas DLP chip inside these HDTVs builds the 1920 horizontal pixel resolution in the 1080p image through wobulation. This also applies to Samsung DLPs, or in that case, to any DLP HDTV presently available. This means that these Mitsubishi and Samsung DLP TVs will deliver a 3D image to each eye that has a resolution of 960 pixels by 1080 pixels - expanded over the entire screen area.

But more than an issue of 3D image resolution, Samsung TV owners have an even more serious situation to face. Samsung has remained silent on the possibility of releasing an adopter box for its early 3D-enabled DLPs and plasma TVs. It is true that this is at the discretion of the TV maker, but for Samsung to leave its customers stranded with their supposedly 3D-endabled HDTV is in our opinion unacceptable.

Availability of 3D HDTV Content

This consumer reluctance to upgrade to one of the latest 3D TVs is not just a matter of having to pay a premium for a TV before getting back their money's worth in an enjoyable TV viewing experience from their present TVs. There is also the issue of lack of 3D content.

Despite announcements by the entertainment industry that it will be coming with various Blu-ray titles in 3D, yet new 3D TV content on Blu ray to enjoy full HD 3D TV experience will remain a relatively scares resource for a number of years to come. It is true that we have seen a few 3D TV broadcasts during 2010; and more is to come during 2011. But this still represents limited 3D TV content in comparison to what is available in 2D.

Luckily, some 3D TVs come with build-in 2D-to-3D converter to convert in real time 2D shows, movies and sports events to 3D. These 2D-to-3D converters generally rely on image motion in the scene to reconstruct some 3D effect. This is basically the same with 2D-to-3D converted movie titles.

This partly solves the problem but the resultant 3D experience does not provide a match to the realism of true 3D content. Instead, it would be more equivalent in terms of immersive experience, to that vague surround experience you get from virtual surround sound systems. In simple terms, it is like trying to get simulated 5.1 surround sound from an old stereo recording.

And even if the build-in 2D-to-3D converters in 3D TVs were to deliver a truly convincing 3D experience, you would not be able to enjoy this 3D view without wearing those annoying 3D glasses. Will you really be ready to put on these 3D glasses every time you want to watch TV?

The 3D Gasses - the worst hurdle

	3D glasses are a necessary evil with present 3D television technology, and in our opinion, the biggest hurdle that 3D in the home has to overcome after the premium price tag associated with the latest 3D HDTVs. In fact, some 20% of those who would not invest in a 3D TV now, would not invest now simply because of these 3D glasses.
The Samsung SSG-2100AB 3D active shutter glasses that synchronizes with Samsung LED TVs via a wireless infra-red link.

It is true that during CES 2011, Toshiba, Sony and LG demonstrated  prototype glasses-free 3D TVs capable of supporting a bright full 1080p for each eye in 3D mode; the bright image is mainly due to the absence of glasses. But glasses-free 3D TV technology would require at least a few more years to be readily available on stores shelves. And it is expected to be extremely expensive! In addition, the prototypes during CES 2011 all suffered from a restricted viewing angle.

In other words, before no-glasses 3D HDTV technology becomes viable, it must become significantly more affordable apart from allowing for wider viewing angle.

Wearing the 3D glasses - you and all the rest of the family - to watch a 2 hour Blu ray move to enjoy it in the latest and greatest 3D television technology ever released so far, is definitely a trade-off many are ready to accept. But will you stick those glasses for longer to watch TV? I have my doubts.

And what about the added discomfort that these 3D glasses will cause to people who wear normal prescription lenses? It is true that 3D glasses are somewhat oversized and designed to fit over an existing pair of glasses. In other words, these persons will still be able to experience the full 3D effect, but the added discomfort can be a real issue.

2011 has brought about lighter and more comfortable active 3D glasses than what we have seen during 2010. And apart from active 3D TV glasses, we are to see more of the latest 3D passive glasses; Vizio, LG, and Toshiba all announced 3D TVs that use passive-glasses technology. Passive circular polarized 3D glasses yield a better comfort level as these are much lighter since there are no batteries to power the electronics. Equally important, passive 3D glasses come much cheaper than the typically $100-plus for active glasses.

But in a Cnet review of the VIZIO XVT3D650SV 65-Inch 3D LED TV - one of the first 3D TVs to make use of passive 3D glasses technology, the Cnet editor stated that active shutter glasses 3D HDTV technology delivers a better 3D picture. The main culprit being that present passive 3D glasses technology supports half the resolution of active 3D glasses technology. But then this is the same as with present 3D DLP TV technology. At the same time, this lower resolution leads to a softer image characterized by visible separation between the horizontal lines forming the image especially on larger screens HDTVs. However, Cnet reported other issues such as jaggies and image artifacts with 3D; this is apart from the fact that according to the same review, the Vizio 3D TV appeared less capable of preserving the 3D effect from off-angle viewing in comparison to active technology. Whether the latter is related to passive 3D glasses technology or to Vizio is something which one would be able to tell only once other TV brands release their passive glasses 3D TVs.

Admittedly, while these image problems are there, yet they are unlikely to be of any concern to anyone sitting at what is considered normal viewing distance for such a massive HDTV. This is partly confirmed by the positive customer feedback posted online for this massive yet affordable 3D HDTV from Vizio, which apart from the massive screen, comes accompanied by four pairs of 3D glasses!

But back to the active shutter 3D glasses... Unfortunately, apart from the added discomfort, active 3D TV glasses represent a costly expense. Samsung SSG-2100AB 3D shutter glasses are selling online at $150 each. That's an extra $300 for two pairs of 3D glasses for you and your loved one over and above the cost of an already expensive TV that is some $600 to $700 more than a 2D HDTV equivalent.

And these expensive glasses cannot be recharged as they make use of a CR2025 battery; worst still, they cannot be even scaled down for use by your kids - so no 3D for your kids unless you buy appropriate 3D glasses specifically designed for them!

This active shutter glasses expense is something many will have to bear as most 3D TVs do not include the 3D glasses. In most cases, it is only flagship 3D HDTV models that come with at least one pair of glasses; in this respect, the Vizio 3D LED TV referred to in this article is literally the exception.

At these price levels, 3D TV does not sound much fun anymore! The truth is that despite the numerous 3D TV models that we have seen since these first appeared in 2010, 3D TV in the home is still beyond reach for the average family.

Yet there is one more annoyance associated with the use of the 3D shutter glasses but this time, this one relates to LCD and LED TV users only. Despite the much touting by TV makers about their latest and greatest 3D LED TVs, LCD and LED TVs have a serious drawback with respect to plasma displays when it comes to watching 3D TV content.

Many 3D shutter glasses users will soon realize that as soon as they try to relax on their couch while watching their 3D LCD or LED TV in action, the 3D image on their 3D TV would go dark as they tilt backwards. You see, because of the polarizer layer used on LCD panels - both on the LCD TV display and the 3D shutter glasses, the viewer has to sit in an upright position to get the best 3D effect; try to tilt or sit back with the glasses at an angle to the LCD TV screen and the image would go dark as the polarization plane of the display panel and that of the glasses cross each other. This issue does not affect 3D plasma TVs

So... what is the future of 3D HDTV? Is it really worth investing in a 3D HDTV?

Research firm iSuppli predicted earlier in 2010 that global 3D TV sales will reach a staggering 78 million units by 2015, up from the expected 4.2 million during 2010 - while revenues from this category of HDTVs were projected to hit $64.3 billion in 2015. The forecast also shows that by 2015, the average 3D TV price will fall to a low $825 as against the present average $2,000 for a 50-inch premium 3D TV. Many TV makers are also expecting that sale of 3D TVs will eventually start to explode during 2011.

At the same time, some are saying that 3D TV is doomed. You see, the present 3D TV technology lacks the convenience, ease of use, and affordability many expect from a product supposedly addressed to the mass market.

The reality is that 3D TV will definitely be coming to the home but we think that those predicting an explosion in 3D TV sales during 2011 are being somewhat optimistic. It will surely take a few more years for 3D TV technology to overcome the challenges highlighted above to become truly the mainstream TV technology in home entertainment.

In particular, the use of 3D shutter glasses - passive of active - will continue to represent a major hurdle for both consumers and TV makers. TV makers still do not know if consumers will really want to wear 3D glasses for extended periods of time. And from a consumer perspective, these represent an inconvenience and an added expense.

In addition, as further explained in our article '3D Technology - Not for everyone', some are literally 3D TV blind. In addition, it is estimated that up to 20 percent of the population could get sick from watching 3D TV because their brains can not handle the present 3D processing necessary to create the 3D illusion. And there is more. The industry acknowledges that 3D viewers should take at least one break every 15 minutes while watching a 3D program to avoid getting sick - hardly practical while watching broadcast 3D content.

Besides, a 3D TV alone is not sufficient to enjoy 3D in the home. And apart from program content that is still, 3D in the home will also require the support of at least a 3D Blu-ray player and in some cases, a 3D-enabled home theater receiver. The latter includes both an HDMI 1.4 interface and supports pass-through of the new 3D video signal. All this adds to the total cost of implementing 3D in the home.

In this respect, I have my serious doubts to what extent it is really worth investing in a 3D HDTV now. Spending up to $1,000 more than an equivalent 2D HDTV to get a 3D HDTV and two pairs of 3D active shutter glasses to enjoy the few opportunities of real 3D content is definitely more than the average consumer would ever afford. Let's face it, most of the 3D content that will be available on Blu ray will be converted from 2D originals which most probably you have already seen. Yet converted 2D to 3D content will NEVER look like original 3D content. And using your 3D HDTV just to view 2D content only is a waste of your hard earned cash; you see, no 3D HDTV will ever deliver a better 2D picture than an equally good 2D HDTV.

We believe that for the time being, 3D TV will remain a niche market for early adopters and avid gamers. These are the type of consumers that generally would not mind spending more to enjoy the latest technology. This is a time for the TV industry to test the market and get a feel of customer acceptance of this new technology - in particular because of the glasses required by the present 3D TV technology to generate the illusion of 3D. In the meantime, iSuppli reckons that it would not be before 2012 that sales will spread to a wider audience as content availability increases and prices drop.