The Future is 3D

One final Wired article I'd like to mention today is on the subject of 3D TVs. In the article, the state of 3D TVs in the market and why they're failing to pick up momentum are discussed.

Panasonic blames Hollywood for the lackluster sales, arguing that after Avatar there was a slew of lazy 3D conversions that hit the big screens in an attempt to cash in on the technology and they left a sour taste in many consumers' mouths. To a certain extent I think this contributed to the poor sales, but it's not the only problem with 3D.

"Avatar" on a 3D TV.

As much as I've been negative toward previous products discussed on this blog, I actually don't buy into the common consensus among many people that 3D is just another gimmick. It reminds me of a not-too-distant past when HD and blu-ray movies were receiving similar criticisms for not really enhancing the experience or making it better, because standard DVDs already provide good enough picture quality right? Then you sit down and watch it of course, and you realize, "But why settle for just 'good enough' when I can have 'great' picture quality like this?" And now everyone has a blu-ray player to accompany their HDTVs. That's basically how I feel about 3D. When 3D is actually done right, I think it certainly does lend itself to increasing the entertainment value of the movie, even if only subtly in many cases.

However, before I can completely jump on board with 3D, it still has quite a few kinks to work out which are preventing me from buying it.

First, as Panasonic mentioned, quality needs to become more consistent. I hate having to do research every single time before I go out and buy a movie to double-check and make sure I'm not being ripped off by a crappy 3D conversion. 3D camera software and hardware needs to become standard for filming all movies in the future so that the quality of 3D overall is raised. Filming a movie with standard cameras first and then converting to 3D later usually results in middling quality that doesn't make it worth it.

Second, lose the glasses. They look silly, are annoying to wear, and they dim your vision so that the screen is darker and more difficult to see. The Nintendo 3DS portable gaming system was able to achieve 3D without glasses to reasonable effect, but TVs have yet to catch up.

Third, improve handling of 3D from different perspective angles. While the Nintendo 3DS was able to eliminate the glasses, often times if you're not looking at just the right angle on the screen, the effect is lost and the image is distorted to a frustratingly-unplayable degree. As a matter of convenience, 3D TVs need to find a way to address this as the TV is often viewed from multiple angles in a large and open living room space.

And finally, costs need to come down, but that's a given with any technology as it becomes more mass produced. Once 3D is able to meet all of these goals, I think it will quickly become a staple for everyone's living room just as HDTVs and blu-ray players have done so before it, and I certainly won't hesitate to pick up 3D-enabled devices myself in the future.