Over Christmas vacation, the “guys” (my three sons, one son-in-law, and myself) ventured forth to see Avatar in 3D at our local theatre. It was an amazing experience. The film was beautifully done–an artistic achievement in its own right.
I got sick.
The added reality of the 3D experience grabbed my viscera and would not let go, wringing and writhing said body parts unmercifully. My oldest son (also of weak abdominal constitution) had the same experience, while the younger men enjoyed the show without ill effect.
I have to admit, though, that the 3D experience was a rush (maybe a poor choice of words under the circumstances)–very visually interesting and definitely adding a dimension of reality/surreality to the experience. The chase sequences (both in machines and on the backs of creatures) dragged my whole body along with the characters’ movement.
Because of the financial and artistic success of this film, buzz around 3D has been huge in the video business as of late. At the 2010 CES show, a number of manufacturers demonstrated televisions touting 3D capability. Most of these sets require special glasses with active electronics which effectively allow only one eye to see at a time (called “shutter glasses” by some), synchronizing what each eye sees to the screen displayed at that moment, alternating rapidly between eyes/screens and forcing the brain to extrapolate a 3D picture from the visual information provided to each eye.
There are also at least two potential TV systems under development that use “passive” glasses to generate the 3D image in the brain. LG and Philips are working on technology that does not require any special glasses to create a 3D image, but this technology isn’t expected to be commercially viable until very late next year, with actual set introductions expected mid-to-late 2012.
I admit that based on my limited experience with 3D, I’m not sure I would enjoy the experience in every case. Nor am I crazy about being tethered to the television with electronic glasses, no matter how comfortable or well designed. I would expect that the personal electronics part of the equation will simplify over time (wireless connectivity to the set, etc.), but if technology can be brought to bear with a reasonable price tag that doesn’t require glasses or other devices, that would get my vote.
At all events, WOW! would like to hear from you regarding this technology. Do you personally plan to buy 3D capable sets in the short term? Long term? Why or why not? While a small company, we do have relationships with content providers and can, to a certain extent at least, influence their future content development based on the feedback from our customers.
Over the course of time, I will delve into the various technology developments happening in this space, as it appears there will be several viable approaches to this application. As in the recent past, I would expect the FCC and standards committees generally to take a laissez-faire approach to this technology, which simply means that there will be technology winners and losers, at least to some extent. And, as yet, it isn’t absolutely certain that the market will embrace 3DTV in any of its iterations–3D in some form or another has been around for many years, and has the had the earmarks of “flash in the pan” syndrome with past deployments. Assuming that consumer demand sticks this time around, we will try and provide useful and timely information to help make those purchasing decisions. And yes, the Pepto will be optional…
Loading ...