My 2¢ on 3D TV

The annual tech version of Burning Man, known as CES, swept it’s way through Vegas this week. Amidst the announcements of smartphones and tablets there was one buzz term that kept popping up: 3D TV.

Assuredly made more confident by the box office behemoth known as ‘Avatar,’ several companies made 3D TV-related announcements. IMAX, Sony, and the Discovery channel unveiled a joint venture to produce a 24 hour broadcast channel and Panasonic showcased a line of 1080p 3D plasma sets due to ship in June. As exciting and innovative as all this sounds, did anyone stop to ask: do we need this? Most importantly: how much will it actually improve the experience?

The Glasses

The case can be made for HD being an example of consumers’ willingness to adapt to new technologies, but it’s an unobtrusive addition to the TV viewing experience, save for the cost of upgrading your set and cable service. The addition of 3D now brings with it the requirement to wear glasses. Because who doesn’t love having to wear 3D glasses while lounging on the couch? Not only that, but when your friends or relatives come over they have to bring glasses too. The more complicated you make something the more you’ll get resistance.

The Eye Strain

The two directors who have really elevated the “art form” are Robert Zemeckis, who’s last three films were made for 3D, and James Cameron, who conquered the medium with ‘Avatar.’ The biggest concern for them during production was the idea of eye strain. Essentially the brain translates the 3D information as being on actual three dimensional planes. That is, your brain expects when looking past a foreground object to a blurry background that the background then come into focus. When that instinct is thwarted your eyes strains from the frustration. The way this was combatted in their films was by creating scenes with little 3D effect or not cutting too quickly between shots to give your eyes a resting period. Now imagine watching a football game or other live event when there’s no time to adjust the depth-of-field as it cuts from shot to shot. I’m getting a headache just thinking about it.

The Effect

The term “3D” is a bit of a misnomer. You can’t walk around expecting the angle to change as if you’re walking around a hologram. It’s more of a stacked layer look and works best when sitting in the middle of a theater with your whole field of view filled by the screen. Apply that to the way you watch TV now, probably not perfectly centered, further back from the screen, perhaps with the lights on and you’ll see the experience chipped away until it’s negligible. Even when watching 3D under the most perfect circumstances you become used to the effect after a while. The fact that we’re having to notice that it’s in 3D to enjoy it is backwards from typical film etiquette. The reason sound designers don’t take advantage of the 360° surround sound of theaters is because once you “notice” the sound is coming from behind or to the side you’re instantly drawn out of the film. So not only will the 3D footballs and sharks jumping out from the TV make us notice, but it will get old pretty quickly.

In the end 3D should wholly be a movie theater experience. The huge box-office draw of ‘Avatar’ proves that people are willing to pay double the price, in some cases on more then one occasion, to get a bit of three-dimensional big picture goodness. For the first time in a long time there’s something theaters can offer that home theaters cannot and now this event-like experience is going to be basterdized by an oversaturation of poorly made and poorly produced content…on a daily basis. It’ll be a couple years until we find out whether or not 3D TV goes the way of laserdisc (hardcore enthusiasts) or HD (mainstream adoption), but until then you’ll find me  enjoying 3D from the comfort of a theater seat.