Lack of Standards a Problem in 3D Chain, New York Conference Told

"If 3D is going to be successful,” we'll have to use existing infrastructure and display devices,” Young said, but varied approaches to 3D due to no standardization is leading to poor results in many cases. “Bad 3D is much, much worse than bad HD,” Young said, and it’s “really very easy to produce bad 3D.” Doing 3D well takes a lot of time and effort, he said, noting the many years that Discovery Channel and ESPN have put into 3D research and experiments. “You're forcing the human eye to do something it’s not used to doing,” he said, referring to converging on a different point from where the eye is focused. The eye can do it, he said, but too many fast cuts put a strain on the eyes.

Even well-produced 3D content isn’t safe, Young said, because it can be overcompressed to become “bad 3D.” Avoiding compression issues isn’t as simple as making more bandwidth available, he said. “It depends on what the content is and the kind of experience you're trying to develop,” he said. Also, the ways that displays process 3D-compatible signals prior to splitting them into left-eye and right-eye views vary, he said. “Not all manufacturers do it correctly,” he said. “We've seen incorrect line placement, a scenario where left- and right-eye images are actually coming from different fields in an interlaced signal,” he said. All the way through the chain, every time a signal is processed, “you can do damage,” he said. He cited examples including content coming in with the left eye out of focus or a different shade of green coming in from the left eye than from the right eye. “It’s impossible to get it perfect,” he said.

The industry has to get together to figure out end-to-end standards for how 3D is handled throughout the chain, he said, “and the sooner that’s done the better.” Some content types such as sports appear to work very well so far, he said. “If you have end to end control of the infrastructure, you have a much better chance of making it work."

Young said because 3D uses the same infrastructure as HD, that reduces time to market so adoption of 3D could be faster than HDTV was as long as “the right displays and the right standards” are in place. Alec Shapiro, senior vice president of sales and marketing in Sony’s broadcast and production systems division, said 3D is already on a faster path than HD. Glenn Oakley, executive vice president of media technology for Discovery, agreed about 3D coattailing off of HD infrastructure and said lower-priced displays will also speed adoption of 3D. Anthony Bailey, vice president of emerging technologies for ESPN, said 3D adoption among sports fans will be fast, based on early indications. “When we did the World Cup, we had Sony TVs set up in a bar in Miami, and almost everyone in the bar chose to rent the glasses and watch in 3D,” as opposed to a nearby 2D screen that was larger than the 3D screen, he said.

Bailey said ESPN is still looking at 3D as “R&D” because many stadiums and arenas aren’t equipped for the kinds of camera locations required for 3D, so the network is still shooting sports events for ESPN 3D in both 2D and 3D. “We're trying to work with schools and arenas to do both with less,” he said.

The panelists said glasses-free 3D is critical to widespread adoption of 3D. According to Sony’s Shapiro, “It’s a matter of what you're willing to compromise in overall quality and viewing angle.” Until manufacturers can improve the experience currently available from active glasses -- whether it’s two or five years -- glasses-free 3D isn’t a real option, he said. Content, too, is a limiting factor for consumers considering a 3D TV. “The level of interest in 3D production is growing at a steady pace, and we've got more people who want to shoot in 3D than there’s equipment and infrastructure to support,” Shapiro said.