My 2 cents' on 3D TV and Movies

The latest hype in the world of consumer entertainment is 3D. No, it's not that one where you buy a 3 digit lottery ticket. Rather, it's moving movies and still pictures in 3 glorious dimensions. A new dimension stepped up from the current "flat" movie screens and television sets.

Now, a bit of an introduction to "3D" technology. We perceive the world as we know it in 3D (height, width and depth) due to the fact that we have two eyes, with each eye seeing the same scene from a slightly different perspective. The average human has eyes which are around 60 to 70 mm apart. This slight distance is all it takes for the perception of depth as interpreted by our brain.

So, essentially, if you can deliver two images of the same scene with the right visual cues, the illusion of depth will be complete. The first step is to record a movie or still image from two separate locations. Obviously, the best separation distance would be around 60 to 70 mm (still remember where this distance comes from?), to mimic closely a scene as seen from a typical human observer. Now, if you were taking a still photo, you could move the camera ever so slightly to the left or right and snap again (provided nothing moves) and then you'd have the two photos for the 3D illusion. Obviously, this doesn't work for movies or when the scene is changing. To work around this, consumer electronics are just beginning to introduce dual lens cameras like the Fujifilm W3 (actually, the W1 was introduced a year ago in the middle of 2009). For the movie industry, likewise, dual lens cameras like the Ikonoskop are making their debut.

Once you have your 3D footage or pair of images, the next step would be to deliver the right image half to the correct eye (only one, not both). For this to happen, there are a couple of ways to do it:-

1. Anaglyphic 3D - these are those glasses with red on one side and cyan on the other. Without the glasses on, you'd see a double image, made up of different colors (you guessed it, one red and one cyan). With the glasses on, the red lens will filter out the red image so that that eye only sees the cyan image, and on the other side the same happens, only this time with cyan. So, putting these two together, you'll end up seeing a slightly different image with each eye, enough to fool the brain into seeing depth. Of course, while you "see" the depth, color would be somewhat off, so it's not so great for that complete wholesome experience.

2. Polarization 3D - again, some fancy glasses. This time each side is a polarization filter which only lets light waves which are of the same polarity through. You'll need a special projection screen for this to work, and once again, without the glasses you'd see a double image. At least the color would be right this time. Currently, this is the standard implementation of 3D movies, at least in the cinema that I went to recently (I'll tell you more about that experience in awhile).

3. Alternating frame sequencing 3D. The first two technologies employ the use of passive lens, they at best resemble some stylish Rayban-like shades (or at worst, can be made with some cheap cardboard frame). Alternating frame sequencing makes use of active LCD lens that take turns blacking out so that at any one moment, only one eye actually sees the screen. This has to be synchronized with the alternating image on the screen so that the correct eye sees the correct image, the images change at the correct speed and time (you don't want to see images change with the same eye) and at a high enough frequency so that the flickering becomes unnoticeable. For TV systems, PAL is at roughly 24 frames per second while NTSC is at around 29, so alternating between two eyes that require a refresh rate of at least 48 frames per second to be on par with what the NTSC system can deliver. Since this requires some power and active electronics in constant communication with the screen or display (using IR Receiver technology, so I hear....), active 3D goggles are rather bulky and much more expensive then their passive counterparts. Until the day technology has shrunk them down to the size of the visors worn by Geordi La Forge (Chief Engineer onboard the USS Enterprise - if you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation, you'd know what I'm talking about), they would be not so practical to keep on for long stretches (imaging having them on throughout the entire movie, something long like Titanic or Meet Joe Black).

4. Autostereoscopy or glass-less 3D. I'm sure you've seen those hologram stickers or toys where changing the viewing angle will cause one of two images to be displayed. The great thing is that you don't need any special glasses, but with current implementations, your head has to be EXACTLY where it should be to see the desired effect....

Prior to the "all new 3D movie experience", I've actually encountered some 3D consumer entertainment technology in the past:-

1. Omnimax theater at the Singapore Science Center - not actually 3D. However, a high definition movie projected on to the insides of a sphere (with you inside). The dome is so huge that looking up, you don't see the edges. I find the first-person view of flying in a helicopter particularly hair-raising!

2. Viewmaster - come on, I'm sure you remember this "toy", if not you must be really young. Stereo vision of stills are good enough to mimic 3D. I had this when I was a little boy, but no longer with me now, but I'm surprised to see they are still making and selling them! :)

3. T2 3-D: Battle Across Time at the Universal Studios, California. Was there a decade ago. This one's unique, as it combined live action actors and also 3D projections. I believe we were wearing polarized glasses - I was not really paying attention to the technology way back then.

So then, this brings me to my "first" 3D movie experience - The Chronicles of Narnia : The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Ha, ha. It only after the movie that I found out it was Dawn Treader and not Dawn Trader - wondered why they kept pronouncing "Trader" so awkwardly.... This was at the GSC Dataran Pahlawan, which was equipped to show 3D movies. Ticket prices were high, RM17 per adult (a normal 2D movie ticket would cost between RM7 to RM10, depending on the day). Brought my family there. We were given a pair of polarized glasses each, only one size regardless of child or adult. The movie started and wow, for the first 30 seconds or so, the "pop-out" effect of the opening title screen was just amazing.

For the rest of the show, I was constantly adjusting the glasses. Now, like most people these days, I wore glasses to correct short-sightedness. Now, on top of my prescription glasses I had to put on the polarized glasses, which appear to rely on ones nose to hold them up in position. Since my nose was already being used by my vision-correcting glasses, I had to really press the 3D glasses up against my face and frequently push them up when they slide down. Sigh - maybe wearing contact lenses would mitigate this small problem....

Well, after watching the movie, I summarize that the technology seems still in it's infancy. Whether the shooting technique, quality of equipment, or perhaps even where I was sitting in the theater, I feel that 3D movies, at least this one, is nothing to lose sleep and go crazy over. Sure, there are scenes where you really see the 3D in effect, but this, like all other Hollywood Wizardry, should not detract from the actual substance or story. After all, eye-candy with no real content is a sure magnet for rotten tomatoes.

So, do I plan to patronize a 3D cinema again? Honestly, NO. Until the technology has evolved to make it a distinct and truly distinct experience, I don't see it just to pay more just to watch the same movie in "3D". Note, I am not against new technology - just that I'd rather indulge in mature, functional technology, rather than become a bleeding-edge beta tester (especially if something doesn't quite work as intended).

UPDATE [8.32AM, 7 Jan 2011, GMT+8] : Hmm, apparently, things haven't been living up to the expectations of the 3D TV manufacturers. Samsung Electronics Co. estimates 1 million 3-D sets were sold in the U.S in 2010, far short of its initial estimate of 3 million to 4 million - this was attributed to expensive and bulky 3D goggles. So, the strategy for 2011 will be to push for lighter / cheaper passive glasses and at the same time research on possible goggle-less technology. Source : http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tv-makers-address-slow-sales-3d-tv-sets-20110105-102253-781.html

UPDATE [11.37PM, 12 Jan 2011, GMT+8] : Vishay Intertechnology, a manufacturer of IR Receiver modules, among other things, has added a "Webinar" onto it's website at http://www.vishay.com/landingpage/videos/opto_webinar_3d.html which describes in detail how IR Receivers are used in active 3D goggles (see Alternative Frame Sequencing 3D above).

UPDATE [12 Mar 2011] : The war between protagonists of active shutter glasses versus passive ones heats up as Samsung, Panasonic and Sony square off against LG, Vizio, Sony and Philips. http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/11/lg-woos-sony-while-it-battles-with-samsung-over-which-3d-is-best/