Prospects for 3D in the home

by Tom Morrod

There has been a lot of hype about 3D TV. But the industry getting behind a broad realm of technologies is a far cry from a monetisable mass market. Fundamentally, 3D is complex, more so than HD as technology and ecosystem.

This complexity will be reflected in uptake of 3D. It is often said that 3D is easier for consumers to ‘see’ than HD, thus driving true demand. But it can be countered that a market is not just about demand. It is about supply, price and information – all in questionable quantities.

Supply is a big piece of the puzzle and crucially, like HD, 3D is an ecosystem. It is certainly about the TV receiver, polarised or active switching; the glasses (easily forgotten but not necessarily 'in the box'). But it also takes in the decoding device – set-top box, games console or BD player; the distribution medium (broadcast/unicast), games console or 3D BD; the content and the process of capture, editing and contribution, including broadcasting infrastructure when not printed to disc.

Only about 20 per cent of broadcaster equipment is HD, 30 per cent of TV screens and less than that of set-top boxes. We are still in a very early stage of actual upgrade across the HD ecosystem. And while the HD infrastructure across broadcasters and operators can be used to transmit lower resolution 3D to some existing HD PVRs, all those TV screens will need replacing.

Price is a murky issue spanning both consumer and professional equipment. Many of the early announced prices for 3D TV sets are considerable inflations on similar non-3D TVs. This is especially true for passive polarised, where more technology is built into the display. However, active switching, offering screens at similar prices to non-3D displays, have a hidden cost: the glasses may cost up to $150 a pair, a major consumer cost.

Whilst 3D BD players are likely to be reasonably priced and games consoles will be upgradable, there are many more serious problems in the professional realm. Layering low resolution 3D into the current HD infrastructure will be the only cost-effective option for broadcast in the short term, using existing bandwidth, set-top boxes and encoders.

But true 3D will require cross-compressed images that will be determined based on current patent discussions between companies. This will require both new encoders and set-top boxes, as well as incurring licensing costs. It will also allow higher resolution broadcast 3D and provide bandwidth efficiencies, but probably in wide deployment only in a 5-8 year cycle, due to infrastructure investments.

Finally, information. The uptake of 3D will need new TVs, receivers or decoders and services or distribution media. All this requires a moderately savvy consumer. At least part of this ecosystem could be put in jeopardy by consumer experience of 'bad 3D'. Anaglyph broadcasts and VoD are already being rolled out in trials, as features or long-term services, and this may disrupt the uptake of polarised or active switching technology. A less than optimal or 'good enough' experience could hinder 3D uptake. Broadcasting in itself may hamper 1080p 3D by offering lower quality 3D and discouraging consumers.

This discussion has no obvious conclusion. The industry is at a favourable turning point, with a healthy mixture of technology, content deals, bandwidth and consumer interest. However, this simply means 3D is prepared to move towards a mass market, not how long this might take. On TV screens alone 3D is likely to make up less than 10 per cent of yearly sales in 2012 and it will take around 10 years for all TV screens to go through a sales cycle.

While critical mass will be reached prior to that, we are still on a 5-8 year cycle for that. This would be about the right amount of time for the necessary 3D patent pool to be established and start charging licences. In addition, it is the right amount of time for broadcasters to establish a specific 3D infrastructure.

Contact: www.screendigest.com