Introduction
One of the major beneficiaries of technological advances that have been made by man over the cause of the last century has been the entertainment industry which as grown exponentially through the years. The trend exhibited by the industry has been a constant state of evolution with each innovation moving towards giving a more natural and life-like visual experience for the viewer. One technology which proposes to bring the entertainment industry closer to its ultimate goal of a life-like visual experience is 3 dimension (3D) technologies.
While 3D is not a new technology, there has been resurgence in the interest of 3D with old techniques being radically improved and new ones developed. This has resulted in a marked increase in the use of 3D technology in theatres and at home. With the widespread acceptance of 3D in theatres, there has been a move towards making consumer-based 3D products. 3D television broadcasting is believed to be the next logical step in developing a more enhanced visual home entertainment experience and many huge such as LG Electronics and Mitsubishi Electric have come up with products that are meant for the home use following the recognition of the strong market possibilities for 3D home entertainment.
Considering the overwhelming success of 3D at the box office, it can be reasonably assumed that 3D technology in the entertainment industry is here to stay and its use can only be expected to grow. This paper shall therefore set out to analyze the growing use of 3D in theatres and at home. To achieve this, a historical overview of 3D shall be given followed by a concise yet informative discussion of the prevalent 3D technologies in use. The impact that 3D is having in film and consumer electronics will also be accessed and the various safety concerns articulated. The reasons that have continued to hamper the successful introduction of 3D TV so far will also be discussed and the technological innovations that proposed to offset this highlighted.
Historical Overview of 3D
Contrary to popular believe that 3D is a new in the market, the technology has been around for over 60 years. The first major “3D wave” in the movie industry occurred in 1950s when Hollywood turned to 3D productions as the next big thing in the film industry. The major attraction of 3D for theater owners back then was that it did not require any major refits to the theater since existing cameras and lenses could be used to display the 3D content. In terms of generating the 3D content by producers, all that the technology required was the usage of two cameras per scene (to give illusion of depth). The viewers were required to wear the trademark cyan and red glasses that (Gerrold, 2010).
Fehn (2005) notes that the motivation for this early 3D explosion was mostly monetary since the 3D craze attracted crowds of viewers resulting in a boom in the film industry. 3D was said to increase the movie sensation therefore increasing the pleasure of movie watching. While the viewing experience may not have been as good as advertized, 3D led to a rejuvenation of the movie industry which was on a steady decline due to the introduction of TV. Gerrold (2010) hails the 1952 movie “Bwana Devil” produced by Arch Oboler as being the first major success story for 3D in the big screen.
However, the 3D cinema explosion of the 1950s failed to live up to the great expectation it had created among viewers. In the end, badly operated projection systems in the movie theatres led to 3D films having a badly reputation and their almost complete ejection from the industry. Gerrold (2009) notes that while making movies in 3D originally began as a ruse to bring in more people to the theatres, it ended up being abused by film makes with many substandard movies being produced in 3D within an the first year. This led to a backlash against the technology by audiences and in subsequent years, the film industry relapsed to the traditional 2D filming.
3D Technology Choices
A 3D system is designed to deliver a high quality movie experience to the viewer that is otherwise impossible to achieve in a 2D system. In operation, the 3D system contains a 3D enabled server which accepts stereo movie content from the stereo digital cinema and sends it to the projector as separate left and right streams (Cowan, 2007). The need for glasses to watch 3D content comes from the exploitation of stereoscopy which is the technique which enables 3D technology to work. Stereoscopy works by “providing different images to each eye which combine to create the illusion of depth” (Nation Multimedia, 2010). This is the basic functioning of all 3D enabled projectors as well as LCD and 3D televisions.
Anaglyph Projection
Anaglyph is the most prevalent 3D technology in use by 3D projectors. In anaglyph encoding, two images are superimposed; one for each eye and the color differences are used to separate the two therefore creating the illusion of depth for the viewer. The viewer wears coloured glasses which are typically red for one eye and cyan for the other. This colour variation makes it possible for the eye to differentiate the two images being shown on the screen.
As a result of each eye observing the same image at a different plane, an impression of great depth is created. Livolsi (2010) notes that anaglyph is primarily used for theatrical movies due to its ease of use as well as its inexpensive nature.
The most appealing feature of anaglyphs is that they are cheap to implement and the technology is universal since “anybody with normal vision can be able to perceive 3D in an anaglyph” (Wattie, 2008). The coloured glasses that are required for the viewer to see the 3D in anaglyph are very cheap as compared to the polarized and active shutter glasses used in the other 3D technologies making anaglyph the cheapest 3D technology. As has been observed, anaglyphs involve the superimposition of two images on the screen. While some 3D technologies require the use of two projectors which are expensive to make this happen, anaglyphs only require a singe projector which projects the image on a screen which can be viewed by a large audience.
The major limitation of anaglyphic encoding is that it cannot reproduce the whole colour spectrum resulting in overall poor color. This setback results in 3D images having a poor colour quality as compared to normal 2D. In addition to this, anaglyphic systems have a low separation power which leads to a significant leakage from one eye to another. Livolsi (2010) states that anaglyph 3D more than any other systems are susceptible to this condition known as ghosting which results from the design of the glasses used. This condition is greatly distracting to the viewer and therefore not desirable for an enhanced user experience.
Anaglyph also results in significantly higher levels of eyestrain as compared to other 3D technologies since the red and cyan filters utilized in the view glasses change the wavelength of light hitting the viewer’s eye. The cheap glasses which make anaglyph 3D so cost effective lack the ability to correct the eyestrain problem. In addition to these problems, anaglyphs also led to retinal rivalry which is a condition whereby the brightness of the images for both eyes differs therefore leading to an unpleasant sensation for the viewer (Wattie, 2008). Retinal rivalry results in the less bright side feeling dull which makes people not enjoy the viewing experience.
Passive Glasses Systems
Passive glasses systems like anaglyph systems also have two images superimposed on the same screen but at slightly offset angles. Passive systems involve the placement of a polarizing shutter to the display device or using a screen that automatically produced polarized light. The system polarizes the left and right eye images in linear or circular directions and the viewers are equipped with passive polarized glasses which are polarized in the same orthogonal directions (McAllister, 2009).
McAllister 2000 states that the polarizing lens of the glasses “combine with the polarized light emitted by the display device acting as blocking shutters for each eye”. As such, when the screen displays the image meant for the left eye, “the light is polarized along an axis parallel to the axis of the left eye” and hence the left eye can see this image (McAllister, 2009). The right eye cannot see the same image since the light is not polarized along an axis parallel to the axis of the right eye. This results to the image being blocked to the right eye. Wisegeek (2010) asserts that by having this separation of image by wavelength each eye receives a slightly different image just like in anaglyph systems therefore leading to a perception of depth by the viewer.
For passive systems to work, the display device must produce a polarized image. This is achievable in two ways; one is that the projector mechanism can have polarizing lenses or alternatively, the display must have a polarizing plate attached to or hanging in front of the screen (McAllister, 2009). As such, a screen coated with a material such as aluminum vapor which does not depolarize the light should be used. This is the “silver” screen that is present in theatres that show 3D content.
An obvious advantage for passive polarized systems is that they allow many viewers to view from one display device since no synchronization is required. The field of view is also large allowing for this technology to be exploited in theatres. Since passive glass systems filter light by wavelength and not by colour, the viewer is able to view the whole colour spectrum therefore giving a richer viewing experience. While the initial cost of installing passive systems is high, the cost of adding views if very cheap (Drawbaugh, 2010c). This is because the glasses for passive systems are significantly low priced making this technology very feasible for theatres. For this reasons, polarized glass systems are the new process for 3D in theatres that has overtaken the traditional anaglyph.
McAllister (2009) asserts that one of the disadvantages of passive systems that are noticeable to the viewer is the dark images that are as result of light loss from projector to screen and from screen to the viewer. This is as a result of poor transmission which leads to the intensity of the light being reduced considerably. Passive systems also result in additional costs for movie theatres since the movies will have to be fitted with the special “silver” screen to allow for polarized light to be reflected back to the viewer.
Active Glasses Systems
With active glass systems, the screen is used as the blocking lens. An electronic pulse which is generated within the viewer’s eye gear causes the lens to open admitting light from the display device. This electronic pulse is generated by batteries which power the glasses or through a cable attached to the glasses. The electronic pulses produced are alternated for each eye while simultaneously, the display device alternates the image produced therefore bringing about the 3D effect (Lozzio, 2010). The active glasses must be synchronized with the display device via infrared signals or a physical connection between the display device and the glasses (Drawbaugh, 2009).
One of the most advanced active glasses implementation is the DLP link which is defined as “the unique connection that enables DLP projectors to transmit 3D data seamlessly” (DLP Projectors, 2010). While to the viewer the image on the screen appears seamless and amazing, there is a lot of interaction that occurs both between the projector and the screen and the screen and the glasses that the viewer wears. DLP Projectors (2010) reveal that a special synchronization system which is one of the components of the DLP projector makes it possible for the glasses to link to the projector in the seamless manner without the need for special emitters.
DLP Projectors (2010) reveals that super fast imaging chips with the capability of projecting two images on the screen simultaneously therefore creating the 3D image are utilized. In addition to this capability, the chips also send additional data to the glasses which enables the projector to communicate with the glasses therefore negating the need for emitters. Active glasses do not require polarized displays since light does not have to be polarized before reaching the viewers glasses. This is the feature that makes active glasses usable for home settings since no polarized screen is required.
The major setback for active glass systems is the synchronization equipments inherent in the systems. This results in the glasses being significantly more expensive than the glasses used for passive systems. In a theatre setting, the need for synchronization implies that multiple emitters would have to be mounted all over the venue so as to enable each viewer to receive the signal. The glasses used also may be required to have their own power source (batteries) in order to produce the electronic pulses making the technology unattractive to most consumers who do not want to incur additional costs so as to watch TV (Reardon, 2010).
Alioscopy
A promising 3D technology for home use is auto-stereoscopy technology which makes use of alioscopy displays to bring about the 3D experience to the viewer without necessitating the use of eyewear which is seen as a major hindrance to the wide scale acceptance of 3D systems in the home setting. Alioscopy displays produce the same sensation of depth as in the other 3D technologies (anaglyph, passive and active glasses). In operation, alioscopy displays are multiplex 8 offsets of a screen and since both eyes are physically at different locations, they both see two unique points of view hence creating the 3D illusion (Alioscopy, 2010).
The most outstanding benefit of this technology is its writing off of eyewear which is traditionally compulsory for the enjoyment of 3D content. In addition to this, the 8 points of view that the technology offers means that the screen content can be viewed by multiple viewers who can move at while still enjoying the 3D. Currently, one of the problems facing 3D systems is the lack of material since most media is in 2D. For this reason, it is essential that 3D technology be backward compatible meaning that it can be used with content that is in 2D as well (Reisinger, 2010). Auto-stereoscopy technology is capable of showing “2D content losslessly, granting backward compatibility with all existing sources” (Alioscopy, 2010).
3D TV
Fehn (2005) asserts that while the basic technical principles that 3D TV could operation on where invented and successfully demonstrated as far back as 1920, the successful introduction of 3D TV was not possible until recent years. Technological advances in the area of image analysis and image-based-rendering algorithms have resulted in the feasibility of digital image compression and transmission via the 2D infrastructure that is already in place.
As such, it can be assumed that 3D TV will become a reality in the near future since television companies have already began demo broadcasting in 3D. A leading production house, DirectTV broadcasted 3D content to a panel of journalist demonstrating the feasibility of the technology. Moreover, the production house asserted that the 3D signal did not cause strain on the bandwidth since 3D content required roughly the same amount of bandwidth to transmit as the traditional 2D requires.
One of the factors that have made 3DTV harder to implement compared to 3D films is the time restrictions. While both 3DTV and 3D films for movie theatres may both use the same technology to achieve the desirable 3D effect, the two are differ significantly since 3dTV constraints are more complex since shooting of live events is restricted both time and camera locations wise (Coll, Ishtiaq & O’Connell, 2009). Television content is not as controlled as it is in cinema environment which makes 3DTV even harder to implement.
Another major setback for 3DTV is that 3D display technology necessitates the wearing of glasses (passive polarized or active shutter glasses) by the viewer. Coll, Ishtiaq & O’Connell (2009) lament that the use of glasses to watch 3DTV at home is not ideal the widespread acceptance of 3D with glasses by the home viewers will be a major determinant of the success of 3DTV. The authors continue to propose that if the viewing experience that 3D offers to the viewer is compelling enough, the eyewear hurdle may be overcome and 3DTV growth assured. While auto-stereoscopy technology proposes to overcome this hurdle, the technology is not yet mature and it take years before its fully in use.
3D Transmission
3D technologies also exhibit some marked difference in the way they store and transmit the 3D content. Drawbaugh (2010) reckons that there are a number of ways in which the storage and transmission of data happens in 3D but that the most widely used of this are the sequential and side by side modes. While a signal can be transmitted in either sequential or side by side format, it will be displayed differently on the TV screen.
With side by side systems, the two images (one for the left and one for the right eye) are held in a single frame and sent out at a rate of 24frames per second. When this signal is received by the television, it is split into its constituent two frames and then played out sequentially. While quality wise side by side systems are inferior to sequential transmission, they utilize significantly less bandwidth. It is this attribute that makes 3DTV mostly utilizes side by side transmission since is less bandwidth usage desirable for satellite transmission where a lower throughput is desirable (Drawbaugh, 2010b).
A Case against 3D
For all the praise that 3D technology in theatres has received, there is still a significant among of criticism directed at the technology’s use in theatre. Most of the criticism generated against 3D has been in reaction to the media hype that 3D has attracted and the monetary emphasis that underlines the adoption of this technology.
Economic Criticism
The famous film critic, Roger Ebert, is one of the more vocal critics of 3D usage in films branding the use of 3D films as a gimmick that the film industry turns to when they need to generate more revenue (Ebert, 2010). Historically this assertion holds some truth since as Fern (2005) reveals, the first time that Hollywood turned to 3D was in a bid to counteract the dropping box office receipts that were facing the industry in the 1950s.
The fact that theaters all over the world are slapping a surcharge on the viewers for 3D movies highlights the economic motivation of 3D. Woods (2009) reveals that 3D stands for “dollars” and to demonstrate this, he compares the revenue of the movie “The Polar Express” which was released in 2003 both in 2D and 3D. The 3D print is said to have made 14 times more money than its 2D counterpart.
The argument that the major motivation for 3-D technology is monetary can be reinforced by the huge investments and payoffs that the technology affords the key players in the industry. The company RealD, which is acclaimed as the leading provider of 3-D systems in theaters is said to have invested more than 100 million dollars on 3-D technology. Verrier (2009) comments that the 3-D hype may be a ploy by theater operators to attract people who are content to watch the predominant form of home entertainment, big screen high-definition TV, into the theatres.
Superfluity
The strongest argument that is made against 3D is that it is a waste of dimension since as it is, the human mind is already able to perceive 2D movies in 3D without the need for the extra dimension being created by artificial means. The novelty of watching a movie in 3D therefore quickly wears off since human beings see accustomed to seeing everything in the real world in 3D. Ebert (2010) points out to the superfluity of 3D by stating that for most people, the greatest movie-going experience did not need any 3D to make it great. 3D is also distracting to the viewer therefore resulting in divided attention while watching the movie.
By operation, 3D primarily consists of separating the different visual planes such that some objects are placed above others. However, things still remain in 2D and the viewer notices such things therefore making 3D distracting.
Safety Concerns
One of the most damning blows to 3D TV came from a safety warning by one of the key players in the electronic industry, Samsung, which warned viewers that 3d TV could result in epileptic seizures and even strokes (Ligaya, 2010). This is a concern that is corroborated by another electronic giant, Nvidia which also issues warnings about effects of 3D. There have also been unsubstantiated claims that 3D may lead to undesirable effects in the eyesight of children, adolescents and the older population. While deeper research would have to be undertaken before these claims are quantified, the mere possibility of such effects has dissuaded many from embracing 3D.
Other concerns
Unlike 2D content which are viewable by all the people who can see, 3D is not as accommodating. By virtue of its principle of operation, mono-eyed people cannot see 3D since the technology involves independent images being produced for each eye (Wattie, 2008). Also, people who have significant differences between the perception of their right and left eye cannot see 3D. Owing to the fact that only a marginal percentage of people in the population suffer from such conditions, there has been little motivation for companies which are involved in the development and sale of 3D equipment to come up with solutions for this. This omission of a subset of the population from enjoying this technology is therefore one of the hindrances, though not a major one.
Impact of 3D on Films and Consumer Products
Renowned movie director James Cameron declares that 3D technology is going to become the new standard in movie making and he states that in 25 years, all movies will be made in 3D (London Evening Standard, 2010). He goes on to predict the spread of 3D to encompass the various forms of entertainment including mainstream television, computers and sports. In spite of this, skeptics regard this new renaissance of interest in 3D as a passing wave as was exhibited in the 1950s 3D movie boom.
However, taking into consideration the huge investments that companies such as Samsung Electronics and Panasonic have taken in the development and mass production of 3D equipment and TVs for sale to consumers, it may be reasonably assumed that this wave of interest in 3D will be more permanent. Advocates of 3D technology assert that the biggest hurdle towards universal embracing of 3D is not the technological shortcomings that faced the 1950s 3D high tide but rather the lack of material to watch since most movies were produced for 2D (London Evening Standard, 2010).
Problem Resolution: Future of 3D
Fehn (2005) blames the early failure of 3D in the poor footage produced as a result of lack of experience with the new technology as well as low quality 3D exploitation films. One of the improvements that have been made by movies through the years is the increase in the level of detail. Dicker (2003) contests that modern day movies are able to attain high levels of detail due to the amount of time and care put into each frame. With such stringent practice deeply embedded in movie production, it is highly unlikely that 3D will fall out of favour with the public due to poor quality was the case in the 1950s.
As has been articulated in this paper, the major issue with adoption of 3D for home use is the need for glasses which are either expensive, cumbersome to wear or even both (. A significant technology which has the promise of bringing universal acceptance for 3D to the masses is alioscopy. This is because this technology requires no eyewear which is traditionally compulsory for the enjoyment of 3D content. Making the 3D watching experience as natural as the 2D watching one will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the demand for this technology by home users.
While many production houses are in the process of coming up with 3D content so as to satisfy the huge demand created by the wide spread availability of 3D hardware, 3D material is still scarce. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that 3D material will rival 2D material in the foreseeable future. A promising technological advancement that promises to increase the amount of 3D material available is software which makes it possible to transform 2D video into 3D video. Coll, Ishtiaq & O’Connell (2009) reveals that this convertor works by generating a second point of view to the 2D image in a simple but labor-intensive manner. With such technology, it can be hoped that 3D can compete on an equal footing with 2D in terms of content.
Conclusion
This paper set out to analyze the growth of 3D technology use both at home and in theatres. To this end, the paper has given a concise history of 3D and gone on to articulate the technological implementation of 3D both for home use and theatre. From the discussion in this paper, it is clear that cost alone is not the most important consideration in 3D technology deployment especially if it hurts the quality of the 3D experience. For this reason, technologies such as anaglyph have been rendered obsolete in 3D entertainment replaced by passive and active glass technologies.
Implementation of 3DTV is the most exciting prospect of 3D. This paper has highlighted that significant investments have been made by key players to make 3DTV a reality in the near future. While it will result in a relatively minor transmission overhead the rich viewing experience that 3D transmission affords the viewer will make it a worthwhile price to pay in the move towards giving a more natural and life-like visual experience for the viewer.
Undoubtedly, 3D faces numerous challenges mostly as a result of the extra expense that producers have to undergo to make 3D movies as well as lack of enough material at the moment. However, from the discussions presented in this paper, it can be reasonably assumed that from the momentum that 3D has gained, it will make its way into mainstream cinema and TV in the same manner that colour and sound did. As such, we can expect in the next few decades for “3D” to be the standard other than the exception in the entertainment industry.
References
Alioscopy. (2010). Alioscopy: An Overview. Web.
Coll, B. F., Ishtiaq, F. & O’Connell, K. (2009). 3DTV at Home: Status, Challenges and Solutions for Delivering a High Quality Experience. Web.
Dicker, R. G. (2003). The Future of 3D Graphics Technology: Will the Movies Maintain Their Lead on the Desktop? Web.
Drawbaugh, B. (2009). Ready of Not the Latest 3D Technology is Coming Home. Web.
Drawbaugh, B. (2010). HD 101: The Difference between Sequential and Side by Side 3D. Web.
Drawbaugh, B. (2010b). Eyes-on with direct TV 3D. Web.
Drawbaugh, B. (2010c). RealD to License ZScreen for HDTVs, Bring Cheap 3D Glasses to the Masses.. Web.
Ebert, R. (2010). Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too). Web.
Edwards, L. (2009). Active Shutter 3D Technology for HDTV. Web.
Fehn, C. (2005). 3D TV Broadcasting. Berlin: Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications.
Gerrold, D. (2010). Future Tense: A Brief History of 3D Film. Web.
Home Consortium (2010). 3D at CES: Experiencing the TV of the Future. Web.
Ligaya, A. (2010). Samsung Issues 3D TV Warning. The National. Web.
Livolsi, B. (2010). The Renaissance of 3D: How the New 3D Technologies Work. Web.
Lozzio, C. (2010). How 3-D TV works. Web.
McAllister, D. (2009). Display Technology: Stereo & 3D Display Technologies. Web.
Mendiburu, B. (2009). 3D Movie Making: Stereoscopic Digital Cinema from Script to Screen. Elsevier, Inc.
Reardon, M. (2010). Comcast Demos Live 3D TV. News.Cnet. Web.
Reisinger, D. (2010). Survey: Most won’t buy new TV just to get 3D. Cnet News. Web.
Wisegeek. (2010). What are the Different Types of 3D Glasses? Web.
Woods, A. (2009). 3-D Displays in the Home. Information Display Vol. 7.