Why 3D TV Will Fail

[UPDATE: One more reason added...]

The start of the World Cup marks the introduction of the first 3D channel to your channel guide -- ESPN3D. Its debut is the first of many steps in the big 3D rollout. Companies really believe that the 3D movie craze will translate into the home of the consumer. But I, and I don't think I'm in the minority here, believe that 3D television fad will fall on its big four-eyed face.

Let's break down the reasons for the probable 3D failure:

You need to buy a new TV

Really the biggest reason why 3D television won't catch on is the fact you will have to purchase a television that supports the 3D signal. Originally, I believed that the 3D signal could be achieved by simply sending the blurred 3D image to any television and all that would be required would be a pair of 3D glasses to decode it. But the release of further details reveal this not to be the case. While updates to existing hardware, like the PS3, will enable those devices to produce the 3D signal, you still need a television to decode the image and display it on screen.

The signal itself is composed of two separate pictures superimposed over each other. Basically, your 3D Blu-rays will need to alternate two 1080p images to achieve the 3D effect. This is good news for the television manufacturers, but bad news for the consumer's wallet. In fact, since many consumers just bought their first HDTV, I think the adoption of 3D televisions will be slooooooow.

No agreed upon format


There are a couple different 3D technologies floating around out there at the moment, battling for dominant format supremacy. We all know what that means... companies pushing their own propietary formats and incompatibility issues. This already happens with the movie theaters you frequent. The 3D glasses you use at one movie don't necessarily work for another. The same will most likely be true for 3D televisions.

You have to wear glasses to watch TV


Nobody wants to put on a pair of 3D glasses to watch television. At the very least, you need a pair of 3D glasses for every member of the household. But what if you have a party? What about watching 3D at a indirect viewing angle? And that's not the worst of it...

I was at Best Buy recently, ogling the new Samsung 3D television playing Avatar. Eagerly, I picked up a pair of 3D glasses, ready to be wowed by the majesty of 3D television. I gazed through the polarized lenses and saw no 3D effect. At first I figured something was broken, so I examined the glasses. What I found horrified me. The Samsung 3D glasses had a power button. Let me repeat that... AN ON/OFF SWITCH!!!! Meaning you have to provide them with power. Meaning, you could be watching Game 7 of the NBA Finals and your glasses could run out of batteries in the fourth quarter. Is Samsung insane?

What's the solution?


At E3 last week, Nintendo debuted the 3DS handheld gaming system that produces 3D graphics without the use of 3D glasses. The buzz from the floor had insiders raving about the new 3D technology Nintendo put on display. I have yet to see it for myself, but Nintendo has the right idea.

The handheld also comes equipped with a 3D effect slider control that will adjust the depth of the 3D for the player. Imagine watching your 3D television in the comfort of your own home with no 3D glasses and a button on your remote that could adjust the 3D effect to the desired setting. That sounds like a 3D experience I could work with.

Hopefully, the push for 3D gaming will not facilitate the adoption of the current 3D television technology. While I'm sure playing Killzone 3 or Gran Turismo 5 will be flashy in three dimensions, I'm sure the gaming companies will back off when they realize they are wasting their development dollars to produce their 3D graphics when none of their user base has a 3D television. Actually, I blame Sony -- Sony PS3 3D firmware update, Sony PS3 3D games, Sony 3D televisions, Sony 3D Blu-ray format... you get the idea.

UPDATE: One more reason... The artificial 3D algorithm


What most of the new 3D technologies do is convert a 2D image into 3D images via some algorithm to determine the depth of objects in the foreground from those in the background. Of course, such an algorithm cannot be perfect, and thus without a true intentionally-constructed 3D image, you will be viewing shoddy 3D images (feels like you're watching that embarrassing 3D conversion for Clash of the Titans all over again). The movies actually designed for 3D will display beautifully when packaged on their Blu-ray discs, but this does not apply to regular television. Not until television channels and their affiliates start using 3D cameras to properly capture their programs in 3D will the 3D televisions actually get their just usage. We won't want to hold our collective breaths on that one since some stations are still just rolling out their HD-compatible channels let alone 3D HD channels.