3D Tv, 3D Led HDTV, 3D Plasma HDTV

 BSkyB is expanding their 3D line-up for the UK’s growing 3D TV-owning population. In flurry of recently made deals, the satellite broadcaster will air Disney’s growing 3D collection of films and performances from music artists via MTV Networks. But BSkyB’s biggest deal (worth multi-million dollars) is the formation of Colossus Productions with England-based production company Atlantic Productions.

While seeing Snoop Dogg and Buzz Lightyear in 3D is rarely a bad thing (I’d prefer Katy Perry, personally), BSkyB’s deal with Atlantic is big news for early adopters jonesing for more three dimensional home entertainment. While the line-up of Atlantic/Sky 3D productions thus far has been less than thrilling (3D garden shows in London and penguins), the newly formed Colossus Productions should yield some interesting , and more importantly, original, results.

BSkyB has been a model for 3D broadcasters with Europe’s first all-3D channel: Sky 3D. Debuting in April, 2010, Sky 3D has carried 3D Premier League soccer matches, family  programming, the UEFA Champions League final and documentaries through a partnership with Discovery 3D. Sadly this comes at an extra cost to BSkyB subscribers at around $102 a month for access.

Sky 3D is also carried by many 3D-happy pubs in the London area.

In the past, Sky 3D has partnered with ESPN 3D for marquee sporting events like the FA Cup final and the State-side NBA Finals.

“Working alongside [Atlantic Productions CEO Anthony Geffen] and his talented team will help us continue to deliver the highest quality home-grown 3D content to our growing number of 3D subscribers,” says Sky 3D director John Cassy. “We want to help the UK become a global leader in 3D TV and this deal demonstrates the depth of our commitment.”

While Sky 3D was the first in the region to provide 3D programming, they’re no longer the only one. Virgin Media created an on-demand 3D service and the BBC entered the fray by carrying their first 3D broadcast with the Wimbledon finals earlier this month.

Let’s hope competition brings out the best 3D programming for UK residents.

Anyone remember the old Memorex slogan, “Is it live or is it Memorex?” Basically what the M folks were saying was that you couldn’t tell the difference between what you were hearing from a “live” source, versus a playback on their tape. Whether the slogan had any basis in reality isn’t important — it’s the perception that counted. And the fact that I still remember it shows the strength that perception can play.

So how does that apply to 3D today? Pretty much in the same way as then — it’s all about perception. If you have a smartphone — specifically an iPhone in my case– then you probably get bombarded by all the apps available for it. And if you’re a journalist as I am, the PR folks make sure you see their info.

What seems to be the trend with apps today? 3D. Surprised? Didn’t think so. But what is being touted as 3D isn’t really — let’s break it down to the basics.

For a visual to be in 3D, there has to be the illusion of depth. It’s true that this can be created through shading and tricks of perspective, but even then you’re still viewing a 2D surface that purports to fool your eye. But the same eye knows true 3D when it sees it (forgive the pun, pretty bad I know) because the appearance of reality is one that the brain has been wired to handle.

As an example, there’s Cube Dog, billed as the first interactive 3D toy for the iPhone (and iPod touch). It’s a cute app that lets you create a character dog and play around with him as a bit of casual gaming. Audio plays a good part as you maneuver your character around. You can even replace the background with whatever the camera is seeing. Does the shape of the character make the app a 3D one? Unfortunately no. But the desire for 3D is becoming so strong that just sticking the “3D” in the title is enough to make one suspend their belief and agree. Which shouldn’t be the case.

The second example is Splashdown Apollo 3D. Unlike our first example, Splashdown provides an image that, with the appropriate glasses, creates the illusion of 3D. It’s nowhere near as fun as Cube Dog, but it also doesn’t make 3D an issue, because it just does it.

Will there be more apps to take advantage of real 3D in one manner or another (yes I know wearing those red/green or to be more accurate, red/cyan glasses for too long is a headache-in-the making)? I hope so. Certainly if the mobile device, be that Apple- or Android-based, is designed for 3D viewing (which probably will be in the same manner as the Nintendo 3DS), then true 3D apps can be created for it. Of course you have to get enough of the 3D-equipped devices out there to justify it to the app developers, but that’s always been the case when waiting for critical mass.

So despite all the hoop-la over 3D for mobile devices that just isn’t there as yet — I’m still hopeful. Patience may be a virtue that instant gratification can’t stomach, but there’s nothing else we can do at this time but wait.

The original intent of 3D in the theater was to find a way to grab attention. Those who don’t think that’s the case need to study their “Movie theater Vs. TV” history — the same thing happened when Cinemascope (i.e., widescreen) was first being touted. Not as a new way to watch movies so much as a way to watch movies that TV couldn’t match. The same thing is now going on with 3D, admittedly on a smaller scale than a theater-wide encompassing technology since only select theaters get the 3D makeover.

So forgive me for being puzzled by the short lead-times for films to make it to the home theater. Granted that the days of a movie taking over a year or many years to go from silver screen to the home are long over (remember VHS, anyone?). But the average wait has been anywhere from 4+ months to 6, with the exception of course of direct-to-DVD (or Blu-ray) films and the occasional bomb (think New York Minute starring the Olsen twins).

So you could argue, well, let’s make it me then arguing — that releasing blockbuster titles that were featured in 3D theaters too soon can hurt the 3D market. Of course I’m not talking about the DVD or Blu-ray only release, but the fact that in many cases now, a 3D disc is included. That’s the case with the latest PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES and THOR, both of which are transitioning from 3D theater to home theater well within 6 months from their release (THOR is about 4 months or so, give or take a few days).

Just as releases on DVD (and now Blu-ray) started to erode the need to go to the theater — ratcheted up by better and better TV sets at home combined with home theater sound — 3D discs for home viewing could do the same. The argument against this, that few still have 3D viewing capabilities at home, might seem fair. But then you’d ask why bother including the 3D disc, not to mention the perception (real or false) that you as a consumer are paying for the 3D disc you don’t want/need. Even though it could be considered as a hedge against the future, do consumers think that far out? That’s questionable in our “gimme now” instant gratification society — especially when it comes to anything relating to consumer electronics.

Everyone knows that I’m all in favor of 3D at home and regarding content, the more the better is what I and all those producing 3D sets want to see. But the once slippery slope is now more of a steep angle that can smash anyone or anything that ends up at the bottom. Having a crystal ball right now sure would be nice.

Do you remember when every DVD release was big news? I remember waiting for ANY film to come out on this new digital format so I could view something that wasn’t VHS quality already (on another story, I also remember the perils of trying to get a player that wasn’t rendered obsolete after just a few months, or discounted once it had been bought a few months ago).

The same sort of thing seems to be happening with 3D discs. You get single disc sets that are 3D only — these tend to be the IMAX and non-commercial studio ones though not in all cases — as well as them being bundled in with 2D Blu-ray discs in “Combo” packages. But what seems surprising to me is that not every 3D film that was in the theatre is made available for 3D home viewing. What gives?

So I did an informal and totally unscientific survey among my friends and a number of acquaintances. The question was: If a movie played in the theater in 3D, would you expect it to be released as a 3D disc when it becomes available to the consumer? The responses were surprising because a lot of things came up that I didn’t even think of. As in:

*Not every film that was in the theaters in 3D is worth seeing at home in 3D”

–Further questioning brought out that these folks felt that some 3D films, like iMAX movies, couldn’t make the transition from the theater to the home in a way that brought the effect home.

*If the movies stinks, why bother doing a 3D disc that won’t sell?”

–Probing brought out that these folks thought if the movie was junk to begin with, it wasn’t going to sell well enough to justify a 3D disc version. I guess some of them must have seen Cage’s Drive Angry.

*Rentals don’t do 3D”

–Further questioning brought out that these folks, who still prefer renting a Blu-ray disc over streaming, don’t see 3D as a choice to rent so that must mean that it’s not considered “mass market” yet.

While I can’t argue with the lack of 3D rentals, as I’ve yet to see a 3D disc made available on Netflix or through any of the online rental services in a significant and attention-grabbing fashion, I don’t agree that this translates into a disuse of 3D discs for the home market. But I certainly can see the problem associated with this since you might just want to rent a 3D disc, not have to buy it, in the same fashion as that of a Blu-ray 2D one.

“Having many different kinds of discs in a package is just too confusing”

Okay, I get that. A combo disc set can have a Blu-ray disc, DVD, digital copy disc, and now 3D disc. Obviously each disc is different and has a different label, but on the physical surface they are all similar and bringing the wrong one to Mom’s DVD player can cause plenty of upset. I don’t see any way around this other than to pop your 3D disc into its own sleeve or case.

As surveys go, about the only thing I got out of it myself is that nobody seems to want to have to work at being entertained, regardless of the format. That may not explain why not every 3D film becomes available as 3D for the home, but it does explain a heck of a lot about the folks who’d be watching it.

Joining DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg in a rebuke of post-conversion 3D films are two of the biggest names in movie-making: Steven Spielberg and Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson. The duo, who are putting finishing touches on the highly-anticipated big screen adaptation of the popular Belgian comic strip character Tin-Tin, talked about the high price of 3D tickets and crappy 3D flicks at the 2011 Comic-Con in San Diego.

Jackson said that the high cost of a 3D ticket (usually $3-$5 added onto a regular ticket) simply isn’t worth it for the barrage of substandard films since James Cameron’s Avatar. Taking a break from directing The Hobbit, Jackson told a packed crowd that studios thought they could slap a slick coating of 3D onto any film and have Avatar-like magic.

It doesn’t work that way.

“I think the 3D situation is kind of interesting at the moment because, after Avatar, it survived for a while as this premium experience with higher ticket prices,” says Jackson. “But I think the audiences have now come to realize there are bad movies that can be in 3D as well and, on top of that, you’re being charged an extra $5 to see a movie that was as bad as one you saw in 2D.”

After the release of Avatar, 3D features saw more than half of all ticket sales go to 3D screens for features, that in today’s market, would likely not do so well including Disney’s Alice in Wonderland, Monsters Vs. Aliens and Up.

Directed by Spielberg and produced by Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin will feature performance capture technology combined with 3D. Spielberg hopes that one day filmmakers will become so skilled with making 3D movies that audiences won’t care one way or the other on 2D or 3D flicks. To Mr. Summer Movies, audiences would surely choose 3D over 2D but bad products with high prices are forcing people into 2D versions of a film.

“To show a 3D movie in a similar theater in a multiplex next to another similar theater showing a 2D movie, [I'm] hoping some day there will be so many 3D movies that the point of purchase prices can come down, which I think would be fair to the consumer,” he said.

The Adventures of Tintin arrives in theaters on December 23

Echoing statements made earlier this month, DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg says that the reason ticket sales haven’t been so hot for this summer’s 3D tentpole productions is that studios have been valuing “commerce over art.” But Katzenberg is far from saying the controversial technology is past its prime or “dead” as some critics have said.

Earlier this summer, DreamWorks saw 3D ticket sales dip under 50-percent for the first time with the release of Kung Fu Panda 2. Other big-name projects such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Green Lantern, Cars 2 and even the biggest movie of the summer, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, saw 2D sales outpace 3D.

“There were unfortunately a lot of people who thought they could capitalize on what was a great, genuine excitement by moviegoers for a new premium experience and just deliver a low-end, crappy version of it and people wouldn’t care or wouldn’t know the difference,” says Katzenberg. “Nothing could have been further from the truth. Hollywood has managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory here.”

DreamWorks’ previous entry, Shrek Forever After, saw 3D ticket sales reach 61 percent.

This summer has been a mixed bag for big-budget fanboy actioners. Thor, a post-converted flick, lent itself well to 3D as well as Transformers: Dark of the Moon which filmed all of its human actors with 3D cameras. Green Lantern, another sci-fi-cosmic-superhero adventure, was an overall flop at the box office with a worldwide gross of only $146 million thus far. The budget for the Martin Campbell film was $200 million.

Marvel’s other summer spandex film, Captain America: The First Avenger, earned only 38-percent of its ticket sales to 3D, showing that audiences attitudes toward the action-fantasy genre are more favorable towards 3D while the war genre is not.

Or maybe it was just seeing Natalie Portman all up in your grill that did it for Thor…

“They suck,” says Katzenberg on films released during the past eight months. “It’s unbelievable how bad movies have been.”

The LG Optimus 3D is the first 3D smart phone to hit the market that does not require glasses, but is currently only available in the European markets. It will be coming to the United States in a few weeks but will be called the AT&T Thrill 4G. Both phones will be identical and have the same design and features. The LG Optimus 3D has the same look and many of the same features of the original LG Optimus, but also has the new 3D functionality.

Specs

The LG Optimus 3D features a 4.3 inch LCD capacitive glasses free stereoscopic 3D display. The screen has a 480 X 800 pixel screen. The 160 gram weight makes it one of the more heavy duty smart phones on the market. A 5 megapixel camera is featured that shoots video in 1080p high definition in 2D and 720p high definition when filming in 3D. The HDMI video out port makes viewing the videos on any high definition television very easy. The LG Optimus 3D currently runs on the Android 2.2 operating system. 8 GB of storage and a dual core processor are also found on the smart phone.

Pros

The biggest thing that the LG Optimus has going for it is the 3D functionality, so it is very important that it is easy to switch between 2D and 3D. A button marked 3D is located on the side of the phone, and pressing the button switches the phone between 2D and 3D mode.

The HDMI port and high definition video makes shooting great home videos an ease with the LG Optimus 3D. While your 3D videos can only be seen on a 3D television, the picture is great and nobody would ever guess that it was shot with a phone.

Cons

The biggest con for the LG Optimus 3D is that it only runs the Android 2.2 operating system. This makes the phone only a very basic smart phone. While Android 2.2 is a very good operating system, it is just disappointing to buy the newest smart phone on the market but not getting all of the newest technology.

Another problem that many people will find is that the LG Optimus 3D ships with 51 applications already installed. This would not be a problem if they were high quality apps that many people would install eventually, but this is not the case. It forces you to waste your time to remove apps from your phone that you never wanted in the first place.

The battery life on the phone is terrible. It only features 4 hours of talk time on a fully charged battery. If you are on the phone regularly and using some of the 3D options, then you can expect to have to charge the LG Optimus 3D at least twice a day.

Price

The LG Optimus 3D is currently selling for 389 euros in Europe. There has been no price announce for the U.S version, but a similar price should be expected.

Final Thoughts

The LG Optimus 3D is a high quality phone that would be great for anyone that loves the 3D features. It seems like it is slightly overpriced since it is only a basic smart phone with some 3D functionality. The poor battery life and operating system means that the phone will never work as a complete business tool like other smart phones. Anyone interested in the 3D craze and wants to watch and film things in 3D will love the LG Optimus 3D, but because of the some of the drawbacks the phone gets a 7 out of 10.

With summer in full swing, the heat gets beat by spending time in a dark theater that has the AC turned way up (add humidity for those in areas like New York and Florida). Back when I was first pounding the pavement in NYC, I often sought refuge from the heat’s misery in a local theater in the Village.

From what I hear from friends in the old neighborhood, things haven’t changed when it comes to cheating summer at the movies — other than the prices of tickets and the cost of popcorn, that is. But a new element has been added to the mix: 3D films as an alternate to the regular 2D. On the surface this wouldn’t seem to have changed things much — sitting in the dark with AC blasting you has nothing to do with any dimension other than the one relating to relief from spritzing like an opened hydrant. But that’s not true.

From what my friends have told me, and from a bit of thoroughly unscientific polling, I’ve learned that the 3D technology is as much of a draw as the AC. On the surface this would seem insane, given the smaller number of 3D equipped theaters than 2D ones and the higher cost. I was curious as to why this is, so I had a friend stake out a theater in my old neighborhood to ask a few questions, while I did the same at a theater in my new neighborhood.

The results were surprising, at least to me. Comparing notes with my friend, a few similarities arose between those in NYC and those here on the West Coast. To begin, there was an excitement about seeing the film in 3D, even though few really had any idea what kind of effect they expected to see — after all, we all “know” what 3D is, but you don’t have to see too many to know that some uses are pretty darned poor and just add to the “gimmick” factor.

Another point of view that kept cropping up was that the 3D would make the film worth it — again, even with those waiting in line admitting they had no idea how the 3D was going to be utilized.

So what are the conclusions I’ve come to? That 3D in and of itself is enough to drive traffic to the theater — regardless of whether there’s a blockbuster movie involved or not (but being a big movie like Transformers: Dark of the Moon helps, for sure). The consumer, the average person unencumbered by all the tech claptrap and other nonsense those of us who “know” 3D trip over, gets it — 3D is not a gimmick anymore. What could be better than that? Well…maybe next time asking questions of folks from inside the lobby rather than becoming char-broiled standing outside with them.

The roll-out of 3D televisions in the homes of consumers has been an interesting roller-coaster to watch. On the heels of James Cameron’s cinematic behemoth, Avatar, in late 2009, electronics makers and studios have trumpeted the arrival –finally– of the savior of movies; something that as Cameron put it, “brought people back to into theaters.” Depending on your level of expectations, one can view home 3D as a massive breakthrough that in a short amount time has captured the imagination of entertainment lovers or as some critics have called it: “a waste of money.”

A “waste” because readily available 3D content (e.g., On Demand, on store shelves, accessible via a remote control) isn’t where many consumers want it to be. Despite surveys showing that early-adopters are quite happy with available content, price and even the glasses, the majority of mainstream audiences are still lingering on the fence. (As 3D technology becomes cheaper for manufacturers, 3D functionality will be a common part of any HDTV. So whether one likes it or not, 3D, at some point, will enter everybody’s home.)

But while early adopters are fine with waiting for more 3D content to flood the market, others aren’t –something 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment knows all too well.

“3D rushed onto the scene with lots of different technologies,” says Danny Kaye, executive VP of Global Research & Technology Strategy at Fox to Pocket Lint. “Every early adopter said ‘fantastic, I’ll do this’, and I think that we all expected that overnight it should become this huge mass-market opportunity – because of the success of films like Avatar in the theater.”

Rival studios, looking at the success of Avatar ($2.7 billions worldwide), hoped to replicate the experience by turning finished products produced in traditional 2D into 3D. Moviegoers, critics and even grandma noticed that it wasn’t the same. (See Clash of the Titans for details.)

“It actually takes time to develop,” says Kaye. “You need to convince people that they need to see it to appreciate it. And it’s really not been that long. It’s been a little over a year since it came to market.”

It’s not just the expansion of 3D content on Blu-ray that is rapidly expanding (3D titles is expected to top 100 soon says Kaye.), but the 3D TVs themselves are becoming more advanced (cheaper too) seemingly every week.

“In a brief, short year, the technology has already improved, with second and third generation glasses,” says the VP. “LCD is beginning to improve for the 3D experience. Plasma is now in its fifth generation of 3D. And the movies are improving all the time as people learn.”

And people are learning at a record pace.

The video game industry represents billions of dollars of revenue for those fortunate enough to catch the public’s attention. As you’d expect, when a company produces a video game console, their hope is not just to sell enough units to recoup their investment, but to prosper with the console’s growth as a new “standard” in the gaming world.

Nintendo isn’t taking any chances — their 3DS handheld console broke new ground by turning 2D gaming into 3D and obviating the problems of viewers by focusing in on a screen that is designed to be viewed by a single player. Adding the glasses-free technology to an existing “shell” (the popular DS handheld line) brings the 3D genre to the gamer in a comfortable way that doesn’t require any learning curve to speak of.

While this is all well and good, the real focus must be on the 3D content. This gets taken care of through games from Nintendo and third-party companies, with the level of success varying since gamers are a picky and finicky group. The fact that 3D is best viewed by a single person also removes the “family-friendly” factor since you’re not going to get groups of people hugging the 3DS together.

So there’s a certain brilliance to Nintendo’s opening of an e-store for downloading content — but not because of the games and promotional opportunities that would seem the reason for it to exist. It’s because of what is coming next.

Nintendo has announced that they will be including video as a downloadable asset for the 3DS. Standard video, as in 2D, but 3D video as well. Most likely we’re talking about short-form videos, clips and the like, not video of people but graphic-produced, but who knows? The idea that 3D video can be downloaded and played on the 3DS opens enormous possibilities for 3D down the road. Because we all know that eventually the main consoles are going to get into the 3D act (Sony’s PlayStation already has but it’s enormously limited and hasn’t exactly caught fire, other than for its 3D Blu-ray disc playing capabilities).

To further this idea, streaming Netflix to the 3DS is also on the table — which could mean, possibly, the idea of streaming 3D content as well. The Netflix angle will no doubt be completely 2D in execution, if adding the service to the 3DS follows the same route as has been the case on other devices, but still it pumps up the viewing experience and adds another layer to the idea of using the screen as a 3D viewing mechanism (i.e., a 3D TV, if you will).

The downside of all this is that it will be the Japanese who are getting the content initially — Nintendo apparently will be making this available to U.S. mortals “soon” even though the Netflix implementation on the 3DS has now been activated. But the fact of all this shows, once again, that Nintendo is dedicated to making their console succeed based on its single most important asset: 3D.