This post in on the back of reading an insightful article on TechRadar, where Sony Computer Entertainment UK head Fergal Gara underlines that 3D is not as important as it is made out to be. Even though his belief is largely from a gaming perspective, he opinionates that it significantly translates to basic TV viewing as well.

One of the major factors behind this thought is the hassle of wearing glasses. We have known for ages that the active-shutter glasses have been a bane to the retrospective growth of 3D TV’s. It boils down largely due to the fact that these glasses are heavy, battery-powered and require near perfect synchronization with the TV screen to give the desired 3D experience. But isn’t that the reason passive 3D has gained popularity over the years. Since passive 3D glasses are nothing but polarized frames, there is no restriction on the design front and gives you much more liberty with its 3D viewing feature. With these lightweight frames that also come in clip-on designs for spectacled individuals, these glasses provides more positional flexibility for 3D viewing while negating the ill-effects of dizziness and headaches. LG kicked off the passive 3D trend with its Cinema 3D range, with Toshiba following suit.

And IFA Berlin 2012 has also thrown quite a few pleasant surprises at us, the most important in the HDTV arena being the unveiling of commercial-production ready 4K TV’s by both LG and Sony. Now with Sony bringing their massive 84 inch 4K TV into the fray, they have not only switched to passive 3D but also incorporated the Simulview™ feature which allows dual player full screen gaming with their flagship PS3 console. In that sense, Gara’s view comes across as disputable with the Japanese giants pumping in the time and resources to make sure that 3D is an essential factor in their latest offering.

 

 

Now one thing I do agree with is his observation that the importance of 3D is gauged directly from consumer response towards it which to this point has been mildly favorable at best. But I don’t think it’s down to the technology itself but because of the costs involved. 3D TV’s are yet to reach a level where every second person can easily afford it and the introduction of 4K’s ad 8K’s haven’t exactly resulted in a drop down in costs of the lower end models. Anyone reading this would want to chastise me for this, but I feel it’s a very feasible step by manufacturers to innovate at present to scale down the costs in future. There’s a reason iconic filmmakers like James Cameron and Ridley Scott have turned to 3D in their latest directorial projects. And Cameron firmly advocates that the bond between 3D and its audience can be strengthened and evolved for wider masses through 3D TV’s in your living space.

3D at this point might just seem like a fancy gimmick for the higher costs of TV’s these days, but a consolidated approach has slowly but surely garnered the interest of public and long may it improve. Because an increased demand only means competition which will result in significant price drops for the 3D TV’s available in the market at this juncture of time.

Advertisements