I"m not sure your analogy works, but I get what you're saying. You're assuming paintings existed before sculpture, I'm not so sure that's true.

Talking to a number of people in the industry recently, the general feeling is that 3D in TV terms will remain a niche, the big players seems not to be pushing it as hard as they were before, and there certainly seems to be less enthusiasm about it than there was. It's not taken off anywhere near as quickly as HD did, although it's not going to go away any time soon.

When looking at this, you need to stand back and look at the historical viewpoint. I did a paper about this as part of my degree - here's my take:

From conception, cinema (and later TV) has all been about capturing and reproducing reality in the way most akin to 'being there'.

All of the major developments, including moving from silent film, and black and white film met with some friction from critics and filmmakers who felt that their art was being eroded, and still of course you will get black and white and silent film today for artistic reasons. Also, there is the time lag for the technology to come through in both production (the filmmakers) and consumption (the cinemas/your TV).

This always has a 'catch 22' position. Without the filmmakers there is no software, and without the hardware, there is no demand for the software. But, over time it gets there.

Oakey, I hear what you are saying, but, dispassionately, the industry will always go with the mass market, and the mass market can see in 3D. Silent cinema (or mono sound, or stereo sound, or most recently Dolby Digital and DTS) did not prevail because some of us are hard of hearing, nor did black and white prevail because some of us not see well or be colour blind.

Super Slo Mo - interesting that you have heard that some people believe that take-up is slow. IMHO that effect is that we are so used to things moving at light speed we forget how long it takes for technology to come in and tastes to change. For example:

How many years was it between the first film with sound, and most films to have sound? I believe ten to fifteen years.

How many years was it between the first film in colour to most films being in colour? Around ten years too.

And the first colour TV, to most people having colour TVs? At least ten years.

Surround sound in film to being in the home? HD screens being available (I have a 2001 relic) to most people demanding HD? You get the point. Ten years mostly.


To put 3D into perspective (and I mean todays 3D not any old tech with coloured glasses), I remember watching Avatar and being blown away in December 2009. I genuinely thought that home technology was 5 years away. I had a 3DTV and was watching content 18 months later. I don't believe glasses are the way forward, and I am secondly blown away by the fact that within 2 1/2 years of the cinema showing the first 3D film, you can see it at home without glasses.

In perspective, that is very, very fast. Especially considering that the jump from 2D to 3D is arguably the most radical advance in reproduction since the industry started.

So IMHO, 3D is an inevitability, for the masses, too. It's not an if, but a when.

How? IMHO, it will be when 3D becomes a default. Widescreen just became a default, HD is becoming a default. Some TVs now are 3D capable, you just buy glasses. In the end, most TVs will be 3D by default, without glasses, when you play 3D content. And at that point, producers will produce in it by default so as not to be left behind those that do.

I'd be interested to see the figures of take-up between HD and 3D.

That said, I think a good proportion of the analysis of those figures may not be down to sheer 'demand' for HD or 3D but availability and buying cycles.

For example, post 2003ish everyone who is buying a new TV will be plasmas/LCDs which are HD ready. You can't get away from it. Additionally, there are the free view HD channels as well as those from Sky meaning that there is a lot less friction stopping someone demanding HD, in fact, it is difficult to get away from.

In comparison, at the moment, to get 3D you need to have bought a TV in the last 12/18 months and spent extra getting the 3DTV. Also, if you've just bought a plasma a few years ago, you might not want to buy another when the only content is a single, paid for, repetitive Sky channel.

That's the difference, IMHO, HD broadcast is now worthwhile by default as the majority of viewers have HD sets. It's going to take some time to replicate that with 3D, going by HD, probably another 5-10 years.

That's interesting.

Understandable too. If Canal+ 3D only had 20,000 subscribers and if this was not exponentially increasing, on a week by week basis they are making a huge loss.

I think Sky's position is somewhat different in that they now have over 100,000 subscribers (and I think a lot more than this to date) and have a wide range of their own content, for example Premier League football which is perfect for a marquee event to watch in 3D.

It was the latter broadcaster I was referring to earlier, the number of events they cover in 3D doesn't seem to be an extensive as it once was, certainly, they're not expanding the coverage all that quickly.
I think part of the snag is that it's a huge cost to attach a 3D Outside Broadcast to any single event, as from SKY's point of view, it's extra cost for no real return; everyone who'd watch the event in 3D would still probably watch it in 2D anyway if 3D wasn't available.

At some point, I suspect the technology will develop (at the OB end) to the stage where we don't require separate 2D and 3D shows, and will be able to shoot the whole lot on 3D, simply taking the 'left eye' camera feeds for the 2D show. Currently though, it's Directed differently (since 3D can't be cut together in the same way as 2D), so requires separate cameras, operators, director, the whole lot.

Once we get to the stage where it's all shot in 3D and the 2D is simply stripped off at source, then it'll be somewhat different, and we'll see more content being supplied in both formats.

However, the other slight snag is that 3D really (ideally at least) requires higher bitrate channels for distribution, and thus bigger frequency bands, which could lead to an overall reduction in the number of channels available. This may not be a bad thing.