cameron_minority_report

No sooner has Blu-Ray seen off HD-DVD with it’s knobbly knocking stick than another format war starts brewing in, quite literally, the R&D labs. According to a report in Video Business, Panasonic are looking to launch their first 3D-ready HD sets in what they hope will be an industry-wide standard, and will do so as soon as next year.

It’s probably pertinent to tell you right away that while Panasonic aren’t the only manufacturers working on a 3D standard, they are the ones in league with James Cameron. That alone has very possibly won them any upcoming format war before it even reaches the shop floor. Their system does indeed sound really brilliant, but so do the others, in their ways…

Ye olde 3D system used red and blue anaglyph glasses and is obviously already possible on home TVs of all kinds. When the most recent cinema hits have been repackaged for home consumers the 3D has been downgraded to work in this format. Or, rather, not quite work in this format because, frankly, the system is a bit of a dog. It doesn’t work consistently and a very significant percentage of users report that they don’t feel it works at all for them. I can’t believe that Dreamworks dare pollute the public idea of 3D with their Monsters vs. Aliens ad at the Superbowl, and fear they may have confused a large number of viewers with their tacky specs and substandard TV 3D.

But did you know that the new, polarized lens system is already possible at home? There already are ways to line up players and sets and specs to get the same 3D effect you’d get at a screening of, say, Coraline. It just isn’t standardized and until it is, there aren’t going to many major releases.

Here’s a brief run down of the three big players likely to duke it out in the coming months and years.

Panasonic’s system uses a Plasma screen and the same specs that you get at a Real-D screening. I know this system works, because I’ve seen it in action.

Samsung’s system has been around a while without much content. However, they also have a kind of conversion engine pending that will turn 2D into 3D on the fly - though this is likely to be very problematic and certainly won’t be the optimum solution, not least because it takes control of the stereo elements out of the hands of the filmmakers.

Hyundai’s system uses a polarising sheet over an LCD screen, which is likely to be the cheaper option and will also side step the various issues with Plasma screens (as well, of course, as the various benefits). This system is already on sale in Japan and will be running in Britain very soon with Sky TV planning to steadily ramp up their 3D output over the coming years until they can broadcast a very size-able chunk of the London 2012 Olympics in stereo-vision.

The closest thing to a set standard so far is in Panasonic’s pocket. They already started coding Blu-Ray discs with left and right eye fields and pledge to release Avatar on a 3D disc next year. At the moment, the Panasonic demo discs require a pimped up player that can tear through twice as much data per second than normal. Hopefully this won’t be the case with the release software as asking consumers to replace their newly minted BD decks is simply not going to fly.

Video Business have embedded a recent YouTube video in which Cameron briefly mentions collaborating with Panasonic on “high quality” 3D for the home. It seems to be software, not hardware, that wins format wars, but perversely, it’s the price of hardware that determines how far a media standard will infiltrate the marketplace. While Avatar is very likely to win the war for Panasonic, this success will be in vain if they don’t price-up for the Yous, Mes and Everyone we Knows out there.

If you have the right kind of 3D glasses, the Panasonic logo that James Cameron is conjuring out of thin air at the top of this post will fly around room and poke you in the eye.

  • Bobby
    3D is a gimmik. It definately won't become a standard. For every movie that releases in 3D 90 % of the audience see it in traditional theaters and care less about 3d. When they market 3d they have to use it as a marketing ploy. If t was a standard they wouldn't have to mention 3d every 5 seconds in the trailers. Saying 3D will become the standard is just like saying digital distribution will become the standard. It may happen but there is no evidence now that says it will happen anytime son.

    My beef is that these guys who say 3D and digital distribution will be standard have no proof. With digital distribution they go by the music biz but that doesn't compare to movies or video games. With music most people still download their music for free and the reason digital distribution started for music was to combat the illegal downloads and that hasn't stopped illegal downloads and is a very small fraction of actual music biz sells. With music people didn't want to pay $10-$12 bucks for a cd where they just wanted 3 or 4 songs. With movies and video games they sense of ownership is what keeps the movie home market going so great and video game sells doing great. Forget that tech is years off from being able to hold enough space for an unlimited amount of data for downloadable movies and games but people actually care about being able to have the movies and being able to take them to friends houses or purchasing them in stores. Even if digital distribution does kick in it will never replace boxed movies or video games completely.

    The amount of people who download video games or movies now is so small it makes no sense on why anyone would really think digital distribution is the future. If you really want a Wall-E society of lazy bums who have technology for everything and have to do nothing on your own then that's what digital distribution will bring since people won't even have to actually get up and go buy things. Since that probably will not happen digital distribution won't ever replace actually going somewhere and buying things ever.
  • You kinda have to keep waiting...
  • Jake
    That's what they said about talkies....
    That's what they said about colors....
  • it's crazy how Cameron will have his hand in this new format war. this will be much more interesting to see play out, because it's the tele we're talking about, and not just a player.

    that means waaaaay more financial investment, and i think people will be slow to plunge into the new tech. that's not even taking into consideration the economy and personal sacrifices and cutbacks.
  • I have never watched a 3D movie at home, I'm curious to see what they will be able to do with Coraline though I bet that holds up fine in 2D.
  • Mike!
    Agggh... no 3D movies, no 3D TV, NO MORE 3D. It was a cheap gimmick back in the 50s and it's a cheap gimmick now. It's not worth this much financial investment for something that the public isn't really clamoring for.
  • You clearly haven't seen any tru3D features.
  • agreed the Real D technology is amazing. I've seen My Bloody Valentine and Coraline. It made the movie
  • I agree mostly for my bloody valentine. There is a good chance I wouldnt have even gone to see without 3D and it ended up being the best part of the movie.
  • 790
    3-D, is so overated.
  • Phil
    I'm not going to wear 3D glasses while I watch TV.
  • obin
    i'v watched a 3d film once, and never doing it again! GODdamn the glasses are annoying >_<
  • It's like Batman Forever all over again...
  • I really don't get all the negative comments. Honestly, 3D - in one way or another - will be the future. Lookup Phillips 3D tv's on youtube, which you don't need glasses for; they already had prototypes over four years ago. Those kinds of screens will be the future.

    Remember how the film industry treated color film when it was first introduced? (not that I have anything against b&w movies). I'm sure some visionary directors (like Cameron, or Zack Snyder, lol) will use 3D is ways that will really enhance the movie medium.
  • Jimmy Snuff
    I used to work in the mapping industry using stereo glasses, if the films can look anything that that tech looks I'll be lining up for one of Cameron's TV's.
  • LeMime
    Remember when surround sound was properly introduced and every single studio had a flashy logo flying around your head? That was impressive the first time and rapidly became annoying, especially when most movies didn't really use the technology well, if at all. It was a gimmick with a cool tech demo. But do you remember watching the Matrix in the cinema and feeling like you could hear what was going behind you, the bullets passing by your hears, feeling the technology actually serving the story and themes of that movie? Now we can all enjoy great quality surround sound at home that really adds to the movie watching/game playing experience, simply because people understand how to use the technology.

    Whilst I agree 3D as mainly been used as a cheap gimmick, the possibilities it offer can be ground-breaking for Film-Makers. When someone talks of a 3D movie, we pretty much all get that image of something flying in your face for cheap thrills, looking really cheap and not thrilling at all. Having watched "My Bloody Valentine 3D" recently, where they used all the cheap thrills in the book, I thought I glimpsed what 3D can actually bring us: real depth of field. The film was awful in pretty much every aspect, but some of the simple shots of landscapes, woods and that one shot where the camera flies around a bridge into the city, made me realise how cool 3D could be in the hands of people who understand the technology. 3D depth of field allows the director to put elements of an image in front of your eyes, on the screen and behind the screen at the same time. This means you can create much richer compositions, and look at realistic scenes from an unusual point of view. I was imagining watching the Dark Knight in 3D and how cool it would be to have Batman on the Batpod next to you, racing towards the Joker with the flaming truck in the background. Or imagine looking at Saving Private Ryan's Omaha Beach landing scene from the point of view of a soldier, seeing soldiers gunned down next to you whilst trying to reach cover in front of you, and then looking at the seemingly unreachable distance of the Nazi bunkers, so far away in the background. Take any film you like and I bet you there will be a scene that would benefit, both visually and dramatically, from that 3D depth of field.
    The trick is, we need a director to show us how 3D can be used to serve the story. And I so dearly hope Cameron will do just that. Because once those basic rules are written, it will only be a matter of time before we all enjoy great films, games and TV in 3D, just like most of us do now with surround sound.
  • Cameron is really putting himself on the pedestal here. Avatar better kick some damn major ass for all this hype it's getting. But I don't mind 3D if it's used right. A lot of you talk about gimmicks and what not, that is just annoying. But if you can capture it, like LeMime just said...then you got yourself something great.
  • Eduke
    i just hate to be hearing about a new war of formats, i hope is just Software for the movie, and for the TV, when this HD plasma stop working i am going to change it.. untill them, i will see all movies in 2D.
  • Jon
    This will become a standard because the new TVs will have NO GLASSES required to see in 3D. No gimmicks here. This is the real deal. We need to make this step in technology, so I can get my holodeck so I can sleep with 7 of 9 every night.
  • cib3k
    I don't get the people who complain about this thing. The 3D effect in any recent movie I've seen in a cinema looks amazing to me. I'm not referring to objects flying in your face - I mean everything else, the background, the environment becoming 3D, it's like there's no screen anymore and you're watching through a window in another room where the action takes place. Sure the systems need to be improved, the image is a bit dark, but it still looks impressive.
  • cib3k
    Also, people complaining about wearing glasses sound like the people complaining about reading subtitles.
  • Wow 3D tvs? Its like living in the future...
  • cameron your a genius. please, let me have your babies
  • Does this mean that everything on TV will be in 3D? I really don't want to see 2D shows shoehorned into this new format just because it's the new technology. It'd be perfect for a bunch of movies though.
  • Nighthawk
    Porn is the killer app for 3D TV.
  • Django
    If it's done by true artists who know how to frame each and every shot, a' la Henry Selick's CORALINE which I highly, highly recommend for any & everybody to see.

    But James Cameron is not that kind of filmmaker. He's not a painter, he's not a photographer.

    My impression is 3-D tv is gonna REALLY make people's eyes hurt. B'cuz really, CORALINE was an amazing experience, but I needed to take those glasses off after it was over.

    Cameron should invest in prescription glasses for toddlers, if he thinks this is the next revolution.
    It's like making "tumor doilies" for ultra-powerful cell phone users - the way Andy Dick did on the Andy Dick show! Hah!
  • You guys are putting a hell of a lot of confidence in "Avatar." I'm not rooting against it, but I think Cameron is likely to deliver something closer to The Abyss (sucky tech demo) than Titanic (monster hit).

    I've had precisely one good 3-D experience in theaters, and that was with The Polar Express. The 3-D was completely mind-bending in that IMAX presentation. Everything else has been an annoying disappointment. I've continually paid extra for 3-D versions of a film, but Coraline--where the 3-D added absolutely nothing for me, and made the film murky and gray--put that desire to bed for me. No more.

    In order for 3-D to succeed, it has to 1) not involve me wearing any extra hardware on my head, and 2) not make me long for the 2-D version. It's not impossible, but I don't see it happening in the next 5 years.
  • Oh boy! 3D in our homes! Now studios can release crappy movies that only rely on the 3D gimmic so they can be considered good. Plus, headaches for everyone!

    Yes, even Real3D gives me a MASSIVE headache. I can't stand 3D.
  • Doubtful
    So many comments going on about not needing glasses... I can't see how they expect a 2D representation to become 3D without the use of glasses; if someone can explain how this is possible without resorting to Star Trek technology, I'd be grateful.
  • Anti-Septic
    There is a definite 3D following for movies, I do enjoy the occasional 3D movie myself, but I am not a fanatic about it. I think this will eventually be just another added feature to TV panels much like 1080p and etc.

    I cant say I would be willing to pay a premium for it as its just really a niche market anyhow! That is my way of thinking anyhow.
  • Like I posted after the Superbowl 3D commercials, the Monsters trailer looked quite good, the Sobe one had great depth, and the Chuck one looked flat.
    I do have one of the new Samsung LCD DLP's with a built in 3D engine, so I would think that those factors help to make it look better.
    I know playing PC games on that display look great, (DVI-HDMI connected). I should get a chance to try playing Left 4 Dead with the 3D enabled this week. I'm expecting good things (aside from the cut on my ears from the cardboard glasses pinched under my surround sound headphones.
  • Cody
    While movies will help move 3D TVs, I really think it won't take off unless you can get it in sports and games... And finding a way to eliminate the glasses would help boost it. If the next game consoles can do this, and I can almost reach out and grab the players (or even better, the referees) of Super Bowl 50, then I'll buy.
  • Jeff
    Sony already working on it with PS3
  • so.... does this mean I wait to buy a TV since the one I'm really going to want is coming in a few years.....
  • Hat
    FUCK 3d! It's such a gimmick.
blog comments powered by Disqus