May 21, 2010 by Stephen Hopkins
What’s right and wrong with 3D? Everything, according to Paul Gray of market research firm DisplaySearch.
In a recent blog post on the DisplaySearch site, Gray dives into what 3D can do well and what might be holding it back. He sees gaming and CGI being major growth points due to their ability to control eye strain.
“Many of these problems are caused by trying to shoe-horn the wide variety of visual cues into depth perception solely by stereoscopy. It is these contradictions that are understood to cause eyestrain. However, source material that is computer-generated does not have such problems and can be pre-compensated.”
Gray goes on to say that gaming’s immersive nature makes it an ideal portal for 3D.
”[A]s a non-gamer the added perception from 3D has made it far easier and more natural to play. 3D driving games allow me to sense my position on the road in a natural way, for example. Furthermore, gaming is much more a solitary activity, so obstacles like glasses compatibility are much less significant.”
Gray’s last point calls out the cost of producing convincing 3D live-action content as a major stumbling block, especially for broadcast TV.
“The sheer cost of producing good quality movies in 3D will always inhibit their availability—let alone ordinary broadcast TV which works on a fraction of the budget per minute of final content.”
Do you agree with Mr. Gray’s assessment? We’ve noted the cost of entry into 3D gaming, which that industry is addressing. Still, is CGI and gaming the best way to bring 3D to market? Is there just too much eye strain in live-action 3D? Will 3D broadcast TV content languish due to production costs? Let us know what you think in the comments section!
Follow Electronic House
Stephen Hopkins is chief technology editor for EH Publishing. He writes product reviews, features, and focuses heavily on 3D TV, iPhone and iPad apps, and digital content.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.