A prototype autostereoscopic 3D TV from Toshiba, shown at CES.
As much as people (well, not all people, but judging from some of the comments in past blogs, a lot of people) complain about having to wear funky glasses to experience 3D TV, the two glasses-free systems (autostereoscopic—or AS), now being sold in Japan aren’t selling all that well.
That’s what a report from Bloomberg says about Toshiba’s recent entry into the AS TV market. Late last year the company introduced two AS models, a 20-inch model based on the company’s Cell processor and a 12-inch model that uses some of the Cell features, but not the full monty.
Apparently Toshiba is disappointed in the sales of those two models. The 20-inch TV, according to Bloomberg, has only sold about 500 units at a price of around $2,940, and less of the 12-inch model. Last month at the Consumer Electronics Show, Toshiba showed off larger AS 3D models, but those aren’t expected to ship until much later in the year, and no prices have been announced.
A couple of things come to mind with this news. First, isn’t it obvious that a 20-inch TV, about the size of a nice laptop, is just too small for people? Even in Japan, where smaller homes demand smaller products, a 20-inch 3D TV simply delivers no significant 3D effect to get excited about. I’ve said before that 3D is the feature that makes a 50-inch TV look small. On a small screen 3D looks like a window, not like reality is sitting in your lap—whether that’s actually a good thing is another debate. People go to 3D commercial theaters to get a larger-than-life experience. So why would they settle for a home 3D experience that looks like a ViewMaster.
Next, that 20-inch TV costs nearly $3,000. Panasonic’s top-of-the-line 50-inch plasma can be had for a lot less than that right now. Who’s willing to pay that much for such a small TV just for the benefit of not wearing extra glasses now and then?
And finally, from what I’ve seen so far, autostereoscopic TVs aren’t ready for the market yet. Granted, all the units I’ve seen have been prototypes, and prototypes typically don’t perform as well as finished production models, but even if they did, there are still problems with the concepts. AS TVs work only if you view them in a restricted position—they have a limited sweat spot. The newer technologies may have multiple sweet spots, as did the prototypes that Toshiba showed at CES, but it’s still limited. You can’t just sit yourself on the sofa to watch TV. You have to aim yourself on the sofa.
All of the AS TVs I saw last month looked pixelated. Despite the fact that they were operating on 4K resolution panels, you could still see a slight grid pattern (each viewer does not receive the full 4K resolution). This might be caused by the polarizing filters on the TV that allow you to see the 3D effect without glasses. Whatever the case, those AS 3D TVs simply didn’t look as good as straight-up HDTVs. And that’s a problem. A step forward in technology shouldn’t result in a step backward in image quality.
We’re facing a similar situation with the rise in passive-glasses polarized 3D TVs (film pattern retarder method). They’re cheaper than the active glasses systems, but they sacrifice the resolution. OK, that’s a rant for another day.
Back to the last problem I see with AS TVs. They send the wrong message. With several TV manufacturers showing off glasses-free 3D, and every media outlet talking and writing about how very soon we can all dump the crummy glasses, consumers are getting mixed messages, and I believe they’ll act on those messages by sitting on their hands. Why go out of your way to spend 2K on a 3D TV now when you believe that in another year AS TVs will arrive.
Small screens such as cell phones and hand-held games are another matter, but a TV is an investment you plan to live with for years.
But will large AS TVs take over the market? I don’t think anyone in the industry seriously believes that, at least not in the near future. If Toshiba’s 20-inch TV sells for $3,000, what will a 50- or 60-inch model sell for?
To make any of this work, manufacturers need to stop rushing to show off what they can do, and instead step back to consider what they should do, what their message is and how to pacify, rather than elevate, consumer confusion.

Ok, I’ll add bryan catmull to the list as well.
I’m sick and tired of semi-finished products, and 3D TV is a perfect example of technology that was pushed to the market, and when the industry notices that people are just not taking it for granted, they try to push it as hard as they can to the end consumer.
3D TV, as it is today, has no future, and I’m sure that all of you that bought your brand new of the shelf miracle are going to regret it, and will be changing your tv sets as obsolete in less than 2 years.
Once again, this is product that was put out to the market, so that the companies could say that they have something new, and take some more of your money.
I have just read the above article by Grant Clauser, and the comments
by Uros, are totally unjustified, the explanation as outlined by
Grant are easily understood or should be by anyone with the
basic knowledge of what 3D is and the problems in trying to get it launched, the major problem is lack of programming, the early days
of color broadcasting suffered from the same sort of problems
eg ; lack of programs and technical problems re the reception
in various areas, as well as color phase problems,
Uros if you are going to call anyone an idiot, ( judging by your comments,)
it should be yourself,
You, dude, you are an idiot.
“To make any of this work, manufacturers need to stop rushing to show off what they can do, and instead step back to consider what they should do, what their message is and how to pacify, rather than elevate, consumer confusion. “
So, could you explain the real benefits of 3D at all when it comes to TVs?
It’s just, as always is, a wish to get some more money from the customers, but this time by the technology that the people don’t need at all.
Home theater, automated lights and a high-tech fish tank.
Home theater, automated lights and a high-tech fish tank.
A new CEA study says that more builders are offering all types of technology.
It’s hard to imagine life without remote controls, but it’s been a long, strange path to the modern incarnation we know and love today.
Bryan, thanks for coming to my defense. I believe a couple of things need to be made clear here—people who buy 3D TVs now aren’t ever going to need to replace them even if the format doesn’t take off. 3D is just one feature on an otherwise good HDTV. If you want to buy the best TV from most brands, it’s going to have 3D capability in it, but you don’t have to use it. Many TVs have audio, video, networking features that not everyone uses—same thing.
Second—what does 3D bring to the experience? That’s easy. It’s fun. It’s enjoyable. Isn’t that what home entertainment is supposed to be? But if you don’t like it, don’t use it—problem solved.
Third—more content. Yes, and it’s coming, but it never comes fast enough. If it happens, and 3D becomes a popular feature, then content will come flooding into the streets and a few years from now we’ll all wonder what the fuss was about.
Fourth—did companies put out 3D TVs to make more money? Um, yes! That’s what companies do. If it’s not your cup’o tea, than don’t buy one, but don’t be rude about it please.