On some abstract consumer technology plane, DVD is screaming “I’M STILL HERE Y’KNOW!” – before the format has time to even been phased out, the replacement to DVDs replacement (sort of) is being developed.
If you’re not a regular reader, here are some links to my two other pieces on 3D, albeit they are in reference to 3D cinema but my overall opinion on the format, contradictory though it may be in places, is linked.
3D: An in-depth review
3D – A Reprise
The spec for blu-ray 3D has been finalised, detailing what the requirements of new hardware is to support to extension on the war-winning blu-ray format. Simply put, many blu-ray manufacturers had the foresight to include minor additions that will ease the transition, including the fashionably late Toshiba having patched up their wounds. Also, amongst them, is Sony, the creator of the format, who have already demonstrated their specialized 3D displays and have ensured tha their blu-ray players, including the Playstation 3, will support 3D Blu-Ray, despite the PS3 hardware being mostly unchanged since it’s release in 2006.
Furthermore, all 3D blu-ray discs are required to have a 2D option, both of which in full 1080p high definition, which is a good thing as it eases the transition between formats for those who don’t succumb to “early adopters syndrome” if the format is unsuccessful. It also means that studios needn’t produce two seperate discs and so if nobody upgrades to use 3D right away they won’t lose money that they’ve sunk into a 3D disc and the 2D ones will make up the sales.
Because of this, the entire format smacks of a new feature, or something extra, rather than a total format overhaul. But now we move to the real crux of the matter, will anyone buy into it?
In a sense they don’t have a choice, if they want to buy a 2D blu-ray they will be buying into 3D discs automatically and soon, like HD-Ready TV’s, it will be difficult to buy a living-room sized TV that doesn’t support the new format, not that it’s a bad thing, the same will probably apply to blu-ray players of the future, and already many have bought into blu-ray players that happen to be 3D-ready as well.
Financially therefore, it’s a win-win situation, it’s there if the customer wants and they have to pay for it regardless, and the consumer has the choice to use it or not with it being of little consequence to the manufacturer. I am, like many, yet to test 3DHD on my home TV so I can’t comment from experience, but I still feel awkward about it, as 3D is a far from perfected technology that, though it’s become well and truly settled into cinematic conciousness, may not be able to adapt.
When you go the cinema, you go to see a film, you’re seated with others in a darkened room that has been adapted, indeed built, for the very purpose of optimising and enhancing your viewing of the feature. When you watch a film at home, you can do similar things but you may not want to, you may be half-watching it whilst doing housework or any number of things whilst turning your head every so often to see the film. It’s much harder to do that for a 3D film as you’re wearing the glasses and your eyes have to adjust suitably to get the full effect. Perhaps that means that people will only use the 3D feature for the first viewing, or special occasions if they can muster enough glasses. However, for casual viewing people will be better off using the 2D version as it allows much more flexibility in what one can do whilst watching it.
Like I said, however, consumers will benefit from having it available, even if they seldom use it, the manufacturers have little to lose if they include it alongside a 2D version, as they must, if nobody uses 3D and studios benefit from still getting as much money back from blu-ray sales, regardless of customer preference for 2D or 3D.
3D is, and will always remain, something of a gimmick, but if it’s a cheap and profitable gimmick, it might be just what’s needed.
I should probably also mention I’m seeing Avatar in 3D on Tuesday.