Comparison between the adoption of Color TV and Stereo3D

[cybereality]

I am trying to piece together the similarities between the adoption of Color TV and the current state of Stereo3D. Although not a direct correlation, I do think there is something to gain from looking at how color tv became popular.

First off, color technology was around for a little while before it made it into consumers homes. The first color set was demonstrated by Bell Labs in 1929. Later in 1940, CBS did some experimental field tests in color. In 1941 NBC also began doing some color field tests, but as there were no commercially available color sets this was mostly for the engineers and the press. Between this time and around 1948 both CBS and NBC did R&D on possible standards for the transmission of color tv. Interestingly enough in 1945 RCA demonstrated a field sequential color 3D television. By 1949 the FCC requested that the companies submit their standards for approval. In 1950 they initially choose the CBS system but with huge opposition from RCA, who had a competing standard that was not yet ready. After some deliberation RCA won and the FCC approved the NTSC standard in 1953. This is when the ball really got rolling.

In 1954 RCA released the CT-100, the first commercially available color set. It cost $1,000 and had about a 5" screen. In the same year NBC began broadcasting a few shows in color. Its important to note that NBCs parent company was RCA, so they had a huge financial interest in promoting the adoption of color. NBC continued to support color in a limited fashion and by 1959 had some regular weekly dramas aired in color. The other two major stations, CBS and ABC, largely ignored color until the 1960's in part because they did not want to promote their competitors product. In 1961 Disney broadcast the Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color on NBC and was considered a tipping point for the popularity of color. Although color was very much known throughout this period, even as late as 1964 only 3.1 percent of television households in the U.S. had a color set. A big boon for color happened in 1965 when NBC announced its prime time schedule would be almost entirely in color. By 1967 all 3 major networks were broadcasting full-color prime-time programming. 1972 was the big tipping point, with color tv sales exceeding black & white and also the number of households in the US with a color TV reached 50%. This same year they stopped showing the "In Color" notice before shows, so this can be considered the victory point.

Ok, now what can we learn from this. First off, color did not get much traction until the NTSC standard was accepted (largely due to its backwards compatibility with existing transmission standards and display technology). We are not yet at that point. There are a few boards/companies/researchers attempting to develop standards, but nothing is ready right this moment. Although a few companies have promising technology, we are gearing up for another BetaMax/HD-DVD fiasco. Second point: the networks were recording and airing color broadcast before even color tvs were commercially available. This is in stark contrast to today where we have 3D-Ready HDTVs, but no content. I know they are doing some test broadcasts in Japan and soon in the UK, but nothing yet in the US. One major point to take from all this is that the largest proponent of color was NBC/RCA which sold the dominant tv set at the time as well as controlling the broadcast media. This is a key point to look at. Its also interesting to note that Disney helped in part to promote the color standard, which has a direct correlation to stereo 3d with "Disney-3D". Also note-worthy is that is took nearly 20 years from the point where they had a standard and a commercially available product to the point of mass adoption. We are not even at that point yet.

So what does this all mean for stereo 3d? Well first off, we need to look at who has a stake in 3D or could possibly have a stake in 3D. What company is the RCA of today? I've done some thinking and I am pretty certain it must be Sony. They have a large stake in the television market. They own a number of Hollywood studios. They basically own the dominant distribution media for the next 10 years (BluRay). They have a popular video game platform (PS3), with the ability to stream HD-3D content directly into peoples homes (circumventing any issues with cable standards). They are a household name with brand recognition and large marketing muscle. They have shown some interest in stereo3d and have a few working prototypes that could be ready for commercial consumption within the year. They are the one company we *need* on our side. I think this warrants further investigation.

Assuming there is a direct correlation, I would say we are at around 1950 in "color-tv time". Right when there were a few competing standards but nothing yet commercially viable. If we take 1972 as the point of victory, then that would be a 22 year wait. Its 2009 today, so that would take us into 2031 before 3D was the norm. Thats a little long for my tastes, I would hope it might be quicker. If we also consider how quickly HD has gained popularity, then we can assume that timeline would be much less. Even so, we are looking at another 10 years, at least, before there is any regular 3D programming on major stations. Hopefully with the advent of BluRay and digital distribution there will be other avenues for 3D to take hold. I guess we will wait and see.

So what do you guys think? Is this making any sense? Did I miss some important events? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Rosomack]

I think we can safely assume that technology is being developed much faster now than during the 50s-70s. I think the fact that Moore's law is satisfied as far as microprocessors go speaks for itself.

Development isn't a problem - it's the speed at which it will be adapted for widespread use - tv stations and game companies being probably the most influential in this aspect. In my opinion it all comes down to the fact that someone's got to take that first big step and until that happens 3d will be a niche market.

Ten years is a good estimate though - with HD having already taken a comfortable place in our homes heads will soon turn to stereo 3d development. (hopefully )

[craylon]

the strange thing for me is that even as a fan of watching stereo content the step 2d>3d as it is happening now in the cinemas isnt as a great leap as it seems to be at first impression.

i remember as a kid i had only b&w tv (while my parents had a color tv).
back in these days i had the feeling "i wish i could see it in color"
if i compare this to watching lets say ice age 3 in 2d vs the digital 3d version i dont get a similar longing for watching the content in 3d

maybe its because even if its 3d it doesnt feel "real" (as in beeing in the movie in real life)
or its because that even in the cinema with top notch equipment i get a bit of eyestrain from it
or its because as long as i can remember i watched movies/ tv shows in their colorfull flat format
or its because that if you tell a story (in a movie) the basic visual elements are alreaddy there and the plu on information b&w>color was greater then color>3d unless you can walk around in the szene and are completely immersed

also if i would have to choose whats more important: viewing a movie in 1080i or in 3d id say my personal experience was more enriched by the step towards high definition then towards stereoscopic presentation.

i cant really put that feeling in words that tells me 3d is cool but it still isnt waaaaay cool.
well maybe if they would broadcast everything in 3d for a year or 2 and then go back to 2d i would feel the difference more but atm for me hd-2d does a good job telling me a story and 3d is still a bit of a gimmick.

[yuriythebest]

cybereality great article!! thanks for writing!

will be interesting to see how swiftly 3d will be adopted, I agree- the "Win" will be when "nameOfShow/Movie 3D" will once again be truncated to just "nameOfShow/Movie" - I still think the world is anywhere from 5-20 years away from this. Will be cool when at least select shows (not just episodes) will be broadcast in true 3d.

EDIT: Oh how quickly things change in this day and age
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[funkee]

nice story Cyber, but there are some very important differences:

- The economic climate worldwide is much different from the time of introduction of color, HD, or anything else.
- The price erosion we have seen on TV's in the past few years has been nothing short of staggering. You can buy a 42" full HD, super bright and thin LCD TV for a price that would not even have bought you a 32", low contrast, 60kg, bad geometry, out of focus,CRT 5 years ago. Adding cost for a 3D feature with the customers (either in the TV set or in the glasses) is a hard sell for many people.
- Sony is not doing great when it comes to making money in the TV business, making heavy investments hard.


All of this simply means that they will do it if they really believe in it. Which I hope they do.

[Gae43]

i cant really put that feeling in words that tells me 3d is cool but it still isnt waaaaay cool.
well maybe if they would broadcast everything in 3d for a year or 2 and then go back to 2d i would feel the difference more but atm for me hd-2d does a good job telling me a story and 3d is still a bit of a gimmick.

I was watching my home made side by side version of "Friday the 13th part 3 3D" last night. Some of the scenes were still in 2D as the method I used meant that not everything came out in 3D... I matched the 2 different 2D releases to get the 3D effect. Here are some of my observations. At first, when the 3D scenes came in, I definately had the "wow" factor. The 3D is almost perfect in this conversion. The weird thing was that after watching in 3D for a while, I actually forgot the film was in 3D and just viewed it like a natural looking film. It was as though my eyes had accepted the initial noticeable differences, had adapted and then started to perceive the 3D in a natural way. But, when the film reverted back to a 2D scene the difference was very noticeable and the 2D image, in comparison to the 3D image, just seemed very flat of course, but more than that, also lacked the aliveness and zap of the 3D image. Any depth that I was "seeing" before had to be "perceived" or "imagined" now. Also, in 3D, just as effectively, objects seem to have a shape and density to them...something that doesn't get picked on that much. When the character picked up the kettle, you could see the roundness of it and sense the weight from it more than when in 2D.
For me, going from 3D viewing to 2D viewing is as noticeable as swithing from HD to SD or, maybe a better comparison would be, from Colour to B&W.

I think after watching 3D for a period of time, the effect definately wears off, is less noticeable and you start accepting it as normal vision. It's only when it reverts back to 2D that what is lacking is obvious. Side by side comparisons of 2D/3D images have always been used in Demos of course...it is an effective way of illustrating the differences.

Gae43

[Gae43]

and now I'll use one simple scene from "Friday the 13th 3D" to illustrate why I love 3D so much. It's not a particularly important scene in the film but I'm using it to hopefully show that even the most mundane moments in a film have the drama and impact magnified when in 3D...in a way that can almost revolutionise every scene.

In the film, the hippie guy comes out of the cabin and walks over to the outside toilet. The scene is meant to be a bit suspensful as there is a feeling that there may be a killer on the loose (i.e. Jason)

In 2D
The guy comes out of the cabin, looks around, walks cautiously over to the outside toilet and goes inside. (Nothing particularly special about it, just a basic structural moment in a film to build up some suspense...the type we have seen hundreds of times in movies)

In 3D
The guy comes out of the cabin and looks around (there is a weightiness to the porch and cabin that the guy is standing on, we can see the depth of the woods to the side of the cabin and so we are aware that there is a hidden corner, that someone could be hiding around it...it all adds realism and a bit more suspense)
..he walks cautiously over to the outside toilet (the journey takes a few seconds in real time and we can see that he is walking further and further away from the cabin into the distance and to a place that is isolated and potentially dangerous...that too increases the suspense)
..he goes inside the toilet (when he opens the door, the camera is inside the toilet room and we can see the cabin far in the background giving us a further sense that he is quite far away from safety...the inside of the toilet room has depth to it but in this instance it is a very narrow depth, to the point where we feel slightly claustrophic and trapped)

So as you can see, a simple "nothing" scene in 2D becomes much more heightened and dramatic in 3D from the change of perception. Now add that same quality to every moment in the film and the effect is amazing. An OK slasher film in 2D is turned into a totally different movie where all the drama and suspense is magnified in leaps and bounds.
Watching Friday the 13th part 3 again in true 3D made this jaded viewer feel like he was a kid again, experiencing a horror film for the very first time. My senses were re-awakened and the jadedness of seeing thousands of films over the years was washed away in an instance.

Gae43

[cybereality]

I also had a similar experience when watching X-Games 3D in the theaters. The movie consisted of mostly 3D footage, but there were a lot of 2D shots edited in throughout. It would be particularly jarring to see a high-resolution 3D shot go to a HD 2D shot or at times just an SD DV shot. It was like night and day, or like color to black & white (to try to stick with the topic). So while when watching a 3D movies the whole way through sometimes it doesn't seem too depthful, when it suddenly cuts to 2D it is very clear how much you are missing.