3D and HD television some personal views

A few comments on 3D viewing. Where it works well it is well worth it, but as you will see from my arguments below it needs more thought, and I am not in any way against it as a visual experience but please let's have it done right.

My new TV (Samsung PS64D8000 SMART TV) has several modes which split into Native and Simulate 3D. 3D is automatically selected when using a 3D DVD player, 3D sky side by side (half HD resolution, by transmission method) has to be manually selected as the TV has no idea that the picture is split in half horizontally, it's just a picture to the TV.

I am pleased I went for Plasma now rather than LCD because although less impressive in the shop, the skin tones are way better on Plasma than LCD, also the LCD just has (unless you go for LED) a flouescent tube lighting it up which will age and deteriorate. The most impressive programme so far in HD is Britain's Got Talent - really cracking.

So back to 3D. Taking a cinema film with a decent 35mm pickup in camera - either film or digital (video), and putting the TV into Simulate mode is extremely acceptable as most shots have a shallow depth of field. This is fine as the director is determining what you look at in frame as that's the only item in focus, so your eyes don't flit around the screen.

The problem we now have is that in HD the shots almost want holding for longer as there is so much detail in the frame, and it's more like putting up a photograph, in that you want time to absorb all the things in the frame. Indeed this holding the shot still for longer was tried with "Last of the Summer Wine," and it got appreciative audience comments.

But in 3D terms that's exactly NOT what you want to have the audience do - have their eyes flit around the screen.

What works well in 3D is Natural History programming where you are taken in close up to bugs on leaves - that sort of thing. Again of course it’s shallow depth of field.

Where it goes wrong is in wide angle where everything is in focus and the scene just frankly looks like a pop up cardboard cut out scene in a children's story book.

This applies to quite a bit of material and sports matches on SKY 3D. Wide angle far away shots look fine as items at a greater distance will all be in focus to the eyes. So that looks okay. But to put a group of players close in on screen in a football/rugby match and still have perfect focus in depth, and to add to that the crowd who are also in perfect focus behind, is a complete brain no no. But that's how they shoot it. It looks like an over the top gimmick which quite frankly distracts from the content.

A director commented in High Definition magazine, "Just give me a good screen with plenty of detail in 2D and smooth motion, and I am very happy, I don't want gimmicks".

Interestingly my colleague watched the FA Cup Final in 3D and he made two comments: (a) I didn't realise the players ran so much, and (b) I lost sense of the game as I was absorbed by the 3D.

Also of course, our perception of depth in 2D is given by the foreground moving faster than the background on a camera move. But to have that added to everything in perfect focus doesn't work, as it makes the scene look as if the distant hills are a painting hung up and the medium foreground is unreal, like being stuck on a clear plastic strip. /p>

I made these comments the other day to a SBFVM meeting and got an immediate response from a member who said that's why in the 1950's PYE rejected 3D for exactly the reasons you are giving, that scenes just look unnatural.

Some dissolves are very disturbing to look at, and items that come into the screen bottom left or right corners also seem disturbing.

For 3D viewing it is also a shame that the LCD glasses reduce so much of the screen brightness. And, because of the left eye right eye switching, any kit with front panel displays flicker noticably (because the electronics is scanning the segments) and room lighting needs to be high frequency flourescent or DC, not AC mains based so as not to flicker.

I have to say having watched various material I am much more conscious of how my eyes work, like picking out a group of people at a table in a bar, where they are the only ones in focus, and all other tables are still there but no longer clear. The amount of pulling focus is going to be the nightmare, but decent feature films seem to manage it; it's the documentaries and sport that are going to be much more difficult, where nothing is as pre-planned as a scripted film.

This needs the broadcasters and programme makers to reconsider how this should be presented to the viewer, otherwise they are going to kill it and consign it to the gimmick box.

by Mike Sanders