Declarations last week from Sony and Panasonic that 3D-ready televisions will be in homes from 2010 signal that the technology has finally shed its gimmicky image and moved mainstream.
But although, unlike older 3D technology, the current crop won't cause viewers headaches, for those involved in programme making they are only just beginning.
Despite last week's headlines, displaying a 3D picture in the home is the simple part. Retooling an entire industry to produce a very different product is more challenging.
In particular, how many of the well-worn techniques of 2D story-telling can survive the addition of a third dimension, and how audiences will react, is largely unknown.
Early adopters
Just as for everything from VCR tapes to DVD formats, there will be wrangling over formats, too.
Sony and Panasonic say they will provide a full-HD experience, by dividing the 3D hardware between the television and a pair of "active glasses".
But the first 3D channels, including BS11 in Japan and a British Sky Broadcasting-run channel launching in the UK next year, use polarisation 3D like that becoming common in cinemas.
The costs of transmitting 3D footage is the reason for the broadcasters' choice, says Tom Morrod at media analyst firm Screen Digest. Delivering full-HD in three dimensions requires double the bandwidth of a 2D broadcast, while the lower-resolution, polarised approach is much cheaper to transmit.
Back to film school?
But the costs and complexities of transmission and home viewing are just the beginning of the problem. "The science of shooting in 3D is still young," says Mike Fisher at media analysts Futuresource Consulting. "The nuances of filming with the new systems are still being learned and developed."
Despite the apparent imminence of 3D home sets, Richard Yeowart at UK production company Arena TV says there's no sign yet of the commercial 3D camera rigs for filming with the new technology. "I think the trend has taken manufacturers by surprise," he says.
Arena has got its best results so far by strapping two lightweight high-definition cameras together onto a standard fixed rig. But the result loses the versatility allowed by a 2D camera.
Eye-popping shots
To capture an object in the most eye-popping 3D, the separation distance between the two camera lenses is set depending on the distance to the subject. That presents problems when the subject in shot moves towards the viewer, says Yeowart.
When filming a British Royal Family event earlier this year, he found that he had to tweak the camera separation distance, reframe the shot and refocus several times as the Royal procession approached the camera. "You need to have a lot of cameras available to switch to, to give you time to do the adjustments," he says.
Sky has ideas to fix that problem, says Gerry O'Sullivan, leading the firm's product development. His team are experimenting with motorised rigs able to easily adjust separation distances, returning some of the flexibility of 2D to 3D shoots.
"We have the freedom to pan and zoom and focus," he says.
Slower paced
Even with that freedom, filming in 3D will have to be different. The brain demands more time to process 3D scenes, says Yeowart, meaning very short shots bewilder audiences. "Typically in a sports event there are cuts between shots every 2-3 seconds, whereas we're talking about 5-10 seconds for an individual shot in 3D."
If 3D forces editors to slow the pace of their cuts, it will reverse a well-documented and long-established trend towards shorter scenes that has seen "average shot length" decline steadily for decades.
While headlines and consumers alike focus on the cost of the new kit from Sony and Panasonic, the real technological story will be very much behind the scenes as production companies scramble to adapt.
No comments:
Post a Comment