Regarding standardization, SMPTE (Hollywood) is active in the 3D space. CEA (consumer electronics) is active, but has no published 3D standards at this time. ATSC (broadcast) took early action, but it has stalled. The difficulty for broadcasters is that bandwidth costs money, and it's not clear that 3D will bring in more revenue. MPEG is looking at efficient 3D compression techniques.

One can guess that the Blu-ray Disc Association and HDMI LLC are active as well, but these are private bodies, so visibility is limited.

The bottom line is that there is no standardized 3D ecosystem out there right now, but people are working on it. There are 3D products out there, but you have to be really careful that all the pieces fit together correctly. For instance, 3D can be encoded within a frame using a checkerboard, vertical, or horizontal lines. It can also be done from frame to frame with active glasses. If the source uses one technique and the display another, you won't see a 3D result.

I vaguely recall reading something several years ago about how the movie industry was looking to 3D to lure people out of their living rooms and back to theaters since 3D was something that probably couldn't be duplicated at home. Ooops! Now what are production companies and theater owners going to do?

And unlike Gabe Strong, if this technology takes off, I will buy it, provided they make it work well and price it where I an afford it. But then, I've always been an early adopter and a gadget freak!

I am surprised nobody in this thread has seen the Philips 3D lenticular technology. A friend of mine signed on as a dealer. He has a 42" plasma that has built-in lenticular 3D, no glasses needed. The 3D effect was astounding, it really was surreal. The 42" set is around U.S. $10k. 3D glasses are already outdated, that is old technology.

Problem is on the consumer end or even in the broadcast end of things, there is no standardization., you have dozens of competing technologies, different file formats, different stereoscopic production techniques, etc. It is the Wild West out there as far as 3D technology.

After experiencing the Philips technology as well as several 3D theatrical experiences, to me, 3D is a gimmick. A cool gimmick, but nothing that I think will leapfrog forward as far as being a must have for consumers, etc. I don't see it advancing beyond a niche segment for high end films and sports for many, many years. He has a bunch of commercials and 3D demos and while they are cool to look at, the 3D effect is just that, an effect. No different than having a Yamaha DSP effects unit in your living room for your audio system. Sure, it would be fun, but would having all of those cool sound treatments really be an integral part of your listening experience? No, it would still be a gimmick, an effect. 3D is the same.

Dan

Haven't Philips said that they aren't interested in actually producing consumer 3D displays until the format war has ended?

There shouldn't need to be a format war with 3D. Take a look at what YouTube have done with their 3D player. You simply choose from a drop down menu which format you want and the clip is played in the chosen manner on the fly. It will be the same with broadcasters or DVD/BluRay. The signal is encoded, transmitted to a receiver and then the receiver decodes the 3D outputting it in the format that the monitor or TV accepts. The user simply set the receiver to output the signal in the correct manner, even 2D if they want.

But there you are talking about something much more expensive, and something that is "a 3D TV". The point about the other technologies is that fundamentally they are basic 2D screens (at a similar price) which can be used with glasses to get a 3D effect. In other words, easy enough for all screens to "3D capable" (at little extra cost), so why not get one even if you don't expect to use it much for 3D?

Heck, you don't seem to be able to get a screen that isn't HD-Ready now, regardless of whether you can receive HD, I can see a similar situation with "3D Ready".

I think David has hit the nail on the head. In the UK Sky TV are now capitalising on the fact that many homes now have HD ready TV's but are not subscribing to their HD service. They are now trying to convert these SD subscribers to HD with incentives such as free HD receivers etc.

Sony already have a broad range of LCD HD TV's with 100Hz refresh rates. It will be very simple to make these 3D ready and for Sony only cost a few dollars per set. How much the consumer will have to pay is another question, but if I was going in to a store to buy a new TV and had a choice of a regular set for $500 or a 3D ready set for $550 I'de be inclined to buy the 3D Ready set.

As a 3D fan and producer of several 3D shorts, obviously I am keen to see 3D broadcasting. Even so I don't think it will be as main stream as HD until some kind of glasses free technology matures to the point where it is un-noticable, has a wide viewing angle and costs little more than a regular TV. Until then 3D is likely to be reserved for movies, high end drama, sports and high end documentaries.

I foresee them selling the 3D ready set for more like the same price.

My logic:
1/ Gives them a selling point over other manufacturers - "ours is 3D ready!".
2/ Forget about the extra $50 per screen - make your money selling the special glasses. A household may buy one with the screen "to try it out", then everyone in the family doesn't want to be left out, so oh OK, we'll buy a few more pairs so everybody can have one.
3/ Kick start the uptake. So more consumers say "where's the programming?" So broadcasters see a demand - and have to buy the new cameras to produce it. Win-win for manufacturers making the 3D ready screens?