Display technology getting ahead of the market

Peter Jackson's decision to shoot The Hobbit at 48 frames per second brought optical technology into many holiday-party conversations, at least among technologists and movie buffs. Together with demonstrations of video screens with horizontal resolution of 8000 pixels, it raises the question of whether the cutting edge of large-screen display technology is getting too far ahead of the market.

From the production side, it makes sense to record a movie in the best quality available at reasonable cost. It's easy to reduce resolution or frame rate to current mass-distribution standards. Theaters can charge extra for the highest quality screenings, as they have done for 3D. And archival copies should be compatible with the next generation or two of technologies.


From the display side, reviewers had mixed reactions. They found some parts spectacular, but sometimes too revealing. As Lucy O'Brien wrote on the gaming site IGN.com, "The problem with doubling the frame-rate in The Hobbit is a problem of scrutiny; you can see all its tricks."

The push for higher video screen resolution comes largely from the consumer electronics industry. Aided by government mandates to convert to digital broadcasting, the industry persuaded the public to switch to flat-panel high-definition televisions showing 720 or 1080 lines, corresponding to widths of 1280 or 1920 pixels respectively. But the public largely passed on 3D television, and in uncertain times they have been slow to step up to larger screens, so manufacturers have slashed prices to bolster sales.

Two ultra-high-definition formats are in development. One that doubles resolution is called 4K, for a nominal width of 4000 pixels (actually 3840 x 2160 pixels). An alternative called 8K quadruples resolution to a nominal width of 8000 pixels (actually 7680 x 4320 pixels). Some 4K equipment is available, and 8K has been demonstrated. However, big challenges remain, writes Pete Putman of Display Daily, including lack of production equipment and cameras, high screen costs, and the need for much more bandwidth to carry the larger files.

Unlike 3DTV, ultra-high-def won't give you a headache or require special glasses. It makes sense for future-proofing video production, and it could be a selling point for video venues or sports bars.  But for now, ultra-high-def has gotten far ahead of the home television market, which is getting to like today's low prices.

3D falls flat for Olympics

The past few years have seen some impressive innovations in three-dimensional displays. New digital projectors have made 3D movies come alive in theaters, and high-resolution flat-panel displays can bring 3D television to homes. Digital image processing and 3D helped make Avatar the highest-grossing movie of all time. At the peak of 3D enthusiasm, some in Hollywood predicted that soon 3D production would become standard for movies.

Live sports was supposed to be the next great frontier for 3D, and Panasonic and Olympic Broadcasting Services sent crews to London to record 200 hours of the Summer Olympics in 3D. But the effort seems to have fallen flat. Chris Chinnock reports on Display Daily that the BBC logged an average UK audience of 24 million people for the opening ceremonies, only 111,000 households watched the 3D simulcast, a figure he called "pretty dismal." My own informal poll of a small newsgroup discussing the Olympics found no one who cares about 3D, and one who had never bothered to set up the 3D on his Playstation 3. 

Why did 3D fall flat for the world's biggest sport spectacular? It's tempting to blame the lack of promotion, the difficulty of finding 3D coverage, and the decision to delay all 3D broadcasts by 24 hours. But the truth is that few people outside of the consumer industry show much interest in 3D television. Properly done, 3D can be fun—for a limited time. I enjoyed playing with a 3D set in the video store, but the amusement wore off in 15 minutes. I can see where the 3D versions of some movies might be worth a few extra dollars in the theater. But the monsters in the lap gimmick gets old fast, viewers dislike the active shutter glasses for 3D televisions, and too much intense 3D can cause eyestrain and nausea.





A refreshable holographic image of an F-4 Phantom jet is created on a photorefractive polymer. (Courtesy of the University of Arizona)


New technology from NLT Technologies (Kawasaki, Japan) presents different views to both eyes of several people, allowing them to see depth by the parallax effect without special glasses. However, that's no panacea because the brain senses depth in multiple ways, and conflicts between different cues lead to eyestrain, headache, and nausea. Perhaps we'll have to wait for further development of holographic video.