For Digital TV Europe.net February 24, 2010

From every angle, 3D looks good, at least so far. The record audiences for James Cameron’s hit movie Avatar prove customer demand for the ‘near-real’ viewing experience. Now TV manufacturers are keener than ever to roll out another must-have screen while, for pay-TV operators, 3D provides the next big driver for new and upgraded subscriptions.

At least that is what the executives at BSkyB will tell you. And it’s true that 3D is a technology that provides a much more enhanced viewing experience than HD. There is the nagging issue of the funny glasses, but more on that in a bit.

Sky has already begun to treat HD as the basic TV format, announcing that it will no longer provide SD set-top boxes, even to subscribers who don’t subscribe to HD services. The current Sky HD boxes are future-proofed for 3D, which means no expensive box change out required if, and when, subscribers decide to make the leap to 3D. (Actually one irony for Sky is that using the HD set-tops to deliver 3D actually means that the 3D signal is in SD. So one step forward is accompanied by another step back.)

However, 3D consumers will have to buy a new 3D TV. Sky, of course, has thought of that and has enlisted four of the biggest screen makers – Samsung, LG, Sony and Panasonic – to make Sky 3D-compatible screens. And I do mean Sky-compatible because there are other flavours of 3D being tested and promoted – with no decision by any international standards body yet in sight.

By being first out of the box and seeding the 3D market, Sky is trying to set a de facto standard, which has annoyed some others in the market, not least the free-to air broadcasters.

But Sky is putting its money and substantial weight behind its own version of 3D: it is the first platform operator to push this new technology hard – and we all know from experience how good Sky is at selling new things to its millions of subscribers. A Sky 3D channel will be up and running by April.

The overall cost of moving to 3D is actually less than from SD to HD, say analysts. But at the moment shooting in 3D is still 20-30% more expensive. While sport is considered the big driver, Sky One, a general entertainment channel, has a “multi-million pound” commitment to commission 3D, including factual, drama, comedy and arts programming.

Of course Sky is not alone in seeing the possibilities. The cinema business is anticipating charging a premium for 3D films, and pirating 3D films is nigh impossible. Meanwhile, the games business is interested in the lifelike effects 3D gives to game play. Sony PlayStation has a 3D console in the works (Sony also has 3D Blu-ray), while the TV manufacturers can’t wait to sell high-priced sets to high-end consumers. Analysts DisplaySearch forecasts 3D-ready TVs will grow from 200,000 units in 2009 to 64 million in 2018.

Sky has already broadcast its first live 3D sporting event. The January 31 Arsenal v Manchester United Premier League match may have been a bad day for Arsenal but for Sky it was a triumph: the pay-TV company sent the signal to nine pubs equipped with 3D screens as well as to a venue inside the Emirates stadium in London where journalists were invited to watch. The result was impressive, especially the graphics. Close-up shots were best, but wide shots from up high in the stadium were no better than HD.

The problem is that football is not the most 3D-friendly sport and it will take a while for producers to find the best camera positions. But because sport will be the big 3D seller, football has to work because the vast majority of sports subscribers are football fans.

And there is the issue of the glasses, which is a problem for those of us who already wear glasses (me included) and so have to balance the 3D specs on top. The Sky version of 3D is relatively low-cost in terms of the eyewear department but it is not the cost that is the issue. I think it is the idea of wearing glasses full stop. It’s one thing to wear them at a cinema. But at home? On the couch? Will they go missing like the remote control? Yes, they will.

And there are other 3D variations and that could mean everyone having another pair of specs for their games console or their Blu-ray. It could get a little confusing.

So what’s my take on it? I think that pay-TV operators have a great opportunity to lead the way in 3D technology. They screen plenty of live sport (easily the best thing to watch on 3D) and it’s another key way to upgrade consumer subscriptions.

But for other than hard-core sports fiends and techno-geeks, I think reassurance will be needed over whether the 3D screens people buy will work with various other sources of 3D content and glasses, and that everything will be interoperable.

When a significant capital outlay is required, like a new 3D screen, it is imperative to avoid customer disappointment and confusion. Disillusion is a hard thing to claw back from, even if it is in 3D.