As prices creep down and the business case improves, the market for 3D displays could more than double by 2011. Our technology correspondent Tim Kridel reports on the competing technologies and different possible application areas.
Three-dimension (3D) technology is all about creating a sense of depth, which also happens to be a good way of describing the field of applications and vendors: By some analysts’ measure, there are at least 40 different market segments in the 3D space and more than 650 companies and other organizations working on or selling various aspects of the technology.
All of that translates into plenty of opportunities – or at least it will over the next few years. “With the recent introduction of 3D display technologies that have image quality comparable to the best 2D LCD displays and only a modest price premium over 2D displays, it is likely that 3D will expand its market share in the next few years,†the analyst firm Insight Media said in a 2007 report.
In 2006, the worldwide market for 3D displays that are 40 inches or larger was worth about $150 million, Insight says. By 2011, it will be worth at least $223 million in a worst-case scenario or as much as $521 million, the firm predicts. Another analyst firm, iSuppli, estimates that the 3D market will grow about 19 percent annually through 2010.
3D 101
Most 3D technologies fall into one of four categories:
Stereoscopic, which requires viewers to wear special glasses in order to see the 3D image. (One common type is called “shutter†glasses.) This approach has been around since at least 1840, and although it’s effective, it has a variety of downsides. For example, in a consumer setting, such as a movie theater, glasses that are re-used have to be cleaned, which is an additional expense. More expensive glasses also may have to be tethered to armrests to thwart theft. And in professional settings, such as building design and health care, some users feel cut off from colleagues in what often needs to be a collaborative environment – to the point that those issues have cut into 3D adoption.
The stereoscopic category also includes headgear that puts a miniature LCD display in front of each eye, instead of just a pair of glasses that the user looks through when viewing a single display. Either way, stereoscopic is a good fit for applications where users will be spending an extended amount of time viewing 3D images rather than, say, just walking past digital signage in a mall or a museum display.
Autostereoscopic, which produces 3D images without the aid of special glasses. Most autosteroscopic systems use either a “parallax barrier†or a “lenticular lens.†The common denominator is that both techniques split the pixels in an image and divert one set to one eye and the other set to the other eye. That effectively tricks the brain into perceiving a sense of depth.
One drawback to autosteroscopic is that most systems require the user to be in a sweet spot in order to see the 3D image. That’s an issue if the application involves multiple people trying to view the display at the same time. But some vendors are making progress in overcoming this drawback. For example, Philips says that its lenticular WOWvx technology – which has been commercially available for a couple of years – has a sweet spot large enough that multiple users can comfortably view a 42-inch display at the same time.
Volumetric, which typically don’t require glasses or other headgear to view the 3D image. Techniques vary widely, from systems that use lasers to create balls of plasma in mid-air, to ones that use a combination of LEDs and projectors that trick the brain into perceiving volume and depth. Common downsides range from the requirement that viewers be in a sweet spot to enormous, expensive amounts of processing power.
Holographic, where images are recorded in three dimensions. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab (www.media.mit.edu/spi/holoVideoAll.htm) is among the research groups developing technology that allows holographic images to be displayed at near-video rates.
The Price is (Nearly) Right?
Regardless of the underlying technology, one challenge across the board is cost: Even in well-heeled verticals such as health care and mining, 3D systems often are perceived as too expensive for more than limited deployments – in other words, just a few per facility rather than one for every employee doing work that benefits from 3D images.
“The major market is still medical,†says Jennifer Colegrove, senior analyst for display technology and strategy at iSuppli.
One example of price as a barrier is the AV installation at the Loro Parque on the Canary Island of Tenerife, profiled in the July 2006 InAVate. Despite being a €1,000,000 project, 3D technology was deemed too expensive.
That’s a common refrain. A basic flat-panel 3D display can start around €3,000, with prices increasing by another digit based on factors such as the degree of customization that the application requires. But there are a couple of reasons to think that over the next few years, those prices should come down to the point that 3D can tap a wider market.
One is competition: With a few hundred companies already in the 3D market, that should increase the competitive pressure and thus push down prices. Another is adoption: As more end users deploy 3D, equipment volumes increase, which help push down prices.
In the meantime, for end users, the business case often hinges on 3D’s ability to improve productivity or reduce costs. For example, in the automotive and construction industries, a €3,000 or €30,000 3D system can be cheaper than fixing a design flaw after something is built. 3D also sometimes can be an easier sell when it’s just one part of a major AV project rather than a standalone application. A recent example of this is the new Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg, presentation facility in Siberia, Russia. An affiliate of the state-owned oil monopoly, the company uses 3D presentation techniques for visualising geological data.
And at companies that have been widely using 3D for decades, new technologies can be an easy sell if they eliminate the productivity-busting eye fatigue effects that often plague older systems, particularly those using CRT technology. So as 3D technology gets easier on the eyes, it’s also slowly getting easier on the wallet.
Some pro 3D installations use a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) design. As the acronym implies, one or more users stand inside a room where 3D images are splashed on nearly every surface around them, creating an immersive environment. “They allow several people to simultaneously explore and manipulate vast amounts of data from all angles in a naturally collaborative environment,†says Allison Illsley, a spokesperson for Christie, one vendor that’s targeting the 3D market. “We are building these CAVEs for various branches of the military to help train personnel, for oil and gas companies to aid in research and exploration [and] for medical, educational and research applications.â€
From Theaters to Kiosks
3D also is making inroads in the consumer market, particularly in gaming, home theater and cinema. For example, at CEDIA Expo in September 2007, Texas Instruments showed off 3D HDTVs from Mitsubishi and Samsung that use TI’s 3D DLP technology. Those models are stereoscopic, so they could help make consumers more comfortable with the concept of wearing glasses to watch movies and TV programs.
TI also is a player in the 3D cinema market, where it says roughly 1,000 of the 4,500 screens using its DLP Cinema technology can show 3D films. At last month’s ShoWest conference in Las Vegas, major companies such as Dream Works New Line Cinema were touting their 3D products and films. They’re hoping to build on the success of recent 3D films such as “Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour†and “U2 3D,†which used technology from 3ality Digital that’s supposed to avoid the motion sickness that some viewers have reported with 3D content in the past.
In 2009, studios could release as many as 10 3D films, according to DreamWorks’ CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of 3D’s biggest cheerleaders. The catch: Few theaters have the equipment – including projectors and glasses – necessary to show 3D films. That limits the addressable market for 3D films, which is why many are being released simultaneously in 2D, too.
But the limited number of 3D-ready theaters also creates opportunities for vendors and integrators, provided that audiences continue to pack theaters, as they have for films such as “Hannah Montana.†In the meantime, studios are greasing the wheels by subsidizing some theater owners’ 3D conversions. And in the United States, Imax will pay AMC Entertainment to upgrade 100 of its theaters to support 3D, at a cost of more than €300,000 per screen.
ShoWest isn’t the only trade show where 3D is making a splash. For example, companies such as Kaon Interactive have developed 3D, touch-screen displays designed for use in trade show booths. The business case is two-fold: First, 3D is one way for an exhibitor to stand out on a crowded show floor, at least as long as the technology remains a relative novelty at conferences. Second, some end users – such as Ciena, a telecom equipment vendor – say they save money when a 3D provides renderings and other information that eliminates the need to cart some of their products from show to show.