IFC222010 - Submission by Ray Callaghan

From: Ray Callaghan Sent: To: 3DTV Subject: 3D TV trials

Regarding the trials of 3DTV, I feel I should express my concerns.

I believe the consumer protection issues must be more strongly addressed. As a consumer, I was under the impression that they were currently just getting started, and expected to grow gradually as content became available, but that the format was already decided. I am disappointed to learn on your website that the format is sub-optimal, and that the trials are temporary; In so much that the format being suboptimal (the 2d+delta being more efficient on bandwidth should become the preferred approach, especially considering how valuable the use of spectrum is,and the outlook on future spectrum availability) decreasing the likelihood of the current technologies and equipment being future-proof, if the format were to change.

However overall, I believe a 2D+delta is the preferred approach, especially in terms of re-use of a signal that is transmitted anyway; similar to the chominance being added to the luminance signal to make colour TV over the top of the existing black and white TV; this analogy applies both in terms of backwards compatibility, and in terms of spectrum re-use. Also, given the current temporary and unfinished nature of 3DTV standards and trials, I feel that sales and advertising of 3D TVs are misleading; seemingly with the term "3d ready" being used for almost any display capable of 120Hz, regardless of whether it would actually be likely to support 3D content once it does become formalized; or leaves the trial phase. Consumers may be caught unaware, especially in the wake of previous standards being called temporary but being used as-is unchanged, such as Wi-Fi Draft-N; As a consumer, I was expecting the current 3D technologies to grow from whatever they were at the start; not to radically switch; although if such a switch is expected, sooner is better than later.

For better consumer awareness, I would suggest that at least two of the leading formats so far be publicly advertised, with an easy-to-remember name, and a way to distinguish between them, and a way to promote a devices support of them; similar to with DVD-R, DVD+R, and DVD+/-R. The existence of multiple formats helps consumers realize what is out there, adds caution, and compels multi-format-support, all of which benefit consumers.

In terms of the technical formats; free-to-air TV is unlikely to be the market leader in terms of content, or reason to buy; If people are talking about Avatar, they will mention the 3D. If people talk about state of origin, they will mention the score. Free-to-air will always be a few years behind the other formats like Cinemas, Blu-ray, and gaming, and people are less likely to buy equipment specifically to watch that old movie that is coming soon to TV than they are to buy it for that new movie coming soon to Blu-Ray; and that compatibility with those other technologies will be a key factor in determining what equipment people purchase; and therefore what broadcasters will subsequently need to provide or be compatible with.

I have tried using 3D in gaming several times, although constantly found cross-talk to be an issue, either with red/blue, or with shutter glasses; and that for a suitable experience to be presented, the glasses, display, and content must all be calibrated together (e.g. exactly the right amount of negative image in opposite frame to cancel out the cross talk from the shutter switch-over and from the screen LCD response curve; or to have the colors of the glasses match the emitted light frequencies and colour balance); which on a TV has the advantage of being all combined, typically with the glasses made for the screen. I feel that glasses being brand-compatible is of low importance, as they would not quite match the precise calibrations properly; even if they did show the correct eye at the correct time; albeit this opinion may change if the price of glasses becomes unreasonable.

I believe that if further trials are made, that additional requirements should be imposed, both on broadcasters in terms of onscreen notices; and on manufacturers, in terms of advertising; to ensure consumers are aware that it is only in the early trials; especially the first-in-the-world part, which may help to underscore this, since consumers may assume America already has a format settled, and Australia will just use whatever they used, once we get around to doing it. As to the temporary nature of the trials, a gap in 3D content availability (dead-air) between trials, etc may help to underscore the temporary and limited nature of the trial.

Regards, Ray Callaghan