Stereoscopic 3D in the Studio: We Need a Standard

We recently attended a brief conference about stereoscopic 3D display technologies that can be used on the desktop. I found it fascinating how much progress companies like Planar and MacNaughton have made in this field. We got a chance to try out some of their products, and they've got setups that are both easy-ish to use and light-ish on the wallet. Plus, they use passive polarized glasses, so there's no heavy investment in big bulky headsets.

Which brings me to the point of this post. When we were comparing the Planar and MacNaughton products side by side, we found that the glasses designed for one product wouldn't work on the other. I can understand the thinking behind this, they want to distance themselves from the competition and maybe they each have patents for a certain type of polarization.

But I think this is a big mistake.

The truth is, there is always going to be competition between two or more companies developing stereoscopic displays. That's the business environment we work in, and, for the most part, competition between companies is good for everyone. It makes each company focus on what they do best and work on new tech and products, which makes them more efficient, more productive, and capable of better results. It's good for the consumer, as we know, because competition tends to drive quality up and costs down. But, there's one area where competition is NOT beneficial. That's in the standards used to govern the way each product is used.

Most of you who are reading this are familiar with the story of the PC, and how IBM's product came to dominate the market. Even today, computers that "aren't PCs" (like Mac) are really built on the same basic underlying framework as all other PCs. Why was this design so successful? Because it wasn't dominated by any single manufacturer. Any manufacturer who wanted to could make a product to plug into a PC motherboard, through the standard ISA bus. Even better, the motherboard itself, the case, the peripherals, all of these things were virtually interchangable from one PC to the next. This meant that consumers could purchase a PC and know that they could upgrade it in any number of ways. It also meant that manufacturers didn't have to worry about which standard to use or which brand of computer to make accessories for. Making an ISA card meant that it would (usually) work in any PC.

Okay, yes, so in this case having a standard interface made the PC more attractive than proprietary hardware. What does this have to do with stereoscopic 3D?

They need to create a standard interface. This means that, if a manufacturer is using polarization to create the stereo image, they should use the SAME polarization as their competitors. This is not a "nice to have". This could make or break the ability of these manufacturers to put their product on everyone's desktop.

Imagine, if you will, the future. Cars don't fly, but maybe they use less gas. BluRay has been made obsolete by broadband streaming. Soda cans recycle themselves so you don't have to. And, in every 3D studio, whether it be character modeling and animation or technical visualization, has one or more stereoscopic displays. Perhaps every artist has his or her own stereoscopic display. We're more productive. We're able to work more intuitively. Hopefully, we don't have headaches.

Okay, have you got that image in your mind? A studio full of stereoscopic displays? Good.

Now, imagine that half of the displays require one set of glasses, and half require a different set. As a professional, you've probably invested a bit of cash in comfortable and halfway stylish glasses. But when you want to visit another studio, or maybe even a colleague, you can't take your glasses with you. Instead, they have to provide you with some cheapo glasses that who knows how many people have worn before you. When you go to a "3D" movie, you have to use yet another set of glasses for that. Not to mention stereoscopic TV in the home, or advertising, etc etc etc.

Now, technically, all of these displays could be compatible. They're all using some form of polarization to provide the stereo image. Imagine a world where all polarized stereo displays used the same standard for polarization. You could invest in a good pair of glasses, and know that they'll work anywhere. You could wear your glasses in public and check out 3D images in ads or kiosks. You could wear them at home or in the theater.

I think this compatibility is essential if stereoscopic displays are ever to become mainstream, even ubiquitous. Forcing viewers to wear glasses is enough of a hurdle. Forcing them to wear five different types of glasses just to protect your proprietary display technology isn't going to fly. If we continue down this path of incompatibility, I can see two results: either stereoscopic displays will continue to be a niche product, or some third party will create an open standard and current technology will become obsolete.

Stereoscopics has the potential to become the next gotta-have of television and computer displays. The last thing anyone needs is a standards fight. This would just force users to take sides, and this would split the community. More likely, though, we consumers would look at the expense of supporting multiple incompatible display types and just not bother to jump in. And that would be a shame.