February 23, 2012 – A group of 3DTV experts meeting at ScreenPlays’ Media Innovations Summit in December provided much-needed clarity on questions such as the pace of consumer adoption, barriers to content availability, prospects for glasses-free viewing and key steps to winning mass market acceptance. This edited transcript of their discussion offers strong support for the long-time viability of the new viewing experience while providing a frank assessment of the challenges. Participants include:
Steve Shannon, EVP, Consumer Electronics, RealD
Rick Dean, chairman, 3D@Home Consortium, SVP, THX
Will Gaddy, CTO, HDlogix
Dan Schinasi, senior marketing manager, HDTV Product Planning, Samsung
Moderator – Paul Erickson, senior analyst, Consumer Electronics Research Group, IMS
Paul Erickson – We know that over the past few years consumers say they like 3D, but the question is, given that adoption has been slow, what will it take for them to adopt the technology and the content en masse? Arguably, the consumer manufacturers a few years ago overestimated the premium consumers were willing to pay in order to buy into the 3D ecosystem, which resulted in a few instances of inventory glut and discounting during the holidays. That premium has dropped substantially, but in the current economy it’s still going to be challenged by consumers’ spending habits.
Having looked at consumer purchase intentions towards connected-TV functionality in their sets, my own observation is it may be that 3D will have to get to a premium level that’s slim enough to where it gets adopted mostly because it becomes a check-box feature in TVs consumers are already buying because they like the particular pricing, the display technology, the form factor and other features, and 3D happens to come with it, just like Netflix capabilities. And, of course, there are other factors involved. It’s not just the TV. There’s content. There’s also the infrastructural part that’s required to deliver 3D content. And there are a number of other things, too.
So let’s start with a very general question. From your perspective what do you see as the primary inhibitors to 3D adoption today?
Dan Schinasi – Education or lack of education is definitely a concern. When we first started marketing 3D TVs consumers thought, I still want to watch 2D content, so do I have to buy two TVs? There was an enormous amount of confusion – what kind of cables do I need, what kind of eyewear do I need?
Steve Shannon – I would agree with Dan about education, people coming up to speed, but I don’t really think there is a barrier. It’s a well-established consumer value proposition. People love it. True, the take rates on the tickets have waned a little bit over the past few months, mainly because there are so many movies out that people aren’t necessarily choosing to see every single movie in 3D all the time. But we still have huge, huge participation rates and take rates in 3D, and people tend to like it better. And so the value proposition is well proven.
Probably more to your specific question, what about the home and why hasn’t it taken off the way we all might want it to? I liken it to just about every other consumer electronics technology, which is, to Dan’s point, education. You know, consumer electronics move’s at a glacial pace. We’re all used to the Internet pace, being Valley people and what not. That’s not the way consumer electronics works. It takes years to roll things out.
3D has been going quite fast by other consumer electronics standards. It’s not the iPad, but it’s right up there. It’s going fast. There is a major chicken-and-egg issue obviously for content. If you’re a consumer looking to enjoy 3D, you might be willing to upgrade your Blu-ray player to be able to play 3D for the handful of movies, 30, 30 movies you can buy at the DVD rack at Best Buy, Wal-Mart or wherever. But that’s all you really have, and that 20, 30 titles isn’t probably enough to make you go buy a whole new TV yet.
There’s your barrier. If you’re in the industry, you know that. It’s just time. The consumer electronics industry understands this, and what they’re doing is incorporating 3D more and more deeply into television lineups. Their SKU lineups each year are increasing penetration of TV. And also, as Paul pointed out, the upcharge for the features is going down. What that means it’s becoming a standard feature. It’s going to be hard to buy a TV that’s not 3D a couple years from now, and you won’t be paying more for it, most likely. And as these TVs go onto the marketplace, people may not even be buying them for the purpose of watching 3D.
But you eventually get to the point where you have tens of millions, even a hundred million 3DTVs out there. A couple hundred million TVs sell each year, and all we have to do is get to 50 percent SKU penetration, and we’re putting 100 million 3DTVs out in the market every year. At that point the content guys are going to start finding markets.
If you look at a spreadsheet from the perspective of a TV network today, and you say, I’ve got so many 3DTVs out there, five, ten million, depending on who you talk to, 15 million, it’s not a pretty spreadsheet. It doesn’t make sense to make a 3D channel right now financially. I mean, it does if you’re ESPN, if you’re wanting to learn how to shoot 3D, you’re wanting to gain experience, you’re wanting to be a pioneer and grow the marketplace the way 3Net does, part of Discovery Networks. But the spreadsheets don’t look very good.
But that’s going to change. The consumer electronics companies have already decided to do it. They’re not looking back. They’re not second guessing it. There will be a huge installed base of hundreds of millions of 3DTVs in the not too distant future. People will find a market for that. It’s time. Time is really the only barrier.
Rick Dean – There’s a lot of discussion about the shortcomings of the first year of sales, at 1.3 million sets sold here in the U.S. and about double that worldwide. And the projections, of course, were much higher. But if you look at really what took place during that time, these were people going out and specifically looking for a 3DTV. At that time the economics were really challenging, especially here in the U.S., and there was virtually no content on the shelf.
That’s not bad. In fact, if you look at any other technology that went into the home, you didn’t sell 1.3 million DVD players the first year. We certainly didn’t sell 1.3 million Blu-ray players the first year. Certainly HD took many, many years to really get that first big push. And we had to pass a law to make everything HD to really secure that.
Content is a major player here. But to get a library of 3D content built up, yes, you can look at the new 3D releases coming out now, and that’s a trickle, but there’s a vast library in our archives that can be converted to be a really good entertainment experience. We’re going to see a couple of blockbuster titles coming out this year. One is Star Wars: Episode 1, and Jim Cameron is going to release Titanic in 3D. These are both converted movies.
That science now has gotten to the point where it’s viable and necessary. And there’s a lot of work being done in the little barn houses out in Hollywood to actually do this and create usable libraries. The content is going to catch up.
It’s very frustrating to hear there are all these problems. These problems are coming along. Could we have done better at aligning product and content at the initial release? Maybe so. But when you have a chicken and egg, you have to start out with something first. And thank goodness the manufacturers took a strong stand and at least got us to where we are today.
Will Gaddy – I agree that HDTV is probably a good analog. And if you look at the adoption rate of 3D compared to how long it took HDTV to spin up, the growth rate has been pretty astonishing. Like HDTV when it first started out, there was a paucity of content. Having the occasional trickle of 3D movie titles is helpful, but what’s going to drive this is the broad appeal content, the episodic TV content, reality shows, things like that.
Unfortunately the cost of production for all those pieces of content is so high, and the ad insert rates on VOD and 3D channels, the few that exist, are essentially trending toward zero, because there isn’t the critical mass of viewership for it yet. And on the display side, I think education, again, is key, and not only for the consumer but also for the retailer.
If you’ve been into a Best Buy and seen how these 3DTV displays are marketed and sold and demonstrated, you can see that there are definitely some gaps in how that’s being done. And that leads in to viewer expectations. Viewers have proven they have an appetite for 3D content in the theater. On the home side I suspect that many people are expecting that same kind of experience.
So if there’s any gap between what they experience, say, in a RealD-equipped theater and what they’re experiencing at home, that can translate into frustration for the end user. Someone who may have been marginally interested in the content medium at first, may be frustrated. So I think there are things to work on there as well.
We need to work on the content side, and that’s primarily a matter of cost. But I think it’s encouraging the take rate has been as high as it is
Erickson – We know the premium for 3DTV for both hardware and to some extent content is decreasing, but in this current economic climate do you think that’s also helping to depress consumer adoption of TV?
Schinasi – That’s a good question, and I’m very happy to speak to that. There’s the impression that 3D is at a big price premium. But actually if you look at the mix of 3DTVs we sell, all of our 240 Hz LED models have 3D, so there is no price premium. If you want the best quality 2D TV, you automatically get 3D. If you look at our lower end 3DTVs versus our non-3DTVs, the step to get to 3D is as little as $100. The entry price for a 3DTV is sub-$1,000. It’s an affordable proposition for many people.
Audience question – And are they still having to pay for a $200 pair of glasses?
Schinasi – I’m glad you brought that up. If you rewind the clock, 3D glasses many years ago were $800. It was a RealD scientific product at the time. If you look at last year, the price of eyewear, entry level eyewear was $120 per pair. Today at any retailer for battery-operated glasses, list price for active glasses is $30 and obviously less for passive. So the barriers to entry have significantly declined.
Gaddy – And I think another aspect of this is that as time goes on, a lot of these 3D features will be considered standard add-ons, much as picture-in-picture was. And, of course, I think there’ll be a larger content premium associated with that feature, but eventually it will become ubiquitous.
Schinasi – I have some stats, and I think this paints a very detailed picture of the industry. First, as Rick mentioned, 1.2, 1.3 million units were sold in the first year. That outpaced HDTV. This year, 2011, as an industry we’ve passed through two million units and we’re on our way to three million units. And that three million units for a technology in its second year is on parg with HDTV, LED TV, DVD and Blu-ray in their second year of growth. That’s a pretty good story to tell.
We have NPD [Group, Inc.], which tracks actually registered sell-through. So we can see statistics. And we have statistics through to October. So if we look at the mix of 2D versus 3DTVs year to date, we’re at nine percent. That’s not so bad. But if we really think about 3DTV, it’s a large screen experience. It’s not in your 23-inch models, and it’s really not so much in a 32. It’s in your larger screen.
If we slice this data and we look at 40-inch, the mix is 18 percent. If we look at 50-inch and higher, the mix year to date is 34 percent. And that’s also driving half the dollars. So you can see where manufacturers are putting their attention. That’s all very promising. Estimates for 2012 are out there. I’ll state the expectation is six million, perhaps a little lofty. But we are showing sustained growth, and that’s also very important.
Erickson – Let’s expand on the glasses topic. We’ve heard some talk around the industry that people will find 3D most palatable when they don’t have to put anything on their face. How far are we from having practical glasses-free technology, and is it realistic to assume that it will take the doing away with glasses for people to really like the technology? Or are they adopting it pretty well right now, provided the glasses are inexpensive enough?
Shannon – I’m happy to respond to that, being the display guys. There is a wide array of 3D display methodologies out in the market. In terms of TVs right now, there are two broad categories – active eyewear and passive eyewear.
The passive eyewear is the kind you wear in the movie theater and costs a dollar or two to make. The active eyewear is much more complex, fragile and bulkier. They have to be charged, and are subject to technical glitches or interference, those kinds of issues that Samsung, probably more so than others, is doing a great job of solving. And within those categories there are a few different varieties. And there is autostereo or glasses-free technology.
3D sends two different movies, one to each eye. If you think about autostereo and what is going on there, how do you send two movies to each eye without filtering the wrong movie from an eye? That’s what the glasses do. The shutter glasses literally shut one eye, and it does that at 120 or 242 times a second. With passive eyewear the images are polarized so that they can only go through one eye or the other. So how do you do that with autostereo?
It’s amazing they do it as well as they do by basically shooting the photons in specific directions so that you get your face in the right space and it goes more or less into the right eye. But it never looks as good as the passive eyewear. To your question about how long will it take for autostereo to take over, it’s never going to look as good. For me personally I’d much rather wear a pair of glasses than even the most advanced, most autostereo system you would show me.
I think that’s the way it is going to be pretty much forever. The gap will close a little bit, and there are things like single-user devices where you can hold it and get your face in the right spot. They tend to be half resolution where all the odd columns of pixels are going to, say, your left eye and all the even columns of pixels are going to your right eye. So you see these stripes, kind of, in the screen, because you’re only getting half the columns per eye. So they have a lower resolution look to them naturally.
But at least with the handheld you can kind of get it there. If it’s a TV and you’re talking four or five people on the couch and you’re trying to divide all the pixels up to each eye of the people on the couch, it gets pretty unrealistic. Toshiba is doing a pretty good job of making it as good as it can be, but I don’t think it’s ever going to be as good as passive eyewear.
I think the reality is autostereo on the mobile handsets is acceptable quality now and it will be incrementally better each year. And as far as TVs go, I think it’s probably three or four years out before you have acceptable quality auto stereo, but even then it’s not going to be anywhere near as good as the passive eyewear experience or an active eyewear experience.
Dean – I agree with many of your comments here. From an overall basic level of home entertainment experience, over my years of actively sticking my foot in my mouth so many times and saying that one technology will never get to a certain point, I’ve been surprised many times and proven wrong. But I think one of the challenges we have to face is how that type of device handles regular entertainment in the TV space.
If you’re replacing your old flat panel, which may only be three or four years old, with something new, is that [autostereo] technology ready to take and be the primary viewing monitor in the home? Well, I think that one day it’s going to get there, certainly. There are a lot of other markets that are actively a place where this technology can go – electronic signage, mobile devices. There are a lot of places for it to go and develop and refine itself. I’m sure that one day we’re going to get there.
You ask how many years. We’ve already seen some products that have been promoted to be ready to go today. Again, I would caution that we have to make sure we have a total entertainment experience that’s being replaced with the technology, and we need to maintain that overall quality standard. I think right now glasses have the edge. But next year, the following year, the year after that I’m sure we’re going to see tremendous improvements in the autostereoscopic world, too.
Gaddy – As Rick mentioned, you do have to draw a distinction between autostereo displays on mobile devices and those on a home theater setting. Also, on the home theater setting, you can’t degrade the normal 2D viewing experience. It’s really a matter of time and, more than that, costs. There are some displays available at the upper end of the digital signage market which can perform those functions – glasses-free viewing for multiple viewers at high quality. However, they are fabulously expensive due to resolution.
So basically, in order to get an acceptable HD quality autostereo experience, you need at least a 4K or a 5K display, which means four to six times the number of pixels than an HD display. Those panels exist, but they are extremely expensive. However, you have Sharp and you have a couple of other manufacturers who are announcing 4K displays. So I believe that generally the price point on these ultrahigh resolution displays will come down over time. Eventually demand will meet supply at an acceptable price point and acceptable quality point. If I had to estimate a date, I’d say 18 to 24 months before that happens at the very top end of the market.
Erickson –3D experience on a smartphone is not particularly compelling to me. You have to view it at a particular angle. Given my eyesight, it’s a little bit weird for me to look at it for a long period of time. Do you think it’s practical in your timeframe, because it seems like the implementations are not terrific right now?
Schinasi – Since I’m putting out statistics, I’ll put out one more. This one is from In-Stat. Back in August they predicted 3D mobile devices will surpass 148 million by 2015. So that’s not an insignificant number.
As Steve mentioned, these mobile devices have an advantage. First of all they have high turnover. You get a new phone every two years. The turnover is much quicker than home TV. These mobile devices lend themselves very well to looking at autostereo. They’re personal devices. You can get in that sweet spot. With the flexibility of not having glasses and a product that can display some compelling 3D, there should be some good uptake.
Shannon – I’ve given up guessing what teenagers will like. But 3D is going to become a standard feature on a lot of phones. Whether or not there’s usage uptake or engagement in that whole 3D paradigm has yet to be seen. But as to whether the devices are going to go out in the field and give content operators and Website and app developers a chance to take advantage, that’s going to happen. And my guess is when you have 130 million or whatever devices out there that can do something that’s kind of cool, people are going to find a market.
Gaming is the thing that folks sort of point to as the first early adopter platform. A lot of these devices will have video capture capability, so it might just be videoconferencing with your friend or taking some random video in 3D because it looks cool. And I think it’s really dependent on that teen generation to pick it up or not. If they do, if they have fun with it, it’s going to be a big thing. Nobody knows yet.
Dean – The numbers all sound good. It’s a unique thing; it’s a cool thing. I think what we’re facing is, okay, then what? How are you going to get those images transferred around where you can connect them? And this is where 3D@Home has started a mobile steering team to dive into these criteria.
What are the use cases we can expect a mobile 3D device will need to accommodate to make it the all-around thing? We take pictures on our phone now in 2D. What do we do with that? Well, why shouldn’t we be able to do the same things just as easily with 3D? So what does that take?
We’ve also created an extension of our Steering Team 4, which is to look into autostereo overall, in the home but also in electronic signage and all these other applications as well. What are the criteria that really determine when an autostereo device fits the bill, and what’s the bill? This is really important, because we see manufacturers and technology providers coming out with great stuff, independent slivers of that whole big picture. But we want to make sure we provide the information to the industry so that the entire usage cases and everything else are addressed. You want to have the same flexibility with anything in 3D that you do for 2D, and if you don’t, you’re creating additional barriers to that adoption.
Erickson – I think in the last ten minutes we’ve brought up encouraging numbers as far as adoption of hardware, whether that’s TVs or handsets. That’s encouraging as far as getting that installed base out there.
But obviously usage and actual consumer attraction when it comes to 3D as a concept is also going to be heavily dependent on content. Going back to HD, if you remember back in the early days of HD there were HD sets with no HD content being displayed. We saw that when connected TVs first came up. You had connected TVs with no demos. Actually we still see some of that. There’s no live connection to a lot of the TVs at retail so you can show what the Netflix experience is like. And I think some of that plays into 3D as well.
When it comes to content I see a somewhat similar curve with 3D that we saw with HD in that the first genres of content that drove interest in HD and that will do the same for 3D are your standbys, sports and movies. Do you agree with me in that regard or are there going to be other things that push consumer adoption?
Gaddy – I think sports and movie content will be there, and there’s also a third leg to that stool which we won’t mention in polite company. But basically that’s correct. However, the biggest problem I think the industry faces right now is just the simple expense of producing 3D content.
Let’s take live broadcast as an example, because it’s probably one of the most difficult nuts to crack here. The expense of rolling a 3D broadcast truck to a live event and supporting it with the plethora of stereographers, all the people pulling convergence and all the rest of it, and then the technology that’s involved with all that, you’re talking about not a marginal increase in costs. Currently, it’s a multiplicative increase in costs.
There are some companies that are using some clever things to try to get around or at least mediate that cost. For example, Cameron Pace is advocating for the use of combined 2D and 3D production workflow, and that reduces duplication of personnel. But you’re still at a cost level that’s fairly high to support a live event.
And then you have other vendors – 3eality, Technica – who are applying some very clever technology to bring to bear on that problem by reducing the number of active personnel for each camera position and letting computers do some of the work. And on top of that you have conversion vendors.
Conversion for live events has been a mixed back. I think Sony or maybe it was JVC provided some of the background conversion for the World Cup with some mixed results. And then on top of that each of these vendors tends to think that their way is the only way. So it’s very seldom you see a hybrid event where the right tool is used for the right job.
That’s actually the approach we’ve taken with our productions at HDlogix. We’ll use a mirror rig when it’s necessary, like for a low and close camera position. But if you’re using long shots, which are very popular in sports – the guys with the big box lenses, gyroscopically stabilized lenses, doing very long shots from far away – with a stereo rig those images tend to be flattened out, the depth perception tends to be cardboarded. So in those cases we advocate disparity-assisted conversion, so you’re actually using the real disparity from the camera system and then projecting it with 2D-to-3D conversion.
Right now everyone seems to have their own religion about the way to produce 3D content. There’s a lot of religion but very few miracles here. What’s really needed is a sensible approach to hybrid production, and I think we’re starting to get there. But it’s been a little slow.
Part of the problem has been, frankly, a lot of these broadcasts are not paying their own freight. They’re not getting ad insertion rates that justify the cost of the broadcast. So many of them are sponsored by broadcast equipment manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic, where there’s a tendency to use only one type of solution for a particular broadcast. That’s not going to help us mature the industry and get us to a lower price point for production.
Schinasi – Just to add a little to that, there are certainly challenges on the production side, but once you have content, there’s some good news, and that’s the delivery method we can use to get this into the home. With HDTV it was just the broadcast medium. With 3DTV we have broadcast, not traditional over-the-air broadcast, but through satellite as well as cable and telco providers, we can get 3D into the home. There’s package media. We have the Blu-ray standard, so we can get package media into the home. There are games available for Xbox and PS3 that are available in package media. And there’s a third leg, which is over-the-top with connected TVs. The majority of TVs are connected TVs, and through side-by-side or frame-compatible methods we can actually get content to the TV as well. That opens up some more opportunities to expand the content.
Shannon – I take a look at the financials underneath making a TV show in 3D, because that’s really the missing component. It’s nice we have Blu-ray, and ESPN 3D and 3Net from the Discovery Channel are great. But the reality is what people watch on TV are mainly popular TV shows. And there are no examples of popular, mainstream, heavily promoted TV shows that are delivered in 3D.
The Glee movie was in 3D but not the Glee TV show. Perfect demographic for 3D, perfect type of content for 3D, but the economics don’t make sense. When you really look under the covers, as Will pointed out, the economics of a lot of these things are already on the hairy edge.
TV production schedules are really tight. They’re packed in to every last possible second, and making things just under the wire. You throw 3D into the mix, budget considerations aside, it’s just the complexity is daunting for them.
And then of course there’s the cost of production. Arguably, if you were really shooting 2D and 3D simultaneously and using the same workflows, maybe it should be 15 or 20 percent more. But right now it’s a lot more than that.
Ultimately we will get to that 15 to 20 percent and not have to impact schedules. We’re just nowhere close to that right now.
But even if you got though all that and you managed to deliver American idol in 3D, when you say, okay, how much ad revenue would you be generating from that, the thing is, it’s still completely experimental because the installed base is so small. So you get a few advertisers, probably some big automotives, packaged goods or whatever, who might want to toy with it for the experience of it. But they’re not going to get any significant amount of impressions that would anywhere near justify the actual ad buy.
So there are just a lot of hurdles still, and it all ties back to the installed base. Once you’re got 20, 30 million TVs out there, everything starts to change, and that hopefully will converge with all these production cost reductions and workflow simplifications that are already starting to happen. It’s going to take a couple of years.
Dean – I’m more concerned about the first time when that consumer who may have just happened to come home with a new 3D when they went out and bought their new flat panel or projector, notices these glasses in the box, takes them out for the first time and wears them. That 3D experience really should be the most startling, exciting experience we can possibly provide them, because if it’s not and the production value is diminished because of budgets or whatever, we’re not really promoting the true quality of 3D as a format or as a communications medium.
So I would almost say that for us to look at 3D in every single case of watching entertainment, it’s rather daunting and that’s going to take a good long time. I think where we really have to focus is on delivering good quality 3D in special events – pay-per-view where the consumer is actually paying extra for the content, an extra exciting movie, sporting events, concerts, games, all these other usages of the entertainment products in the home. I’d be very disappointed if the first experience of a 3D program after buying the product is something that is marginal at best.
Shannon – Premium is absolutely key. When movies were coming out it was easy for the small group of 3D insiders to really be on top of it, because it was one movie at a time. We’d all get in there and lean in and do our best.
With TV it’s the Wild West. There’s no way to keep a finger on it. Bad things can happen. There are technologies like these sort of automatic real-time 2D-to-3D conversions that get built into TVs that honestly can’t be great in that situation. People get excited to buy the 3DTV, bring it home, flip on the auto 2D-3D converter and say, is it really 3D? I can’t really see it.
All kinds of things can happen. Keeping a focus on premium quality for 3D is absolutely imperative. Probably the biggest risk to consumer adoption I see overall is that if just one out of ten experiences is good, that’s not going to do it. People are just going to lose interest. Finding a way to stay on top of that as well as to try to coordinate the consumer electronics part of the experience, the sort of seamlessness so it doesn’t feel like you’re a technical geek when you’re watching TV – those two things, to go back to your barriers question, are really paramount.
Gaddy – There’s no shortage of 3D content in my opinion. There’s a shortage of high-quality 3D content. There’s a lot of very badly shot 3D content. Working with some of the broadcasters and distributors, the QC (quality-control) pass rate for a lot of this 3D content that’s inbound to them is single digits or closely trending there. There’s a lot of content out there, but nine times out of ten it just won’t make it to air because it’s just shot so badly.
Erickson – Are there some specific titles that you think really show off the power of 3D as it can be replicated in the home?
Giddy – Hugo seems like a broad appeal, lovingly produced piece of content. I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but all the people whose eyes I trust tell me it’s a fantastic rendition and a great way to use 3D. I’ll give the standard answer: Avatar in 3D is obviously a major, major tent pole which unfortunately has been locked up in proprietary distribution with a certain CE company. I don’t think that sort of lockup has helped adoption rates.
Pretty much anything on the three legs of the stool – sports, cinematic content and the other unmentionable – will be what drives adoption here, not just for TV but for mobile and online platforms. There’s a tendency to be very TV-specific here. But if you look at changing consumption patterns across the industry, especially in the younger segment of the market – I’ve watched my five kids all crowded around a little nano device watching a TV program on a tiny display. I look at that and it’s completely foreign to me. Whatever business models and whatever content is developed has to work well in that medium as well.
Dean – I want to go back and visit the challenges again, and this is key to this as well. This is all the negative rhetoric we’ve heard over time about 3D causing eye issues and being the cause of problems, rather than exposing them. We’re learning more and more about what the human visual system from a clinical standpoint is able to actually do and enjoy.
There have been extreme 3D effects which notably are not good. There’s been the under-effect which has been less exciting. We’re experimenting right now with exactly where that swings, what type of movie and how aggressive you can get with the 3D effect.
It’s a matter of educating the professional. 3D@Home has been doing a lot of that. THX has always been able to pick out what entertainment experiences work, what don’t; we’re helping the business as well.
So the type of aggressive use of 3D effects we’ve seen is being fixed over time as an industry initiative right now. That’s encouraging. There’s a lot of very intensive work on how we can do a better job.