‘Pop-out footballers’,pop concerts and popular films

Abstract

Using a case study of the British pay television (TV) service Sky 3D, this article considers the current barriers to mainstream adoption of stereoscopic three-dimensional TV (3D TV). Exploring the history of 3D TV technology and the public discourse around 3D on TV, the article argues that the digital 3D TV aesthetic remains rooted in two-dimensional production models and restrictive genres/formats that stifle 3D storytelling and experimentation. Given these current limitations in broadcast content and the continuing influence of home electronics manufacturers, the article argues that 3D TV will struggle to have more than a fluctuating appeal in the consumer marketplace.

Keywords

Attenborough BSkyB Sky 3D stereoscopic 3D television

We are very positive about 3D at Sky … the growth of the sector is very pleasing. … Britain is really driving this 3D television space. (Cassy, 2012)

In October 2010, the British commercial pay television (TV) operator British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) launched the first British stereoscopic three-dimensional TV (3D TV) channel, Sky 3D.¹ The launch came 8 months after BSkyB showed the first ever live digital 3D TV broadcast of an Arsenal–Manchester United match in the English Premier League. By the time of the Sky 3D launch, up to 1500 pubs around Britain and Ireland had broadcast its stereoscopic sports coverage to an estimated one million viewers (Giardina, 2010: 32). The opening months of Sky 3D’s programming relied heavily on such sports coverage (the Ryder Cup, darts and Premier League matches), which ran alongside existing Hollywood 3D films (Monsters vs. Aliens, Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon, 2009; Avatar, James Cameron, 2009) and occasional factual/live broadcasts (Keane in concert, Swan Lake from the Royal Albert Hall). While this content featured occasional flourishes, such as the Sir David Attenborough-fronted Flying Monsters 3D (Sky, 2010) and the final of the talent show Got to Dance (Sky, 2011), it became clear that the limited range of 3D TV programming was almost as big a stumbling block to the technology’s long-term success as the perennial stereoscopic issue of 3D glasses.

This article will explore the current state of 3D TV by focusing on BSkyB as a key player in the global push towards domestic stereoscopic broadcasting. While other broadcasters have experimented with this technology (Discovery 3D, Penthouse 3D, ESPN 3D, Nintendo, Canal Plus, British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], etc.), BSkyB’s multimillion pound investment in production, distribution and promotion of this technology makes it an ideal focus to think about where 3D TV has been, where it might be going and the barriers that exist to its mainstream adoption. To do this, the article will focus briefly on the history and early aesthetics of 3D TV and analyse the public discourse that exists around stereoscopic TV; a discourse that appears (in part) to fuel the fluctuating appeal of 3D TV in the consumer marketplace. Taking a reception-based approach to both 3D TV as a concept and BSkyB’s attempts to control the format and content of British stereoscopic TV, the article will assess how 3D TV has been discussed, and whether it can break free from its two-dimensional (2D) roots. Given BSkyB’s insistence on only commissioning 3D programming that can be transferred to 2D channels, the article will consider if this model of production has stifled 3D experimentation or if the barriers for technological expansion exist at the level of domestic equipment as much as that of broadcast content.

A brief history of 3D TV

As emerging work on stereoscopic 3D cinema is making clear, the history and content of 3D media are necessarily more complex than the popular discourse around these interlinked technologies. In the case of 3D TV, discussions about and experiments with stereoscopy date back almost to the beginning of TV broadcasts. As early as 1941, inventor John Logie Baird’s continued attempts to add colour and stereoscopic effect to the TV picture were described as an attempt to create ‘the complete illusion of reality … [where] the original scene is reproduced with depth and has the appearance of solidity – as though it were being watched through a window’ ( The Times, 1941: 2). This reference to stereoscopic TV offering a solidity of image and acting as a window was an echo of popular discourse around the Victorian stereoscope, a visual device from the 19th century that displayed stereoscopic photographs and drawings for a domestic audience, which had described itself as offering images that presented ‘the world … in all its solidity and reality, as if we were looking out of a window’ (quoted in Schiavo, 2003: 129).

That potent link to assumptions and attitudes gained from other stereoscopic media (notably film) continued in later reports on different systems in Britain and the United States. The centrality of the debate around wearing special viewing glasses for 3D TV can be seen as early as 1944: ‘coloured glasses … corresponding to the left and right eye images’ were a crucial element of Baird’s invention ( The Times, 1944: 2) and a ‘not very successful’ American 1950s experiment linked its badly defined images to ‘the audience wearing glasses’ (Lewin, 1953: 8). While the latter article discussed how 3D TV ‘made the cinema owners shiver’, it actually points to a recurring issue across both media, which is the alleged unpopularity of viewing glasses. When 3D TV returned in the 1980s, the addition of colour added more problems: analogue TV systems would not work with the polarised glasses used in cinemas, with many processes relying on a ‘pale blue and dark red colour combination … which gives an almost full colour view from one eye and a monochrome image from the other’ (Harden, 1983: 140). The 1980s experiments occurred across multiple countries, but most were frustrated by the glasses issues, particularly the need to produce and distribute millions of pairs of glasses to the potential audience. One alternative option, for an ‘electronic glasses system that you would plug into the back of the set’, was dismissed as too expensive and ‘hardly a commercial proposition’ (Volk Mol, quoted in Harden, 1983: 142). Given the debate that continues to rage around passive and active 3D TV systems in 2012–2013 (see below), this 1980s argument has yet to be settled.

These historical examples do not feature the level of financial investment that BSkyB has committed since 2010 but they do point to a continued interest in applying the technology to TV: in the United States, for example, 1950s 3D movies such as Miss Sadie Thompson (Curtis Bernhardt, 1953) and Kiss Me Kate (George Sidney, 1953) were shown in 3D via Select TV and Free TV in the early 1980s, an episode of Mork and Mindy (American Broadcasting Corporation, 1978–1982) was the first 3D production for mainstream broadcast TV in 1982, and the 1989 Rose Bowl was broadcast in partial 3D (Hayes, 1989: 120–121). In Britain, the BBC broadcast segments of ‘old 3-D horror movies’ on its popular science show Tomorrow’s World (BBC, 1965–2003) and regional commercial broadcaster TV South (South of England) showed a 30-minute episode of The Real World (Independent TV, 1982–1985) filmed in stereoscopic 3D, featuring clips from short British 3D film Royal Review (Robert Angell, 1953), and requiring red and green tinted viewing spectacles (Salem, 1982: 18). The aesthetic choice of these British examples is largely unrecorded, although The Real World reportedly featured ‘presenter Sue Jay shaking a duster in front of the screen … as if she reached right into our living room to tickle our noses’ (Salem, 1982: 18). Notably, reports from these British 3D experiments suggest that monochrome 3D was used in both cases, because of the problems of showing effective colour in 3D TV given the bandwidth of broadcasting systems.

The issue of aesthetics is key in many of the discussions being summarised here, and is directly related to the revival of 3D TV in 2010, given BSkyB’s decision to adopt a conservative policy around the use of negative and positive parallax within their 3D broadcasts. The Real World example suggests that negative parallax (where images come ‘out’ of the screen) was a particular highlight of the show, an unusual claim given that (in the film industry at least) negative parallax is seen as a gimmick and a disturbance of the immersive nature of narrative (Johnston, 2012). A later BBC experiment in TV stereoscopy featured during the annual Children in Need charity telethon. A special short episode of Doctor Who (BBC, 1963), entitled Dimensions in Time (BBC, 1993), was described as visually ‘very disappointing and … off putting to the lay viewer … it cannot reproduce a scene in its original depth’ (Smith, 1994: 19). Here, the claim is that positive parallax (imagery that appears to retreat into the screen, providing the illusion of depth) should be the main aim of 3D TV, not the ‘coming at you’ gimmicks. This 1990s experiment was also an attempt to broadcast a 3D image that 2D viewers (those without glasses) would be able to watch at the same time: while not successful, it does point to a continual desire within the TV industry to produce imagery that could be viewed in both 2D and 3D formats, rather than embracing the possibilities of ‘full’ 3D image-making and storytelling.

The impact of 3D TV on the domestic viewer was key to many historic discussions of the technology: from a sense of ‘intense viewer involvement’ that prevented low attention span (Harden, 1983: 143) to concerns that 3D might make the domestic viewing experience more solitary because ‘a small movement from the dead centre produced disagreeable results’ ( The Times, 1941: 2). Recurring issues around 3D systems, including causing illness or eyestrain, appear in many articles from the 1940s through the 1990s, with each new process (whether on film or TV) regularly linked to such claims. These concerns over the audience, the viewing glasses, the technology and the content of 3D TV would be repeated with the introduction of digital 3D TV in the late 2000s.

Digital 3D TV and Sky 3D

3D TV is going to be event TV. It can be an international football match or it can also be an important programme. But I don’t think 3D is going to be much good on trivia. It’s for programmes that really mean something. It does require your attention. (David Attenborough, quoted in Singh, 2010: 7)

Sir David Attenborough’s 3D documentary, Flying Monsters 3D, which featured the famous broadcaster alongside computer generated dinosaurs, was broadcast on Sky 3D on 25 December 2010. As the first of several Attenborough-fronted shows for Sky, it helped develop the ‘factual’ and ‘natural history’ strands that the company identified as key genres within 3D TV (after movies and sports; Cassy, 2012). Yet, while such format and genre experiments (including entertainment show Got To Dance, documentary Trevor MacDonald’s Queen and Country (Sky, 2012) and short dramas Little Crackers (Sky, 2012)) remain an essential step in the development of 3D TV, they still make up a small proportion of BSkyB’s 3D output and are commissioned as programmes that can be shown in both 2D and 3D versions, thus restricting any creative usage of stereoscopic composition and narrative. As the quotation from David Attenborough suggests, 3D TV is currently in a situation where particular events (such as the summer 2012 Olympics, broadcast in 3D by the BBC and Eurosport) dominate the stereoscopic TV landscape, rather than the bulk of mainstream TV. This establishes a sense of what is currently dominant – and acceptable – within the global stereoscopic TV industry and excludes many popular TV genres (reality TV, soap operas, comedy, etc.).

Sky’s own website offers a strong flavour of the current place of 3D within global TV industries (BSkyB, 2012). Although Sky 3D is British focused, it remains one of the very few international 3D channels to broadcast a range of programmes, rather than being limited to one genre/format, as the 3D channels for Discovery, ESPN or Penthouse have been. Mirroring John Cassy’s description of Sky 3D’s generic focus, the Sky 3D website breaks its content into ‘Sports’, ‘Entertainment’, ‘Movies’ and ‘Documentaries’. Of the 12 programmes listed during July 2012, when the site was visited, 11 were BSkyB co-productions, with the Olympics 3D on Eurosport as the only non-Sky element. Given the main Sky 3D page preloaded with the ‘Sports’ element highlighted, with the promise of ‘at least three live sporting events in 3D each week’, and with the Entertainment listing dominated by the recordings of live concerts/arts events (a Kylie concert, a production of Swan Lake), the channel’s aesthetic emphasis on sports-led and live programming content seems clear.

The dominance of live events within 3D programming (whether sports, live events or special 3D broadcasts) has relied on an aesthetic approach that was developed for 3D sporting events (a set number of camera positions, limited editing possibilities and slower editing pace) and which restricts the sense of composition in depth that 3D TV might be capable of. The broadcasting (and recording) of concerts or live art shows (such as ballet and opera) mimics existing approaches to sports events, particularly those that take place in stadia or arena, where camera positions can be established and tested in advance. 3D aspects of liveness can, therefore, be contained within the existing production frameworks; this still includes certain limitations, however, as the uncertainty of the live event means ‘the amount of depth you get from 3D TV will be wasted on live shots’ that cannot be planned or directed in advance to make best use of the stereoscopic effect (Mike Reddy, quoted in Misstear, 2010: 17).

The limitations of the current 3D aesthetic led some commentators to reject 3D content as ‘limited at the moment’ (Brown, 2011). This tends to reaffirm Attenborough’s belief that only certain ‘event’ TV programmes will be necessary or relevant in the new technology. Expansion of the 3D aesthetic and 3D content beyond its current offering will be an essential step in converting more of BSkyB’s 10 million strong subscriber base to the 3D channels than the ‘tens of thousands’ who had signed up in the first year (Brown, 2011). Initially, available only to subscribers of the BSkyB top tier package (£63 a month, which includes all sports and movie channels, where new 3D content has coalesced), from April 2013 subscribers to different packages (sport, movies, etc.) were given access to the relevant 3D broadcasts for those packages. Yet, even with this expansion, Sky 3D has yet to achieve mainstream success, and it is not clear whether BSkyB will prioritise the expansion of new content or formats, or demonstrate a willingness to move out from its current (arguably restrictive) 3D filming practices.² While BSkyB has been eager to link 3D to the (ultimately successful) introduction of high definition (HD), the comparison necessarily elides the different technological challenges facing stereoscopic TV, not least the need for viewers to upgrade to a new TV set, engage with the ongoing debates around active and passive systems and deal with the perennial glasses issue.

Although BSkyB insists that it is ‘very positive about 3D … [and] … the growth of the sector is very pleasing … [with] a real uptake in sales’ (Cassy, 2012), the sale of 3D TV sets has been described as ‘slow, despite heavy marketing’ with ‘considerable consumer resistance to the … glasses’ (Brown, 2011). Indeed 3D increasingly ‘marketed as just one of the [television] set’s benefits along with features such as Internet-connection capability and LED backlighting’ (Adam Thomas, quoted in Sweney, 2011). If 3D is not regarded as a necessary or essential part of the future of TV, then the need for future experimentation is reduced. Meanwhile, the BBC, whose 2-year experiment in 3D production and broadcasting ended in summer 2013, noted falling audience numbers with each successive 3D programme they made (Shillinglaw, 2013). This current uncertainty in the UK TV industry, and the ‘patchy future for 3D TV’ (Sweney, 2011), has been affected by a decrease in box office figures (and apparent demand) for Hollywood 3D films (a key component of Sky 3D), and a 2012 survey that suggested only 6% of UK households had invested in 3D TV, with 60% of consumers regarding the technology as ‘mere hype’ and only 15% seeing it as ‘must-have’ (Knapman, 2012: 1). While that 15% would be an increase in current numbers, it may not be enough for BSkyB to continue to invest as it has in the first 2 years of Sky 3D.

Although BSkyB has other broadcast and production partners in 3D production (such as History and Discovery), the company is also reliant on the expansion of 3D TVs led by consumer electronics companies such as Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba and LG. Yet, these companies see 3D TV as simply one arm of a burgeoning stereoscopic media business, covering 3D film, 3D TV, 3D Blu-Ray, 3D computer technologies, 3D video games and 3D camera equipment. A channel such as Sky 3D, therefore, is simply one part of the spectrum of stereoscopic imagery that 3D equipped TVs could carry in the future. Those TV sets are still encountering consumer resistance due to a combination of economic recession, consumers' unwillingness to wear the viewing glasses in a domestic situation and confusion around passive and active systems. Active shutter systems (used predominantly by Sony, Samsung and Panasonic) display two images on the TV screen; electronic shutters within the glasses then open and close in time with those images, ensuring that the correct picture is transmitted to the correct eye and delivering the illusion of depth. Although described as providing a more effective picture (brighter and more colourful, with less ghosting), active shutter systems are more expensive, feature-restricted cross-manufacturer compatibility and require batteries to operate. The passive system (favoured by LG but also used by some Panasonic sets) is similar to the cinematic polaroid glasses-based system used since the 1950s; superimposed images on screen are filtered by the lenses so that the correct eye is sent the correct information. Passive systems are cheaper, do not require a separate power source, but are seen as providing a lesser 3D image.

Manufacturers have made regular announcements regarding glasses-free TV sets since 2011, suggesting a TV equivalent to Nintendo’s successful 3DS console, which has used a lenticular glasses-free screen since 2010. Toshiba promoted new technology that delivered ‘nine sets of 3D images to overlapping zones and uses an embedded camera to determine the position of the audience in front of the TV’ (Nuttall, 2011), but its 55-inch set is unlikely to be a major contender in the home market until it reduces in both size and price. The recent announcement of a glasses-free TV from the alliance of Cameron-Pace, Dolby and Phillips (Cohen, 2013) created more buzz, despite the 5-year release timeline Dolby was working towards (Vlaicu, 2013). Such activity suggests the major electronics companies remain invested in 3D, but the future of 3D TV within the consumer electronics landscape remains unclear: while the addition of ‘glasses free’ TV sets might go some way to offset consumer reluctance, the time lag before such sets come into the mainstream may again mean that a channel like Sky 3D has no reason to innovate or expand the 3D content options.

Conclusion

3-D is not an end in itself: depth reproduction must be used to reinforce the programme content; to give our dramas characters who look more like human beings, less like flat shadows; to bring extra information content to every factual programme; to present sports such as football and cricket with more vivid display of physical skills within the three-dimensional sports arena. (Smith, 1996: 10)

3D TV exists in an uncertain technological and broadcast situation, and is still far removed from the stereoscopic future imagined by Charles W Smith in the mid-1990s. As a key player in the global 3D production and broadcast industry, BSkyB produced hundreds of hours of unique 3D TV content and continues to invest in new 3D programming: by the end of 2013, another two Attenborough-fronted series, Kingdom of Plants (Sky, 2012) and Galapagos (Sky, 2013), will have aired, along with factual commissions Storm City (Sky, 2012) and Inside the Mind of Leonardo (Sky, 2013), more sports programming and the regular diet of Hollywood 3D movies. Yet 3D is not simply another additive technology, like digital and HD, which increased the picture and audio quality of TV; it is also a creative tool that needs to push beyond reinforcing programme content or simply providing more information. 3D as currently envisaged by BSkyB is additive: programmes need to be viewable in 3D and 2D versions, to be a show ‘that can run on Sky One as well as Sky 3D’ (Cassy, 2012). However, if 3D can be viewed in 2D, then what is the advantage or value of the 3D image in the first place? Unless the creative and aesthetic aims of 3D TV are embraced, unless audiences appreciate what they gain from 3D TV (and that the 3D experience is worth watching), then it may struggle to succeed.

In the end, BSkyB might not have the final say in the future of 3D TV. That may come down to the TV set manufacturers, the debate over passive and active viewing systems, the economic viability of lenticular (or similar) glasses-free TVs or viewers’ desire for multitasking using other computer-based screens while watching TV (something that current 3D TV sets, with the need to wear glasses, make difficult) (Barnett 2010). While some commentators believe that 3D will be a component of all new TV sets, in the hope that consumers will eventually embrace it (Marsden, 2011: 6), the current move towards on-demand TV, downloadable programming and mobile platforms (media players, tablet devices and games controllers) might reduce the desire for stereoscopic TV entirely. Or, as David Attenborough has argued, the primary focus of 3D might remain the live broadcast and the occasional event. The future of Sky 3D is safe for now, with co-production deals that continue to stress those key areas of movies, sport, factual and natural history. However, unless 3D TV is ready to expand its aesthetic horizon by moving away from the primacy of the live broadcast approach to content, it seems likely that 3D will remain within that restricted set of genres and formats, unlikely to grow beyond a niche technological event.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Barnett

(2010) Another dimension but 3D TV has yet to score with consumers. Daily Telegraph, 26 August, 33.

Brown

(2011) I love TV innovations: so why am I a 3D refusenik? Guardian Unlimited 19 January. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/jan/19/3d-tv-sky-refusenik (accessed 30 July 2012).

BSkyB (2012) Sky 3D. Available at: http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/3d/?DCMP=KNC- (accessed 30 July 2012)

Cassy

(2012) 3D TV – Britain as a world leader. Paper presented at 3DStorytelling conference, London, 22 March.

Cohen

(2013) Cameron-pace group, Dolby and Phillips strike 3D alliance. Available at: http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cameron-pace-dolby-philips-3d-alliance-1200335710/ (accessed 30 July 2012)

Giardina

(2010) 3D Blooms in Europe; Europe pioneers 3D TV content. Daily Variety, 15 September, p. 32.

Harden

(1983) Stereoscopic cinema. Cinema Papers 43: 134–145.

Hayes

(1989) 3-D Movies: A History and Filmography of Stereoscopic Cinema. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Johnston

(2012) “A technician’s dream?” The critical reception of 3D films in Britain. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 32(2): 245–265.

10.

Jones

(2013) The future of 3D TV. Paper presented at 3D Creative Summit conference, London, 27 March.

11.

Knapman

(2012) Consuming the digital olympics. Brand Republic News Releases, June 4, 1.

12.

Lewin

(1953) FEAR comes in with the focals. Daily Express, 22 May, 8.

13.

Marsden

(2011) To 3D or not to 3D – that is the question. The Independent, 21 June, 6.

14.

Misstear

(2010) Ryder Cup golfing action to be highlight of Sky 3D TV launch. The Western Mail, 30 July, 17.

15.

Nuttall

(2011) Toshiba leaps ahead of 3D TV rivals. Financial Express, 2 September.

16.

Salem

(1982) 3-D TV. Starburst 4(12): 18.

17.

Schiavo

(2003) From phantom image to perfect vision: physiological optics, commercial photography, and the popularisation of the stereograph. In: Gitelman

Pingree

(eds) New Media, 1740-1915. London, UK: MIT Press, pp. 113–137.

18.

Shillinglaw

(2013) 2012: a landmark year of 3D TV. Paper presented at 3D Creative Summit conference, London, 28 March.

19.

Singh

(2010) 3D? It’ll never take off, says Sir David. Daily Telegraph, 16 December, 7.

20.

Smith

(1994) Out of its depth. The Journal of the Royal Television Society December–January: 18–19.

21.

Smith

(1996) 100 years of 3-D movies… and the second 100 years. Cinema Technology April, pp. 8–10.

22.

Sweney

(2011) 3D TV ‘set to struggle in UK’. Guardian Unlimited, 20 June. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/20/3d-tv-set-to-struggle-in-uk?INTCMP=SRCH (accessed 30 July 2012).

23.

The Times (1941) New progress in television: Mr. Baird’s invention. 19 December, p. 2.

24.

The Times (1944) Progress in colour television: Mr. J.L. Baird’s latest invention. 12 August, p. 2.

25.

Vlaicu

(2013) The future of 3D TV. Paper presented at 3D Creative Summit conference, London, 27 March.