Analysis: Internet TV: a fragmented future?

<P align=center><img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/events/IFA2010/sony-internet-tv/sony-internet-tv32-200-200.jpg"></P> <br /><P>Is your TV connected? And if it isn't, does it matter? </P><br /><P>Now in their second generation, 'connected' TVs from the likes of Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Philips and LG that host a web-powered content portal are getting busier – but are they about to be blown away by Google TV? </P><br /><P>All of these web TV platforms are attempts, in various forms, to aggregate content from disparate sources on the internet to make the hardware – the TV itself – more competitive in the market. </P><br /><P>At the moment it's all about content, with the basic YouTube widget usually sitting alongside a range of internet channels – such as Dailymotion, weather apps and, sometimes, an interface for the likes of BBC iPlayer and ITV Player, and even Lovefilm. </P><br /><P><BR>"Every hardware manufacturer is looking for any vaguely recognisable content to put on their device to provide differentiation," says Alison Casey, Head of Content at analyst firm Futuresource Consulting, but she points out a major flaw in these portals being packed with clips from YouTube and its ilk.</P><br /><P>"Maybe on a laptop you might want to watch kittens falling off a settee, but not on a 50-inch plasma. There's a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon here, and an attitude of 'let's embrace everything and see what sticks'. I don't think anyone is getting any exclusivity." </P><br /><P>Google TV: a new hope?</P><br /><P>So what about Google TV? Does the great search engine attempt – debuted recently in the US on Sony's GT1 range – to aggregate video from across the internet and dump it on your TV screen represents a massive shift – and possibly the end for the first wave of connected TV portals?</P><br /><P>"Google TV is a totally different kettle of fish," says Casey of the platform that puts one interface across all content and attempts to make jumping from TV to video on demand to websites, maps, photos and other private content a single seamless experience. </P><br /><P>"Google could make a big difference because they are very competent at generating a lot of revenue from advertisers, and search and recommendation – a big problem in walled gardens of content – could be a good thing for the industry. We've already seen it with the TV networks, which have made their content available online for a seven-day window for laptops and mobile devices to access."</P><br /><P>So why, then, does Google TV appear to have fallen at the first hurdle? 'Watch again' videos on the websites of the major US networks cannot be watched on Google TV devices (from Sony and Logitech) after Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC put up bariers. </P><br /><P>"The minute you deliver it to the TV you've got all of the premium pay TV and networks that pay the content industry a fortune jumping up and down," says Casey. "They pay for the re-transmission and catch-up TV rights, and all of a sudden it's made available for free on Google TV." </P><br /><P>It does seem a strange situation since anyone can simply plug a laptop into their flatscreen TV and watch absolutely anything from any website. Google's legendarily laisez faire approach to content – and its refusal to censor – may be putting-off the likes of Disney, which wouldn't want to see its brand next 'kitten clips', or, indeed, pirated videos. </P><br /><P>"The networks have to protect their cash cow, and in the interim won't talk to Google," says Casey. Are they holding back the tide? It's a legal thing – the moment something is on a connected TV it sits within a different set of rights – but blocking Google TV can only ever be a short-term strategy." </P><br /><P>What can other services offer?</P><br /><P>Other tempting services of the future include Hulu, already available in the US, and UltraViolet, a consortium of companies – including Microsoft, Lovefilm, Fox, NBC and all the major CE manufacturers – that want to create a common standard for digital downloads across software and hardware, giving users an online cloud account that inlcudes a digital rights locker; users can then watch any content on any UltraViolet-certified device, be it a mobile phone, games console or TV. </P><br /><P>UltraViolet is supported by Sony, which, aside from its US-only Google TV attempt, is also striving for a multi-platform content hub all of its own with its new Qriocity service. </P><br /><P>Meanwhile, the web TV platforms of Philips, Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, LG and Loewe have recently been bolstered by a range of apps from app developer BiBC that offer content from ITV, Hit Entertainment, the Cartoon Network, Boomerang andboxoffice365 – a suite of content that costs users £2.99 per month. </P><br /><P>It's largely archive material for now, but it demonstrates the splintered nature of today's content market. "There will an option to take on sports, movies and other content over the next six to eight weeks," says Paul Hague, the Director of BiBC. "Have a look at some of the channels available on Sky you wouldn't be a million miles away from the kind of content on our platform over the coming months." </P><br /><P>At a less advanced stage is DivX TV, which is attempting to use its debut deal with LG Blu-ray players and home cinema systems in the US (it sits on the NetCast platform) as a springboard to launch in Europe in 2011. The current content line-up – including apps from the New York Financial Press, Howcast and Funny or Die (more kitten-based humour?) – seems lacklustre, but that will change. </P><br /><P>"The key difference is that DivX TV is free and Ad-supported – users can start it up and just start using it without a credit card." DivX TV's David Holland told us that subscription-based content will soon be rolled-out, as will music streaming.</P><br /><P>Too fragmented?</P><br /><P>"It's all a bit fragmented right now and there may be some consolidation – and perhaps some consistency on how apps can be developed. At present they have to be rewritten for each different platform," says Holland. "That's what Google is trying to solve, but we'll see what plays out."</P><br /><P>"The next four to five are going to be massively fragmented with a lot of collaborations," agrees Casey. </P><br /><P>"It's going to be messy, but watch out for the big players with deep pockets – Apple's not going anywhere overnight and is clearly going into the living room – but in a lot of territories it's going to be the dominant TV player that already has the subscribers and the content – and other content experts that are big enough to invest and take risks."</P><br /><P>In the UK that could mean Sky or Virgin, both of which are in the middle of a fit of innovation – the former with online video and IP-connected boxes, and the latter with its TiVo set-top boxes.</P><br /><P>Or it could mean YouView, a BBC and ITV-owned joint venture that's due to launch in 2011. </P><br /><P>Summarised as a 'upgrade path for Freeview', Richard Halton, the CEO at YouView told us that the new service – a joint venture between the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva formerly known as Project Canvas – is an attempt to "fundamentally change the way people watch TV forever."</P><br /><P>"You'll get the digital TV you love, plus BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD, Demand Five and SeeSaw, as well as a potentially unlimited range of content, all instantly available on your TV," he told us. So far so predictable, but this is where it could get exciting. "The on-screen programme guide will go backwards in time as well as forwards, so viewers can discover and watch programmes whenever they want." Add HD, pause, rewind and record live TV, a clutch of pay TV channels (including Sky if they can get over their objections), and YouView could be a defining moment in IPTV. </P><br /><P>With so many connected TVs already offering a plethora of services it's tempting to say that YouView could have missed the boat. But we're still to see a genuinely engaging platform that successfully puts must-see content within a next-generation user interface that's as intelligent as it is slick. </P><br /><P>Whether that comes from Virgin's upcoming TiVo box, Sky, Apple, Xbox, YouView, TV manufacturers or an entirely new provider remains to be seen. </P>

Analysis: Internet TV: a fragmented future?

Is your TV connected? And if it isn't, does it matter? Now in their second generation, 'connected' TVs from the likes of Sony, ...

Continue Reading>>

Analysis: Internet TV: a fragmented future?

<P align=center><img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/events/IFA2010/sony-internet-tv/sony-internet-tv32-200-200.jpg"></P> <br /><P>Is your TV connected? And if it isn't, does it matter? </P><br /><P>Now in their second generation, 'connected' TVs from the likes of Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Philips and LG that host a web-powered content portal are getting busier – but are they about to be blown away by Google TV? </P><br /><P>All of these web TV platforms are attempts, in various forms, to aggregate content from disparate sources on the internet to make the hardware – the TV itself – more competitive in the market. </P><br /><P>At the moment it's all about content, with the basic YouTube widget usually sitting alongside a range of internet channels – such as Dailymotion, weather apps and, sometimes, an interface for the likes of BBC iPlayer and ITV Player, and even Lovefilm. </P><br /><P><BR>"Every hardware manufacturer is looking for any vaguely recognisable content to put on their device to provide differentiation," says Alison Casey, Head of Content at analyst firm Futuresource Consulting, but she points out a major flaw in these portals being packed with clips from YouTube and its ilk.</P><br /><P>"Maybe on a laptop you might want to watch kittens falling off a settee, but not on a 50-inch plasma. There's a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon here, and an attitude of 'let's embrace everything and see what sticks'. I don't think anyone is getting any exclusivity." </P><br /><P>Google TV: a new hope?</P><br /><P>So what about Google TV? Does the great search engine attempt – debuted recently in the US on Sony's GT1 range – to aggregate video from across the internet and dump it on your TV screen represents a massive shift – and possibly the end for the first wave of connected TV portals?</P><br /><P>"Google TV is a totally different kettle of fish," says Casey of the platform that puts one interface across all content and attempts to make jumping from TV to video on demand to websites, maps, photos and other private content a single seamless experience. </P><br /><P>"Google could make a big difference because they are very competent at generating a lot of revenue from advertisers, and search and recommendation – a big problem in walled gardens of content – could be a good thing for the industry. We've already seen it with the TV networks, which have made their content available online for a seven-day window for laptops and mobile devices to access."</P><br /><P>So why, then, does Google TV appear to have fallen at the first hurdle? 'Watch again' videos on the websites of the major US networks cannot be watched on Google TV devices (from Sony and Logitech) after Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC put up bariers. </P><br /><P>"The minute you deliver it to the TV you've got all of the premium pay TV and networks that pay the content industry a fortune jumping up and down," says Casey. "They pay for the re-transmission and catch-up TV rights, and all of a sudden it's made available for free on Google TV." </P><br /><P>It does seem a strange situation since anyone can simply plug a laptop into their flatscreen TV and watch absolutely anything from any website. Google's legendarily laisez faire approach to content – and its refusal to censor – may be putting-off the likes of Disney, which wouldn't want to see its brand next 'kitten clips', or, indeed, pirated videos. </P><br /><P>"The networks have to protect their cash cow, and in the interim won't talk to Google," says Casey. Are they holding back the tide? It's a legal thing – the moment something is on a connected TV it sits within a different set of rights – but blocking Google TV can only ever be a short-term strategy." </P><br /><P>What can other services offer?</P><br /><P>Other tempting services of the future include Hulu, already available in the US, and UltraViolet, a consortium of companies – including Microsoft, Lovefilm, Fox, NBC and all the major CE manufacturers – that want to create a common standard for digital downloads across software and hardware, giving users an online cloud account that inlcudes a digital rights locker; users can then watch any content on any UltraViolet-certified device, be it a mobile phone, games console or TV. </P><br /><P>UltraViolet is supported by Sony, which, aside from its US-only Google TV attempt, is also striving for a multi-platform content hub all of its own with its new Qriocity service. </P><br /><P>Meanwhile, the web TV platforms of Philips, Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, LG and Loewe have recently been bolstered by a range of apps from app developer BiBC that offer content from ITV, Hit Entertainment, the Cartoon Network, Boomerang andboxoffice365 – a suite of content that costs users £2.99 per month. </P><br /><P>It's largely archive material for now, but it demonstrates the splintered nature of today's content market. "There will an option to take on sports, movies and other content over the next six to eight weeks," says Paul Hague, the Director of BiBC. "Have a look at some of the channels available on Sky you wouldn't be a million miles away from the kind of content on our platform over the coming months." </P><br /><P>At a less advanced stage is DivX TV, which is attempting to use its debut deal with LG Blu-ray players and home cinema systems in the US (it sits on the NetCast platform) as a springboard to launch in Europe in 2011. The current content line-up – including apps from the New York Financial Press, Howcast and Funny or Die (more kitten-based humour?) – seems lacklustre, but that will change. </P><br /><P>"The key difference is that DivX TV is free and Ad-supported – users can start it up and just start using it without a credit card." DivX TV's David Holland told us that subscription-based content will soon be rolled-out, as will music streaming.</P><br /><P>Too fragmented?</P><br /><P>"It's all a bit fragmented right now and there may be some consolidation – and perhaps some consistency on how apps can be developed. At present they have to be rewritten for each different platform," says Holland. "That's what Google is trying to solve, but we'll see what plays out."</P><br /><P>"The next four to five are going to be massively fragmented with a lot of collaborations," agrees Casey. </P><br /><P>"It's going to be messy, but watch out for the big players with deep pockets – Apple's not going anywhere overnight and is clearly going into the living room – but in a lot of territories it's going to be the dominant TV player that already has the subscribers and the content – and other content experts that are big enough to invest and take risks."</P><br /><P>In the UK that could mean Sky or Virgin, both of which are in the middle of a fit of innovation – the former with online video and IP-connected boxes, and the latter with its TiVo set-top boxes.</P><br /><P>Or it could mean YouView, a BBC and ITV-owned joint venture that's due to launch in 2011. </P><br /><P>Summarised as a 'upgrade path for Freeview', Richard Halton, the CEO at YouView told us that the new service – a joint venture between the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva formerly known as Project Canvas – is an attempt to "fundamentally change the way people watch TV forever."</P><br /><P>"You'll get the digital TV you love, plus BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD, Demand Five and SeeSaw, as well as a potentially unlimited range of content, all instantly available on your TV," he told us. So far so predictable, but this is where it could get exciting. "The on-screen programme guide will go backwards in time as well as forwards, so viewers can discover and watch programmes whenever they want." Add HD, pause, rewind and record live TV, a clutch of pay TV channels (including Sky if they can get over their objections), and YouView could be a defining moment in IPTV. </P><br /><P>With so many connected TVs already offering a plethora of services it's tempting to say that YouView could have missed the boat. But we're still to see a genuinely engaging platform that successfully puts must-see content within a next-generation user interface that's as intelligent as it is slick. </P><br /><P>Whether that comes from Virgin's upcoming TiVo box, Sky, Apple, Xbox, YouView, TV manufacturers or an entirely new provider remains to be seen. </P>

Analysis: Internet TV: a fragmented future?

Is your TV connected? And if it isn't, does it matter? Now in their second generation, 'connected' TVs from the likes of Sony, ...

Continue Reading>>

Analysis: Games industry: Time is ripe for PSP Phone

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/images/ps%20phone%20prototype-200-200.jpg"><br /><P>Senior figures from the games industry have suggested that the time is ripe for the arrival of a PSP Phone, with many suggesting that both games makers and consumers will benefit from the new platform.</P><br /><P>It seems to be a case of when rather than if a PSP Phone is set to arrive from Sony, with the device likely to bring an adapted Android operating system and, obviously, be focused around gaming on the go.</P><br /><P>TechRadar has spoken to industry experts from the gaming world – and the feedback we received was overwhelmingly positive. </P><br /><P><STRONG>Open market</STRONG></P><br /><P>Richard Wilson, the CEO of games trade association TIGA, told TechRadar that giving developers a more open market would be hugely beneficial. </P><br /><P><img alt="PSP phone - coming soon?" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/Mobile%20Phones/pspphone-invitation-420-100.jpg" title="PSP phone - coming soon?" width="420"></IMG></P><br /><P>"The advent of a Sony PlayStation Phone could create more opportunities for developers to publish their games on yet another platform," said Wilson.</P><br /><P>"The cost of development would also be comparatively low. TIGA's research shows that many developers are already self-publishing games and many are publishing on mobile. </P><br /><P>"This could also be good news for consumers, creating yet more choice in the market place."</P><br /><P><STRONG>Older demographic</STRONG></P><br /><P>Nick Parker – an analyst from Parker Consulting Ltd – agreed: "A viable platform other than iPhone for gaming on the move for an older (than DS) demographic would be welcome.</P><br /><P>"I can only say that a move to a PSP Phone makes sense for Sony, and I have heard similar rumours from trusted sources that this is a Sony strategy," he added. </P><br /><P>Paul Farley is the MD of Tag Games, a specialist mobile games developer based in Scotland, and he thinks a PSP Phone would further blur the lines between phenomenally popular so-called casual games and traditional gaming.</P><br /><P>"It's great news for the mobile games industry – for years we've struggled to be taken seriously by the rest of the games industry and this move by Sony further fuels the acceptance of mobile gaming as a viable platform for hardcore gamers as well as the more casual players," he said. </P><br /><P>Johnny Two-Shoes co-founder Maxwell Scott-Slade believes that the PlayStation brand itself will be a key, with people still not considering the current mobile gaming offerings as reasons to buy a handset.</P><br /><P>"People who know and love the Playstation brand are more likely to be drawn to the Playstation Phone for gaming, rather than a phone that also does gaming," he said.</P><br /><P>"A lot of gamers still don't take the iPhone seriously as a gaming platform, and the introduction of a behemoth brand like Playstation could help change those minds."</P><br /><P><img alt="PSP phone - damage the brand?" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/home-entertainment/gaming/handhelds/images/PSP-Go-9_w500-420-100.jpg" title="PSP phone - damage the brand?" width="420"></IMG></P><br /><P><STRONG>Damage the brand?</STRONG></P><br /><P>There was one dissenting voice, however, with Games Ivestor Ltd analyst Nick Gibson suggesting the PSP Phone could actually damage the brand. </P><br /><P>"With PSP2 SDKs currently being deployed to developers and PSP still selling at surprisingly robust levels (given the miniscule size of ongoing PSP software sales), the PlayStation Phone concept is something of an enigma," warned Gibson. </P><br /><P>"Where and how will it fit into the PlayStation family of products? While a PlayStation-branded game phone might make commercial sense to Sony Ericsson, Sony Computer Entertainment's approach to hardware is radically different, and there are numerous scenarios where such a product could do more harm than good."</P>

Analysis: Games industry: Time is ripe for PSP Phone

Senior figures from the games industry have suggested that the time is ripe for the arrival of a PSP Phone, with many suggesting that both g...

Continue Reading>>

Analysis: Why 2D-3D conversions are great news for the rise of 3D HD

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/Home%20Cinema%20Choice/HCC%20189/HCC189.3d_star.main01-200-200.jpg"><br /><P>The concept of converting 2D films into 3D got off to possibly the worst possible start with the <EM>Clash of the Titans</EM> remake earlier this year. </P><br /><P>Critics almost universally slammed the ret-conned 3D effect, and even director Louis Leterrier said it hadn't been his intention to do the movie in 3D and that the technology wasn't ready. </P><br /><P>James Cameron, riding high on the record-breaking success of <EM>Avatar</EM>, also derided the process, saying: 'If you want to make a movie in 3D – make a movie in 3D.' </P><br /><P>Recently, though, Lucasfilm announced that it will be releasing a 2D-3D version of <EM>The Phantom Menace</EM> in cinemas next year, with the other five films in the <EM>Star Wars</EM> canon to follow. And it's clear that George Lucas and his minions think they can craft an impressive 3D picture. </P><br /><P>The secret, it seems, is not rushing it. 'Getting good results on a stereo conversion is a matter of taking the time and getting it right,' confides John Knoll, visual effects supervisor for Industrial Light & Magic.</P><br /><P>'It takes a critical and artistic eye, along with an incredible attention to detail to be successful. It is not something that you can rush if you want to expect good results. For <EM>Star Wars</EM> we will take our time, applying everything we know both aesthetically and technically to bring audiences a fantastic new <EM>Star Wars</EM> experience.'</P><br /><P>Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say, but it's no secret that <EM>Clash of the Titans</EM>' conversion was completed in around 10 weeks. When the first <EM>Star Wars</EM> 3D film arrives, it will have undergone a much more arduous journey. </P><br /><P><img alt="3D: a new hope" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Home%20Cinema%20Choice/HCC%20189/HCC189.3d_star.vader_co-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG></P><br /><P>The importance of time and attention to detail is something echoed by Jon Thompson, former Home Cinema Choice columnist and head of UK operations at Reliance MediaWorks, a global end-to-end movie services company that has set up one of the world's leading 2D-3D authoring houses (as well as doing remarkable restoration work in the traditional 2D environment, but that's another story…). </P><br /><P>He's adamant that, when done properly, 2D-3D conversion has a future. Thompson came to HCC armed with a disc full of upconverted demo sequences to prove his point. And by and large he did. </P><br /><P>3D clips from a diverse collection of cinema faves (everything from massive Summer blockbusters to low-budget horrors) all seemed high quality, with an enjoyable, believable sense of depth added to the proceedings. </P><br /><P>Thomson also explained how the complex software works in tandem with human engineers, and that work is done on a frame-by-frame basis. Essentially, each frame is analysed and separate parts of the image isolated depending on where they sit on the Z-axis – then, alternate frames are generated with a different composition to provide the information for the right eye. </P><br /><P>What's incredibly neat is that the level of depth can be adjusted to suit the wishes of the director. We were shown the same sequence processed in a number of different ways: one where there was an exaggerated sense of things coming out of the screen; one where it was much more subtle; one where all the depth was in the background; others where separate objects were placed nearer or further away from each other at varying degrees; and more. </P><br /><P><STRONG>Money for nothing? </STRONG></P><br /><P>It's easy to see from an economic point of view why 2D-3D conversions are attractive to studios. If you can create a new cinema version of a much-loved film for around $5m, it won't have to do that well at the multiplex to make a profit. Only a fool would bet against <EM>Return of the Jedi</EM> 3D making a killing at the box office.</P><br /><P>Of course, there's a limit to how many films studios would be happy to re-release in cinemas (they'll have to find a space in the schedule, for a start), so many of the titles that we'd like to see brought back to life in the new format may not get the chance. </P><br /><P>It's then that they'll have to consider whether the cost of the 2D-3D process can be covered by 3D Blu-ray sales alone. </P><br /><P>Perhaps anyone still doubtful as to the merits of 2D-3D conversion should look no further than James Cameron himself. Not long after <EM>Clash of the Titans</EM> hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, the film-it-in-3D guru had done a U-turn and announced that his epic 1997 drama, <EM>Titanic</EM>, was to be given a 3D polish for a cinema release in 2012. </P><br /><P>Surely if it's good enough for James Cameron, it's good enough for us. Could it be time to give 2D-3D films a second chance?</P>

Analysis: Why 2D-3D conversions are great news for the rise of 3D HD

The concept of converting 2D films into 3D got off to possibly the worst possible start with the Clash of the Titans remake earlier this ye...

Continue Reading>>

Analysis: Why 2D-3D conversions are great news for the rise of 3D HD

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/Home%20Cinema%20Choice/HCC%20189/HCC189.3d_star.main01-200-200.jpg" /> <br /> The concept of converting 2D films into 3D got off to possibly the worst possible start with the <i>Clash of the Titans</i> remake earlier this year. <br /> Critics almost universally slammed the ret-conned 3D effect, and even director Louis Leterrier said it hadn't been his intention to do the movie in 3D and that the technology wasn't ready. <br /> James Cameron, riding high on the record-breaking success of <i>Avatar</i>, also derided the process, saying: 'If you want to make a movie in 3D – make a movie in 3D.' <br /> Recently, though, Lucasfilm announced that it will be releasing a 2D-3D version of <i>The Phantom Menace</i> in cinemas next year, with the other five films in the <i>Star Wars</i> canon to follow. And it's clear that George Lucas and his minions think they can craft an impressive 3D picture. <br /> The secret, it seems, is not rushing it. 'Getting good results on a stereo conversion is a matter of taking the time and getting it right,' confides John Knoll, visual effects supervisor for Industrial Light & Magic.<br /> 'It takes a critical and artistic eye, along with an incredible attention to detail to be successful. It is not something that you can rush if you want to expect good results. For <i>Star Wars</i> we will take our time, applying everything we know both aesthetically and technically to bring audiences a fantastic new <i>Star Wars</i> experience.'<br /> Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say, but it's no secret that <i>Clash of the Titans</i>' conversion was completed in around 10 weeks. When the first <i>Star Wars</i> 3D film arrives, it will have undergone a much more arduous journey. <br /> <img alt="3D: a new hope" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Home%20Cinema%20Choice/HCC%20189/HCC189.3d_star.vader_co-420-90.jpg" width="420" /><br /> The importance of time and attention to detail is something echoed by Jon Thompson, former Home Cinema Choice columnist and head of UK operations at Reliance MediaWorks, a global end-to-end movie services company that has set up one of the world's leading 2D-3D authoring houses (as well as doing remarkable restoration work in the traditional 2D environment, but that's another story…). <br /> He's adamant that, when done properly, 2D-3D conversion has a future. Thompson came to HCC armed with a disc full of upconverted demo sequences to prove his point. And by and large he did. <br /> 3D clips from a diverse collection of cinema faves (everything from massive Summer blockbusters to low-budget horrors) all seemed high quality, with an enjoyable, believable sense of depth added to the proceedings. <br /> Thomson also explained how the complex software works in tandem with human engineers, and that work is done on a frame-by-frame basis. Essentially, each frame is analysed and separate parts of the image isolated depending on where they sit on the Z-axis – then, alternate frames are generated with a different composition to provide the information for the right eye. <br /> What's incredibly neat is that the level of depth can be adjusted to suit the wishes of the director. We were shown the same sequence processed in a number of different ways: one where there was an exaggerated sense of things coming out of the screen; one where it was much more subtle; one where all the depth was in the background; others where separate objects were placed nearer or further away from each other at varying degrees; and more. <br /> <b>Money for nothing? </b><br /> It's easy to see from an economic point of view why 2D-3D conversions are attractive to studios. If you can create a new cinema version of a much-loved film for around $5m, it won't have to do that well at the multiplex to make a profit. Only a fool would bet against <i>Return of the Jedi</i> 3D making a killing at the box office.<br /> Of course, there's a limit to how many films studios would be happy to re-release in cinemas (they'll have to find a space in the schedule, for a start), so many of the titles that we'd like to see brought back to life in the new format may not get the chance. <br /> It's then that they'll have to consider whether the cost of the 2D-3D process can be covered by 3D Blu-ray sales alone. <br /> Perhaps anyone still doubtful as to the merits of 2D-3D conversion should look no further than James Cameron himself. Not long after <i>Clash of the Titans</i> hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, the film-it-in-3D guru had done a U-turn and announced that his epic 1997 drama, <i>Titanic</i>, was to be given a 3D polish for a cinema release in 2012. <br /> Surely if it's good enough for James Cameron, it's good enough for us. Could it be time to give 2D-3D films a second chance?

Analysis: Why 2D-3D conversions are great news for the rise of 3D HD

The concept of converting 2D films into 3D got off to possibly the worst possible start with the Clash of the Titans remake earlier this ...

Continue Reading>>