3D TV: Living up to the hype?

As a storytelling medium that features both sides of every tale, it is probably no coincidence that stereoscopic 3D should also create a divide within the television community.

With a host of broadcasters around the world launching 3D channels, post-production firms in the UK should be cock-a-hoop about the idea of new work potentially coming their way. Some are, of course. But not every-one will benefit.

Yes, Sky is launching a domestic 3D channel that will feature movies, sport, documentaries, entertainment and arts. And yes, the broadcaster is currently pursuing an aggressive content acquisition and commissioning strategy.

But right now, according to anecdotal evidence at least, there’s not much else on which to base a serious future business model. “For broadcast television, 3D certainly won’t be the panacea for the industry’s problems as there simply isn’t going to be the volume of work,” says Simon Kanjee, managing director of Evolutions. “Both financially and technically, 3D is a bit of a headache.”

In contrast, one of Evolution’s biggest competitors, Envy, is very enthusiastic. It has already had some paid 3D work, including a promotional video for Samsung featuring Chelsea FC and promos for Discovery with Bear Grylls. “As a forward-looking company, it’s already an important part of our business,” says head of technical operations Daniel Sassen.

Broadcaster apathy

Despite this optimism, the main terrestrial broadcasters are not going to be a huge source of work in the short term. The BBC currently sees 3D as a “distraction” from HD, while ITV has “no immediate plans to produce current shows in 3D”.

Add to that the fact that much of the current 3D content drive is for live sport and events, which generally require little or no post work, and it is clear why there are concerns about where the work could come from.

Questions are even coming from companies that have already been doing 3D work for a few years, such as BTV. Formally Brighton TV, the facility recently moved its Mistika grading suite from the south coast to Soho to make its 3D finishing services avail-able to London producers.

It already has several stereo projects under its belt and is currently working on a raft of 3D wildlife, lifestyle and arts projects, most of which are 1 x 60-minute films, for both domestic and international producers.

“3D is still a very niche thing,” says business development manager Susan Tunstall. “Post companies need to be realistic. Most of the stuff we’re doing is only in pre-production. And that’s mainly documentaries. And docs take a long time to come to post.”

Can Communicate provides a useful insight as it operates both as a facility and as a producer. It has already made commercials and documen-taries in 3D, and completed jobs for Sky – including Usain Bolt sprinting in Manchester. It also provides 2D to 3D conversions and worked on Channel 4’s ‘3D week’ in 2009.

“Most commissioning will come out of the US,” says partner Phil Brown. “We’re looking to produce timeless pieces and sell them there. At the moment, too many people are banging on Sky’s door because it’s the only player in town.”

Brown highlights co-production agreements with UK indies Zig Zag, Renegade Pictures and Touch Productions as being crucial. 3D documentaries, entertainment and extreme sports formats are all being pitched to US broadcasters, he says, with Can providing technical expertise and facilities.

There is certainly global enthusiasm to back that up. DirecTV, Discovery and ESPN in the US are all launching 3D channels, and there is huge interest in the Far East, where South Korea alone has six broadcasters showing 3D content on both satellite and terrestrial channels.

In mainland Europe, Belgacom in Belgium is currently copying Sky’s trial model while Eurosport 3D and Orange 3D have both been made available on satellite with the latter showing coverage of the French Open tennis in 3D earlier this month.

That same coverage was even broadcast, via Globecast, to Panasonic 3D TV sets in retail stores across the UK and Ireland in a bid to stimulate demand.

However, such 3D activity may not instantly mean more work for post-producers. Visual effects, for example, is considered very difficult – and therefore expensive – in stereo 3D, while audio post for 3D is still green, despite the opportunities that a surround-sound mix could offer editorially.

“We still have to answer questions about whether a dubbing mixer has to always wear 3D glasses during the mix” says De Lane Lea general manager Mike King, who is just starting to investigate the impact of 3D on audio post. “I don’t think anyone has really figured that out yet.”

Ascent Media’s Rushes facility, which specialises in visual-effects work, had only had a “few conversations” about 3D TV until recently, when some paid-for work came in – providing dimensionalising (conversion) and CG services for a UK indie on a drama for a US broadcaster.

“There is a significant cost whether you’re dimensionalising or originating in 3D,” says head of ‘traditional’ 3D Jonathan Privett. “We’re a little way off stereo 3D being something that you would make a business case for. Maybe in 12 months time it’ll be different.”

As far as post budgets are concerned, additional audio costs for 3D are estimated at as little as 10%, while picture post commands a premium of between 30% and 60%, depending on the complexity of the requirements.

That is despite a 3D job having twice the media and requiring twice the processing power, twice the storage and, in some cases, twice the effort. “You should charge double but it doesn’t always work like that,” says Envy facility director Natascha Cadle. “You’re looking at time-and-a-half at least, but budgets are still being adjusted.”

Pricing structure

Tunstall insists that 3D offline shouldn’t take any longer than for 2D. “In some cases, because you make less cuts and there is less footage, I quote for less offline,” she says. “For the grade, if it’s shot well, it’s 2.5 times a 2D online. But if it requires consider-able graphics and sub-titles, that adds time and money.”

“A new pricing structure will definitely have to be put in place, not least because there’s a lot of capital outlay required,” says Privett. “For many places, it will require a major upgrade.”

Kanjee at Evolutions is not convinced it’s worth it yet. “You’re talking £200k to equip yourself for 3D,” he says. “We respond to client requirements and right now it’s about moving to tapeless workflows and delivery. That’s where investment is required. 3D is all hype.”

The companies with a finger in the feature film pie are slightly more bullish about 3D. Prime Focus has just delivered a long-form 3D TV project having previously worked on several 3D features including Avatar.

UK managing director Simon Briggs suggests people are the biggest expense. “From setting up stereoscopic and geometric correction, through to conforming stereo material and setting up your grading suite, [3D TV] can be quite complicated,” he says. “But it’s all dependent on your existing infrastructure. For us, the main cost outlay is in training and improving the skillsets of both technical and creative staff.”

Molinare, another facility with a film pedigree, is equally enthusiastic. It is currently post-producing two stereo feature films and is involved in one of Sky’s first original 3D commissions – the feature doc Flying Monsters. “A deep understanding of the techniques and problems involved in 3D is paramount,” says senior editing manager Richard Wilding, who is co-ordinating much of the company’s 3D R&D. “We are working closely with manufacturers to develop new toolsets, as well as creating our own pipeline tools.”

Kevin Phelan, head of post-production at LipSync Post, points to the big-screen experience, where 3D films are making 3.5 times their 2D box office, and to the 15,000 TVs dispatched to pubs for Sky’s football. “Judging by this, if handled well in post and production, 3D TV could be massive,” he concludes.