Polarizer-Filter 3D Panels Seen Gaining Some Share, But Cost Issues Loom

Consumers on average are willing to allocate $87.20 for the 3D feature in TVs, according to a report by DisplaySearch, which doesn’t bode well for success of more expensive passive-eyewear solutions that could improve the comfort level of 3D TV viewing. That $90 premium is a long way from the current $500 delta between 2D and 3D LCD TVs that DisplaySearch cited. But getting the cost down is key to 3D becoming mainstream and creating a market base for more content. While the ultimate goal is auto-stereoscopic 3D that will eliminate the need for glasses altogether, that solution is far down the road, DisplaySearch said. In the interim, manufacturers will debate the merits of two 3D technologies in an effort to balance consumer comfort, cost and picture quality.

Frame-sequential technology will represent 98 percent of the 3D TV market in 2010, according to the report, with the remainder made up of displays using polarizer filter panels. Although frame-sequential technology “will dominate in 2011,” polarizer filter “will take some share, too,” DisplaySearch said. Polarizer filter panels work with lighter, passive glasses that are more accommodating for viewers. Proponents also claim reduced crosstalk and improved brightness over frame-sequential 3D TVs that use active-shutter glasses. Unlike polarizer filter TVs, frame sequential models with active shutter glasses can deliver 1080p, the goal for Blu-ray 3D, and the highest quality 3D source material currently available for consumers.

A few polarizer filter 3D TVs are in the market, including a broadcast version made by Hyundai for Japan’s BS11 network, and case-by-case versions from LGD, but more will hit the market next year. According to DisplaySearch, AUO released a 65-inch 3D polarizer filter panel in September, and Changhong and TCL will reportedly adopt the panel to make high-end 3D TVs. LG Electronics, meantime, has shipped 15,000 polarizer filter 3D TVs to Sky in the U.K. AUO began delivering 32- to 65-inch 3D TV panels in Q3 2010 that are expected to be in stores during first quarter 2011, DisplaySearch said.

Frame sequential is more cost-effective, particularly in larger screen sizes, DisplaySearch said. It’s an electronic solution that can scale to different panel sizes without an increase in cost. The cost of the polarizer filter, though, goes up with panel size as material costs increase, it said. Left and right frames use different polarization, requiring retarder glass or film that has to be enlarged to meet larger panel sizes. The process also requires lamination which has a complicated application process to ensure precise polarization of the panels, it said. As a result, yields are lower, which also drives up manufacturing costs, DisplaySearch said.

According to the report, if 1080p support “is not absolutely critical for 3D TV to succeed with consumers,” a 32-inch polarizer-filter 3D TV could be an affordable option. At 42 inches, it said, both technologies have similar “cost adders,” but it’s questionable whether polarizer filter TVs and lighter glasses will be acceptable to consumers since they're limited to 1080i resolution and don’t offer motion enhancement in 2D mode. For 55- to 65-inch TVs, frame sequential is better suited to efficient manufacturing and “shrinking the retail price gap soon for 3D TVs,” according to the report.

Although the future “does not look promising for polarizer filter 3D,” DisplaySearch said, “it is too early to judge the future” of the two technologies. The lack of 3D content is the biggest issue at the moment, it concluded. “If TV brands supporting polarizer filter technology can offer good content and user experience,” it said, “1080p may not be an issue and the lighter glasses will make consumers feel more comfortable and willing to purchase 3D TVs.”