Do you ever wonder what educators think about 3D? How they
approach buying a 3D solution? What kind of obstacles they face in doing so? Over the last few months, I have received six emails like the one below. Please take a close
read:
Dear Len,
I first met you at ISTE in the EXPO
while you were demonstrating an incredible lesson using 3D technology. I again
spoke with you during another 3D session. I’m extremely interested in bring 3D
technology into my school district and have the support of both my IT
Department and Superintendent. Our district is very tech savvy and
interested in implementing 3D technology!
I need more information regarding what
I saw at the EXPO at what exactly is required to implement this technology
precisely as it was seen; I believe this is called “stereoscopic 3D”. The few
pieces of 3D software that we have demo’d thus far have been nothing more than
glorified 2D—I am looking for what’s required to implement stereoscopic 3D. The software I saw yesterday must have been flat 3D. I
was not impressed at all. This was nothing like I saw when you demonstrated 3D
at [the Texas Instruments ISTE exhibit]. That demonstration still has me
talking and has me incredibly eager to get it in my district. I just need more
specifics. The [AV dealer] for our district said we are the first district in
the state to request 3D technology to demo. However, he sent us a special [and
expensive] projector, told us we needed a special [high-end] laptop, and two
pair of glasses [@ $150 each]. The video we witnessed was hardly 3D. I don’t
think our rep is familiar with what I am after.
I want to blow people away with I saw
at ISTE! It was incredible!
Could you please contact me to answer a
few more detailed questions and point me in the right direction to working with
people that can help me successfully locate the appropriate technology
required?
I look forward to hearing from you!
Wow! My question to the reader is: “Why do we
make 3D so very hard to buy, even if the customers want it badly?”
The answer is simple. The content needs to be created by a master of the Stereographic Art. The development of content is the key. The display technology cannot make the 3D viewing experience unless the film is produced correctly using dual stream filming techniques and editing with color correction and keen sinking skills.
ReplyDeleteAh, you've uncovered one of seven answers. Content matters. I wonder if anyone else will uncover the other six problems faced by this teacher?
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience, the challenges related to getting 3D into the classroom come down to “CCC” – Cost, Complexity, and Content.
ReplyDeleteHardware cost is often high due to two main components – the display and the computer.
For the display: If you use a relatively cheap 3D projector, you need expensive active glasses for each student, and if you go with inexpensive glasses, then you either need a silver screen or a newer passive-ready 3D TV. [The good news: 3D display prices are dropping quickly and alternative, cheaper solutions are now becoming available.]
For the computer, if you want to show interactive 3D content, many software providers require you to buy a “workstation class” PC or laptop. These systems cost a lot more than “consumer class” PCs even though their general processing power isn’t any greater. [Good news: software from some vendors is now available that can drive all popular 3D display hardware from consumer class systems.]
Complexity: During this time of rapid development, the interplay between various system components can rapidly move from “trivially easy” to “mind-bogglingly complex”. The problems get worse when competing demands are involved. For example, one set of 3D classroom software may require certain hardware configuration settings, whereas software from another vendor may require a completely different (and incompatible) configuration. [Good news: as 3D TVs and projectors get more “commoditized” and newer standards take hold, things here are also getting simpler.]
Content: Even if Cost and Complexity are handled efficiently, the 3D system isn’t very useful in a classroom without broad availability of content that teachers can easily navigate and students find compelling. Often, a single provider solves part of the problem (great anatomy lessons, lousy ones for physics and chemistry, etc) and adding content from another vendor usually contributes significantly to both cost and complexity. [Good news: content providers are building up their repertoires to include more lesson material, and it has been honed by early feedback from teachers. And things like 3D document cameras are now adding immediate value since the content is “live” and the 3D viewing experience is compelling.]
From my experience, the challenges related to getting 3D into the classroom come down to “CCC” – Cost, Complexity, and Content.
ReplyDeleteHardware cost is often high due to two main components – the display and the computer.
For the display: If you use a relatively cheap 3D projector, you need expensive active glasses for each student, and if you go with inexpensive glasses, then you either need a silver screen or a newer passive-ready 3D TV. [The good news: 3D display prices are dropping quickly and alternative, cheaper solutions are now becoming available.]
For the computer, if you want to show interactive 3D content, many software providers require you to buy a “workstation class” PC or laptop. These systems cost a lot more than “consumer class” PCs even though their general processing power isn’t any greater. [Good news: software from some vendors is now available that can drive all popular 3D display hardware from consumer class systems.]
Complexity: During this time of rapid development, the interplay between various system components can rapidly move from “trivially easy” to “mind-bogglingly complex”. The problems get worse when competing demands are involved. For example, one set of 3D classroom software may require certain hardware configuration settings, whereas software from another vendor may require a completely different (and incompatible) configuration. [Good news: as 3D TVs and projectors get more “commoditized” and newer standards take hold, things here are also getting simpler.]
Content: Even if Cost and Complexity are handled efficiently, the 3D system isn’t very useful in a classroom without broad availability of content that teachers can easily navigate and students find compelling. Often, a single provider solves part of the problem (great anatomy lessons, lousy ones for physics and chemistry, etc) and adding content from another vendor usually contributes significantly to both cost and complexity. [Good news: content providers are building up their repertoires to include more lesson material, and it has been honed by early feedback from teachers. And things like 3D document cameras are now adding immediate value since the content is “live” and the 3D viewing experience is compelling.]
I would add that another problem besides limited content is the ease of use. Many companies have not streamlined the technology so it is user friendly. Some require additional servers that teachers do not have access to. Loading the software has been a struggle for me, and, I am fairly tech savvy...most instructors would have given up long ago! So, if software companies are listening, I want: 1) more content, 2) user friendly system, 3) interactive software (not just video but simulations and labs), 4) give us options in what we buy so we can tailor our packages (reduces expense and you are more likely to build a customer base), 5) get teachers as a focus group...we have many ideas of what we want to see, like adjustable 3D glasses for younger faces and for people who wear glasses underneath!
ReplyDeleteTeachers want 1) more content, 2) user friendly software, easy to load and use (currently many require servers or are hard to load due to excessive licensing permissions), 3) interactive software, not just video...we want simulations and labs in 3D, 4) use teacher focus groups...we have good ideas such as adjustable glasses for smaller faces or for people who wear glasses underneath!
ReplyDeleteContent is vital!
ReplyDeleteI bet she is now busy with not only piloting content, but finding ways in which to integrate the content into her curriculum, as well as play around with the best teaching practices for utilizing this technology and content. So, just how and where does it fit within my classroom? How often should it be used? How should it be used? How can benefits (achievement) be measured? Developing teaching strategies to incorporate the vital content is also key.
Nice article Len! Content is vital, but content is only 1 piece of the puzzle. Like many great solutions, stereoscopic 3D is an integration that requires many things to work together seamlessly. Content is a very important piece, but we still need glasses, a computer, and a projector or other stereo display. Many times when schools contact the AV dealer they've been working with for many years, they lack the expertise to make all of these components work together. It is also common that traditional AV dealers do not carry the product lines that are necessary for a 3D integration to work successfully, so they leave the customer hanging.
ReplyDeleteStereoscopic 3D can be physically installed into a classroom, an AV cart, or in some cases can even be streamed online.
The important thing is that school leaders continue down the path toward a 3D curriculum, especially for math and science topics. With proven test score increases in the 30-40% range, the payoff for teaching with 3D is certainly worth the investment!
I think that content producers could make free or cheap its content in anaglyphic mode, so allowing teachers with a simple LCD projector or a TV to make its audience and the school interested in more perfect (and expensive) equipment and material.
ReplyDelete