or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › R.I.P. ESPN 3D—What's Next?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

R.I.P. ESPN 3D—What's Next? - Page 2

post #31 of 108
I agree... even the best 3D has moments of cardboard cutout shots that are unnatural and distracting. It's the story... not the visual effects... that can make a film a classic. Something Hollywood has long forgotten.

And even with 4k broadcasts... it'll be highly compressed, artifact riddled and downrezed content. Just like "1080" currently. It's about quantity not quality. They can't get HD right and they sure won't get UHD right either.
post #32 of 108
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

Yes it has. HEVC is the next-generation codec that is expected to replace H264 as an encoding standard for 4k (and possibly 8k) broadcasts. Broadcom and other providers have already started shipping prototype silicon I believe. SES-Astra in Europe have already broadcast 4k material using HEVC as a trial. Eutelsat have been running 4k tests using 4 x 1080/50p H264 (i.e. modified current gen tech) streams for a while.

The H264 broadcasts have room to spare on a standard DVB-S2 transponder, so it is expected that you should be able to get 2 or 3 4k streams onto one.

The BBC and Sky in the UK are both continuing with 4k tests, and Sky have commissioned a 4k-capable OB truck (aka mobile production truck) with Sony 4k cameras, after shooting quite a lot of test material on F65s. The BBC are trialling at Wimbledon.

We're about 7 years into H264 HD launching in Europe (and second gen modulation systems arrived terrestrially about 4 years ago). The first H264 HD services launched 8 years after MPEG2 SD widesecreen digital services. 7-8 years seems to be a reasonable expectation for a new standard to launch and get some traction over here. For pay-TV services who have reached a plateau of subscribers, it makes sense to have a new USP to drive subscriptions or allow a new tier to generate more revenue. 3D was hoped to be it - but it hasn't been. 3D services have been closing around Europe (Canal Plus in France closed their service a while back, though Sky in the UK still have their service running - which is a mix of sport and movies)

3D's major issues have been the lack of content, the requirement for glasses, and the average picture quality that side-by-side or top-bottom transmission (used for compatibility with existing distribution chains for broadcast) limits you to. It also limited production - and in many cases required two separate operations and extra people (stereographers) so was significantly more expensive than the switch from SD to HD (which was basically just changing kit)

I suspect as 4k displays drop in price - and screens continue to increase in size - there may end up being a market for it.

And - of course - just as HD production also improved the picture quality of downconverted SD, 4k production will also improve the quality of HD downconverted content. You don't have to massively change what you do to switch from HD to 4k production (other than buy the kit) - unlike 3D.

Your right, HEVC or H.265 has been in works for some time now, but I simply do not believe in the claims they are currently making with the current bitrate. They are claiming they can stream 4K video at 10Mb when H264 Bu-ray is 20-30Mb. I guess seeing is believing and we'll have to see it for ourselves in the future. Second point is that we don't even get 1080p at this moment with out cable providers, only a select few offer it such as DirectTV and some others I may not be aware of. Even though a potential codec has surfaced, I still think we are a LONG way from watching 4K, little alone 4K broadcast.
post #33 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyS View Post

Your right, HEVC or H.265 has been in works for some time now, but I simply do not believe in the claims they are currently making with the current bitrate. They are claiming they can stream 4K video at 10Mb when H264 Bu-ray is 20-30Mb. I guess seeing is believing and we'll have to see it for ourselves in the future. Second point is that we don't even get 1080p at this moment with out cable providers, only a select few offer it such as DirectTV and some others I may not be aware of. Even though a potential codec has surfaced, I still think we are a LONG way from watching 4K, little alone 4K broadcast.
It all boils down to "Return on Investment". The studios and the broadcast companies are not going to take any financial chances unless a solid ROI can be guaranteed. That's what happened to 1080P and 3D and that's why we'll never see 4K versions of Law and Order, NCIS, Bones, Castle, or any other studio produced weekly series. Maybe a sporting event or two but even that is unlikely. The infrastructure to implement 4K is just too expensive. It's actually a miracle that we have HD at all.
post #34 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

It all boils down to "Return on Investment". The studios and the broadcast companies are not going to take any financial chances unless a solid ROI can be guaranteed. That's what happened to 1080P and 3D and that's why we'll never see 4K versions of Law and Order, NCIS, Bones, Castle, or any other studio produced weekly series. Maybe a sporting event or two but even that is unlikely. The infrastructure to implement 4K is just too expensive. It's actually a miracle that we have HD at all.

We will see a 4K release for House of Cards, and the broadcasters shall weep. They may wish every movie and TV show was a sure thing, but the track record shows otherwise.
post #35 of 108
RIP Espn 3D. I think the problem was not at all lack of interest, but lack of availability. If Dish Network had carried it as well it could have reached the other half of the sat audience including me, what a shame. Not to mention a lot of the cable companies that didnt have it available for their customers

Saying that it was for a lack of interest when you havent even reached 1/10 of your potential audience just seems like a cop out to me. More like cutting costs...
post #36 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yes I have both of those titles and Avatar is probably the most coherent 3D experience I've had. The problem is it seems quite a rare achievement.

I have to agree with this. I see a lot of comments on how 3D is catching on in movie theaters, Japan, a lot of sets sold. Can somebody give me some stats on percentages of viewing? I have a Panasonic 3D projector and 6 pairs of glasses. I own Avatar and a few other 3D movies. I haven't watched one you because I tried and A, I can't recline in my chair, B. it's to dark.

However, I did go see Star Trek 2 in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. If I could get that at home it would be great.
post #37 of 108
Well, I don't know about all the 3D. I'm not paying the cable company any more than I have to for TV service. I got tired of paying hundred a month to watch about five channels.

On top of it, because of issues with my eyes, I cannot see any 3D, at least with the new 3D tech. I have a 3D HDTV (Panasonic 55" VT50) and a pair of glasses. All I see with the glasses, a picture with half the resolution. It's still a 2D picture. Although, from reading prior, I suspected I wouldn't see it.

Needless to say, my interest lies more in 4K since I can see a 2D picture.

As for ESPN3D, the TV providers have the numbers of it being watched. Sports is a good way to get interest, but the powers that be need to keep bring new content. You can only watch the same game so many times.
post #38 of 108
This is at least the 3rd time 3D has come and gone.biggrin.gif

But in about 14 to 17 years it resurrect itself again by a new generation of 3Ders.eek.gif

RIP for real this time:D
post #39 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GqMagic View Post

This is at least the 3rd time 3D has come and gone.biggrin.gif

But in about 14 to 17 years it resurrect itself again by a new generation of 3Ders.eek.gif

RIP for real this time:D

You mean RIP to ESPN 3D right? Not 3D as a whole though...right?

Because this really means nothing. As I pointed to in my post above, the 3D broadcast channels are not available to enough people for that format to really be viable. Yes of course they said there is not enough interest but I've visited countless satellite tv forums & other forums where people are constanly asking for those same 3D channels to come to Dish Network & their cable providers - and called and pleaded and emailed them constantly to no avail. So ESPN is shuttering its 3D doors, no big deal. They say its because of lack of interest because thats what people like you want to hear, but it's really about MONEY. If they weren't asking providers to pay such a high premium to included said channels, they would have been available to a vast amount of people and not just a select few

But 3D as a medium is going to be around for awhile just get used to it. Most of the blockbuster movies will still be 3D for a long time yet, and most of the good tv's and projectors will have 3D as an option as well. It may no longer be driving tv sales like it once did, and so a lot of the $harks are quick to say its dead

But in reality it has now found its rightful place as just another oft-used feature - one that is not going away any time soon. I bought my first 3DTV a couple years ago, and just now got my first 3D projector. And in the owner's thread for the projector I own, there are scores of people saying that they bought the projector just for 3D specifically - and to have a more immersive experience. I've seen that in a number of threads.

I do feel sorry for the people who can't see 3D for various reasons. But I have no quarter for the annoying haters who just go out of there way to bash it. I knew those kind of people would flock here when they saw this about ESPN. There will always be naysayers, and yes 3D has come and gone before. But you guys were also predicting that the studio's wouldn't be pumping out 3D blockbusters by 2012 or 2013...and well you were wrong. So drink your hatorade if you want, and go read your articles about how 3D is dead...I'm gonna go watch a 3D movie

smile.gif
post #40 of 108
I have yet to see 3 d in a theater, and have seen it at stores, and do not like it. The 1080p concept is quite good enough for me. The media I have seen, was nothing more than a headache. Although, I will not close the book yet, not having seen glasses free, or big screen 3d.
post #41 of 108
That's like saying I've never ridden in a convertible but I've sat in one in a showroom so I know I wouldn't like ridding in one.
post #42 of 108
Sad to see it go. As others said ESPN 3D was the first broadcast 3D I had seen. I hadn't watched the channel for over a year now. All the 3D content that I view now is on 3D BD. Outside of a commecial cinema it's the best way to experience 3D, especially if you have a 10ft wide screen like me.
post #43 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamermwm View Post

You mean RIP to ESPN 3D right? Not 3D as a whole though...right?

Because this really means nothing. As I pointed to in my post above, the 3D broadcast channels are not available to enough people for that format to really be viable. Yes of course they said there is not enough interest but I've visited countless satellite tv forums & other forums where people are constanly asking for those same 3D channels to come to Dish Network & their cable providers - and called and pleaded and emailed them constantly to no avail. So ESPN is shuttering its 3D doors, no big deal. They say its because of lack of interest because thats what people like you want to hear, but it's really about MONEY. If they weren't asking providers to pay such a high premium to included said channels, they would have been available to a vast amount of people and not just a select few

But 3D as a medium is going to be around for awhile just get used to it. Most of the blockbuster movies will still be 3D for a long time yet, and most of the good tv's and projectors will have 3D as an option as well. It may no longer be driving tv sales like it once did, and so a lot of the $harks are quick to say its dead

But in reality it has now found its rightful place as just another oft-used feature - one that is not going away any time soon. I bought my first 3DTV a couple years ago, and just now got my first 3D projector. And in the owner's thread for the projector I own, there are scores of people saying that they bought the projector just for 3D specifically - and to have a more immersive experience. I've seen that in a number of threads.

I do feel sorry for the people who can't see 3D for various reasons. But I have no quarter for the annoying haters who just go out of there way to bash it. I knew those kind of people would flock here when they saw this about ESPN. There will always be naysayers, and yes 3D has come and gone before. But you guys were also predicting that the studio's wouldn't be pumping out 3D blockbusters by 2012 or 2013...and well you were wrong. So drink your hatorade if you want, and go read your articles about how 3D is dead...I'm gonna go watch a 3D movie

smile.gif

Could you support this with some stats that shows this is little more than a niche market? I would like to see 4K passive hit the home market and maybe I would use it more. Like I said earlier, I loved the IMax 3d of Star Trek.

However, when it comes to 3D in general, I rarely find anyone raving about it at the movie or their home TV so nothing I see shows me it's a lasting feature.
post #44 of 108
I liked ESPN 3D BUT....definitley not enough variety. I dont mind wearing my lightweight glasses for a 3D treat here and thre BUT...the source material gotta be rock'n!

This doesnt surprise me at all.
post #45 of 108
Lets face it, ESPN made a very very weak effort to promote 3D. They sat on their hands and watched it die on the vine. Shame on ESPN.
post #46 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post

Could you support this with some stats that shows this is little more than a niche market? I would like to see 4K passive hit the home market and maybe I would use it more. Like I said earlier, I loved the IMax 3d of Star Trek.

However, when it comes to 3D in general, I rarely find anyone raving about it at the movie or their home TV so nothing I see shows me it's a lasting feature.

I see people raving about 3D all the time:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134

As far as stats go, why bother. Its all in the eye of the beholder really. I was just speaking from experience and what I've seen. And I was saying that in no way did ESPN 3D or any of the other 3D channels reach anywhere close to the maximum audience available. If so, Dish Network and more of the cable companies would have carried them. And now that any decent tv being sold carries 3D as a basic feature - the audience is there more than ever - it just needs to be tapped into

Saying that there was not enough interest is a lie because they didn't do enough to reach even half of their potential audience. However, if the big movie studios stopped producing 3D versions of their movies and said it was for a lack of interest and noone was going to see them or buying the 3D bluray combo packs - people wouldn't question it nearly as much because they got the movies out there. Nearly every theatre you go to nowadays has 3D movies. So if they quit making them - that line of thought would be legitimate. But it hasn't happened yet obviously, and because of consumer interest seems to be far from happening

Only once you've done all you can and gotten nowhere - then can you blame the consumer for their "lack of interest". Maybe ESPN should admit that their quality & programming was subpar as others have said and they couldn't come to agreements with enough cable/sat providers
post #47 of 108
The reason ESPN 3D failed lack of content period.
post #48 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chise View Post

The reason ESPN 3D failed lack of content period.
Yes indeed. The question is, why the lack of content? Was it too expensive for ESPN? Did they think not enough people would watch even if there was plenty of content? We're they afraid to take the chance?
post #49 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamermwm View Post

I see people raving about 3D all the time:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134

As far as stats go, why bother. Its all in the eye of the beholder really. I was just speaking from experience and what I've seen. And I was saying that in no way did ESPN 3D or any of the other 3D channels reach anywhere close to the maximum audience available. If so, Dish Network and more of the cable companies would have carried them. And now that any decent tv being sold carries 3D as a basic feature - the audience is there more than ever - it just needs to be tapped into

Saying that there was not enough interest is a lie because they didn't do enough to reach even half of their potential audience. However, if the big movie studios stopped producing 3D versions of their movies and said it was for a lack of interest and noone was going to see them or buying the 3D bluray combo packs - people wouldn't question it nearly as much because they got the movies out there. Nearly every theatre you go to nowadays has 3D movies. So if they quit making them - that line of thought would be legitimate. But it hasn't happened yet obviously, and because of consumer interest seems to be far from happening

Only once you've done all you can and gotten nowhere - then can you blame the consumer for their "lack of interest". Maybe ESPN should admit that their quality & programming was subpar as others have said and they couldn't come to agreements with enough cable/sat providers

Actually you can blame many things, the consumer, the medium, the tools, the content, etc. The bottom line though is geeks like us in this forum; the Blu-ray forum, etc are statistically insignificant in overall sales and interest.

If you want to use anecdotal evidence, I have worked in an organization of 5000-6000 people since the reintroduction of 3D. I meet a lot of people with resources to buy these toys. Very few even talk about it. I have only met one other person with a home theater in their house. The reason these forums exist is because we can’t find very many people in our other life that share our hobby/passion. So while people here may want 3D, it's not a representation of society.
post #50 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Lets face it, ESPN made a very very weak effort to promote 3D. They sat on their hands and watched it die on the vine. Shame on ESPN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Lets face it, ESPN made a very very weak effort to promote 3D. They sat on their hands and watched it die on the vine. Shame on ESPN.
Please....

...so the other 3D channels were all in with a constant stream of new content each day? What about all the other media companies that didn't have a 3D channel? Why aren't people mad that they didn't get into the game? How many here - on a home media forum - even subscribed to the channel?

At least they made the attempt. However, you can't expect them to do every bit of programming in 3D on the hope and promise people will buy into it. It's one thing to try it - and they did give it time to pick up - and realize it's a sink hole and a complete other thing to ignore your obligations to your stockholders. In the end, they are a corporation that is obligated to be profitable.

Further, they did promote it. Every time they did a game in 3D, they let people know it was in 3D and if they didn't have the channel they should ask for it - the same as they did with HD. They did as many games as they could with the resources available, since when they started, you needed a separate truck and team to do 3D. It was only later that they were able to unify it. Even then, 3D cameras were outnumbered over 20-1.

Of course, let's not forget all the initial scorn from 3D haters when they announced the channel. A lot of people thought it was yet another attempt to capitalize on the whole Avatar hype.

ESPN 3D was killed by haters. Haters of 3D and haters of ESPN - and now they get the blame from those same haters. There was no way for them to win in this situation. They could pump money into it left and right and the result would be the same in the end.
post #51 of 108
I don't know who you are targeting with the term haters but so far all I've seen people here complain about is lack of programming (same shows repeated and repeated). I am a Dish customer and Directv's 3D channel was the only reason I was going to make the switch. You can give "D" all the credit in the world for being the first to stick their toes into the 3D water but toes in isn't enough. Also someone else here said the "D" did not charge a premium for their 3D channel so if that is correct it has nothing to do with anyone subscribing to the service.
Saying that anyone expected them to do "every bit of programming in 3D" is a concept you can't really think anybody expected. From the time ESPN first launched a 3D channel there has been an increase in 3D TV sets in the US by a factor of at least 5X. So why pull the plug now when your chance of market penetration is increasing dramatically? Pump up your product if anything.
ESPN was certainly not killed by 3D haters and even less by ESPN haters. ESPN 3D was killed by Disney short sightedness. If you're going to pioneer something like 3D TV then don't just play with it, Kick ass with it.
post #52 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

I don't know who you are targeting with the term haters but so far all I've seen people here complain about is lack of programming (same shows repeated and repeated). I am a Dish customer and Directv's 3D channel was the only reason I was going to make the switch. You can give "D" all the credit in the world for being the first to stick their toes into the 3D water but toes in isn't enough. Also someone else here said the "D" did not charge a premium for their 3D channel so if that is correct it has nothing to do with anyone subscribing to the service.
Saying that anyone expected them to do "every bit of programming in 3D" is a concept you can't really think anybody expected. From the time ESPN first launched a 3D channel there has been an increase in 3D TV sets in the US by a factor of at least 5X. So why pull the plug now when your chance of market penetration is increasing dramatically? Pump up your product if anything.
ESPN was certainly not killed by 3D haters and even less by ESPN haters. ESPN 3D was killed by Disney short sightedness. If you're going to pioneer something like 3D TV then don't just play with it, Kick ass with it.
With almost 2500 posts here, I find it hard to believe you haven't seen the absolute animosity that some people have for 3D -and I don't mean in this thread. That pales to what I hear out in the real world.

The people who like it are literally drowned out by those that don't.

Well, those that want to see 3D die are likely to get their wish. They've all but assured that no media company will invest resources in 3D TV broadcasts again any time soon.

Further, it doesn't matter how many sets are out there if people don't watch 3D. Every person I know says the same thing: I'm not going to watch 3D until they can do it without glasses.

To say it was killed by shortsightedness is bunk. I would submit 3D TV happened due to shortsightedness: i.e., the failure to see this was never going to be mainstream enough to pay for itself.

You say 3D TV's have increased 5x from the time the channel launched, so where are those viewers? They haven't increased by 5x, 4x or even 2x. The numbers suck.

Sorry, but the only thing people are moving toward is ever more ways to stream video. They don't care where it comes from or what it looks like - and they sure don't care if it's in 3D. They just want it on their tablets and phones. The next generation of viewer will likely never even buy a TV.
post #53 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

With almost 2500 posts here, I find it hard to believe you haven't seen the absolute animosity that some people have for 3D -and I don't mean in this thread. That pales to what I hear out in the real world.

The people who like it are literally drowned out by those that don't.

Well, those that want to see 3D die are likely to get their wish. They've all but assured that no media company will invest resources in 3D TV broadcasts again any time soon.

Further, it doesn't matter how many sets are out there if people don't watch 3D. Every person I know says the same thing: I'm not going to watch 3D until they can do it without glasses.

To say it was killed by shortsightedness is bunk. I would submit 3D TV happened due to shortsightedness: i.e., the failure to see this was never going to be mainstream enough to pay for itself.

You say 3D TV's have increased 5x from the time the channel launched, so where are those viewers? They haven't increased by 5x, 4x or even 2x. The numbers suck.

Sorry, but the only thing people are moving toward is ever more ways to stream video. They don't care where it comes from or what it looks like - and they sure don't care if it's in 3D. They just want it on their tablets and phones. The next generation of viewer will likely never even buy a TV.
I have indeed seen the animosity as long as we leave out the word absolute. I read and participate in all the 3D threads. My Real world must differ from yours greatly. My wife and I love 3D on our TV as do all of our friends.

I see more people on these threads that like 3D compared to the numbers that do not. The two never ending reasons given for not liking 3D seem to be, it gives me a headache, which is a very good and understandable reason, and I don't want to wear glasses, which is a very weak reason. Most of us wear sun glasses without much of a problem. Millions of people wear regular glasses without much of a problem. A typical 3D movie lasts less than 2 hours which really doesn't sound like torture.

Now your statement that, "every person I know says the same thing, I',m not going to watch 3D until they can do it without glasses", every person? Right now people are flocking to see current 3D movies like "Man of Steel", "Epic", and Friday's release of "The Lone Ranger". And they are paying a premium for the 3D experience.

You ask, where are those viewers, they are buying blu-ray 3D's and enjoying them on their new 3D TV's. What else are they supposed to watch? Do you think that the average person that goes out and spends a grand on a new 3D TV isn't going to want to watch something in 3D? They might not love it but they don't need to watch everything in 3D, just pick and choose. While I agree with you that streaming is a catchy trend with the younger crowd, that's also who is going to see 3D at the movies.
post #54 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

I have indeed seen the animosity as long as we leave out the word absolute. I read and participate in all the 3D threads. My Real world must differ from yours greatly. My wife and I love 3D on our TV as do all of our friends.

I see more people on these threads that like 3D compared to the numbers that do not. The two never ending reasons given for not liking 3D seem to be, it gives me a headache, which is a very good and understandable reason, and I don't want to wear glasses, which is a very weak reason. Most of us wear sun glasses without much of a problem. Millions of people wear regular glasses without much of a problem. A typical 3D movie lasts less than 2 hours which really doesn't sound like torture.
People may wear glasses with no problem, but combining them with 3D glasses sucks. Thankfully, I wear contacts, so the glasses don't bother me. I just find too many movies just don't warrant the use of 3D, hence I usually opt not to choose the 3D presentation when I do go to the movies.
Quote:
Now your statement that, "every person I know says the same thing, I',m not going to watch 3D until they can do it without glasses", every person? Right now people are flocking to see current 3D movies like "Man of Steel", "Epic", and Friday's release of "The Lone Ranger". And they are paying a premium for the 3D experience.
Every single one. While some will bear with wearing the glasses for a few select movies, they refuse to wear them for anything but the few movies they think will be worth it. I don't know anyone who watches 3D at home. Most tried it and decided it wasn't worth it.
Quote:
You ask, where are those viewers, they are buying blu-ray 3D's and enjoying them on their new 3D TV's. What else are they supposed to watch? Do you think that the average person that goes out and spends a grand on a new 3D TV isn't going to want to watch something in 3D? They might not love it but they don't need to watch everything in 3D, just pick and choose. While I agree with you that streaming is a catchy trend with the younger crowd, that's also who is going to see 3D at the movies.
Most TVs of any size come with 3D capabilities. They didn't buy a TV that does 3D. The bought a TV that also does 3D along with everything else.

The fact is, few TV technologies have divided people as much as 3D. Even those that don't watch HD don't hate it - they just don't think it's worth it. The same goes for DVRs. Blu-ray had some animosity in the wake of the format war, but even those folks eventually sucked it up and bought in. With 3D, it almost feels like a religious argument. Those that hate it don't simply not want to watch it - they want it to die. I'm not sure why that is, but they do. It's not enough for them not to watch it, they don't want anyone else to be able to.

I'm glad you enjoy 3D and I feel badly for you that one of those sources is going away, but to assume ESPN should soak up the cost and continue down this road when pretty much no one else will is unrealistic. Their obligation is to put their resources toward those things they can leverage toward the most viewers possible.

3D isn't one of those things.
post #55 of 108
You make it sound like poor old ESPN got stuck with being the only 3D channel in town. They didn't get stuck, they chose to jump on the band wagon to the point of being the only wagon. ESPN soaking up the cost because nobody else is in the game was a calculated risk that they chose to take. I'm just saying that ESPN not only bailed too soon they actually hindered their own effort with overly repeated programming and a lack of new interesting material. Remember who owns ESPN. That would be Disney who just happens to be the number one producer of 3D movies in the world along with number two Sony. With the financial backing of ABC, Disney , ESPN, and Sony you would think they could have been the trail blazer, which was their initial intention. Think about it. Sony and Disney for 3D movies and 3D blu-ray discs and ABC and ESPN for 3D TV and ad in Sony for 3DTV's and 3D blu-ray players. How could they not be a huge winner. They changed their minds mid stream. They expected instant gratification and that seems to be becoming the American way.
post #56 of 108
It's the quick buck they're after. That indeed is the American way. Ol' Gordon Gekko used to be considered the villain and now he's looked upon as a hero to businessmen.

Shows like Seinfeld and The X-Files would never be allowed to find their footing in today's climate. They want instant viewership.
post #57 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

You make it sound like poor old ESPN got stuck with being the only 3D channel in town. They didn't get stuck, they chose to jump on the band wagon to the point of being the only wagon. ESPN soaking up the cost because nobody else is in the game was a calculated risk that they chose to take. I'm just saying that ESPN not only bailed too soon they actually hindered their own effort with overly repeated programming and a lack of new interesting material. Remember who owns ESPN. That would be Disney who just happens to be the number one producer of 3D movies in the world along with number two Sony. With the financial backing of ABC, Disney , ESPN, and Sony you would think they could have been the trail blazer, which was their initial intention. Think about it. Sony and Disney for 3D movies and 3D blu-ray discs and ABC and ESPN for 3D TV and ad in Sony for 3DTV's and 3D blu-ray players. How could they not be a huge winner. They changed their minds mid stream. They expected instant gratification and that seems to be becoming the American way.
Instant gratification?

The channel was up for 2 1/2 years - and they managed less than 250,000 viewers. That's the viewership of channels like "Current" - and you know where they went....
post #58 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't know anyone who watches 3D at home

Stopped reading everything else you will ever have to say after reading that.
post #59 of 108
Reruns of old sporting events 24-7 with an occasional live event was never going to be successful. It was free with Directv but I only watched it the first week I had my 3D TV and then some of the Olympics and some golf after that. It won't be missed at all.
post #60 of 108
Maybe ESPN believed all the 3D hype put forth by the manufacturers!

I seriously doubt any commercial broadcast entity will go thru the time/energy/expense/headaches to routinely broadcast anything 3D...
(the key word is "routinely"... not like the superbowl, olympic games or some rare sports occurrance/media event.) not ESPN, not ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox... not even HBO or Showtime, which produce their own shows and have 3D offerings (someone else's work/production).

That's not to say it is not possible, because it most certainly is, even today, and it's easy!
.... 1st you spend boat loads of money on... oh wait... never mind... "return of investment" ain't gonna happen... forget about it!

Remember 3D is purely optional. We all have our own opinions on what warrents good 3D presentations. Some here lap up every 3D Blu-Ray combo pack their wallet can afford, some are more (extremely?) picky/discerning that " find too many movies just don't warrant the use of 3D, hence I usually opt not to choose the 3D presentation when I do go to the movies." Hey, to each there own!

I have to agree that ESPN did themselves no favor offering the same thing over and over. I have to agree that their market share was smaller than would be needed to be successful given decent programs/programing. I can't say it is anyones fault other than ESPN's for the failure of their 3D experience.
I also can't say this reflects anything on 3D in the home (or theater)... regardless of how many people we all know that love or hate 3D.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › R.I.P. ESPN 3D—What's Next?