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 3

post #61 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamermwm View Post

Stopped reading everything else you will ever have to say after reading that.

Really? I LOVE 3D TV and watch it at home. But I don't know anybody outside of the forums that watches 3D TV. How does that make me any less credible (which with my 100 posts I agree is not much but you get the point).
post #62 of 108
R.I.P. ESPN 3D—What's Next?

Well...I don't think the demise of ESPN 3D is any big deal. Indeed. It reminds me of when ABC dropped HD broadcasts of Monday Night Football years ago because of lack of viewership. They will be back sometime down the road.

Anyway, I think offering sports programming as a way of attracting viewers is the wrong approach for 3D home TV at this time. Hell...who watches a 3D game the same way anyone watches a 3D movie. When I watch a game, I'm usually multi-tasking and/or talking to my wife, where as when I'm watching a movie...the movie gets my undivided attention. Big difference.

I think the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) would be well served by offering 3D versions of future shows like the new "Band of Brothers" type show that Spielberg has in the works. WOW...I'd love to see "Homeland" in 3D!!!! Man...just copy to the small screen what Hollywood is doing so successfully with 3D movies. smile.gif
post #63 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamermwm View Post

Stopped reading everything else you will ever have to say after reading that.
Sorry, but I don't. I know people who tried it and don't like it, but nobody who bothers to watch anything in 3D on their home TV.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your world, but it's a symptom of why 3D isn't more popular in the home environment.

The people I know don't want to be strapped to the couch with glasses on their face. They want to be able to go about their business while a game or some other show is on instead of sitting and doing nothing but watching.
post #64 of 108
I'd hate to have everything in 3D. It's distracting IMHO to the story and the cinematography and even cheapens them. The imagery has to WOW you ALL THE TIME with POP OUT EFFECTS and that may be fine for popcorn crap like a Michael Bay film, but for most everything else 2D and audio at the highest quality possible is just fine. Stereoscopic 3D still is nowhere near how we actually view the world, and so it usually looks unnatural.

If they can start doing lossless object oriented surround for all TV shows and movies, that would be awesome because it can even enhance subtle sound cues in a mix not just wiz bang effects.
post #65 of 108
Presentation is everything. Right now animated and computer generated is the best quality and the easiest and least expensive way to do 3D. Part of the problem today is the lack of quality standards. I think Avatar with MR. Cameron at the helm, set the current standard with the use of 3D dedicated cameras. How much better can it get? Hopefully, like everything else, it can get even better with time and experience. For now I agree with others that the future, if there is one, resides in 3D movies on the premium channels. Doing a quick check on Amazon I see that in 2011 there were 48 3D movies released. IN 2012 there were 57, and in 2013 there is 37 scheduled. Big movies like Man of Steel, Epic, The Lone Ranger, the new Star Trek movie, Jurassic Park is being re-done in 3D, plus movies like Brave, Up, Oz the Great and Powerful, Hanzel and Gretal Witch Hunters, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Prometheus, Ice Age: Continental Drift, Life of Pi, Fright Night, Green Lantern, Thor. I could be wrong but I really think that people would watch those type of movies in 3D. Would they charge extra or would they just include them in the regular package hoping that more people would subscribe? If HBO showed 3 or 4 new 3D movies each month I would spend the $10-$12mo to join. Heck, I already spent $1000-or more for my 3D TV, why not use it? Just give me something GOOD to watch.
post #66 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Presentation is everything. Right now animated and computer generated is the best quality and the easiest and least expensive way to do 3D. Part of the problem today is the lack of quality standards. I think Avatar with MR. Cameron at the helm, set the current standard with the use of 3D dedicated cameras. How much better can it get? Hopefully, like everything else, it can get even better with time and experience. For now I agree with others that the future, if there is one, resides in 3D movies on the premium channels. Doing a quick check on Amazon I see that in 2011 there were 48 3D movies released. IN 2012 there were 57, and in 2013 there is 37 scheduled. Big movies like Man of Steel, Epic, The Lone Ranger, the new Star Trek movie, Jurassic Park is being re-done in 3D, plus movies like Brave, Up, Oz the Great and Powerful, Hanzel and Gretal Witch Hunters, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Prometheus, Ice Age: Continental Drift, Life of Pi, Fright Night, Green Lantern, Thor. I could be wrong but I really think that people would watch those type of movies in 3D. Would they charge extra or would they just include them in the regular package hoping that more people would subscribe? If HBO showed 3 or 4 new 3D movies each month I would spend the $10-$12mo to join. Heck, I already spent $1000-or more for my 3D TV, why not use it? Just give me something GOOD to watch.

Trouble is that so many of these titles are not even true 3D productions (except for the CGI titles), but upconverts. Doesn't bode well, does it?
post #67 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Trouble is that so many of these titles are not even true 3D productions (except for the CGI titles), but upconverts. Doesn't bode well, does it?

Nope:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130619/fifa-world-cup-3d-tv-coverage.ap/

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) -- FIFA is considering scrapping 3-D broadcasts of the next World Cup, describing ESPN's decision to abandon the format as another setback for the technology.

The sports network said earlier this week that there weren't enough viewers in the United States to make 3-D broadcasts worth the investment, and ESPN's dedicated channel will close by the end of the year.

"We know that the technology has had a few setbacks in recent days, if you refer to some of the statements by (ESPN),'' Niclas Ericson, FIFA's director of television, said Wednesday at a briefing during the Confederations Cup.

"It's clear when a big sports broadcaster like ESPN makes an announcement like that it creates a lot of extra tension (for the technology),'' Ericson added.
post #68 of 108
post #69 of 108
I really have to wonder if the entire 3D resistance is not largely cost and timing. I purchased my last living room TV in 2006. I paid 1500+ for a 37" LCD. I'm only now upgrading to a nice 60". Most of America has purchased a new "flat screen" tv in the last 10 years because of the flat LCD screen and OTA conversion. A lot of people just aren't going to shell out a fairly substantial chunk of change for a limited upgrade (3D). And it's not just the TV, it's the bluray player and infrastructure as well.

Now that I'm upgrading, one of the features I made sure was on my tv, and bluray player, is 3D. I think there are a lot of people out there that just haven't chosen to upgrade yet.... but they will.

I also think that "no glasses required" and or passive 3d glasses are necessary. The technology needs to be easy and understandable by everyone. I shudder to think of how many people I know would not be able to pair a set of active glasses, determine which of the 5 versions of Avatar listed on Amazon include a 3d bluray, or worse, figure out which bluray player they need to buy to make it work.
post #70 of 108
Yes going 3D can be costly, but it's getting better. Many 60" 3D TV's in the below $1500 range can be had. A highly rated 3D blu-ray player is currently going for $110. As you say, passive is my choice. Now the biggest road block. The stupid movies are very expensive and you can't rent them from Red Box, or Netflix, or Blockbuster. A few specialty place have them but they run around $8.
post #71 of 108
I still think the glasses are a major factor - and the more restricted viewing angles required.
post #72 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.
But are they saying they can deliver streamed 4K at a Blu-ray equivalent quality - or something nearer broadcast TV quality. UK H264 OTA on DVB-T is averaging around 7.5Mbs for a 1080i channel - though as it is statmuxed channels can peak at 17.5Mbs (and often sports content sits at around 10Mbs) IP streamed 1080p content is typically around 5Mbs (sometimes lower).

If you wanted to compare 1080p Netflix (c.5Mbs?) with an equivalent 4k IP streaming service - then with H264 you'd expect to need 4 x 1080p streams = 20Mbs. Isn't HEVC supposed to compress quite a lot better than H264 does - so halving the data rate required to 10Mbs doesn't sound that unrealistic does it?

I agree that 4k at Blu-ray compression quality (i.e. almost no visible artefacts) looks a bit optimistic at 10Mbs - but it may be that they are quoting 10Mbs as a bitrate for a 4k service aimed at those more tolerant to compression artefacts (as Netflix etc. viewers probably are?)
Quote:
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.

I don't see 1080/60p (or 50p) taking off - and didn't really ever see it doing so. The difference in quality compared to 1080/60i or 50i are marginal to most viewers I suspect. The vast majority of 1080p content is 1080/24p (or 1080/25p in Europe) - which survives in a 1080i wrapper - so there's no real benefit to 1080p encoding (though this side of the pond the BBC are running encoders which switch between 1080/25p and 1080/50i compression on the fly on a GOP-by-GOP - I think - as 1080p content compresses better in a 1080p flagged encode?)

I think 4K may arrive quite soon. Displays are beginning to appear, and IP download delivery is definitely a viable model (the VOD/Catch-Up system on our dominant pay-TV platform, Sky, uses IP download rather than streaming, and the quality is much better as a result. Usually around 8Mbs 1080i H264. )
post #73 of 108
Thank goodness StereoVision is not dying, ha! It's just playing possum.
post #74 of 108
I would have if they had more sports events available they wanted to fail.
post #75 of 108
If abc brought back mnf...the pq will be worse. Look at what abc did to college football nba and other hd sports. Last year the Olympics were in 3d for the first time via a 3d channel sponsored by Panasonic, who invented hd cameras for the 92 games as an experiment. 3d is great for movies and shows but sports and video games a nono.
post #76 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


The people I know don't want to be strapped to the couch with glasses on their face. They want to be able to go about their business while a game or some other show is on instead of sitting and doing nothing but watching.

This is it in a nutshell!

If 3D will ever work without the glasses/goggles it may become mainstream.
post #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

Last year the Olympics were in 3d for the first time via a 3d channel sponsored by Panasonic, who invented hd cameras for the 92 games as an experiment. 3d is great for movies and shows but sports and video games a nono.

Where did you get that Panasonic invented HD cameras for the 92 games as an experiment? They did deploy some cameras which may have been developed out of their HD programme - mainly modified for high-frame rate capture (again not a new invention - others had done it before) ISTR

There were experimental HD cameras at the 1984 Games in LA (I've seen the footage), and a lot more HD coverage at Seoul in 1988. http://www.nhk.or.jp/digitalmuseum/nhk50years_en/history/p26/

I first saw HD cameras at the BBC in 1988 or 1989 (BTS KCH-1000s) which were used for both studio and sports productions in the late 80s/early 90s. The BBC shot an HD drama (in co-production with NHK) in 1988.

Sony and Panasonic were both demoing HiVision kit at IBC in the UK in 1990 or 1991 - and Sony were demo-ing 3D HDTV that year as well (using polarised glasses) in a cinema. The Sony cameras were massively better than the Panasonic system even then (ISTR that Panasonic and Ikegami both had smaller, lower quality HD systems using UniHi recorders - which was a cassette based system).

The European manufacturers Philips/BTS and Thomson both had HD cameras at both the Albertville and Barcelona Olympics in 1992 (I think some of the Philips/BTS models were CCD rather than tubed by then), based on the work done in the 80s for the Eureka 1250 European HD system (the Philips/BTS cameras were massively better than the Thomsons - which is hardly a surprise..).

I watched the European HD broadcasts (albeit in 16:9 SD via a D2-MAC receiver watching the HD-MAC broadcasts)

The main development for the 1992 Olympics was Panasonic's D3 digital 1/2" VT recording (albeit composite) - which until then had needed 3/4" tape (D1 Component or D2 Composite) They even had one or two camcorders (though I don't think anyone bought any in any number - if they ever actually got delivered). NBC, NHK and the BBC all bought D3. Not sure many others did. 2 years later Digital Betacam (1/2" component digital) had arrived...
Edited by sneals2000 - 6/22/13 at 3:49pm
post #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GqMagic View Post

This is it in a nutshell!

If 3D will ever work without the glasses/goggles it may become mainstream.

Even without glasses you would have to be seated in front and middle or lose the stereo vision effect it is not a hologram.
post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Even without glasses you would have to be seated in front and middle or lose the stereo vision effect it is not a hologram.

Yes - though there are 3D systems other than stereoscopic broadcast that might solve that.
post #80 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

Yes - though there are 3D systems other than stereoscopic broadcast that might solve that.

The content is baked parallax, so no it wont. Even with a fish-bowl display, which is the best for stereovision, you have to set in front right at the middle and lose the effect the further you deviate from that.
Edited by wuther - 6/23/13 at 5:42am
post #81 of 108
3d can be fun. I have a Sony HDTV, w3d. I wear glasses and the Sony 3d glasses did not work for me, so I tried the Flick ones, with great success.

Just because a film is 3d does not mean I jump at seeing it or buying the bluray....am very selective, but get ltd of enjoyment from:
Dial M for Murder
Creature from the Black Lagoon
Titanic
Jurassic Park

Dial M, and Creature are original 3d films, while the other two are very well done conversions.

I look forward to seeing House of Wax, another original 3d film, when it debuts in October. There are many classic 3d films that have yet to be brought to bluray ....maybe never. I am not sure where the 'conversion trail' will lead, but we are about to witness the release of Wizard of Oz in 3d conversion.

Time will tell, of course.
Life is short....enjoy it!
post #82 of 108
Typo....GLICK glasses, not Flick. Sorry.
post #83 of 108
Wasn't titanic cropped for the 3d bluray? Kinda ruins the director's vision...
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Even without glasses you would have to be seated in front and middle or lose the stereo vision effect it is not a hologram.
If the need to wear glasses is your major problem then there is absolutely no argument that will ever convince you otherwise. The same can be said regarding the need to be pretty much right in front of the TV. Now for some of us that have worn glasses all of our lives, or the majority of people that have no problem wearing sun glasses for hours on end (golf, lakes, sporting events etc) the better quality light weight 3D glasses (they fit right over my regular glasses) certainly pose a minor inconvenience at most. There are just certain compromises you must make to enjoy certain things. Those certain things just have to be good enough to warrant the compromise. For some it is and for some it isn't. For me, glasses, no big deal, off axis viewing, minor deal, cost of Active glasses, big deal, cost of 3D movies, big deal, lack of decent broadcast programming, big deal. One thing for sure, we here all love TV.
post #85 of 108
True that Titanic was slightly cropped for 3d, but the director approved and oversaw the conversion.
Not originally a fan of 3d conversion ..but when done right, like Titanic and Jurassic Park, it can add to the enjoyment.
post #86 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

The content is baked parallax, so no it wont. Even with a fish-bowl display, which is the best for stereovision, you have to set in front right at the middle and lose the effect the further you deviate from that.
Yes - but does content have to be baked parallax long term. If you can deliver 3D without using stereoscopic capture you have more options for presentation don't you?

Stereoscopic capture is a lot easier than the other forms of 3D capture though - so whether the technology ever evolves to a practical level is the question I guess.

The Hungarian stuff at IBC was pretty jaw dropping (where you could move your head and look behind stuff!)
post #87 of 108
Add to the 3D fans misery:

RIP FIFA 3D world cup Brazil
FIFA considers scrapping 3-D coverage of World Cup
Quote:
FIFA is considering scrapping 3-D broadcasts of the next World Cup, describing ESPN's decision to abandon the format as another setback for the technology.
The sports network said earlier this week that there weren't enough viewers in the United States to make 3-D broadcasts worth the investment, and ESPN's dedicated channel will close by the end of the year.
post #88 of 108
No 3d wimbledon....just 4k broadcast on bbc hd in uk. Sign of the times...also bbc dr who 3d will be last 3d broadcast before a break. Wonder if sochi will be first winter olympics in 3d? Also next year no x games no college football....
post #89 of 108
It looks like 3D will be relegated to blu-ray for the next few years.
post #90 of 108
I agree with that post. 3d blurays will always have the best quality.
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?