BBC Realizes the Obvious, Puts 3D plans on Hold

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The BBC has thrown in the 3D towel, at least for the foreseeable future, basically due to lack of interest from the 3DTV viewing population. The BBC’s decision comes on the heels of ESPN deciding to shut down its 3D sports broadcasts. Is this just another signal to the rest of the 3D broadcasters that the grand experiment is beginning to witness its own demise?

The TV industry seems to have realized 3D's lack of appeal rather sooner than the BBC. 3D TV technology of some kind is now endemic, at least among high-end TV sets, but if this year's CES was any indication, TV manufacturers have already stopped pushing it as a meaningful feature, instead pinning their hopes on 4K.
Click to expand...
 
I want 3d, I just want a superior implementation, and I don't want to wear glasses.
 
well, seeing how 3d gimmick comes and goes every 7~8 yrs, they can prepare for the next one.
 
I've been watching Andy Murray and the Lisicki vs Bartoli Womens final in HD 3D (Channel 980 on freesat) on a projector and its pretty damn good!
I much prefer it.

The problem is what the BBC have been using 3D for.
The Olympics opening and closing ceremonies does look quite good but was too long, strung out and not engrossing to watch in 3D.
Who wants to watch strictly come dancing in 3D?
Then there is the lack of advertising the 3D services, I found the 3D tennis by sheer luck.

They dont have their heads screwed on right, the BBC are wasting resources all over the place and then dont cut out the stupid, they cut good things to continue more stupid.
They have wasted hundreds of millions paying off people not to take them to court for past stupidities.
The upcoming sex scandals show how long they have been complicit.

We pay for this and dont get a say.
grr
 
Right now, 1/3 of the 2013 TV models are 3D capable,

But the catch 22 is you need the media AND the TV's to arrive before each other.

The number of 3D movies in the theaters is increasing, but cable and other broadband have very little content.
 
Jeeze, and I was just about to buy my very own headache-o-vision.

I guess I'll stick with getting the effect by beating my head against a wall before the news comes on.
 
My friend has a 3d tv & he barely uses it in the past 2 years. It's really uncomfortable after an hour of playing a game or watching a movie & gives most a headache and strains your eyes really bad. yep gimmick, at least until someday there's a better type of 3d that doesn't hurt your eyes
 
The TV manufacturers counting on 4K to be a big sales item seems dubious to me also. It really only benefits huge TVs if we are talking about people watching it from regular viewing distances (e.g. the normal 7-12 ft of distance between the couch and the TV). Yes, there will be tech heads and early adopters that take the dive into 4K, but lots of people are pretty happy with 1080P. If the studios really think that people want to replace their DVD/Blu-ray/downloaded media collections with yet another format that has even more of a price premium attached to it... I say "good luck".
 
I'd rather have a much sharper/clearer picture than some gimmicky pseudo-3D video. I'm not even sold on it when it comes to watching movies at the theaters. Sure, the first 15 minutes of a movie looks interesting at 3D but after that you don't realize it. I saw Avatar 3D at the imax than two weeks later saw the 2D version. I couldn't tell the difference. Although, I'm sure anyone would tell the difference if you saw both versions side by side but that's not the point. Right? I guess today's 3D just isn't that impressive, IMO.
Again, I'd rather have a much sharper and more realistic picture.
 
Now only if Hollywood would get the message and do the same with movies. Then filmmakers will actually have to get creative and make a real movie instead of a demo reel of 3D effects.
 
I read about this and it sucks. looks like 3d is going to be dead again and I rather it didnt. if the movie is in 3d, I watch that over 2d and I play most games in 3d. Went and got tridef to play pc games in 3d as well. I watch the couple channels directv gives me. I dont get why people put it down though, for normal tv viewing it is a pain and I understand that. Flip the channel and you have to make sure your glasses are there otherwise you have to get up and get them. They just needed to push glasses free 3d. To me, to say 3d is a gimmick is like says 1080 or 4k is. They make the picture clearer and sharper so it adds to it.. thats what 3d does to me, adds to my experience. as long as theres 3d media, I will get it and enjoy it.
 
I don't think the problem was the TV's or 3d itself, rather it was the CRAPPY movies and things that used 3d in a "gimmicky" manner.

So many 3d movies wer ejust terrible and usesd it with that old ass "throw shit out at you" crap that gets old REALLY fast.

However for everyone that says it is nothing but a "gimmick" I have to wonder if they saw either Avatar in 3d or Life of Pi.

Both of these films usesd 3d BRILLIANTLY and it really did make you feel immersed in teh movie, they didn't rely on cheap gimmicky 3d effects nad rather allowed 3d to envelop the movie and give depth to everything.

The under-water scenes in Life of Pi were breathtaking in 3d.
 
There is also crappy 3D hardware.
I have a passive LG 3DTV over 1 yr old which is surprisingly excellent, very little ghosting, no flicker.
A friend has a very large Samsung 3DTV using shutter glasses and that is great, a little ghosting on very bright objects, it is a very bright TV.
I recently bought an Optoma 3D projector using shutter glasses which is better than either, almost zero ghosting and only flickers if my fish tanks metal halide lamp is in view, fixed by changing my seating angle then there is no perceivable flicker, smoooth.

If you have lights on in the room, that can cause strobing with shutter glasses. If you will have lights on, it may be best to get passive 3D.
I have owned many different PC 3D kits and some of them are awful, there certainly are bad implementations of glasses hardware and 3D processing.
Get known very good hardware, then you will know whether you are compatible with it.
 
darkpark said:
... I saw Avatar 3D at the imax than two weeks later saw the 2D version. ....
Click to expand...

IMO, Avatar 3D was the modern showcase for home theater 3D. 3D done right.

There were few "gimmicks", and much of the film you can't tell it's 3D. Like real life, your binocular vision sucks after a few yards. Your brain has learned how to deal with this and makes it's own 3D based on experience.

Home theater 3D is different than movie theater 3D. While the camera angles don't change, the effect is better at home.

But the glasses are a major fail.
 
PS - Ours is a Sharp Aquos system. Works very well. Glasses too heavy though.
 
It's all in the content.

I can do a 2.5 hour race in iRacing in 3d and be comfortable all the way through.

However, the typical TV commercial and many shows shift viewpoints constantly. That would be painful in 3d.

As I noted on another forum when ESPN3D made its announcement, any tech has to get past the preview stage before it's adopted. When HD was new, the cable/sat companies put up 1-3 channels. These featured reruns of then-ancient movies and a very few nature shows that served as nice demo reels ... once.

Then Voom came along and offered 30 channels, and faltered mainly because everyone else had to offer some HD to keep up. By that time, HD was more or less mainstream ... although we still either pay or have waived an "HD fee" depending on how unfortunate our choice of carriers is.

3D is at that stage; ESPN carried bad games from past years that nobody wants to watch; BBC broadcast similar dreck; and I think Comcast has a demo reel channel. Zzzz.

If Fox did one season of NASCAR in 3d with all its camera angles and in-car views, 3d would be mainstream (and I'm not a turn-left guy). It's all in the content.
 
EChondo said:
Who the hell wants 3D in the first place? It's a gimmick, nothing more.
Click to expand...

the same morons that now believe Kinect and The Cloud™ are the next big must-have


i'd love to know where all the people that used to fill comment threads and avsforum threads about 3DTV finally being 'here to stay' and 'not a fad this time' are hiding
 
DPI said:
the same morons that now believe Kinect and The Cloud™ are the next big must-have


i'd love to know where all the people that used to fill comment threads and avsforum threads about 3DTV finally being 'here to stay' and 'not a fad this time' are hiding
Click to expand...

and I'll add touchscreen laptops and touchscreen everything.. the morons that believe touch interfaces belong everywhere regardless of ergonomics or usability issues in a vertical position
 
DPI said:
the same morons that now believe Kinect and The Cloud™ are the next big must-have


i'd love to know where all the people that used to fill comment threads and avsforum threads about 3DTV finally being 'here to stay' and 'not a fad this time' are hiding
Click to expand...

I've never been one of those.
if its not for you, fair enough, I enjoy it a lot and have seen the crap side of it.
Its improved a lot and is ver presentable now.
The shame is that you cant see anything other than what you see or allow others to enjoy what you cant.
 
Nenu said:
I've never been one of those.
if its not for you, fair enough, I enjoy it a lot and have seen the crap side of it.
Its improved a lot and is ver presentable now.
The shame is that you cant see anything other than what you see or allow others to enjoy what you cant.
Click to expand...

It hasn't improved. Even the best "3D" of this type is crap. Seriously, this is bad for your eyes, don't use it. Just wait for Oculus Rift if you really enjoy 3D so much as you say.
 
dgz said:
It hasn't improved. Even the best "3D" of this type is crap. Seriously, this is bad for your eyes, don't use it. Just wait for Oculus Rift if you really enjoy 3D so much as you say.
Click to expand...

Did you see either Avatar or Life of Pi in 3d?

They were NOTHING like those old crappy 3d movies from the 50's or 80's with the gimmicky throw crap out of the screen effects they went for.

The way Cameron used 3d to give depth to everything made you feel like you were in the movie rather then looking through a window where stuff occasionally poked through which is how most 3d films were.
 
Stiler said:
Did you see either Avatar or Life of Pi in 3d?

They were NOTHING like those old crappy 3d movies from the 50's or 80's with the gimmicky throw crap out of the screen effects they went for.

The way Cameron used 3d to give depth to everything made you feel like you were in the movie rather then looking through a window where stuff occasionally poked through which is how most 3d films were.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Some of the 3D films made have been excellent and really show how the product can be used right. Generally, the ones that film in 3D but don't try to do any gimmicks -- just the 3D process adds to the film quality. I think its still up to the content producers though. If every-major-network like CBS, ABC, HBO, whomever did a full-season of every-new-show in 3D with every spots game on their respective networks in 3D, you'd see people the ppl that bought them raving about them.

In reality, there's no 3D programming in my area from any cable providers making a 3D TV only useful with over-priced 3D Blu-rays requiring even more overpriced 3D Blu-ray players. This is pretty much why people don't care about 3D -- that actually enjoy 3D like myself.
 
Stiler said:
Did you see either Avatar or Life of Pi in 3d?

They were NOTHING like those old crappy 3d movies from the 50's or 80's with the gimmicky throw crap out of the screen effects they went for.

The way Cameron used 3d to give depth to everything made you feel like you were in the movie rather then looking through a window where stuff occasionally poked through which is how most 3d films were.
Click to expand...

The problem is for every good 3D movie ,there's dozens of terrible ones. Cameron is in a class of his own,he hasn't sold out like Spielberg and Lucas.
 
infojunkie said:
well, seeing how 3d gimmick comes and goes every 7~8 yrs, they can prepare for the next one.
Click to expand...

SO DAMN TRUE. I've noticed that as well. It's definately something being "forced" onto people that simply keeps failing over and over. Like some billionaires meet up every once in a while to talk about how "3D" is the next big thing and "NOW IS THE TIME!" and then it falls flat on its face again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top