ESPN 3D, looking for ROI and not looking good... - Page 2 - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:09 PM
Kosty's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 28,296
Default

I watched one world cup game in 3D at the CES lineshow in Manhattan last summer. Kinda interesting and was cool I guess, but not the sort the thing that I had an exceptional urge to run out and buy a new set to watch. It was more the sort of thing that if I already had a 3D set, I would watch special events in 3D on it, but everyday viewing......thats another story.

In my mind its great that most 3D sets have to be excellent regular 2D HDTVs too.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:11 PM
Lee Stewart's Avatar
Formerly "HDTV Addict"
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bak View Post
When the Super Bowl is broadcast in 3D, we will know it has arrived
HDTV was launched Q4, 1997. the first Super Bowl broadcast in HD was 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:32 PM
luclin999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy View Post
3D TV just needs a few years to mature a bit....that's all. Hell... I remember during HDTVs formative years beginning in 2001 initially getting just a few NFL/college games in HD and in a matter of just a few years having my pick of HD telecast games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
HDTV was launched Q4, 1997. the first Super Bowl broadcast in HD was 2000.
Comparing "3D" and HDTV is really a poor analogy as they are more like apples and oranges.

Everyone who watches TV sees an improvement in picture and color quality when moving from SD to HD television.

However for "3D", the added trouble/cost of the glasses + the percentage of people who can't see/don't want "3D" in any form means that the two products do not match up perfectly for comparison.

While like HDTV, the "3D" feature may in fact someday come standard in every set sold (a big maybe, but still a possibility), the fact is that many people will NEVER want to bother wearing those goofy glasses for any length of time. The added inconvenience of that requirement will always be a deterrent no matter how inexpensive the technology may become and thus will always inhibit the general adoption of the format.

Add to that the percentage of people who either cannot perceive the gimmick or suffer some sort of reaction from exposure to it (headache, dizziness etc.) and it is guaranteed that "3D" will never become as widely popular or adopted as HD has become.

Last edited by luclin999; 11-04-2010 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:12 PM
Lee Stewart's Avatar
Formerly "HDTV Addict"
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luclin999 View Post
Comparing "3D" and HDTV is really a poor analogy as they are more like apples and oranges.
LOL - maybe on your score sheet. But not on mine.

Every see the moniker; "Full HD per eye?"

And what is a 3DTV when not running in 3D mode? It's an HDTV.

Quote:
Everyone who watches TV sees an improvement in picture and color quality when moving from SD to HD television.
And you can easily see the difference between 2D HD and 3D HD. The same type of 3D you see at your local 3D cinema. IF you have no vision problems. Most don't. But that is a requirement for 3DTV.

Quote:
However for "3D", the added trouble/cost of the glasses + the percentage of people who can't see/don't want "3D" in any form means that the two products do not match up perfectly for comparison.
The number of people who supposedly can't see 3D is like horseshit . . . all over the place. I have seen numbers from 10% all the way up to 20% but there are no real facts associated with any of them. They just don't know for sure.

And the cost of the glasses is definitely coming down. Now at approx $100 and under as opposed to $150 just a few months ago.

The products match up perfectly if you can see 3D. No one is claiming that 3DTV is for everyone.

Quote:
While like HDTV, the "3D" feature may in fact someday come standard in every set sold (a big maybe, but still a possibility), the fact is that many people will NEVER want to bother wearing those goofy glasses for any length of time. The added inconvenience of that requirement will always be a deterrent no matter how inexpensive the technology may become and thus will always inhibit the general adoption of the format.
BD players once cost $1000. Now they cost less than $100. No reason why economies of scale will not be applied to active shutter glasses.

People have been viewing 3D for well over 50 years in theaters and they have always needed to wear some kind of eye wear. It isn't a new concept.

Quote:
Add to that the percentage of people who either cannot perceive the gimmick or suffer some sort of reaction from exposure to it (headache, dizziness etc.) and it is guaranteed that "3D" will never become as widely popular or adopted as HD has become.
13 years and just over 50% of USA HHs have an HDTV but not all are watching HD content on their HDTV.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:23 PM
luclin999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,051
Default

Like I said .. Apples and oranges.

One technology everyone sees improvement with and has no added inconveniences required for utilization (other than buying a new TV); the other technology does.

By your own admission, 10-20% of the public will never get anything out of "3D". Another (unknown yet vocal) percentage will never want to wear glasses every day just to be able to watch TV and yet another percentage simply don't enjoy the gimmick at all.

All of those tens of millions of consumers are what make this a different ballgame and what makes the HD/"3D" analogy flawed.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Lee Stewart's Avatar
Formerly "HDTV Addict"
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luclin999 View Post
Like I said .. Apples and oranges.
More like Granny Smith versus Macintosh

Quote:
One technology everyone sees improvement with and has no added inconveniences required for utilization (other than buying a new TV); the other technology does.
It's only an inconvience if you think it is. If you want to see 3DTV on a large display, you put on the glasses.

Quote:
By your own admission, 10-20% of the public will never get anything out of "3D". Another (unknown yet vocal) percentage will never want to wear glasses every day just to be able to watch TV.
Again, the desire and the ability to see 3D has to be there. Why would you think that 3D has to be 100% adoption? Look at surround sound systems. The last time we saw a number (of HHs) it was approx 25%. SS has been around for well over 20 years.

Quote:
All of those tens of millions of consumers are what make this a different ballgame and what makes the HD/"3D" analogy flawed.
No flaws. Just some restrictions (for 3DTV). It's a highly subjective issue.

Think about this Luclin . . . Netflix has approx 18M subs. But there are over 90M HHs with 1 DVD player in them. Isn't Netflix considered to be a very big success?

It's like the issue of display size and seating distance. You really going to see the wonders of HD on a 32" HDTV sitting 16 feet away from it?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:35 PM
luclin999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,051
Default

Want a better example of the differences in upgrading to HD vs. "3D"?

Example 1 - The game in SD and HD.

Joe Sportsfan: Hey the game is on in HD as well...

~ changes the channel, sits down and spends 4 hours watching the game.

Example 2 - The game in HD and "3D"

Joe Sportsfan: Hey the game is on in "3D"...

~ Looks for the glasses that the kids were playing with earlier, finds them with the lenses smeared with peanut butter, has to go clean them, misses the kick-off, sits down to watch the game, has the batteries run out in the glasses (that the kids never put back on the charger) 15 minutes into it...

Joe Sportsfan:Screw this! - Switches back to HD and watches the game for the next 3.5 hours.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:38 PM
Lee Stewart's Avatar
Formerly "HDTV Addict"
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luclin999 View Post
Want a better example of the differences in upgrading to HD vs. "3D"?

Example 1 - The game in SD and HD.

Joe Sportsfan: Hey the game is on in HD as well...

~ changes the channel, sits down and spends 4 hours watching the game.

Example 2 - The game in HD and "3D"

Joe Sportsfan: Hey the game is on in "3D"...

~ Looks for the glasses that the kids were playing with earlier, finds them with the lenses smeared with peanut butter, has to go clean them, misses the kick-off, sits down to watch the game, has the batteries run out in the glasses (that the kids never put back on the charger) 15 minutes into it...

Joe Sportsfan:Screw this! - Switches back to HD and watches the game for the next 3.5 hours.
From post #9:

Quote:
After conducting over 1,000 test sessions during World Cup 2010 at the Disney Media and Ad Lab in Austin, TX, the news seems a bit more positive, with stats from 3D viewers (and 2D control groups) indicating that reported enjoyment increased from 65 percent to 70 percent, while "presence" (feeling of being there) went from 42 percent to 69 percent with 3D.
And if you want to give an example of irresponsibility concernings ones CE equipment . . .

HONEY! . . . Where's the damn remote?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:39 PM
ack_bak's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
HDTV was launched Q4, 1997. the first Super Bowl broadcast in HD was 2000.
So, using your logic, if the Super Bowl is not broadcast in 3D in about 2 years, it will be a failure.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:40 PM
luclin999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
More like Granny Smith versus Macintosh



It's only an inconvience if you think it is. If you want to see 3DTV on a large display, you put on the glasses.



Again, the desire and the ability to see 3D has to be there. Why would you think that 3D has to be 100% adoption? Look at surround sound systems. The last time we saw a number (of HHs) it was approx 25%. SS has been around for well over 20 years.



No flaws. Just some restrictions (for 3DTV). It's a highly subjective issue.

Think about this Luclin . . . Netflix has approx 18M subs. But there are over 90M HHs with 1 DVD player in them. Isn't Netflix considered to be a very big success?

It's like the issue of display size and seating distance. You really going to see the wonders of HD on a 32" HDTV sitting 16 feet away from it?
Stop trying to change the subject.

The argument wasn't whether "some people" would buy into the technology, it was whether "3D" would follow the same adoption rates as HD.

You and Taffy are the ones claiming that "3D" will follow the same timetable for adoption that HD has had..

I am pointing out that the two technologies are dissimilar enough that the analogy of said timetable is flawed and will not likely be an accurate representation of the course of events.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony Reduces Price of PlayStation Vue by $10 and Launches Disney/ABC & ESPN Channels scohen HD Digital Downloads (NEW!) 0 03-02-2016 02:29 PM
ESPN Announces Plans to Shut Down ESPN 3D by the End of Year Brian Hoss 3D Gear & Movies 13 06-21-2013 05:07 AM
FS: ESPN 30 For 30 and 1 other item MarkG Blu-ray Disc Exchange 0 09-23-2011 05:31 PM
ESPN and Comcast Announce Distribution Agreement to Bring ESPN 3D to Sports Fans Lee Stewart 3D Gear & Movies 0 05-12-2010 12:46 PM
Looking to get some good speakers and what not Fisher & Sons Home Theater Gear 20 04-28-2009 09:24 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off