MattFancy Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6043BS20100105?type=entertainmentNews The Walt Disney Co's sports unit said on Tuesday it will launch ESPN 3D, which it claims is the industry's first 3D TV network, in June and will air a minimum of 85 live sporting events during its first year. "This will be a meaningful step to drive adoption of 3D television sets and afford opportunities for our affiliates to create value through new product offerings, and our advertisers, who want fresh sponsorship opportunities," Sean Bratches, ESPN's executive vice president of sales and marketing, said in a statement. Are that many people down with 3D TV? I think it would be cool every once in awhile, but to always have everything in 3D seems to be a little annoying. I know that 3D TVs are going to be the big thing this year, but how many people will actually buy one? I can't see that many people dumping their HDTVs for 3D TVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 It will take a few years for people to dive into this new technology. These minor breakthroughs are cool, but the next major breakthrough will be something that can be used to enhance existing TVs to keep up with the minor breakthroughs. For example, a cable box or DTV box that can allow most TVs to display programs in HD/3D/whatever comes next regardless of how the TV is made. Obviously this could only be done for TVs at a certain level of sophistication, but the fact that consumers would have to go out and buy a new TV for every new technological tweak is going to make most shy away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 It will take a few years for people to dive into this new technology. These minor breakthroughs are cool, but the next major breakthrough will be something that can be used to enhance existing TVs to keep up with the minor breakthroughs. For example, a cable box or DTV box that can allow most TVs to display programs in HD/3D/whatever comes next regardless of how the TV is made. Obviously this could only be done for TVs at a certain level of sophistication, but the fact that consumers would have to go out and buy a new TV for every new technological tweak is going to make most shy away. I agree. I mean there are still people that are just now buying HDTVs. I mean we don't even have all the channels in HD yet. I just think its too soon to try and push 3D right now. I just don't see that many people jumping to 3D right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 3d technology is still miles from successful. As of this point you'll probably still have to wear those dumb uncomfortable glasses. And the 3d effect is just poor. It doesn't even work for me. And then you take your glasses off and everything is all red and blue and ****. **** that Stick with 2d for now until you can get past the whole cardboard glasses roadblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Wow, there is just so much misinformation about 3D. 3d technology is still miles from successful. As of this point you'll probably still have to wear those dumb uncomfortable glasses. And the 3d effect is just poor. It doesn't even work for me. And then you take your glasses off and everything is all red and blue and ****. **** thatStick with 2d for now until you can get past the whole cardboard glasses roadblock. The 3D technology being announced this week DOES NOT use red and blue cardboard glasses. They either use clear polarized lenses (what you get in the movie theater) or high speed shutter glasses (better quality if your display is very bright). We passed the "cardboard glasses roadblock" more than ten years ago. I agree. I mean there are still people that are just now buying HDTVs. I mean we don't even have all the channels in HD yet. I just think its too soon to try and push 3D right now. I just don't see that many people jumping to 3D right away. In a couple years all HDTVs will be 3D ready. Therefore, the people who are just now buying HDTVs will be getting 3D TVs as well. The only major difference between a 3D TV and a mid range HDTV available now is the refresh rate that the TV can accept. Most HDTVs are already 120 or even 240Hz (as is clear from all the advertising pushing these stats), 3D TVs must accept 120Hz input as well. It will take a few years for people to dive into this new technology. These minor breakthroughs are cool, but the next major breakthrough will be something that can be used to enhance existing TVs to keep up with the minor breakthroughs.For example, a cable box or DTV box that can allow most TVs to display programs in HD/3D/whatever comes next regardless of how the TV is made. Obviously this could only be done for TVs at a certain level of sophistication, but the fact that consumers would have to go out and buy a new TV for every new technological tweak is going to make most shy away. This is exactly what's happening. For example, if you have a Mitsubishi Laser TV you are ready for 3D right now as these accept 120Hz input. They just updated the Blu Ray spec for 3D. Most existing Blu Ray players will be upgraded to 3D with a simple firmware update. The Blu Ray Alliance has already confirmed that all PS3s will be able to play 3D Blu Rays. Sony has also announced that when the PS3 3D update hits, PS3 owners will be able to play games in 3D too. Finally, DirecTV just launched a new satellite for 3D programming and they have announced that a simple firmware update is all that is required to enable current DTV receivers to play these channels. Are that many people down with 3D TV? I think it would be cool every once in awhile, but to always have everything in 3D seems to be a little annoying. I know that 3D TVs are going to be the big thing this year, but how many people will actually buy one? I can't see that many people dumping their HDTVs for 3D TVs. EVERY 3D broadcast can also be watched in 2D. This is the number one complaint that really irritates me. You will not be forced to every watch something in 3D. Also, pretty much every high end TV this year will be 3D compatible. Next year, all mid range and high end TVs will be. Two or three years from now ALL TVs sold will support 3D. The shutter technology adds very little to the price of an HDTV or projector that is already 120 or 240Hz. All it needs is the ability to input a 120Hz signal and a simple IR transmitter to sync with the glasses. These two features add virtually nothing to the price of HDTVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Wow, there is just so much misinformation about 3D.The 3D technology being announced this week DOES NOT use red and blue cardboard glasses. They either use clear polarized lenses (what you get in the movie theater) or high speed shutter glasses (better quality if your display is very bright). We passed the "cardboard glasses roadblock" more than ten years ago. In a couple years all HDTVs will be 3D ready. Therefore, the people who are just now buying HDTVs will be getting 3D TVs as well. The only major difference between a 3D TV and a mid range HDTV available now is the refresh rate that the TV can accept. Most HDTVs are already 120 or even 240Hz (as is clear from all the advertising pushing these stats), 3D TVs must accept 120Hz input as well. This is exactly what's happening. For example, if you have a Mitsubishi Laser TV you are ready for 3D right now as these accept 120Hz input. They just updated the Blu Ray spec for 3D. Most existing Blu Ray players will be upgraded to 3D with a simple firmware update. The Blu Ray Alliance has already confirmed that all PS3s will be able to play 3D Blu Rays. Sony has also announced that when the PS3 3D update hits, PS3 owners will be able to play games in 3D too. Finally, DirecTV just launched a new satellite for 3D programming and they have announced that a simple firmware update is all that is required to enable current DTV receivers to play these channels. EVERY 3D broadcast can also be watched in 2D. This is the number one complaint that really irritates me. You will not be forced to every watch something in 3D. Also, pretty much every high end TV this year will be 3D compatible. Next year, all mid range and high end TVs will be. Two or three years from now ALL TVs sold will support 3D. The shutter technology adds very little to the price of an HDTV or projector that is already 120 or 240Hz. All it needs is the ability to input a 120Hz signal and a simple IR transmitter to sync with the glasses. These two features add virtually nothing to the price of HDTVs. That's odd. When the Cowboys tried broadcasting their big-screen TV in 3-d they all had those red and blue glasses, fans complained of headaches, and they aborted the experiment after a game. I was under the impression that was the state of 3-d technology at the time. If what you are saying is true I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 That's odd. When the Cowboys tried broadcasting their big-screen TV in 3-d they all had those red and blue glasses, fans complained of headaches, and they aborted the experiment after a game. I was under the impression that was the state of 3-d technology at the time. If what you are saying is true I stand corrected. Understood, thats because it would cost millions of dollars to buy enough of the new shutter glasses for each fan at the stadium or to upgrade the screens so that polarized glasses could be used. Also, the big screens are probably only 60Hz. The shutter technology is cheap for home use when only a few people will be watching in 3D, the polarization option is fairly good for cinemas and IMAX when you have rear projection and a specially coated screen (however having seen shutter glasses working on my friends computer and Avatar in IMAX 3D, the shutter technology that we will be getting in our homes is MUCH BETTER than anything seen in cinemas as far as image quality, color reproduction, and eye strain go - seriously, the shutter technology is just amazing and SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than IMAX 3D!), but neither of these solutions would be good for a football stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 How long before the first Dickie V promo in 3-D? He'll be able to slobber over you in your living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I could barely get through Avatar in 3D. Wearing glasses (cardboard or not) is just uncomfortable and my eyes started to get tired because 3D isn't always focused very well IMO. I also just don't get very much added value from 3D so I really have no interest in trying to convert everything to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 3D TV sounds like a horrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysetsfire Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I could barely get through Avatar in 3D. Wearing glasses (cardboard or not) is just uncomfortable and my eyes started to get tired because 3D isn't always focused very well IMO. I also just don't get very much added value from 3D so I really have no interest in trying to convert everything to it. Wuss. Apparently ESPN's 3D network will coincide with the beginning of the World Cup. Don't have a link but I just read it in the newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 So when the baseball players are spitting, we get that in 3-D? If watching requires glasses, rather than expensive, large screen TVs, why don't they just build miniature TVs into the glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Discovery 3D coming in 2011. http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/sony-imax-and-discovery-bringing-24-7-3d-home-first-in-2011/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The glasses are like Men in Black Ray Bans.....not uncomfortable unless you don't like wearing sunglasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Stupid idea. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sports already makes too much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Gimme 3D without lenses. Then I will be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Hmm not much of a price premium... AP: LG to introduce 3-D TVs in May, at $200 to $300 more than comparable flat panels LAS VEGAS (AP) -- LG Electronics says it will introduce its first 3-D-capable flat panel TVs for the U.S. market in May. Other major TV makers are expected to join the Korean company with announcements of 3-D TVs later Wednesday at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The industry is making a major push to get 3-D into the home while consumers are still excited by 3-D movies in theaters. Prices for the new LG sets have not yet been announced. But Tim Alessi, director of product development at LG Electronics USA, said the TVs will likely cost about $200 to $300 more than comparable sets without 3-D functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 6, 2010 Author Share Posted January 6, 2010 But thats still $200 or $300 that people could use for other things. Do you really want to sit there with 3D glasses on all night while you're watching TV? I don't. 3D is cool for some things, but not everything should or will be in 3D. We still don't even have all the channels in HD yet. 3D will be good for a few movies and some sports. But is watching the news in 3D going to be a reason people shell out money for a new TV? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I'm on the "stupid idea" bandwagon too. I think 3d is cool in moderation but would not want to watch it all the time for the reasons listed above. Not so sure that "all" new hdtv's are 3d ready... The news article I read said that the first 3d ready tv's would be available in august and run over 3k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 So when the baseball players are spitting, we get that in 3-D?If watching requires glasses, rather than expensive, large screen TVs, why don't they just build miniature TVs into the glasses. well... they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.