ESPN 3D

I saw last year's BCS title game in 3D at a local theater. If this is anything like that, they have a long way to go. Numerous glitches left me with a pounding headache by the time I walked out of the theater.

Even with glitches aside, I wasn't particularly blown away by what I was seeing. You get very little appreciation for depth (the biggest point of 3D) when watching from a high camera angle (in other words, the angle you see 90 percent of live football action from). The broadcast I watched tried to combat this periodically by showing plays from a lower angle, which helped. The problem with that, though, was your view on the near side of the field was blocked by players standing on the sideline. A number of times, I missed whether a guy had made it to the sticks going for a first down. That was annoying.

 

I can't even see 3D using those glasses, so I don't care.

 

The GMs of ESPNZones across the country are salivating at the idea of charging $20-$50 a head to watch big sporting events at their restaurants in 3D.

Much like the porn industry's embracing of first VHS (over Betamax) and then DVDs, this move by ESPN will have a huge ripple effect on home viewing in the next decade. (Save the porn jokes -- the Net's taken care of that industry for good).

 

Why on earth have I not heard of 3D porn? You'd think they would be all over this technology.

The next-gen gaming systems will likely be 3D. Once everyone's bought an HDTV, how do the electronics stores keep selling new units? 3D. The entire market is going this way - it's just a matter of time.

The tech will improve. It's not quite there now, so I think this experiment by ESPN won't be popular, but someone's got to be the first to broadcast 3D. Might as well be a sports network.

 

Vizio is announcing this at CES this week.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/vizios-2010-xvt-lcds-go-up-to-72-inches-with-3d-led-wifi-and-wi/

(crap, something's wrong with the link and I am too stupid to figure out what.)

Anyway, they are looking at manufacturing several sizes and the 72 inch will be 3500 dollars. I would expect that prices will go down as manufacturing ramps up. So it's here, but two things:

1 it has to be so easy to set up that my 72 year old father in law can figure it out.

2 You have to REALLY be able to see the difference. My wife says she doesn't really notice the difference between SD and HD on our set...and wives make a lot of these decisions.

We were talking about this on my radio show today and a listener pointed out that it wont be too much longer until there actually is "ESPN 8 The Ocho".

Also, the glasses can't be too bulky or expensive...

Still, porn in 3D...

 

I don't see people who've bought HDTVs in the last 2-3 years shelling out more money to upgrade to 3D. I sell TVs parttime because my journo job doens't pay well and I just don't see this taking off quickly. Maybe in time, but not by the end of 2010 for sure.

 

"Around The Horn" in 3D.
I'm just sayin' ....

 

Properly equipped DLP projection sets by Mitsubishi and Samsung have the technical guts to handle 1080p 3DHD right now, according to DLP creator Texas Instruments. Now, ESPN currently broadcasts in 720p, so that will have to change, but via satellite or cable, 1080p is doable. It isn't over-the-air (yet) because of the bandwidth needed.

 

When I heard about this, I thought it was an early April Fool's Day joke or an Onion piece. The 3D try at the Cowboys game fell flat as a pancake.

I figured the next step would be holographic TV, not some throwback to 1950s technology.

 

From what I heard, the only reason the 3D at Dallas didn't work was because most of the fans didn't put on their 3D glasses.

 

The porn industry also went with HD-DVD, so it's not the ultimate predictor it used to be.

________

I JUST stepped in to the HDTV world, so my first reaction was that it's disheartening to hear that my investment is six months from being antiquated.

That said, it took HD a LONG time to become reasonable. They were selling HDTVs when I worked at Best Buy back in 2000, and they cost $5,000 and up. When I bought a TV for my first apartment in 2005, my $300-400 budget wouldn't come close to anything but a very, very small HDTV. Now that same amount will get something in HD perfectly acceptable for a fresh-out-of-school living room.

I don't know if the jump to HD3D will follow exactly the same curve as HD itself did, but we can all take heart knowing we probably won't miss much by not rushing out and buy one to catch that first ESPN 3D broadcast. Checking the Wikipedia, HD signals became available in the US in the late 1990s, 96 and beyond. It didn't become standard to own one until, 8-10 years later?

 

There isn't an outside force — i.e. government mandate — for broadcasters to go to 3d. HDTV took off because the feds mandated digital tuners of OTA reception, and content and pay TV providers needed to keep up.

Don't get me started on the HDTV mess. I love it, but cable providers, especially mine, are slow to add HDTV channels. Watching any sport in SD is horrible on my 42-inch set.