LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Simply due to a "lack of public appetite" for the shows.
Read more.Simply due to a "lack of public appetite" for the shows.
Fair enough. Wimbledon final in 3d was great though
My guess is that they will try 3D again in another 15 years, to see if it takes off that time.
and all those that paid £££ are going ouch ...still they have blueray .. but for how long
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
Wimbledon Final was great in 2D and HD2D too
No surprise there, it's technology lacks innovation since it first became mainstream on LCD TV's, options are passive or active and both have good points and bad points.
The biggest opportunity has been with films, sadly however, the implementation from film makers varies from the okay (Avatar) to ridiculous (Avengers Assemble) making it very much a side show rather than the event it should be....as for regular TV, I don't see the point - I've not seen any sport events in 3d though...maybe that's the jewel in the crown?
Agree with others here, maybe in 10-15years (after 4k screens drop to a reasonable price), they'll take another stab at this.
Not for everybody I guess, but it seems the majority of people are just getting 3D tv's NOW.
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
I guess the BBC's biggest problem was that they didnt have there 3D channel available on Sky which is prolly the most popular 3D platform out there. That was a mistake.
Agreed that its not mainstream. I cant stand using the glasses as a glasses wearer. I would only consider it when the technology becomes glassesless.
Its only recently that HD is offering a good bit rate, and a swear that some SD is lower than it was. I recently viewed samsungs £32k 4k TV and although it was in 2D I felt that the quality made it appear 3D. I had to ask if it was glasses-less 3D.
3D will only come good in the home when they can ditch the glasses, and have multi-point sweet spots. Personally I see it as a gimmick and it offers more of a distraction than immersion.
The 3D content wasn't particularly well publicised.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Nah. I bought my TV for the 2D image quality. The fact it's also got great 3D was a nice bonus, but it didn't cost me any more.Originally Posted by flearider
3d looks like watching life through a pair of binoculars in my opinion.
A hi-res 2d image is more immersive and less distracting than 2d, to my eyes anyway. Watch something filmed in IMAX 2d at an IMAX cinema and you forget that there's a missing dimension.
It seem we are hard pressed to buy a quality 50" plus non 3D TV these days, OK they supposedly cost the same, but without the extra electronics could they be a tad cheaper? 3D in all it's forms gives me severe migraines after about ten minutes, what I have seen didn't really impress me at all. I just can't see the point. I think it's just like last time, a gimmick to sell more TVs then the novelty wears off. Spend the money on better programmes.
Blu-ray 3D films are around £20 each, no chance at that price. My Oppo BDP-83 upscales DVDs so well I only buy Blu-rays when it's something really special.
3D will get it's time when holographic TVs are developed, but that will probably be at least a decade.
The 'extra electronics' is mostly software. TVs have most of the hardware already, for other reasons.
If that assumption is correct, I guess people are getting them now because they're more readily available than standard 2d screens and cost roughly the same and may even have more features (smart?) as standard?.
3D TV Broadcasts however, well that'll now be available only as sky package at extra monthly cost.
It's been suggested that people will be moving to 4k screens....which will be the new mainstream in the coming decade, effectively killing off 3d in the process (may get re-introduced as 4k 3D at some point?).
I would have much preferred to watch it in 3d, the actual picture looked great, and really added to the occasion.Fair enough. Wimbledon final in 3d was great though
However: the camera angle for the 3d cams was awful, far, far too low to get a good view of what was going on over the other side of the net. I can only assume they had to be low down so all the nobs in the Royal Box didn't have their view spoiled.
Why couldn't they just set up the 3d stuff next to the 2d cameras?
Apart from that, they had some weird b-team commentators on as well. Would it really have been that hard to use the same commentary track as the 2D broadcast instead of having to have a couple of randoms chattering over the top?
That being said, the Olympics opening ceremony commentary appeared to be far better on 3D. I think it was Colin Jackson and someone else? Managed to miss out on whatever inane crap Trevor Nelson was spouting (aside: Trevor Nelson, commentating on the opening ceremony of the Olympics? What The Actual Funk? Whose idea was that? Whyyyyyyyy?).
TL;DR - the tennis 3D broadcasts were bad, not because of 3D, but because of production decisions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote