Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   TV viewers finally see through the hype of ESPN's 3D channel   (marketwatch.com) divider line 34
    More: Fail, ESPN, The Sports Network  
•       •       •

1893 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Jun 2013 at 9:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-13 08:23:38 AM  
If only there were some other way to see live sports in 3D. RIP ESPN 3D.
 
2013-06-13 09:05:35 AM  
Find a way to get rid of the glasses. Otherwise it will always be a gimmick.
 
2013-06-13 09:07:43 AM  
Seems like watching sports in 3D would get old quick. I watched the demo at Best Buy and was tired of it after 10 seconds.
 
2013-06-13 09:09:39 AM  
It's great for live college football and the X Games, but I'd say 85% of the content on the channel is reruns
 
2013-06-13 09:35:35 AM  
TV viewers finally see through the hype of  3D

A few too many words there.  Honestly, 3D is only somewhat well done if you are watching on an IMax sized screen.  Otherwise, it is too distracting, even on a 60 inch screen.

And I agree, once they get rid of the need for glasses, it might catch on more.  I know some manufacturers were working on that.
 
2013-06-13 09:39:04 AM  

Mugato: Seems like watching sports in 3D would get old quick. I watched the demo at Best Buy and was tired of it after 10 seconds.


I know 3 people who have a 3D TV. The only time they use it is when they're having a party and showing off the 3D. Usually turn to a 3D channel and start passing around the 2 pairs of glasses so 30 people can shuffle to the center and get a chance to "ooh" and "ahh".

Then it gets turned off or switched to a channel that everyone can watch.
 
2013-06-13 09:46:34 AM  
I guess I'd watch women playing beach volleyball and figure skating in 3-D.  Maybe they just picked the wrong sports.
 
2013-06-13 09:57:17 AM  
Does this mean I can't watch the 2011 Tostitas Fiesta Bowl over and over on repeat for 2 years straight? *sad face*
 
2013-06-13 10:10:32 AM  
ESPN has a 3D channel? Did 3D TV's actually sell? You don't see them really advertised anymore.
 
2013-06-13 10:13:56 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Find a way to get rid of the glasses. Otherwise it will always be a gimmick.


This 100%.
 
2013-06-13 10:15:34 AM  

Guelph35: scottydoesntknow: Find a way to get rid of the glasses. Otherwise it will always be a gimmick.

This 100%.


They actually do have glasses-free 3D TV's now, but the problem is that you've got to stand in  exactlythe right spot for it to work, so it ends up being a far bigger annoyance than just wearing glasses.  Still, though, the technology is coming along.
 
2013-06-13 10:22:09 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Find a way to get rid of the glasses. Otherwise it will always be a gimmick.


I don't even really understand the point of it without the glasses. I've never watched a 3D movie and thought that the effect actually added any value to the experience.
 
2013-06-13 10:22:40 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: ESPN has a 3D channel? Did 3D TV's actually sell? You don't see them really advertised anymore.


It's pretty much impossible to buy a new, higher end tv that doesn't have 3D.  Same goes for all the bullshiat "smart" features.  It's not really advertised because it's mostly a standard feature now.

There were two problems with the channel.
1. It was $10-$13 a month additional on your cable bill

2. All the programming was X-games and College sports and re-runs of those two things.  A 2D channel that showed this crap would fail too.
 
2013-06-13 10:39:44 AM  

brap: I guess I'd watch women playing beach volleyball and figure skating in 3-D.  Maybe they just picked the wrong sports.


The Kate Upton 34-D channel
 
2013-06-13 10:45:33 AM  
I would have watched it, but not at $10 a month.
 
2013-06-13 10:50:05 AM  
I was in Costco last year and the 3D demo TV had a football game on. I watched a few minutes of it. It kind of looked like three layers of two dimensional images sliding back and forth. There is no way I could watch a game in 3D.
 
2013-06-13 10:55:05 AM  
My eyes are pretty bad and 3d at the theater just does not work for me.   I am told I have a bit of a tracking problem.. It tends to go in and out.
 
2013-06-13 11:04:45 AM  
I watched soccer once on Sky 3D and it was pretty crap. All cameras were a fixed distance and wouldn't/couldn't zoom.
 
2013-06-13 11:20:15 AM  
Even for people who got the channel and have 3d-capable TVs, the channel seemed to show nothing but nonstop reruns of X-games and Soccer. I'm sure it would have been a lot more popular if it showed more major live sporting events instead (e.g., all the NBA games, NFL games, etc).
 
2013-06-13 11:22:08 AM  
I watched this years march madness, NC college football game, X games and a few others, but the re-runs are a meh.

I liked having the option, but if they are going to take away my right to choose then I might just have to use plan B.
 
2013-06-13 12:01:22 PM  
I'm not even a fan of 3D at the theater. You have to sit in phase lock with the screen, and if you can't get a seat far enough back you can't see the whole screen in phase lock. And what good is having LCD panels that are good for a 170 degree viewing angle if you then have to scoot everyone into a 45 degree sweep to watch 3D?

It's a gimmick that allows higher prices. That's all. Adds nothing to the overall experience at best, makes for a horrible experience if you go to the Imax at Webb Chapel & I635 in Dallas. On top of my phase lock complaint, the lenses weren't anti-glare coated so during a bright scene everything washes out as more light reflects off the people behind me than comes through the lenses.
 
2013-06-13 12:09:48 PM  
They never offered it on our cable network, otherwise, we'd have tried it out.
 
2013-06-13 12:26:27 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If only there were some other way to see live sports in 3D. RIP ESPN 3D.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-13 01:15:00 PM  

debug: antidisestablishmentarianism: ESPN has a 3D channel? Did 3D TV's actually sell? You don't see them really advertised anymore.

It's pretty much impossible to buy a new, higher end tv that doesn't have 3D.  Same goes for all the bullshiat "smart" features.  It's not really advertised because it's mostly a standard feature now.

There were two problems with the channel.
1. It was $10-$13 a month additional on your cable bill

2. All the programming was X-games and College sports and re-runs of those two things.  A 2D channel that showed this crap would fail too.


I have two "smart" tv's (I am interpreting smart to mean they are in essence a computer with "apps" to link directly into netflix, hulu, amazon, youtube, etc without needing a console or vudu-box-type device.) they are nice but there is a dark side I encountered recently...

just two weeks ago they pushed out an upgrade for the software/firmware that bricked one of them.  Thankfully, it was still in the one-year manufacturer's warranty so no cost to me to repair (just inconvenience).   I asked the tech what would have happened if I was out of the warranty.  She said the ticket would have been escalated to the next level and they would decide what to do.  Not very reassuring knowing the company can break their own product and I may be on the hook for the repair.  I am thinking of getting the 4-year extended warranty to protect me from such issues (about $20-30 a year).  Not that expensive but still money I am paying for a TV that can work fine until an "upgrade" is available.

I can understand if I break the TV by the wall-mount giving way, toddler kicking a ball at it, drunkenly throwing a bottle at it when the Spurs lose, etc.  but knowing a third-party can break it with firmware/software upgrades isn't a positive.
 
2013-06-13 01:32:16 PM  
This? Yes, please.

coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com

This? No thank you.

www.sportsgrid.com
 
2013-06-13 01:37:09 PM  
TV viewers finally see through the hype of ESPN's 3D channel
 
2013-06-13 01:52:12 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Mugato: Seems like watching sports in 3D would get old quick. I watched the demo at Best Buy and was tired of it after 10 seconds.

I know 3 people who have a 3D TV. The only time they use it is when they're having a party and showing off the 3D. Usually turn to a 3D channel and start passing around the 2 pairs of glasses so 30 people can shuffle to the center and get a chance to "ooh" and "ahh".

Then it gets turned off or switched to a channel that everyone can watch.


It's the same with movies. The 3D distracts from what I'm concentrated on, unless it's something like Avatar or some other VFX demo.

With TV, everyone has to huddle into a small cone of viewing area and someone in the group is going to complain about migraines or seizures or some nonsense.

 Wonder why it didn't work
 
2013-06-13 02:05:08 PM  

wiseolddude: I was in Costco last year and the 3D demo TV had a football game on. I watched a few minutes of it. It kind of looked like three layers of two dimensional images sliding back and forth. There is no way I could watch a game in 3D.


That is really how almost all "3-D" looks like.   I mean, it isn't like "3-D" has ever, in any form, really made it look like "real life", at least to me, even in supposedly really "high tech" things like Avatar, etc... it looks like a high tech panorama box.

Honestly, I consider the old Johnny Chung Lee stuff more 3-D than most 3D TV...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
 
2013-06-13 07:54:25 PM  

lilbjorn: TV viewers finally

have always seen through the hype of ESPN's 3D channel
 
2013-06-14 01:12:50 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Mugato: Seems like watching sports in 3D would get old quick. I watched the demo at Best Buy and was tired of it after 10 seconds.

I know 3 people who have a 3D TV. The only time they use it is when they're having a party and showing off the 3D. Usually turn to a 3D channel and start passing around the 2 pairs of glasses so 30 people can shuffle to the center and get a chance to "ooh" and "ahh".

Then it gets turned off or switched to a channel that everyone can watch.


Right on the money.
 
2013-06-14 01:22:20 AM  
I have an 3D phone (HTC Evo 3D) and people are generally amazed by it, despite it being a two year old piece of technology. The thing is, the viewing angles on it suck. Fix that and make it for TVs and you have a winner. Otherwise, it will never catch on.
 
2013-06-14 07:21:23 AM  

dletter: That is really how almost all "3-D" looks like. I mean, it isn't like "3-D" has ever, in any form, really made it look like "real life", at least to me, even in supposedly really "high tech" things like Avatar, etc... it looks like a high tech panorama box.


...or a ViewMaster at 24 fps. So-called 3D has a chance of catching on if and only if it actually delivers 3D, not mere stereoscopic separation.

Many of the non-technology problems people complain about -- the eye fatigue, the layering effect, the headaches -- come down to the fact that our brains use a lot of cues to figure out depth perception (e.g. size, relative motion, parallax, perspective, lighting angles), and so-called 3D delivers only one of them (i.e. stereoscopy), causing conflicts between the stereoscopic cues and the missing cues. By the way, the importance of these other cues is evident from the fact that you (mostly) have no problem figuring out the implied depth in a regular 2D picture.

For example, if you move your head slightly, your brain expects to see some parallax between foreground and background objects (based on the stereoscopic separation). When it doesn't, it interprets the foreground objects as being flat "sheets" as the only reasonable explanation (see, for example, "The Phantom Menace" 3D edition; or rather, don't see it.) And one reason you get eye fatigue and headaches is because your eyes are being asked to focus on one plane (the projection screen) and converge on another (the implied foreground), something they were never designed to do.

Stereoscopic 3D is the creation of people who know everything about how technology works and nothing about how people actually see.
 
2013-06-14 08:44:45 AM  

czetie: ...or a ViewMaster at 24 fps. So-called 3D has a chance of catching on if and only if it actually delivers 3D, not mere stereoscopic separation.


Exactly, thank you. "3D" is a popup book. Not 3D.
 
2013-06-14 01:00:05 PM  

skozlaw: I've never watched a 3D movie and thought that the effect actually added any value to the experience.


Avatar's the only one. My youngest daughter has seen it on DVD but if it ever comes around again, I'll take her to see it in 3D.

But Avatar was James Cameron trying to do 3D right, with better equipment, by making the world of Pandora really bright so that you didn't suffer light loss so much.

Avatar is still more of a glorious visual experience than a great narrative movie, and as viewers we occassionally like things that are a bit different, and that's what the studios can't grasp. 3D isn't like sound or colour. It's like going on holiday and getting offered a great big gay cocktail with cherries, pineapples and a straw in it when you arrive. And because you're on holiday, and you're in the spirit of it, you'll drink it. But the next day, you'd probably just like a good beer.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report