Sunday, January 10, 2010

ESPN3 Will Come With A "D"


It will be June when ESPN will launch yet another television network. Unlike the many others that have extended the ESPN brand, the risk of this project is daunting.

At a time when many Americans are struggling financially, competition is once again pushing the providers of original television programming to use the latest technology regardless of cost. The result is that the new ESPN3 will come with a "D."

Click here to review the recent article recapping ESPN's plans in USA Today. Here is an excerpt:

The venerable sports network will launch ESPN 3D on June 11 with a World Cup soccer match, creating what it says will be the first all three-dimensional television network to the home. ESPN 3D expects to showcase at least 85 live sporting events during the first year. They'll be no reruns initially, so the network will be dark when there's no 3D event. ESPN is committing to the 3D network through June 2011.

Let's answer some 3D TV questions. Yes, you do need an entirely new TV to see this product. Yes, they are expensive. Yes, you still need those wonderful 3D glasses to watch each program. Yes, you will be paying your cable service or home satellite dish provider more for the 3D programming.

Panasonic is one of the manufacturers that is right in the middle of the 3D television movement. Click here for an article suggesting sales of new 3D TV's may top one million in the next year.

As the article relates, Panasonic will partner with DirecTV to get three channels of 3D programming, including sports, up and running this summer in the same time frame as ESPN. There is little doubt that DirecTV will try to keep as much of that 3D programming exclusive to the home satellite dish service as possible.

ESPN has not been immune to the financial realities of the world. Click here for an explanation of how the media company is partnering with Sony to actively get involved in 3D sports. In fact, ESPN has already completed sponsorship deals with Sony for 3D sports telecasts.

NASCAR's Chase for the Championship belongs to ESPN and ABC. In fact, the company televises the final seventeen Sprint Cup Series races of the season beginning with the Brickyard. Few sporting events can match the visual images of a NASCAR race. NASCAR in 3D might be something that could contribute to the rebirth of the sport after a tough couple of seasons.

While the NBA and NFL have already experimented with this technology, NASCAR has just completed the long process of building and staffing a new studio and office complex in downtown Charlotte, NC. The entire facility is geared toward High Definition television production and video storage. 3D technology was not on the list.

With ESPN, DirecTV and the entertainment industry driving the 3D boom, there is little doubt that NASCAR will eventually have to seriously consider the 3D potential of live race telecasts and archived footage for future use.

One significant issue is that for sports TV networks to offer both HD and 3D telecasts, they have to use two completely different sets of equipment. That means two crews, two production teams, two satellite transmission pathways and lots of extra cost. The picture above is of a 3D television camera.

As this technology and agenda advances, we will keep NASCAR fans updated on if and when it may enter the sport. There seems to be little doubt that there is now a strong push to move this technology forward as quickly as possible.

Amid all this fancy new technology, one thing is for sure. It will come at a higher cost to the what networks call "end users." Unfortunately...that would be us.

TDP welcomes your comments on this topic. To add your opinion, just click on the comments button below. This is a family-friendly website, please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks for taking the time to stop by The Daly Planet.

48 comments:

Sam said...

I don't think I've watched more than 2-3 3D movies during my 44 years on the planet. I couldn't care less about this technology. A 3D race? Come on. Huge waste of money, time and effort when the average person is pushed to the limit on 'toys' like this right now.

It's just a gimmic ESPN is throwing the dice on in my opinion.

Sophia said...

Sam
I second your comments. Been reading articles online all over the on this subject.

With folks having to cough up money for pricy new tvs when old standard one's die, I do not know of ANYBODY WILLING or WANTING to watch 3D.

I know we want a good picture on the tv for movies/sports but sometimes, I feel folks are ADDICTED to the newest technology without living a real life with those in front of them or around them. OR appreciating the things they HAVE.

3 D also makes many people sick with headaches, vertigo & nausea (There's even an article about the headache issue with 3D on Drudge Report earlier today)

I know many folks, myself included that can't even do those IMAX movie theatres (triggered nausea/vertigo and I had to sit there with eyes closed years ago instead of watching jets fly around!)

The main complaint of many hi tech movies are such side effects in healthy people with great vision.

BSPN can cough up all they want but honestly QUALITY movies/tv coverage is going to have to return eventually.

My room mate started a new job months ago and after working long hours when his boss got fired, and a nicer better boss hired, he was rewarded with a very nice bonus. He has wanted a big tv for years but could not JUSTIFY it. Well, now he has a 52 inch tv but we only get a few stations in HD? The rest of the time..the picture quality is fair at best. BUT he knew that going in the limits & it won't be the 24/7 tv. Just for special viewings for the most part.

Now 3 D? How much tv % is going to go in that direction?

Frankly my friends I've spoken with the last few days do not care.

With all the prices to carry ESPN on our cable, I guess we are supplementing their MILLIONS to gamble on this crud. We'd love all but maybe 1 ESPN station in the house. The rest you can have.

:)

Then again, some of us MISS the days of hearing guys just SITTING around having a conversation about racing stories! That would work for radio or simple tv but we don't get that either to we? Except that day of Hall of Fame induction we got a treat of that on SPEED! (Rare treat!)

red said...

let's see: i still don't have a dvr, i don't have a big-screen tv, i don't have an HD-TV. what do you suppose the odds are that i'll invest in a 3-D tv that i have to watch by wearing special glasses so that i can occasionally watch 3-D sports programming on a channel owned by a company who i believe doesn't give a rat's patootie about my sport?

"slim to non-existent" doesn't begin to cover it.

hotaru-raganbaby_6 said...

3D is best left for tacky horror B-films, enough said.

Bill said...

Think they are making a HUGE mistake in not doing re-airs and going dark. Build up a library of 72 hours worth of programing and replay the hell out of it. That way when you want to show off your new toy, you can....

HD did that when it first came out. PBS(HD) had about 20-30 hours of nature and landscape helicopter footage on a continuous loop.

For the record I just got my first HD capable TV two weeks ago. Only reason I did, thats about all you can buy anymore. So don't think youll ever see me on the 3D band wagon. (ESPN De Ocho!!!)

Dot said...

I'm not going out and buying a 3D TV and pay for extra cable fees for this. With the crappy camera work by BSPN why would anyone waste their money? What else worries me is what happens 6 months or two years later when yet newer technology comes out? It's never ending.

I've read here and elsewhere that people are already canceling their upper tiers and movie channels.

OK, I'm going to sound dumb here. Some years back, Home Improvement showed an episode in 3D. How did that work on my regular TV? I know we had to wear the red & blue glasses to view it. How come BSPN can't do something like that?

JD, I told you that I would have questions.

Daly Planet Editor said...

One big push in this effort has been that TV sales are flat.

Young people have grown up using their laptops, cell phones and iPods as sources of video.

Sony and Panasonic see this as a way to move new TV's out to the public because 3D is not something that is going to migrate online.

3D TV sets are expected to average about two thousand dollars. Whether they will also be able to receive HD and SD signals is yet to be determined.

This is coming for sure during the summer months. There will be big pushes by ESPN and others to get on board.

Whether it works or becomes another troubled project like the ESPN cell phone is yet to be seen.

JD

Dot said...

@ JD, of course. I didn't factor in demographic. I'm on the other side of those numbers.

$2000? That TV better do more than show things flying at me. I also read that the glasses are about $50 a pair. That right there is pretty cost prohibitive if you have a family. And what if you want to have friends come over and watch? Good grief.

HD TVs have come down in price. When my low tech TV needs to be replaced, like Bill, I will get one of those.

BSPN had a cell phone?

Sophia said...

p.s. & for those of us with old fashioned 4:3 tvs in most rooms, HD stations often look a little fuzzy (cant see eyelashes on faces) and cropped poorly. Text & Graphics run off screen or center cut with people running off sides and super zoom used.

Reading some old action movies are going to be 're mastered' to be 3D due to popularity of the new movie AVATAR. What, jumping on band wagon Over one movie?

If they ALL can't get a handle on making THIS new HD work better on old tvs(since entire world can't ALL watching HD 16:9 tvs) why should anybody be moving on to 3D?

We do not have a DVR either. We still have 4 VCRs to record (a couple very old!)

I never thought the glutton of fake reality/lifestyle tvs would hang around either. They going to make THOSE in 3 D?

Haus14 said...

I can only imagine the problems that exist from having to wear a pair of glasses to watch tv. Some people have a hard enough time keeping track of the remote. Imagine trying to keep track of enough pairs of glasses for the whole family. Imagine keeping them out of the hands of your 3 yr. old. What about when you have a party and have friends over? You better have a few extra pairs on hand.

On the more serious side of this issue, don't forget that as other posters have said, they don't even have a HD tv yet, and for many that do, they just purchased that tv in the last 2 to 3 years because they were waiting for the prices to come down to their level. TV stations have just spent millions and millions of dollars to upgrade their signals and studios to HD and they are not even broadcasting in 1080p. This idea may be good in theory, but practically speaking, I don't see it going anywhere. Whether it is Sony & Panasonic or ESPN or DirecTV, someone in the chain of 3D production will give up because there is not enough consumer interest to make their part of the deal profitable.

David said...

TV sales are flat because people don't have the disposable income to spend on them. If i did, I'd have a 32 inch flat screen for the room. Heck, almost scored one before Christmas. My 10 yr old one in the bedroom is on it's last legs and I don't know how much longer it will last.

3D for regular TV is overkill. I will say the one and only 3D experience I had in a theater was awesome (Avatar). Course, it was tastefully done 3D.

Like Red I am in low def vhs land....so I'm certainly the wrong crowd to aim that at. Hell HD isn't even a "standard" everywhere kind of thing yet and they want to pitch 3D?! -sigh-

With the type of camera work that has gone into NASCAR the past 2 years, a 3D race would be a waste. I can see my pals Dot and Red screaming "STOP THESE INCARS WITH THE 3D! MY TRASH CAN IS ALREADY FULL OF BARF!!!!!" on lap 4 of the race.

Fix fundamentals before adding on is my motto. ESPN still has alot of work to do on the fundamentals part.

Leave 3D where it belongs, to the movie guys.

Anonymous said...

3D may be the future, but not in its current incarnation. Have you seen some of the 3D televisions they are showing at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week? This is not like going to see Avatar in theaters, where you put on a lightweight pair of disposable 3D glasses. The new 3D televisions (in their current incarnations) require bulky, ridiculous eye-piece attachments that are not wireless and have cords running to the TV.

3D may be the future, but it is not around the corner and will not be common for a long time. Think about it: HD television sets have been on the market offering crystal clear images for about 10 years. How many people do you know who have had HD more than 18 months? This technology will take a long time to come to market and be widely used.

Sally said...

You definitely won't find me standing in line to buy yet another expensive 'gadget'. I also had to replace a dying TV, and HD was about the only thing available. I refuse to pay extra for HD programming, as I don't find the difference great enough to justify it. I also refuse to pay to rent a DVR from my cable company. This is one gimmick I won't participate in. I didn't enjoy the few 3D movies I've seen, and certainly don't care to have it in my living room.

50 yr. fan said...

Thanks for the pun on the "flat TV
sales". BSPN should spend their
development dollars on what the
sports fans really want. Their
new gimmick is to play with the
sound to get the stadium effect.
I don't really want to be in the
middle of a crowd of screaming fans.

JohnP said...

Well that's ESPN isn't it. They put on a crappy show for over two seasons with Nascar, and they want to concentrate on gimmicks instead of product.

ESPN can't use ONE set of cameras correctly. How can anyone think they can handle TWO sets of cameras.

I agree with all above. Total gimmick. Who, in the ADULT world, is going to sit in front of a tv wearing 3D glasses. Lol. "Oh honey, will you please grab me a beer and my 3D glasses, love you". Lol.

As Sam, in my 45 years I've seen about 2 to 3 3D movies. And yea, one of them was a Nascar show about 10 years ago. Lets see. My wife and I wear perscreption glasses. I was ready to leave after wearing two pairs of glasses so I could see. I actually took the 3D glasses off several times and just watched the blurred screen. My sister got sick to her stomack due to the 3D and left the IMAX Theater.

This is a total and complete joke. Waste of time, money, energy, with one ultimate final end. Espn is like any other company. Budgets, making money. This will only lead to lowering the quality of the product they are showing the general audience further due to limited resources being mis-used.

And Nascar can't allow that programming from this network to get any lower then what they curretly produce. If the programming gets any more horrible, Nascar is in deep trouble with the fans. And, I think, Nascar is already on the hot seat with a large section of fans.

As in every other area of life, technology can't solve dumb. And Espn should know that.

OSBORNK said...

Besides the high cost problem, 3D has a chicken and egg problem as well as a value problem. Viewers won't buy 3D Tvs without programs to watch and program producers will not make 3D programs if viewers don't have equipment to watch it on.

I don't think most people will feel the large expense will be worth the price of admission.

JohnP said...

@Dot. Your not dumb. Or if you are, I am also. I remember that episode clearly. And yea, it was 3D. It was the mid-90's or so. I don't know how it was done, no clue. But is was done on a regular analogue CRT (catho ray tube) tv. The kind that's been around since the 50's.

Excellent question Dot.

Anonymous said...

My issue is one of "overall NASCAR experience" while watching on TV.

Say I buy a 3D TV, and settle in to watch a Cup race one fine Sunday afternoon, lovely 3D eyewear in place.

I'm one who can't/won't give up my complementary services during a race: PitCommand, RaceView and the like.

Logistically, am I going to have to be taking those 3D glasses on and off constantly to either watch the TV or check the stats on my laptop?

If so, that definitely takes away from the experience and adds a level of frustration to my race watching.

GinaV24 said...

Wow, yeah, I'm going to rush right out there and buy a $2,000 TV! Not!

3D has never been that appealing for me. I've seen a few movies in the IMAX theatres and honestly they gave me a bad case of vertigo. I don't need to have that sensation at home and I sure don't need to see whatever I'm watching on TV flying through the screen at me.

No interest here at all. I waited for flat screen TVs to come down to a reasonable price and I only bought that TV because with all the changes that was being made with broadcast TV I felt like I needed to upgrade to it.

A 3D tv sure doesn't equal a need by any stretch and if ESPN and others keep raising the prices to the cable, directTV and whoever else carries their feed, which of course gets passesd along to the consumer, well, I can see that somewhere along the way they will reach the point where people will start dropping the service.

Considering that I seldom watch ESPN now, I can't see myself investing in more money to watch another ESPN channel.

Rockin Rich said...

I think that Anon @10:00AM is on to something, at least as far as racing fans go. Although I don't do the multi-tasking thing, apparently more and more race fans are taking it up. And, certainly the younger demographic JD mentioned is very much in that mode.

So, glasses on, glasses off, glasses on, etc. I wonder if that scenario has been considered before now? I haven't even looked at the 3D hype stuff yet so I was unaware that the glasses were wire attached to the TV! Wow! That's got to be a big obstacle no matter what the cost is. And, certainly that cost is an inhibitor.

I believe the technology is going to have to be improved by a quantum leap before 3D becomes very attractive to a critical enough mass to make it a viable offering. In these trying economic times, do the manufacturers and TV providers have the staying power, (and investment dollars), to persevere long enough? I suspect not.

Palmetto said...

Looks like I'm with the rest of the crowd. I just purchased my first HD / 16:9 TV this Christmas. I expect it to be six or seven years before I even consider buying another set.

Other than NASCAR and NFL (in that order), I don't watch any other sports. That's not enough to make me buy another set. I don't watch pre-race / pre-game programs or other non-competition shows, but they wouldn't be improved by 3D anyway. As to non-sports programming, a better picture isn't going to improve the writing.

Andrew said...

JD is right - I'm in that younger age bracket, one of the ones who grew up with the Internet, and it's changing things. Yes, many have HDTVs, but I think the only stuff I regularly watch live are sports programs. I watch most programs either via DVR or on my computer via Hulu and Netflix instant streaming. All of my friends and I have box sets of multiple TV shows on DVD. And when I do watch sports programs, the multitasking I was forced to do by ESPN's non-coverage has carried over to the NFL.

But I have zero interest in 3D TV. It's a gimmick, nothing more, and they're completely missing the point, especially if they go dark when there's no programming. My generation wants to schedule shows ourselves and we want to be able to watch them whenever. We're not going to go out and spend $1000 on a new TV and in new fees when we really don't care about watching those programs anyways.

Anonymous said...

I remember 3-D comic books and movies from the 1950's, so this is hardly new. This is technology that has been around for more than 50 years and is still searching for an audience that wants it.

I have seen a number of IMAX movies including the NASCAR one from some years back. All gave me a mild feeling of disorientation. My attention focused on the visual effects rather than the "story" on the screen. The IMAX movies seem to be an end in themselves, a mere excuse to display the technology and the technical skills of the filmmaker. Ten minutes after walking out of an IMAX theater, I can't tell you much about what I just saw.

3D effects in movies are usually similar. Would "Gone With the Wind", "The Maltese Falcon", or "The Wizard of Oz" been any better if they had been made in 3D? Special effects are usually distracting unless the effects themselves are the primary feature.

During the early 1990's, a private company fitted a remote operated vehicle with a 3D camera system to dive on and film the wreck of a ship that had sunk 15 years ealier. All official investigations had long since been closed, and the company sought to use this as a demonstration of how their 3D technology could improve information available to investigators. Once they had demonstrated this, 3D would be their ticket to profits on their technology.

I saw their 3D film in a group of about 25 marine industry professionals. My reaction was pretty much the same as the rest of the group. The 3D effects were described as "eerie", "spooky", and "distracting". It added nothing to the quality of information available to an investigator. 3D technology has been available to underwater accident investigators for 20 years, and it has gone nowhere.

Just because someone can invent a technology does not mean that there is a need for it. Some people will always be interested in its novelty or its "gee whiz" factor, but that doesn't mean it will ever see wide use.

Promoting a 3D presentation does seem to fit with ESPN's view that sports, especially NASCAR, is not interesting on its own. Nobody would watch unless they were drawn in by ESPN's impressive display of technology and their long line of personalities. The racing is merely a sort of wallpaper that serves as a background to show off their gadgets and their people. If this survives long enough to televise a NASCAR race, I have no doubt that ESPN will use the entire race as an opportunity to display their 3D technology. Rather than tell the story of the race, they will search for any opportunity to display their 3D effects. Maybe they can get a technical Emmy for it to reinforce their view that ESPN knows best.

I would be laughing at ESPN over this except that it is ultimately the viewer who will be expected to pay for another experiment in ESPN egotism.

Anonymous said...

One thing to remember concerning 3D shows. I'll use HDTV as an example. All it takes is one weak point from the time the show is shot to meeting your eyes at home to turn HDTV back into a regular broadcast. The show has to use a HD camera. All editing has to be in HD. If your cable line to the house is much older than 10 years it's the smaller coax, good luck getting it to work correct. And your TV has to be HD. Any one breakdown and it's no longer HD. Just regular old TV.

3D would only be harder to accomplish. In my area the transission to HD is only about 1/2 way complete. Most channels ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX are still broadcast in standard TV. If 3D ever makes it (I don't think so), it will be years and years down the road. And if their figuring on younger folks to by it, good luck. At the end of the day it's the older folks that have the disaposible income - and the recession is digging deeply into that.

West Coast Diane said...

3D...Yawn....

Ps...thanks for the Slingbox ref in Twitter. Had forgot about it. Since we travel by motorhome a total of 3 to 4 months during the year, we looked at it when first came out.

Would have been solution for watching Olympics next month when in Daytona and races that are on ABC. We get east coast Fox & CBS, but not ABC or NBC on Directv. So good to go for "24", but not Olympics!

Should have considered Slingbox earlier...leave for Daytona in 10 days (packing snow gear).

So many things to consider. My head hurts.

Newracefan said...

NO. I repeat NO. I already see 2 races a year in 3D, I go to the cup races in Dover. It's more than the visual it's also the atmosphere, smell, that rubber grit all over everything. You don't get any of that with 3D. Then there is the glasses, I already have enough trouble with the reading glasses (for laptop) and not needing glasses for the TV. I'd probably be in the nauseous and dizzy crowd. Won't even address the extra cost, I'm living paycheck to paycheck as it is and sometimes that still doesn't cover it. Perfect the product we have don't try and give us what most can't afford.

Vince said...

The reason TV sales are flat is because having a large screen HD TV in this economy is a luxury that most people can't afford. 3D is just a fad. For those of you from my generation, remember 8 track tape players? They were supposed to be the next hot thing. Dead as a door nail a few years later. Or how about Betamax videocassette players? Another "hot" technology that bit the dust.

There are a bunch of seriously clueless people out there if they think 3D TV is going to be the next hot thing. There are still millions of people who don't have HD TV's yet.

Even if this pipe dream were to become reality, what will it give us? Lousy coverage by ESPN in 3D, that's what. And who on gods green earth would want to see Larry Mac, DW, Hammond, Spencer, Wallace and the rest in 3D?? They look bad enough in HD!

JohnP said...

Not sure where the $2,000 came from. Just got done researching a little waiting for the football game to start. And it just did.

A 20" Phillips 3D TV sells for about $3,000.

A Phillips 40" - 43" 3D TV sells in a range of $8,500 to $12,000 depending on options.

There is an option to buy an accessory called "Auto Stereo Display". This allows the viewer to not have to wear the glasses. However, the viewer has to be directly in front of the tv and exactly at a certain distance from the tv for this to work. Everything I read says the 3D tv's don't work as good in 2D mode as the current HD TV's. Thought it was relevant info.

Daly Planet Editor said...

John,

The Panasonic rep said 3D TV's for regular home use should start at about one thousand and run to almost three thousand.

There are high-end sets for industrial and studio use that are very expensive.

The big issue is whether a 3D TV will also be able to deliver regular HD and SD signals.

That seems to be the big price issue, what else will be included.

Thanks for the comment.

JD

peggyann said...

I can't recall a dumber idea in my life.

Dot said...

I'm glad to read that the other Planeteers aren't going out and buying 3D TVs. I would hate to be the only one watching racing on my 10+ year old TV.

I would however, like to see a race in 3D just for the experience. Daytona and Dega would be good races for this.

@ Nrf, I liked your 3D comment, go to the race.

Vicky D said...

Yeah, who wants to watch JJ ride around the track the entire race in 3D?? I won't be on board with this right away I'll wait for the price to come down on the tvs to begin with before we invest in premium channels too.

Kyle said...

two words for ESPN: Good luck.

I've seen plenty of 3D stuff and while it can be kind of cool, I'm not paying extra for it. I would imagine many people agree with that.

Dan said...

Yet another example of seeing how much we'll pay for what we used to get for free.

Richard in N.C. said...

No. 3D sounds like a typical marketing ploy - change the packaging in place of improving the product. If nothing else, it does seem to me if the Evil Empire has the money to invest in a speculative venture like 3D TV, then they should not need to increase carry charges in the near future.

Oh, the rat, isn't that the corporate symbol of Disney?

JD, snow? in Daytona. Did you have any? Have piles here on the ground still that I could send you if you want.

Anonymous said...

I waited sooo long to buy my HD set. Then I saw a replay of a NASCAR race in HD. I was hooked. I narrowed my choices to a few within my budget. When one came on sale I bought. I will wait until adequate programming is available.
Bobby Dee

bevo said...

Gimmick.

On the plus side though- no more in-car or bumper cam shots with 3D cameras.

In five years this will be a distant, dim memory much like Dot's Home Improvement episode :)

Anonymous said...

ESPN hasn't mastered race presentation in 2D yet, but WTH, we'll do 3D poorly and 4:3 safe, too. No disrespect to people who haven't purchased a digital TV, but how long will networks be shooting sporting events 4:3 safe? Ive watched thousands of hours of pillar bar programming over the years, phase in letterboxing some!Watch HDNet sometime, ESPN/Fox/TNT, and learn how production and direction of sporting events can be done correctly. Geez, we seem to be beating a dead horse here with you guys, but can we transition properly to HD before we tackle another ten-year project?

Anonymous said...

If you want 3D, buy a ticket to a race.

Jonathan said...

This to me is flat out STUPID!!!! I dont know about you but i sure as hell dont wanna watch 3-4 hour race w glasses on. NO thank you!!!

Donna in FL said...

Not interested yet. Come back when 3D is glasses-less and is being projected onto my rec room floor.

JohnP said...

Sorry JD, I really did find those numbers though. I guess they were commercial units. I try not to put on wrong info, but sometimes the data is confusing. I do think you got the answer to your question though. Seems there is across the board agreement it's a waste of time and money. Again, I always admit a mistake, and always will. Thanks for information at all times. John

MRM4 said...

I have already told some of my friends and family members that 3D television will be a big flop. A fair percentage of people still don't have high def TVs. And there's a decent percentage of people that do own a HDTV that aren't connected to a HDTV source. I don't see many people running out to get a 3D TV. It's taken this long to get a fair amount of people warmed up to Blu-Ray.

Sophia said...

A savvy geek business man I follow on twitter WENT to the CES convention in Vegas. Said they were HYPING the 3D tvs.

He says, and I'm almost quoting that those will not take off except for serious gamers, sports freaks & porn. Aack!!

I will never be able to look at 3D articles again because after all, allegedly it was the X rated industry that brought up home video recorders affordably priced, unless that's an urban legend.

Still 3 D is limited no matter HOW you look at it. Also for 2 years the CES has had 3D tvs where you do NOT need the glasses and they are not up to the hype.

Oh and this guy DID shoot video of almost cardboard thin HD TVs! It was amazing but they asked him to stopped taping them. So expect those to be the next hype. :-)

I suspect we are hearing lots of the 3D PUSH due to the CES meeting.

Jojaye said...

OK - I agree with Sam & Sophia on this one. Just throwing good $$ on something most people can not afford.
I read where JD says they will cost 2,000 per - ummmwhat 20 something has that kind of cash free? Most are working their tails off (if they have a job or 2)
We had to buy HD when our old tv's died. We waited and got a brand on sale.

Who is going to pay extra for 3D part time programming you still have to wear the glasses for? This money could be used to get better programming without raising customers bills. Not a good idea at this point in time,imho.

Chris from NY said...

It is sometimes good to try something new, but this needs to be described in one short, sweet word:

FAIL.

Anonymous said...

Ah, This is exactly what I was looking for! Clears up
a few misnomers I've been hearing.

Anonymous said...

Ah, This is spot on! Clarifies
some misnomers I've been hearing.