# ESPN 3D on it's deathbed?



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

*'Love affair' with TVs ends
ESPN 3-D first victim of bust?*



The next big thing in TV -- 3-D -- is proving such a bomb with consumers, the first victim may be ESPN's sports-in-3-D channel.
"At one point last year they were actually openly questioning whether they were going to go ahead into year two," tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post.
The problem is plain, he says. Most of the advertisers on ESPN 3D are the set manufacturers themselves.
And of sales of 3-D TVs show no signs they are going to pick up anytime soon...

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainme...tvs_ends_a1RikT9zccfxYzpDLXx4iN#ixzz1XBTdc4eS


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I quit reading after, "tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post."


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> I quit reading after, "tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post."


:lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Well, since ESPN 3D when 24x7 for year two and has been slowing expanding the amount of events they are showing in 3D guess they changed their minds. 

I always get a little laugh out of any article that says 3D is a bust because of sales. Last I heard we're kind of in a recession and folks aren't spending like they used to and are cutting back. So yea, if someone needs a new TV they might have wanted to buy that 3D set but can only afford a 2D, so folks that that to mean folks don't want 3D and it's going to die, think they're jumping to conclusions IMHO.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Plenty of threads here about why 3D will or won't work. I've posted in almost all of them. At this point I did buy a 3D TV, not for the 3D, but for the other features. 3D was an afterthought. 

I think most folks agree that unless/untill there is glasses-free 3D with a wide viewing angle, there is not going to be significant growth in 3D.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think most folks agree that *unless/untill there is glasses-free 3D with a wide viewing angle*, there is not going to be significant growth in 3D.


Can't speak for others, but that's what's kept me from trying it.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

I think a lot of times, especially with sports you are watching with others and reacting to the action etc. Kind of hard to interact in the same manner with those things on your face


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Guess I never got the glasses argument as the major problem. Millions of people watch TV all the time with glasses on (I did until I got LASIK) so don't understand the big issue. Would it be nice to not have to wear glasses to see 3D, yep, but why miss out on it now?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RAD said:


> Guess I never got the glasses argument as the major problem. Millions of people watch TV all the time with glasses on (I did until I got LASIK) so don't understand the big issue.


But not with sunglasses on. Granted the TV version of glasses are not as dark as the movie theater, but they still cut some of the brightness (at least the few that I have seen do).

On a side note, I learned why I don't really like 3D and why it gives me a headache. I am extremely cross-eye dominant which means I am right handed, but left eyed. That would contribute, but since I also wear contacts which create a mono-vision effect (my left eye is for distance, right eye for close), the combination of cross-eye domination and mono-vision basically drives my eyes nuts since they are focusing at different lengths. A headache soon ensues.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> But not with sunglasses on. Granted the TV version of glasses are not as dark as the movie theater, but they still cut some of the brightness (at least the few that I have seen do).


Yes they do, but the two Samsung 3D sets I've had automatically increase the brightness when it switches to 3D mode to help compensate for that.



Herdfan said:


> On a side note, I learned why I don't really like 3D and why it gives me a headache. I am extremely cross-eye dominant which means I am right handed, but left eyed. That would contribute, but since I also wear contacts which create a mono-vision effect (my left eye is for distance, right eye for close), the combination of cross-eye domination and mono-vision basically drives my eyes nuts since they are focusing at different lengths. A headache soon ensues.


Guess that's a problem in your case, sorry.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

RAD said:


> Yes they do, but the two Samsung 3D sets I've had automatically increase the brightness when it switches to 3D mode to help compensate for that.
> ...


That's how my set is, too. The 3D settings are separate and can be adjusted. IMO, it's not any darker and appears great. I watched 'Sanctum' awhile back, which has a lot of dark scenes, and it looked great.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> .... At this point I did buy a 3D TV, not for the 3D, but for the other features. 3D was an afterthought.
> 
> I think most folks agree that unless/untill there is glasses-free 3D with a wide viewing angle, there is not going to be significant growth in 3D.


Same reason I bought mine.



RAD said:


> Guess I never got the glasses argument as the major problem. Millions of people watch TV all the time with glasses on (I did until I got LASIK) so don't understand the big issue. Would it be nice to not have to wear glasses to see 3D, yep, but why miss out on it now?


The wearing of glasses isn't as big of a pain as folks think. And football in 3D is quite cool! Though last night's Miami game lost its audio for me during much of the first half. 

I'm not sure about this, but I also think I noticed that ESPN is learning how to make their 3D crew an asset for their 2D crew. I think many of the 2D replays last night may have originated from their 3D cameras. I noticed more ground-level replays.

Bottom line, I think if some of the nay-sayers gave 3D a try at home, they'd be glad they did.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

At least for me, it's a pain. Not super comfortable and a fair amount of eyestrain. I already wear glasses and I would prefer not to wear 2 pair.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Watching some of the US Tennis Open on 103 and it looked like they had a 3D camera setup strapped onto the lens of the 2D camera in some of the shots. And on some of the ESPN 3D NBA games earlier, some not all, used the 3D feed for the 2D feed, could switch between channels and it was the same shot. For football though I don't see that happening anytime soon. All the 3D football I've seen they use mostly ground level, or slightly elevated, camera's, shots from up in the press box area just don't do anything in 3D.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> I quit reading after, "tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post."


totally agree


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

RAD said:


> Well, since ESPN 3D when 24x7 for year two and has been slowing expanding the amount of events they are showing in 3D guess they changed their minds.
> 
> I always get a little laugh out of any article that says 3D is a bust because of sales. Last I heard we're kind of in a recession and folks aren't spending like they used to and are cutting back. So yea, if someone needs a new TV they might have wanted to buy that 3D set but can only afford a 2D, so folks that that to mean folks don't want 3D and it's going to die, think they're jumping to conclusions IMHO.


i think the death of espn 3d is a bit premature. they increased the number of college football games and bowl games this season. and they are full-time, although, most of the content are reruns.


----------



## Dr_J (Apr 15, 2007)

Got a 3D TV because it's the best possible 2D TV in terms of specs. 3D is just icing on the cake. Those documentaries on 3Net are just phenomenal.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

iceturkee said:


> i think the death of espn 3d is a bit premature. they increased the number of college football games and bowl games this season. and they are full-time, although, most of the content are reruns.


Yea, the reruns do got old. But I remember the early days of HD, same issue, not a lot of new HD content, tons of reruns, but eventually that stopped


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

I too got 3D in the deal of buying a nice 2D HDTV. 

The Samsung plasma and bluetooth active shutter glasses give a better 3D experience than you can get at any theater. 

I'll be watching Arizona @ OK State Thursday night.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

I’ve seen active 3D, got nauseous within the first 5 minutes.
I’ve seen glasses-free 3D on a 55” TV. Myself and my brother in-law got nauseous in less than a minute. Side note, off-angle sucked!
I’ve seen passive 3D. Did not get nauseous at all.

We’re so far away from nauseous-free, glasses-free 3D. I bet TV manufacturers stop pursuing 3D long before the technology is even perfected. Unfortunately, 3D will get tossed in the same bin as SACD, DVD-A and HD-DVD. It’s not a question of if, but when. However, I think it’s too premature to say ESPN 3D is toast.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ESPN is doing two college games this week.

The problem with using sporting events as a hook is that it isn't nearly as captivating with the second and successive viewings.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I bet TV manufacturers stop pursuing 3D long before the technology is even perfected.


There was a time when you couldn't give away quadraphonic audio equipment. Now many are installing 9.2 surround systems.

3D may forge ahead, but it may do so some time down the road.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

harsh said:


> There was a time when you couldn't give away quadraphonic audio equipment. Now many are installing 9.2 surround systems.
> 
> 3D may forge ahead, but it may do so some time down the road.


Yeah, the catalyst for that success story was movies. Movies drove surround sound demand. Right now the only thing driving 3D demand is TV manufacturers. Until a creditable 3D catalyst comes along, 3D is in jeopardy.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

RAD said:


> Yea, the reruns do got old. But I remember the early days of HD, same issue, not a lot of new HD content, tons of reruns, but eventually that stopped


i know, you are correct about that.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Yeah, the catalyst for that success story was movies. Movies drove surround sound demand. Right now the only thing driving 3D demand is TV manufacturers. Until a creditable 3D catalyst comes along, 3D is in jeopardy.


TV manufacturers aren't the only thing driving 3D. Movies and studios are pushing it, too.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> TV manufacturers aren't the only thing driving 3D. Movies and studios are pushing it, too.


true


----------



## webby_s (Jan 11, 2008)

Ok I have a unique experience to through my $.02 in.

I HAD a 3D Samsung Plasma TV, loved it, but like Stuart, I bought it for the specs not just the 3D. Well my 2.5 year old daughter threw a cup at it and shadered the glass and that was that. (sad sad day in the Webster household) Then I bought a 2D for a replacement and I can honestly say I don't miss 3D.

Sure there are some sporting events I liked but it isn't like they were game changers and I felt I needed to tell friends and family they NEED 3D. It just isn't that spectacular. It was more of a novalty.

So either way I don't care. My next purchase of an HDtv would probably NOT have 3D as I would like to replace my tv in the bedroom and I don't think I need it in the bedroom.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

btw, espn just signed a new deal with the nfl to continue broadcasting monday night football through the 2021 season. among the interesting points in the new contract are 3d distribution rights for both mnf and the nfl studio programs. according to the espn 3d twitter feed, it isn't going to happen until 2014, i guess when the new contract kicks in.

don't see this happening if espn 3d is on its deathbed!!!


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

We thoroughly love the 3D experience that D* offers. We have a 2011 Samsung UN55D6400, which is the entry level 3D model of their LED line-up. The icing on the cake is that this set is also a RVU capable device.

We had tried the LG55LW5600 3D LED passive set and we were very impressed with that as well, but it died a premature death & when we returned it to Fry's. They had the Sammy on sale(which included 2 free pair of Bluetooth Active Shutter Glasses). We just were in awe of the store demo & we decided to give it a try instead. It has an exceptional scaler/video processor on board & even D* SD looks good.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

texasmoose said:


> We thoroughly love the 3D experience that D* offers. We have a 2011 Samsung UN55D6400, which is the entry level 3D model of their LED line-up. The icing on the cake is that this set is also a RVU capable device.
> 
> We had tried the LG55LW5600 3D LED passive set and we were very impressed with that as well, but it died a premature death & when we returned it to Fry's. They had the Sammy on sale(which included 2 free pair of Bluetooth Active Shutter Glasses). We just were in awe of the store demo & we decided to give it a try instead. It has an exceptional scaler/video processor on board & even D* SD looks good.


i just bought an optoma hd 66 and the 3d converter box that goes with (thanks chris  ). i just hooked up the converter and briefly watched a boxing match from this summer. looked teriffic!!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

RAD said:


> Yes they do, but the two Samsung 3D sets I've had automatically increase the brightness when it switches to 3D mode to help compensate for that.


My set doesn't do it automatically, but I have two different calibrations. One that's adjusted for normal viewing and one that's adjusted for 3D. Just a simple button press when I watch 3D to brighten up the screen.

I don't utilize 3D very often, but I'm glad I have the capability. Watched Avatar in 3D a few months ago and thought it was fantastic. Didn't watch any 3D for several months after that, but recently I watched some X-Games stuff and will probably watch a 3D football game every other week or so in the fall.

Can't imagine buying a TV now without 3D. Even if you only use it once per year, it's nice to have the ability (like for the Masters and such).


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> .....
> 
> I don't utilize 3D very often, but I'm glad I have the capability. Watched Avatar in 3D a few months ago and thought it was fantastic. Didn't watch any 3D for several months after that, but recently I watched some X-Games stuff and will probably watch a 3D football game every other week or so in the fall.
> 
> Can't imagine buying a TV now without 3D. Even if you only use it once per year, it's nice to have the ability (like for the Masters and such).


Very well said! I feel the same way. I use it maybe once a month, and I'm thrilled I have it for those times.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Looking forward to the UT game in 3D this Saturday, sure, sure nice having the option to see it vs. Some other companies that don't carry Ny 3D channels.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

Oklahoma State looks damn good in 3D tonight so far.


----------

