CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › Career Ending Injuries To Be Broadcast In Glorious 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Career Ending Injuries To Be Broadcast In Glorious 3D

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
I'm going to get this. And by that I mean I'm going to try and convince one of my friends to get this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
World Cup soccer, the 2011 BCS National Championship game and dozens of other sporting events will be shown in 3-D by ESPN in the coming year.

The cable network announced Tuesday that it will launch a new channel, ESPN 3D, on June 11 with its three-dimensional broadcast of a FIFA World Cup soccer match between South Africa and Mexico.

In the next 12 months, the network will show at least 85 games, including the January 11, 2011, national championship and other college football games, college basketball, and ESPN's Summer X Games, according to the network.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/05/e...:+Top+Stories)
post #2 of 33
3D TV suffers from the same problem of the Segway, people using this technology will look like dorks.

I'm trying to imagine a bunch of drunk people with the ugly 3D glasses at a sports bar.
post #3 of 33
This will go over as well as the glowing hockey puck.
post #4 of 33
I'm sure Stuart Scott's jacked up eye will be even more unsettling in 3D.
post #5 of 33
Ok, has there been some advance in technology that makes looking at a 3D moving image actually interesting now or something. It was a bad gimmick in the 50's its just sort of sad now.

In general these 3D TVs = bad idea.
post #6 of 33
Holograms were all the rage, now it's 3D.
post #7 of 33
The only sport I envision this helping is NASCAR.
post #8 of 33
At first maybe, but I image that after the fifth time of "that car is coming right at me" you get a bit bored.

But I got to ask, what reseach exactly shows people are interested in this anyway? Its not like the 3D craze has gone wild at the theaters. Why do the TV manufactures/programmers seem to think that this is something we will want?
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekT View Post
Its not like the 3D craze has gone wild at the theaters.
Yes it is.
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
Yes it is.
Some numbers please. I image Avatar is doing well, is it doing better in 3D theaters vs 2D theaters.

I don't recall any big jump in numbers for Final Destination going 3D. The Brendon Frasier 3D film basicly flopped. I think the Spy Kids film did well, but once again estabished franchise and overall the numbers are about the same as the Spy Kid films before it.
post #11 of 33
You don't have to imagine anything. Get thee to the Dellamorte Does Box Office thread.

Everyone with a 3D app has been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how Avatar would perform, and now it's time to jump in.
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
You don't have to imagine anything. Get thee to the Dellamorte Does Box Office thread.

Everyone with a 3D app has been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how Avatar would perform, and now it's time to jump in.
Considering the thread is over 120 pages, can you point out the bit that shows Avatar in 3D is doing better than Avatar 2D or that 3D films as a whole sell better than 2D.
post #13 of 33
I think everybody can somewhat agree that the 3D in Avatar is the main draw, at least I thought that was pretty clear to most people.

I don't think that translates to TV and having to sit there for a whole game with dorky 3D glasses ... specially with a group of friends (and potentially expensive glasses).

It seems like 3D TV is a lot of wishful thinking and not enough user experience research.
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekT View Post
Considering the thread is over 120 pages, can you point out the bit that shows Avatar in 3D is doing better than Avatar 2D or that 3D films as a whole sell better than 2D.
Try the last 3-4 pages. There is a lot of discussion as to how much 3D influenced the box office.

Regarding the issue at hand, as a football (what you´d call soccer) nut I don´t see any real advantage as a viewer via 3D. Not even mentioning that this technical advance will hit the other side of the pond a few years later anyhow. Hell, we are just about to catch up to HD TV.

So I´ll just sit back and wait how this 3D craze plays out in the long run.
post #15 of 33
Here's what I got from watching Avatar in 3-D--it's similar to watching shows in HD...it makes it look more like you're watching these folks through a window. To me, watching Avatar in digital 3-D, especially the scenes inside the military compound, it was like you were sitting in the room watching this happen. When people say 3-D, I think some automatically assume that means "look, it's coming at me!" effects...I believe what they're trying to do here is add to the HD look and try to make you feel more like you're there watching the game in person.
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
It seems like 3D TV is a lot of wishful thinking and not enough user experience research.
What he said.
post #17 of 33
I am not going to sit and watch the game while wearing a $600 pair of Blue Blockers.

Avatar's a money maker in 3D because it was a novelty from a loved film maker which was hyped absolutely to death. I seriously doubt studios will be able to maintain selling 3d movies to the general public at $20 bucks a pop for a prolonged period.

Claiming the correlation that since Avatar was a success that everybody is going to rush out and invest in 3d TV's seems premature at best. Do you really want to watch Katie Coric or Wolf Blitzer in 3D?
post #18 of 33
OMFGOMG! It's like they are playing in my living room! Yeah, I have no need for watching games in 3D..that's why I paid a small bounty for Colts season tickets.
post #19 of 33
I'm kicking myself that I'm just one year off from owning a 3D-ready TV. I'm tempted to try to sell my TV (which I'm not a huge fan of) and spend the difference to get a new one that would work with active shutter glasses.

The glasses themselves are less than $100 a pair (I've seen them in the $60 range online) so it's not like it's impossible to afford. And besides buying specially made 3D movies, you can also use them with video games with almost no additional coding required (it would halve the framerate though). If you have a 3D-ready TV and glasses you can play the Avatar PS3/PC game in 3D.

I'd love to be able to watch stuff in 3D and the great thing about it is if you don't have a 3D set or don't feel like wearing the glasses or whatever you can always just watch in 2D no problem. And yes, the technology now is kind of crappy but with enough interest they'll make progress on figuring out better ways to present 3D visuals. It's certainly something that is interesting to me.
post #20 of 33
I'm waiting for a new type of chronic eye strain disease to be tagged with extended active shutter 3D use.
post #21 of 33
Yeah, that's really the thing that concerns me the most about the current 3D solutions. I've heard you can get a headache from the active shutter stuff. I'd certainly do an extended test somewhere before purchasing one myself.
post #22 of 33
Here's a really good article on 3D

http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

Quote:
(There's also little reason to believe new technology will overcome another fundamental problem with the 3-D business model: Five percent to 8 percent of the population is stereoblind and can't convert binocular disparity into depth information. That means they can't appreciate any of the 3-D effects in a RealD or Imax movie. An additional 20 to 30 percent of the population suffers from a lesser form of the deficit, which could diminish the experience of 3-D effects or make them especially uncomfortable to watch.)

The eye-movement issue may even carry other, more serious risks. A long session of 3-D viewing tends to cause an adaptive response in the oculomotor system, temporarily changing the relationship between accommodation and convergence. That is to say, audience-members may experience very mild, short-term vision impairment after a movie ends. I won't pretend there's any hard evidence that these transient effects could develop into permanent problems. But if 3-D becomes as widespread as some in the industry claim—every movie in three dimensions, for example, and television programs, too—we'll no doubt have plenty of data: Small children, their vision systems still in development, could one day be digesting five or six hours of stereo entertainment per day. There's already been one published case study, from the late-1980s, of a 5-year-old child in Japan who became permanently cross-eyed after viewing an anaglyph 3-D movie at a theater.
Much more in the article.
post #23 of 33
I know nothing about the tech, but why can't the cheapo RealD glasses work with a television? It's not like that image on a movie screen couldn't be translated to a TV, right? Why the expensive shutter glasses? Or is it all about the framerates?
post #24 of 33
In order to view any kind of 3D, it's necessary to ensure that your left and right eyes see separate images. It's the difference between those images, the parallax, that creates the 3D illusion in your brain. Red/blue, or anaglyph, does this by color-masking: Draw on a white piece of paper with a red pen, then look at the drawing through a red filter (or just shine a red light on it). Now everything's red and you can't see the drawing. With anaglyph glasses, the red filter voids the red image and darkens the blue, while the blue filter voids the blue image and darkens the red. It's an imperfect system, due both to the color conflict and loss of light transmission, but it's portable and cheap and that's why it's still around.

To see 3D with your Real-D glasses, you need polarized presentation-- the left and right 'eyes', or 'fields', projected through polarized filters that correspond to the ones in your glasses. That means a silver screen and either (A) two synchronized projectors with complimentary polarized filters or (B) one projector alternating left and right images through a synchronized alternating-polarization filter.

It's a lot simpler to play alternating-field video (i.e., left-right-left-right on consecutive frames) on a regular TV, and view it with 'flicker' glasses that black out in time with the presentation so that your left eye only sees the left image, etc.

Obviously, higher frame-rates make this solution more attractive, but it can be done with a standard TV-- and consumer-grade systems do exist for that.

The future option will probably be 'free-viewing' systems. Some sort of lenticular monitor, affording a 'deep' image without glasses. The viewing angles would be limited, and the hardware expensive, but I see that solution taking precedence in sports-bar scenarios.
post #25 of 33
Cool. Thanks a lot for the explanation, Hammerhead. I wasn't aware it was that complicated or I would have looked it up.
post #26 of 33
Did it make sense? I revised quite a bit.
post #27 of 33
Yeah, I think I have a grasp on it. I knew theaters had to upgrade for modern 3D, but I didn't know how the RealD projection worked.
post #28 of 33
Double-dipping DVDs was one thing, now they're double-dipping HDTVs?
post #29 of 33
Pretty much. All new special features!
post #30 of 33
According to Panasonic's CTA at the 2010 CES show in Vegas, they need 3D HDTVs to pull them out of a slump and boost sales. "Slump" being millions of people just spend a small fortune on their HDTVs, and are enjoying the one they have.

I mean, once you buy a TV, you're set for a while. It's not going to spoil and you have to throw it out.
post #31 of 33
I think that's why they're pushing this deadend tech so much. So people will go out and buy again.

Transitioning broadcast TV to digital forced consumers to purchase new TVs or hardware to support old analog TV.

Now it's 3D. But I fear most consumers will buy in only to get burned by this tech later down the road.
post #32 of 33
I think that 3D could at some point really take off in everyday electronics. That's not going to happen while you have to wear glasses though. Still, I'd be willing to spend a couple hundred dollars to watch/play a couple things a week in 3D.
post #33 of 33
I like how people are acting like what they did with the 3-D in something like "Avatar" is no different from 3-D in the 1950s or when it briefly came back in the early 1980s.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › Career Ending Injuries To Be Broadcast In Glorious 3D