BBC to put 3D production on hold following unsuccessful two-year pilot

[Kaido]

Best thing I've read all day :biggrin:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/05/bbc-ends-3d-production/

 

[Jodell88]

Given the choice between 2D and 3D, I'll take 2D 90% of the time.

 

[Kaido]

Given the choice between 2D and 3D, I'll take 2D 90% of the time.

Seriously, and it's very context-dependent. I didn't enjoy the Hobbit in HFR 3D - I felt it took away from the performances because you realized they were in a studio. However, Avatar was amazing in 3D, and boring in 2D. I liked the 3D so much I saw it twice in theaters, one time in Real 3D and one time in IMAX (Real 3D was better, for the record). 3D at home is cool, but not cool enough to warrant wearing glasses on my couch. Meh. I'm glad to see it die.

I think 4K will be the next big thing, and by next big thing I mean slow to catch on, but at least people will adopt it. Seiki's 50" budget 4K TV is already $999, and they've announced a 39" 4K TV for $699 as well as a larger 65" 4K TV coming later this year. I personally love 4K, but I my home theater projector is 720p and looks great for the mixed SDTV/DVD/Bluray stuff I watch, so I'm in no hurry to switch.

 

[Dulanic]

I never bought a single piece of 3d electronics. In fact, I intentionally avoided them.

 

[bigboxes]

I bought the top of the line Panny plasma this year. It has 3D, but I've never seen it. They decided that they wouldn't include a pair of glasses and it's not something that I value enough to pay extra for. I've always thought that today's 3D was a gimmick and avoided it at the theater as it was just a way for the studios to pad their already overpriced flicks. As a previous poster said, Avatar was wonderful in 3D, but meh in 2D. At some point I'll spring for a pair of glasses when I can get them cheap on ebay, but that may be a couple of years down the road.

 

[Aikouka]

I've been tempted to ignore 3D as of late. The biggest problem is that the TVs with 3D are considerably more expensive as they usually include a whole host of features. For example, VIZIO's 70" normal LCD is $1699 vs. the 70" M-series at $2499. You pay about 50% more, but you most likely get a better panel. It's a hard trade-off for some people to make when they probably won't ever notice a difference at the long distances.

 

[Kneedragger]

I think I read ESPN will be dropping 3D content too.

 

[Kaido]

I think I read ESPN will be dropping 3D content too.

Yup, they are dropping it this year:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/12/4422874/espn-3d-to-shut-down-by-end-of-2013

:thumbsup:

 

[mmntech]

3D has been around since the 1920s. It seems to enjoy brief popularity and then vanishes for few decades. With good reason. It's unnatural. I think our brains just aren't built to process that kind of information. That's why your eyes wig out and some folks get headaches if they watch it for too long. While you have some popcorn directors touting it as the new medium for the 21st century, the technology hasn't changed much over 90 years. You still need the glasses and it still looks fake as ever. It's a good gimmick for Hollywood to get people back in theatres when they're struggling. People have short memories.

TV is the same. I think a lot of people thought 3DTV would do the same for 3D that DVD did for film. Bring the theatre experience home on a smaller scale. Of course it came with the same drawbacks. The glasses, the headaches, the odd viewing angles, the general inconvenience of it all. There's also not a lot of content on TV that's well suited for 3D viewing. Action and sports are the two big ones. Even with sports, which was the most popular 3D content, audiences were small. When ESPN pulled the plug on their 3D channel, the medium was toast.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's more the overuse of it. Not every movie needs to be 3D. Avatar was actually very good in 3D.

There was a Star Trek show in Vegas that had very good 3D as well. It just depends on the application. The problem is Hollywood is trying to push it in everything that simply doesn't need it or barely benefits from it.

Watching 3D at home is novel the first couple times, but after that you are just like "meh, whatever" and rather not hassle with it. There is no reason for sports or newscasts or your average daily soap to be in 3D and I'm not sure why anyone thought THAT would take off.

Porn and gaming are really the only reasons it would take off, and really even on that front not many people are buying into it. Just too many hoops to jump through to try to use it.

 

[Tegeril]

Yes!

 

[Imp]

I can't believe 3D even took off... TV makers must have been desperate for new sales.

 

[Sheep]

3D is great for "event" movies like Avatar or the Hobbit but useless at home where people are doing other things like checking email or using the web while they watch TV--you really can't do anything else except pay attention to the TV while wearing 3D glasses. I can't believe the people pushing 3D televisions and channels seemingly didn't think of everyday use patterns like this.

 

[Kaido]

I can't believe 3D even took off... TV makers must have been desperate for new sales.

Well look at the market...I got my dad a 50" Coby 1080p LED TV this year for $399 from PC Richards. Great picture, low energy, giant screen, no issues. There aren't a ton of people who want something much bigger than that due to space constraints, and even the prices on the jumbo TV's are coming down - Vizio's 80" LCD is now under four grand, their 70" is nearly down to two grand, etc. So things have gotten very affordable with very good picture quality and there's just not much reason to upgrade these days. Why spend $3700 on an 80" when you can get a 50" for $400? I think when the new 4K-resolution TV's get big & cheap is when we'll see the next big shift, but it won't be as big as going from CRT tubes to flatscreens. I mean, my buddy just bought that $379 Aaxa P300 micro-projector - fits in the palm of your hand - and easily shoots a gorgeous 80" image in a dark room. It's crazy! I don't know how TV makers are going to keep their sales up in coming years, once the market saturates with giant, cheap televisions. I mean, even my grandma has a 42" LCD...

 

[bigboxes]

Well look at the market...I got my dad a 50" Coby 1080p LED TV this year for $399 from PC Richards. Great picture, low energy, giant screen, no issues. There aren't a ton of people who want something much bigger than that due to space constraints, and even the prices on the jumbo TV's are coming down - Vizio's 80" LCD is now under four grand, their 70" is nearly down to two grand, etc. So things have gotten very affordable with very good picture quality and there's just not much reason to upgrade these days. Why spend $3700 on an 80" when you can get a 50" for $400? I think when the new 4K-resolution TV's get big & cheap is when we'll see the next big shift, but it won't be as big as going from CRT tubes to flatscreens. I mean, my buddy just bought that $379 Aaxa P300 micro-projector - fits in the palm of your hand - and easily shoots a gorgeous 80" image in a dark room. It's crazy! I don't know how TV makers are going to keep their sales up in coming years, once the market saturates with giant, cheap televisions. I mean, even my grandma has a 42" LCD...

You are the lowest common denominator as are talked about in this thread. You don't care about image quality as long as it's big, bright and cheap! For those that do there will always be sets that cost >$2k. It will be awhile until your family can afford 4k televisions.

 

[glen]

I never bought a single piece of 3d electronics. In fact, I intentionally avoided them.

YES

 

[Kaido]

You are the lowest common denominator as are talked about in this thread. You don't care about image quality as long as it's big, bright and cheap! For those that do there will always be sets that cost >$2k. It will be awhile until your family can afford 4k televisions.

You should be more careful making accusations - if you had read the thread you linked to, you would have seen my response in it

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34802436&postcount=175

I think it's more that the average consumer is the lowest common denominator, and they are the bulk of the purchasers. I still know people using tube TV's as their primary set. The bulk of people buy whatever looks good & fits their budget at Walmart or Best Buy, even if that means a sub-par image using edge-lit LED backlighting rather than a new-gen nano-plasma, fully-backlit LED, or DLP set. People who do care will spend the time researching their purchase and won't just pick off the first big set on sale at Costco, but in reality, that's how most people shop, which is why we are seeing the current trends in televisions.

For example, to me, "Smart" TV's make no sense - their interfaces are generally slow to operate and limited since you can't go to an app store in most of them. And they rarely seem to get OS updates, so you're stuck with whatever version of the apps comes out of the factory or whatever they decide the final update will be, and then you're also stuck because you can't upgrade the processor in the TV to take advantage of a faster GUI or more features, like upgrading from the Roku 2 to the Roku 3 and adding on the wireless headphone technology on the remote.

Also regarding the affordability of 4K televisions, the Seiki 50" 4K TV has been on sale for under $1,000 recently and is currently available for $1170 on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-...dp/B00BXF7I9M/

 

[Matt1970]

3D gives me a headache.

 

[purbeast0]

3d is definitely content dependent. i have a few movies in 3d that are amazing, but i have a ton in 2d that i'd never want to watch in 3d.

avatar, life of pie, the hobbit, jurassic park - all amazing in 3d.

last house on the left, man on fire, the hills have eyes - i'll take 2d thanks.

 

[Kaido]

3d is definitely content dependent. i have a few movies in 3d that are amazing, but i have a ton in 2d that i'd never want to watch in 3d.

avatar, life of pie, the hobbit, jurassic park - all amazing in 3d.

last house on the left, man on fire, the hills have eyes - i'll take 2d thanks.

I would like to see The Hobbit again in regular 3D. The High Framerate 3D really threw me out of the movie. I bet it'd be pretty decent in regular 3D.