HDTV Almanac - 3DTV: It Starts with Sports

[alfredpoor]

With some consumers willing to spend hundreds of dollars per seat to attend some sporting events, it should come as little surprise that live 3DTV programming is going to begin with sports coverage. The press is still writing pages about the first 3D-capable sets from Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic — many of which have not [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/03/hdtv_almanac_3dtv_it_starts_with_sports.php]Read Column[/url]

[mhodges]

I just don't get the attraction. 3DTV (and 3D movies for that matter) doesn't add anything compelling for me. It adds nothing that I personally consider "value added" like HDTV was when I first saw it.

For me, "3D" is not closer to "real life" or like "being there". Its a distraction from the viewing experience because of numerous factors (the glasses, the eyestrain, the color loss, the continued use of visual "gimmicks" even in serious movies like Avatar).

I have no intention of sitting in my living room with glasses on to watch TV. I had LASIK to avoid that!

Someone convince me what 3D brings to the table I'm missing that makes it a "killer app" like HD.

I can only hope that I'm not forced to it because broadcasts come in 3D and isn't watchable otherwise.

[wessokolosky]

FWIW I agree. 3D needs to contribute to the narrative if it is to be worthwhile. I believe it did that to some degree in Avatar, and will in the IMAX Hubble film. However, for the vast majority of films/TV shows, it seems to me it will be more of a distraction from the narrative. In contrast, adding sound to film way back in 1927 was obviously a serious game changer. Within about 3 years, silent films were no longer produced. Today's iteration of 3D, while unquestionably better than the early attempts in the 50s, will not, in my opinion follow that trajectory. It simply doesn't add that much to the story, at least for me.

Wes Sokolosky