There are several reasons why 3D sports channels could end up on the sidelines. One reason is that filming live 3D sports is still in the R&D phase since the production crews have to film the live events in 2D and 3D separately. Another major reason is that according to Nielsen’s 3D survey the majority of the people surveyed said that the 3D
glasses themselves were the reason they did not want the 3D tv. To read the entire article written by Jeremy Repanich on Deadspin.com click here
3D sports channels could end up on the sidelines
Sports 3D has worked best in situations totally alien to the experience of watching sports on TV. During this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, 700 people gathered to watch ESPN’s broadcast of the BCS title game in 3D. And those attendees marveled at the progress of the technology. “I’ve heard the naysayers,” Phil Orlins, ESPN’s head of 3D production, said. “But very rarely do I hear naysayers or doubters from people who have seen a really well-done 3D production. We put the game on in that theater in Las Vegas, and the response was extraordinary.”
There’s an important distinction to be made, though: ESPN’s broadcast was in a theater. Theater audiences are captive. At the cineplex, watching the likes of U2 3D or Avatar, we’re trained not to be the asshole illuminating the room with the light from our cellphone. We resist the urge to multitask and we focus on the big screen.
At home, I bounce between screens, keeping one eye on the game and the other on my Twitter feed, the better to spew profanity at enemies and curse my fantasy team. In a report released this past fall, Nielsen found that 40 percent of smartphone and tablet owners use their devices while they watch TV. This helps explain why 57 percent of people in Nielsen’s 3D survey said that the glasses were a major reason they didn’t want the TV.
So TV manufacturers are exploring two ways around consumer aversion to the cumbersome glasses: Improve the glasses or get rid of them altogether. Tim Alessi, director of product development for LG, says the company is working on replacing the bulky active-shutter goggles—$150 specs with a battery pack on the side that quickly darkens each eye in turn—with passive lenses that work like polarized sunglasses. These should cost less than $20 and allow you to look at your iPhone without flicker. But they do lose some of the crispness that comes with active-shutter images.
Having to wear any sort of glasses is a deal breaker for a lot of people. Toshiba has released a glasses-free 3D TV model in Germany, and will ship a model stateside early this year. Glasses-free sets generally use a lenticular screen, with ridges like one of those kids’ toys that shifts images when you tilt it. On the TV, the ridges help direct separate images to each eye; Toshiba uses a small camera to track your face to it can beam the image to you directly. Unfortunately, the camera can only track so many sets of eyes at once, and the 3D is less than Avatar-in-the-theater good.
3D sports channels could end up on the sidelines while society seems to be distracted with social media, text messaging, and other communications that seems to be distracting viewers from paying attention to live 3D sports that require 3D glasses. Then again when we sit around munching on food and beer during a game, I would think most of us would not want to keep taking the 3D glasses on and off while socializing and moving around the room to keep from falling over the furniture and hurting themselves.
What are your opinions on the future of 3D sports Channels?
Please comment below, we would love to hear from you.