2D compatibility, 2D vs 3D wars and a peace treaty

[tripletopper]

I can think this is the number one reason why 3D failed, and why other technologies of improving TV/Video succeeded.

Let's look at succcessful technologies:

Color in the 60's succeeded, mainly because someone found a way to make color content available for those who wanted it, but for those who are both "wait and see-ers" and "knuckle-draggers" (Don't call "Knuckle-draggers" an insult. I affectionately consider myself a knuckle-dragger as far as CRT TVs and classic video games are concerned. ) the shows would be perfect good shows to watch in Black and White either until the day the wait and see-ers are going to buy a TV anyway and eventually it was just cheaper just to add color in all sets than to make a separate line of B/W TVs and Color TVs.

The first entertainment format I personally lived through was Stereo TV. The broadcasters and the 4 media formats a the time (VHS, Beta, Laser Disc, Selectavision) has ways to make stereo mono-compatible> You just took any TV, and added a Multi-channel Tuning System to pick up the stereo channel. By the way that same technology gave us Spanish feeds of English shows. (Why doesn't Univision do the reverse, use their SAP to broadcast SAP in English? Then I would understand Spanish Soap Operas beyond the universal language of love and snuggling. )

Closed captioning was slipped as a hidden technology. The funny thing is that the earliest recording I have on Beta had a Closed Caption test on it, which had hidden messages saying something like "this is a test of the closed caption system." "When implemented, the deaf can read the dialogue and sound cues, while the words are hidden from hearing viewers." I didn't know about closed captions back then, but it accurately was captured during the only broadcast of "Return of the King." Maybe, once I get enough bandwidth, I should make a you tube video showing the closed caption test.

If 2 tracks aren't enough, add Dolby Pro Logic. I don't know if Broadcast and cable TV had Dolby 5.1/DTS 5.1 until the HD era, but both of those technologies were implemented as a hidden treasure too.

HDTV was a sticking point. The knuckle-draggers wanted to keep their TVs, and Antenna TV had to still be viable, so as soon as people successfully made Digtial-broadcast-to-analoig-TV the federal government finally stuck to the deadline of saying goodbye to analog TV. Heck they even subsidized 80% of the device costs to every American up to 5 TVs a piece. You could probably watch Digital broadcast TV on an analog Black and White Mono TV if you want.

Then there's 3D. The main problem with 3D is that it maybe be seen as an improvement to some, and a DETERMENT to others. There is a vicious 3D war in my family. My mom might have 3D nausea, my dad wants to collect for the 4K future, despite the fact we don't have a 4K TV yet, and my brother says he doesn't want to commit to always watching 3D ll the time, and I agree 3D/2D flexibility is a key feature. Sometimes you want to don shades, other times you don't.

At its peak in 2012, 30% of households bought a 3D TV. And probably the single 3D TV model that lead the way was the Sony Playstaiton 3D Display (not technically a TV because it has no ATSC tuner). It was the only Johnny Lunchpail 3D TV that was in range of people who wanted to add 3D but not break the bank, or as an extra 3D TV, or a college kid's first TV. Started at $500, went fdown to $180 until t sold out.

I could have sworn at that time Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (based on the opening sequence) was originally envisioned to be a 3D series.

It was not broadcast in 3D. I can think of two reasons why, and they're interrelated.

One was the broadcast standard that was chosen for 3D TV, side-by-side half. The problem with that is when watching on a 2D TV, it technically works, but has a side effect of 2 picture squished horizontally in half, and with no way for TVs to turn a 3D broadcast into 2D, Nickelodeon had to choose.

The other reason was Nickelodeon thought that they should enhance the show for 30% of the audience when it RUINS IT for the 70% who either didn't sign up, or is waiting until they play to buy a TV anyway.

If you wanted to ensure 3D compatibility, broadcasters should have made a standard of either 720p or 1080i with 30 Hz X 2 Eyes and trick older ATSC tuners into thinking it's a standard 30 HZ broadcast. With ATSC 2, since the pixels are increasing, maybe add an option of whatever resolution x 60 Hz x 2 Eyes and have an ATSC 1 Tuner think it's 60Hz x 1 Eye

It would be designed so that the second eye is hidden, UNLESS you buy something to unlock it. Just like Closed Captioning and various Surround Sound features.

DVR Content would be recorded in 60 HZ natively, but the satellite/cable boxes would have a 30 Hz X 2 Eye filter so that if there is no 3D TV, the content is recorded in 30 Hz x 2 eyes, but will display 30 Hz x 1 eye until a 3D TV is added. And you don't have to take up separate DVR room for the 2D and the 3D version.

This probably the 2D-friendliest way to broadcast in 3D. Also HD 2D/3D Blu-rays would be more encouraged, and you can even make 4K 2D/3D Discs. (Is a 4K disc technically considered a Blu-ray disc? It may be part of the same family of standards, but Blu-ray implies HD not UHD. Sort of like DVD implies Standard definition. And I've burnt a 3D DVD before, both in red-and-cyan and in in side-by-side half. Don't worry copyright enforcers: It was a wedding I was best man at, filmed with my Nintendo 3DS.)

The other issue is hardware to play TV.

What if it were as simple as adding an extra box connected to the TV, like the way Dolby/DTS surround is added to a TV. The idea behind the Sound industry is you pick the TV, then add sound. (Personally, I use Turtle Beach headsets and an Xbox One S. Strangely only video game consoles can convert DTS to Dolby. My upstairs has headsets that are silent on DTS. Where are the dual-standard (tri-standard if you count LPCM 7.1 used in Wii U and Switch) headphones that work regardless of content? I was crazy enough to try headphones, and it worked because our main media room is an asymmetric acoustical nightmare so communal speakers won't work.)

The problem with 3D TV is that companies thought they were losing money when the Playstation 3D Display was the number one TV and thought if they made 3D TV EXCLUSIVELY on better TVs, they'd make even more money. So TVs with 3D got bigger and more exclusive. The budget conscious person had no options, and enough High-falooters went one step down, just to avoid 3d to give the expensive models a "3D Stink".

What if you can buy as cheap or expensive TV, a 720p/1080i or 4K, 24 bit color or 36 bit color, 10 inches or 100 inches, and any of them can have the 3D option added separately, kind of like a surround stereo system?

The technology already exists. Case in point the Sega Master System Sega Scope 3D. Sure it only worked internally within selected SMS games, but the point was that it would work on ANY TV at the time. You didn't have to buy any particular brand or size or even input style of TV. Worked with antenna RF and Composite.

The game just alternated frames and used a 240p x 15Hz x 2 eye approach. Of course if you're prone to epilepsy, walking into a room and staring at the TV without the glasses looks like that Wang Chung video.

The glasses just shuttered when plugged into the system with 3.5mm cables. Of course nowadays, we'd use some sort of radio signal to sync up the glasses, and to allow for multiple glasses at once. But this external box would pick up the extra frame in encoded broadcasts, convert frame-packed and any other format of 3D videos into alternating frames. The program is open source at Bino3d.org and I use it on my 10 year old Macintosh, so licensing should be easy.

This would solve all the problems with the 3D media industry. TV channels can proudly advertise "In 3D. 2D compatible" 2D/3D combo discs would be more acceptable. Maybe 4K discs would be 2D/3D combo, and we'd have the best of both worlds. Also if your TV works fine, for up to $200 you convert an existing 2D TV into a 3D TV. And you feel no pressure to update. And when you buy a TV, buy any TV you want, and just add depth. Plus Premium TVs will sell better without that "3D Stink", unless you WANT that 3D Stink. Plus there'd be more affordable ways make make more TVs 3D.

Finally a Full Color/ Red-and-cyan / 2D selector mode could be possible on these devices. Red-and-cyan is the cheap way to communally watch it. 2d mode is if you don't want any glasses. Also you can sell cheap versions with just Red-and-cyan. Finally, 2D/3D (both HD and 4K) combo discs and 2d-compatible 3D standards are the cheapest way to not ruin TV for those 2D warriors.

P.S. Which the symbol had red and cyan lenses as a "symbol" for a 3D fan. Everyone knows what red and cyan glasses mean. Even if that technology is rendered obsolete.

[Joe D.]

Hi triple topper.

Good idea. The old 3D video Wizard which I own is one such anglyth device and uses blue and cyan instead. It presents a very pleasing 3D picture but limits on pop outs. Years ago it was selling for $100.. Epson also came out with a active shutter device but one who bought it said it didn't work.

However, from what I understand, the real problem is it being more expensive to broadcast in 3D and there would be no additional profit since it will be available to viewers for free. There would have to be some additional cost involved.

[tripletopper]

Interesting Joe D. You said the reason 3D isn't successful broadcasting is because there's no profit in it. Would there be profit in it if it was done in a 2D-compatible way? Maybe not, but there'd be no loss.

There was Color UHF in the 40 or 50's I believe, but required separate televisions, because they chose RGB instead of YUV. And there was no color TV content at the the time worth buying a separate UHF RGB TV, which only uber rich had 2 TVs, let alone a B/W and a UHF Color TV. And the UHF color TV couldn't play VHF B/W content.

Color did not take off until the content was Black-and-White friendly. Stereo made sure they were mono-compatible. Closed Captions made sure they were hidden unless you needed them.

And just because there's 3D doesn't meaning 2D content will not be out there. Just like certain films are in Black and White for artistic reasons. Heck one Oscar award winning movie decided to recreate the silent movie and was going up against Hugo, a 3D love-letter to old filmmakers.

But when it became cheaper to just film everything in color, and remove the chroma key for stuff they want in B/W for artistic reasons the do that. In a 3D Filmmaking thread, I said I filmed my friends's wedding in 3D (not professionally, just for fun) I used a 3DS. Someone suspects my 3D shots of humans look more 3D than Stereo-converted 2D-filmed actors who look like cardboard cutouts along different planes.

To me, it seems probably easier and cheaper to film with a binocular camera than to use a computer program to add depth. That would be the easy choice. And then if the TV standard was smart using alternate hidden frames decoded by a decoder then you're guaranteed to lose NO audience because it's 3D, yet 2D compatible. And maybe you'll gain a curious audience if someone used 3D well.

The 2D warriors say nothing essential get added to movies compared to color. A relative of mine who is a light 2D warrior say Games may benefit from 3D content. Whereas something like Color is more beneficial than the third dimension. Even though he couldn't explain the benefit of 4K vs 3D when you have to make a choice, except that 4K is easier. You don't have to wear anything special.

Well to get the most accurate sound directions that doesn't depend on were you sit, you need a headphone set and a properly encoded 2-track headphone encoded soundtrack. But I argee, when you're not trying to fully engross yourself in a movie, 3D glasses make you do your activities while having a movie on in the background bad.

What does 4k give you? Just the ability to watch clearly on a bigger screen. And is 4k the end? No, there's 8K, then 16K, then 32K, and so forth. But the beautiful thing about 3D is once you are in 3D, then there's no need to add a fourth dimension, because we live in a 3-spacial-dimensional world. it's complete once you add it.

As for 3d content that MUST be experienced in 3D and 2D is just a pale imitator. I can count on one hand:

1) Super Mario 3D Land for the 3DS. There are certain levels that rely on the fixed perspective and a steroscopic 3D that look impossible in 2D, or throw you off in 2D, but if you can see in the third dimension, you will open your second eye, and it'd feel just like opening a third eye to quote Matt Sydel.

I believe that is the only game that Patchy the Pirate can not 100% complete. I believe all movies, and every other game, Patchy would not be handicapped in appreciating it.

Lack of color is a bigger handicap than either the lack of clarity or the lack of a third dimension in entertainment. When I get some bandwidth, I'll set up a one-time twitch stream of Splatoon 1 for the Wii U in Monochrome and see if I can tell what's friendly paint and what's enemy paint. Just only plug in the green component. There was an American Football (to differentiate from Soccer Football) game where the uniform were chormatically distinguishable, but luminently identical. People with B/W TV couldn't tell who was who until the receive caught the ball and picked a direction to run in. There was a joke that Viinne Testaverde was colorblind because he threw beautiful and accurate passes... to the wrong guy. But seriously, with the Amercians with Disabilities Act sports would require uniforms of the 2 different teams to be luminently distinguishable, not just chromatically distinguishable. And it was originally for the era of the Black and White TV mixed with Color TVs that those rules were made.

By the way, Joe D. vote on the 2D/3D treaty. I know too many people are nasty when you suggest buying your movie in 3D. My whole family is like that, a couple friends are like that. I believe my treaty would let 3D flourish without imposing on a 2D setup. How would you vote on my treaty? Cast a vote. And the 5th and 6th options are there to offer amendments. Since It's my treaty and I want more 3D, I voted "3D nation+sign treaty." Does it feel 2D people are stout warriors shutting down 3D?

[Joe D.]

Hi triple

I'm one of the six that voted like you did.

Getting back to the broadcast question, you certainly know your electronics. I once suggested TCM play classic 3D in anaglyth and make pairs of the paper glasses available for a minimal cost. Thought it could help get more people interested in adding 3D to their systems.

Some disagreed, citing poor quality would actually turn people off. But it might not be as bad if it can at least be reproduced as well as it was in theaters in the fifties. And the hosts could mention how better it would be on Blu-ray.

In thinking it further, if programming can be filmed cheaply, 3D can be broadcast on a supplemental channel and could bring in more viewers than would otherwise watch the program. Just like those with color sets in the early days would watch a program in "living color" they wouldn't watch otherwise.

But they would have to accept a slow start with viewers hopefully starting to buy the devices.

These are just uneducated thoughts on my part. I am still cynical about network and the electronics industries investing in something innovative and sticking it out for a long time to see if the popularity grows enough to turn profitable

They never gave 3D a chance, dumping the promotion of it quickly. By 2013, not even four years on the market, the consumer electronics industry was looking for other ways to sell sets.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852452/death-of-3d

But no reason to not continuing to includr the feature along with smart sets and later 4K with less fanfare. Could it not have been made cost effective in terms of units sold?

That's why I say innovation gets thrown out the window. It was more cost effective dumping 3D as a feature, saving on the expense side.

[tripletopper]

Most people say wearing glasses in 3D is the reason why the 70% of Amercians who hate 3D hate it be because they HAVE to wear glasses to watch 3D.

Wrong.

3D Blu Rays did well enough until there were no 3D TVs to replace the broken ones.

3D Theatrical showing do well enough.

But the first 3D broadcast in the US was cancelled due to popular backlash.

Why?

When you watch a Blu Ray, either on one disc or two, you have both the 3D and 2D version to choose from.

In the theater, some showings are 2D and some are 3D, and you pick your showing. (even though changing between then is a pain, hence why 3D showings are worse. The settings are usually optimized for 2D.)

But based on the Super Bowl fiasco, you didn’t have a choice. You either watched the Super Bowl in 3D on a new 3D TV, (luckily the cheapest was the Playstation 3D TV, at first, $500, and instead of improving it with a new model, they make it a bigger bargain over time, at a final price of $180) or you didn’t watch the Super Bowl at all.

If you have a 2D TV, you will see a technically ATSC compatible picture, but only from an electronic perspective. From a human perspective, you get twin thin images from different perspectives.

Even if you have a 3D TV, you MUST watch it in 3D. I don't think 3D TVs had a 3D-to-2D converter on broadcast or Cable/Satellite TV. Mine doesn’t. The only way to watch it in 2D was to use Simulview, and wear glasses ANYWAY while watching in 2D.

This made at least half the American public active 3D TV HATERS. Do you think there are Color Haters? Are there Surround Sound Haters? (maybe PARTICULAR BRAND of Surround Haters.) No, and NO.

My particular sound format beefs:

[Show spoiler](To me, Im a DTS Hater, mainly because I can’t play DYS movies upstairs and get ANY sound. and I’ve been more tolerant of LCPM 7.1, because Nintendo Wi U And Switch uses that for their headphone surround mix, but the problem is I can’t get surround sound in Wiimote games on the Wii U, and docked games on the Switch. Plus I ned HDMI input to get LPCM 5.1+ to be converted to Dolby 5.1+ and get headphone surround, but that’s another story)

You need a format that is sometime 2D and sometimes 3D, for whatever mood you’re in. Most people WANT to don shades to watch it in 3D, but most people don’t want to be FORCED into watching 3d when they got the outside world to contend with, like friends, family, chores, etc....

Most TV shows are filmed in 30 Hz anyway. Some shows, even if they have the budget to choose, even prefer 30 Hz over 60 HZ. 60 Hz is the minimum ATSV standard is the minimum ATSC Broadcast standard. If the DVD recorder/PVR can record in 60 HZ, and can selectively play in 30 Hz then an Alternate Frames standard would be perfect. Either get both eyes, one eye or the other.

If a broadcast can do 120 Hz, then maybe a 60 Hz x 2 Eye standard can be used.

Because most people when it comes to 3D are like Almond Joy/Mounds fans... "Sometimes you feel like a nut...Sometimes you don’t" Having the ability to be in 3D when you want to hunker down, but just as easily watch in 2D when you want background noise and video is the key.

[tripletopper]

As I said before most people in America aspired to get a 3D TV until the news hit that the NFL Super Bowl (I know it involves 2012. Was it the 2011-212 season or the 2012-2013 season?) fell into this 3-step process:

1) Announcement that the Super Bowl was going to be in 3D

2) News that the 3D format chosen, side-by-side-half-width was going to make 2D watching an impossibility, either on a older 2D TV or even a 3D TV where there’s not enough glasses.

3) a letter writing campaign to the NFL that if they don’t cancel the 3D broadcast they’ll have the lowest Super Bowl ratings in terms of percentage of USA audience, nmot becuase of anger, but because of the MUST BE 3D nature of the show, meaning 70% of the people would be UNABLE to watch in 2D. Not on an old 2D TV. Not even on a 3DTV that tuned into 2D mode.

I know that many websites reach many places of the world. As an American I say thank you for filling the 3D Void this Stupor Bowl caused. I know the American option is delinitely the majority national opinion (more than all other nations combines) , and may not even be the plurality national opinion (being the largest head-to-head vs any ONE other country.)

Being an American, knowing first hand about the NFL Super Bowl, the one show very few network have successfully counter-programmed against (the closest single one was Fox's "In Living Color's Men on Football Live Halftime Revue"., hearing it was 3D made me excited for the format.

And then hearing it was cancelled by a mass letter writing campaign because of the 2D incompatibility by ANYONE who either couldn't or wouldn't go along, suddenly made "3D bigotry" popular in America. When I heard the Super Bowl was the network was basically saying before was "Go 3D or Go Home", even though I loved the idea of 3D TV in theory, I had sympathy for the 2D crowd, bought the Playstation 3D TV while the demand was dipping and before the supply was shortening.

Movie discs were less effected because most 3D movies were either 3D/2D combos in two discs, or (less often) combos in 1 disc.

Theaters were even less affected because there were segregated 2D and 3D showings.

I know Americans have a freedom complex so big that if you focus on just yourself, you don't see your neighbors.

I know my lines get scoffed at like "the bothched Super Bowl was the Jump the Shark moment for 3D." I admit that this is my view, and may be a plurality view among Americans.

There's a reason why it took 10 years to fully accommodate B/W compatible color TVs and people associate that with the 60s instead of thew 50s. It's the same reason why the US's first digital station opened in 1996 and the last closing of analog low-powered stations is legally up to 2021 (25 years for complete conversion).

3D took off to 30% of the nation by the time the Super Bowl news hit, and then a big percentage became anti-3D patrtiots, all becusae the 3D standard chosed was a "MUST be 3D "format (side-by-side half) instead of a "CAN be 3D format" (like "Alternate Frames with second eye lockout" where a 30 Hz x 2 eye broadcast will be 30 Hz x 1 eye format if you watch on an old TV, or if you take the 3D TV and set it to "3D off".)

Is this phenomenon uniquely American?

In other nations, was some sort of "MUST be 3D" format used or was a "CAN be 3D" format used instewad? If most other nations used a can-be-3D format, then that explains why it failed in American and was successful elsewhere.

If most of the rest of the world used a must0-be-3D format, then do other nations have 3D haters? Do you resent having to be required to watch any show made in 3D in 3D and in no other way?

Do you think most 3D fans are "Almond Joy/Mounds" fans of 3D (meaning "sometimes you feel like a nut...sometimes you don't" and 2D/23D flexibility is a key)

When I want to watch a movie for the sake of the movie, I hunker down and put on 3D specs and use my Turtler Beach surround headphones. But with family and friends, the company was just as important as the movie or TV itself. I believe most 3D fans have a "hardcore" movie watching mode which includes 3D and suround sound, and a "casual" movie watching mode too, which doesn't. I do.

And a TV broadcast standard that requires "3D or nothing" is too harsh for way too many people.

The color standard wasn't "color or nothing", the closed captions weren't forced on the hearing. I think 3D was the first standard that was "all or nothing". Maybe HD TV was, but they were organically closing the gap, slowly and steadily.

That's why I say 2D/3D flexability is key in TV,. A broadcast standard that doesn't accommodate for that is doomed to fail in the US. Just like most TV could accommodate for mono and Black And White.

Even today opposing sports teams in every big league must have luminently as well as chromatically different uniforms, to accommodate B/W TVs. I've seen a mistake caused by a ref in NPSL soccer have too close of a color uinform to a team, and a goalie passed to a ref. Of course if all players wore solids and refs wore Zebra prints, like NFL American Football and every league below it, there'd be no ref/teammate/opponent confusion. Plus an alternate patter that isn't zebra stripes or solid for goalies

[Show spoiler] / what US indoor soccer-football players call "6th attackers" where a field player has the powers of the goalie in the box, but his primary job is to be an extra attacker. In a league where you have unlimited on-the-fly substitutions, that makes sense. It doesn't make any sense in most soccer-football leagues

. Something like Polka dots, horizontal thicker stripes that aren't Black and white, etc...

[BLMN]

to this day I still don't know where this 3D version of the super bowl was aired, can you confirm this ever happened ? it was definitely not on Directv which is the provider I have since 2011, and I doubt it was on comcast cable (the one I had previously). I know fios had a pre season game before and that was it, maybe this is what you're thinking ?

[tripletopper]

It was going to be on Broadcast TV and air as a side-by-side half presentation.

It got killed quickly when the news found out that it was 2D incompatiblem,, and was impossible to watych in 2D, where even a 3D TV coiuldsn't watch it in 2D.

You would be able to pick it up with rabbit ears on any HDTV that had the right network (ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC) I remember NBC had the Pulfrick effect 3D show with Elvis Presto, a cross between an Elvis impersonator and a magician.

in one sense, Pulfrick was good that it just halftime and one Diet Coke commercial, and was 2D-friendly. (Any of you remember letter-writing campaigns for that one?!? Neither do I.)

The bad news is it had to be perfectly staged and shot for the 3D effect to be cool.

Toys R Us saw that Super Mario 64 looked 3D-ish enough when using Pulfrick glasses, because the foregrounds were on the left and the backgrounds were on the right. So they offered exclusive 3D glasses without having a special Toys R Us Day 1 edition. So it works on any copy. Go ahead try Pulfrick glasses with Super Mario 64. (and ONLY that game) Any copy will work.

And the reason why it wasn't aired was because a letter/phone call/email campaign was on to get the league and network to about the 3D portion of the Super Bowl.

It might have been NBC that year, when a "blue and yellow" version if Chuck was aired immediately following (or a preview for it). It was supposed to be side-by-side half but the NFL didn't want their portion ruined, and the backlash made NBC air a blue and yellow instead of side-buy-side-half version. Is that the 2012-13 season or the 2011-12 season?

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

It was going to be on Broadcast TV and air as a side-by-side half presentation.

It got killed quickly when the news found out that it was 2D incompatiblem,, and was impossible to watych in 2D, where even a 3D TV coiuldsn't watch it in 2D.

You would be able to pick it up with rabbit ears on any HDTV that had the right network (ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC) I remember NBC had the Pulfrick effect 3D show with Elvis Presto, a cross between an Elvis impersonator and a magician.

in one sense, Pulfrick was good that it just halftime and one Diet Coke commercial, and was 2D-friendly. (Any of you remember letter-writing campaigns for that one?!? Neither do I.)

The bad news is it had to be perfectly staged and shot for the 3D effect to be cool.

Toys R Us saw that Super Mario 64 looked 3D-ish enough when using Pulfrick glasses, because the foregrounds were on the left and the backgrounds were on the right. So they offered exclusive 3D glasses without having a special Toys R Us Day 1 edition. So it works on any copy. Go ahead try Pulfrick glasses with Super Mario 64. (and ONLY that game) Any copy will work.

And the reason why it wasn't aired was because a letter/phone call/email campaign was on to get the league and network to about the 3D portion of the Super Bowl.

It might have been NBC that year, when a "blue and yellow" version if Chuck was aired immediately following (or a preview for it). It was supposed to be side-by-side half but the NFL didn't want their portion ruined, and the backlash made NBC air a blue and yellow instead of side-buy-side-half version. Is that the 2012-13 season or the 2011-12 season?

‘11 season super bowl was on NBC (feb 2012), ‘12 season was CBS (feb 2013). If I’m not mistaken Fios had a pre-season game in 3D exclusively in 2012. I never had Fios so can’t give you any details on that.

Edit: that preseason game in 3D was in 2010 not 2012.

[Lee A Stewart]

All I found was this article which does mention the 3D episode of Chuck which was to air the day after the Super Bowl: Feb. 2, 2009.

All I see is that two ads were to be shown in anaglyph 3D:

Two of the most talked about Super Bowl ads this year are back-to-back 3D spots by PepsiCo and Paramount DreamWorks promoting the new film “Monsters vs Aliens” and PepsiCo's SoBe soft drink. In the SoBe ad, SoBe lizards dance alongside NFL stars Ray Lewis, Justin Tuck and Matt Light.

More than 125 million pairs of 3D glasses are being distributed for free at stores nationwide at SoBe displays, and many are now also being offered on eBay … for a price (the new specs are more refined than the iconic red and blue ones from the 1950s).

Both the Super Bowl ads and upcoming episode of “Chuck” will be broadcast in anaglyph, where images are separated using color rather than what you see in theaters.

https://www.wired.com/2009/01/3d-kicks-off-a/

[tripletopper]

@Lee_A_Stewart :

Ah! How time scrambles memories, turning Neapolitan Ice Cream to a StrawberrySundae

In February 2009, Full color 3D TV weren't developed yet

Most of the articles that complained about a 3D super bowl was in summer of 2011, when the game was announced to be in 3D. And NBC has the Super Bowl in both 2008-09 and 2011-12, and they were responsible for the 3D in the 2009 Super Bowl ads.

I distinctly remember that because it influenced my decision to buy a 3D TV ASAP. I was watching to see if less and less models were 3DTV,. which was true, and if the models that have 3D were more and more premium, which they were. So as soon as I paid off a lawyer in many payments for his services (long story) I noticed the PS3DTV was on sale after the botched Super Bowl. The first day I had enough money, I was calling various Gamestops and Best Buys. We had to go to the expensive sales tax county, but it was worth it.

Either in some backhanded way, i was a prophet, hearing imaginary news of a 3D Super Bowl that was cancelled for the 2011-12 season, and rightly predicted a drop, and tried to swoop in ASAP when I had little resources as an unemployed autistic man, or there really was a 3D Super Bowl planned for NBC for Super Bowl 2011-12, that got a massive letter/phone call/email contacting campaign, because NBC was too eager to launch 3D that it didn't see incompatibility issues with the then-current state of the art until it was too late.

And yes I can prove broadcasting in 34D is possible with ATSC 1.0 equipment. Just divide the screen in half, put the 2 images in half width, and show it untouched and let the TV processor handle it. For my friend's wedding, In addition to 2 "Just Like Mii" Amiibos of their Miis in 2017, I made a a 2 DVD set for my friend when I was best man at his wedding. One DVD had a 2D and a red and cyan mode of the same footage, and other had a side by side half mode.

Unfortunately for me and my friend, there was no easy way to make sure the 3D is right when using as Nintendo 3dS and an Apple iMac with iMovie. The 3D effects might be slightly off, mainly because it's hard to manually convert dual stream into side-side half* but I still have the original 3DS footage and can redo it, if I find a better way.

And unfortunately for NBC, if all you had was rabbit ears, there was no way you can watch the Super Bowl (or anything that's broadcast in side-by-side half) in 2D without using an external 3d->2D converter of some sort. Maybe cable and satellite would have provided a 2D conversion, but you would have to pay.

Now based on what I was experiencing, regardless of whether it was personal or universal, could you see why I'd advocate for 30 Hz x 2 eye that can be read as 30 Hz x 1 eye on old TVs / when 3D is turned off*? If resolutions are downwardly scaleable, and frame rates, and once you find out a lot of shows are filmed in 30 Hz ANYWAY, even in 2019, wouldn't that be both TV-bandwidth friendly and allow for a 2D-Friendly 3D?

And is the reason why no complained about color in the 50s-60, or Stereo, or closed captions in the 80s was because they didn't step on toes. And if my situation were true, would:

a) NBC be right to to disappoint 30% of the public than to cause 70% to riot if you couldn't satisfy both halves.
b) Super Bowl parties have been better with CAN BE 3D vs 2D only, when they're worse with MUST BE 3D? I was thinking, if there were a way to 2D-ify the Super Bowl, most parties would have had a big room with the Big TV in 2D and little room for 2 people at a time (or more if they bring their own IR shutter glasses, which were the only types at the time and were universal) to watch certain portions in 3D?
c) Alternate frames with second eye lockout have caused no problems if the 70% could watch it in 2D, and not have the 3D step on their toes?
d) Alternate frames w/ lockout make 3D TV more frequent today and the 3D crash wouldn't have happened because of a reaction to a MUST BE 3D format, if the chose a CAN BE 3D format?

Maybe we'd see Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right in 3D by now. Maybe TMNT 2012 would have aired in 3D (yet be in 2D too) on Nickelodeon if they made a good 2D-friendly 3D format. Maybe all HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Movie Channel, and Starz movies on Pay TV would all be in 3D (if you so choose to take advantage) if the movie was originally shot in 3D, just like they all have Dolby 5.1 standard.

Maybe all versions of Blu Ray and 4k movies that have 3D would be 2D/3D combo discs, and there'd be no Ebay speculators speculating on the rarity of 3D, because every copy is a 3D copy. instead of forcing people to go foreign, and possibly pirate.

Instead the closest Dish Network ever got top 3D was certain PPVs of movies that were already released on 3DBD airing a month later.

[Lee A Stewart]

Tripletopper:

Please post a link to any article on any website (other than a Forum) that states that the 2012 Super Bowl was going to be broadcast in SbS 3D and then cancelled. That way, all of us can read it because, frankly, I cannot locate an article like that.

I have located these two articles which reference no 3D for the 2012 Super Bowl:

No 3D Super Bowl Again: 4 Reasons Why

https://www.cepro.com/article/no_3d_..._4_reasons_why

Analyst: no 3D Super Bowl a ‘lost opportunity’

https://www.myce.com/news/analyst-no...rtunity-58313/

And I have located this article about why Fox Sports will not broadcast the 2011 Super Bowl in 3D:

Fox Sports on Super Bowl XLV: Why it won't be in 3D

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...n-3d/index.htm

[tripletopper]

I guess it’s a mix of half-news and half-connect-the-dots assumptions, and I just happened to connect the dots correctly and earlier than most, and ended up with a bargain deal, being in the market at the absolute bottom price of the market for the value 3D display.

Since I see nothing on the Internet supporting my view except a few "Why 3d Super Bowl is bad" articles that seem to be big in 2011, and the fact none of them mentioned 2D-incompatibility as a reason why it failed, but nothing contrary to it either was published either.

So I asked Snopes what was news, what was correct dot-connecting, and what were hunches?

They seem to watch both left- and right- wing sources and say how true it was, meaning they’ll point out the partial-truth in a mainly-lie, and the partial-lie in a mostly-truth.

But regardless of what Snopes said, I never seen a Playstation 3D Display in the wild, and no other budget 3DTVs were available, shortly after December 2012, except on Ebay where they were inflated afterwards. You must I admit I found the price bottom and predicted no more adequate substitute since for a long time.

I guess that’s autism for you: when you connect the dots, you assume everyone else does too.

Here’s what I asked Snopes. Enjoy:

(First I give you permission to edit this question for brevity and better focus when you publish it, if you do. Second, I’m describing my mixed facts and dots connected to get sorted what was real and what was correct intuition. Third, at the time, a plurality of my news came for Talk Radio, and enough people have an aversion to talk radio where some less controversial stories get ignored by other sources, so it might have been a talk-radio-only source.)

I distinctly remember being insistent that when I had enough spare money in the bank, to buy a Playstation 3D Display in December of 2012 It was mainly either direct news or derivative thinking based on known facts. (most likely a mix of both)

Which of these facts related to the 3D super Bowl was true for either 2011-12 (meaning my purchase was a reaction to events) or 2012-13 (a prediction of events) influenced my notion that 3D TV unit sales was going to divebomb? What made me think 2012 was the 3D fire-sale year before it became an elite feature, and then an extinct feature?

1. One of the Super Bowl was officially announced in 3D and then cancelled.
2. It was supposed to be in 3D on Broadcast TV (ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC, proper, not a special cable/satellite channel owned by any one of them or a Pay TV provider.)
3. It was supposed to be in side-by-side-half format.
4. If the above 3 facts were true, it would necessarily ruin it for 2D viewers, because they’d have twin thin pictures, that a 2D TV can’t deal with in a natural way.
5. If 4 was true, there was a massive letter/phone call/ email campaign to pull the 3D plug if there was no way to watch it in 2D. Even 3D TV viewers couldn’t turn it to 2D if they had a shortage of glasses.
6. 2D-unfriendliness with a MUST BE 3D format convinced channels to dump the 3d in shows that were originally produced in 3D, as I suspect TMNT 2012 on Nickelodeon looked like could have been.
7. Most shows were and still are produced in 30 Hz frame rate, and since most are, and the minimum HDTV Hz rate is 60 HZ, an Alternate Frames with a higher ATSC standard that was read as 30 Hz x 2 eye, and on lower TVs would be read as 30 Hz x 1 eye, would be a perfect bandwidth saving standard 3D format that is very 2D-friendly.

A CAN BE 3D format, like to one I described would have cause less 3D hatred. No one complained about B/W compatible color in the 50s and 60s, of stereo TV or closed captions in the 80s, or Dolby/DTS surround on DVDs and Blu Rays, assuming they can watch their shows the old way without interference from the new stuff.

I don’t know how much of it was actual news, and which stuff I presumed. Someone corrected me that the Blue and Yellow Anaglyph Super Bowl were limited to a couple commercials, and the Chuck episode after the Super Bowl was in 2009, not 2012. Shutter based 3DTVs weren’t mass marketed until 2010. So 3D and Super Bowls have been in the news from the 2008-09 season either the 2011-12 or 2012-13 season.

I see a couple news articles in 2011 about why a 3D Super Bowl would be bad, like that was a controversial issue at the time.

How much of that was actual reported news, how much was my correctly-corrected dots, and much were incorrectly-connected dots?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

Since I see nothing on the Internet supporting my view except a few "Why 3d Super Bowl is bad" articles that seem to be big in 2011, and the fact none of them mentioned 2D-incompatibility as a reason why it failed.

I guess that will do - as far as an admission that your premise is totally unsupported. You made the whole thing up. Your premise is not fact. It's just your opinion.

[tripletopper]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I guess that will do - as far as an admission that your premise is totally unsupported. You made the whole thing up. Your premise is not fact. It's just your opinion.

But the facts I had explicitly known before (i.e. networks floating trial balloons about 3D Super Bowls, certain people responding against it, and let's hope we all agree that those 2 are facts) made me suspect there was something about 3D that was 2D-unfriendly. (a suspicious opinion at first, but later experience with 3D TV shows it's a true one)

I had Dish Network from 2001 onward , so I had no experience with 3D TV at all. I didn't know that there were separate 2D and 3D channels on other services.

I found web videos on YouTube where videos were published in side-by-side half and played perfectly fine on my 3D TV, but even though there were no runtime errors in 2D, found there was no way to get a 2D picture recognizable by most as a standard shot, (meaning not half width) unless I simulviewed either the left or right side, which required glasses anyway.

Every seemed to be playing horseshoes around the true reason there is 3D hatred. They quote things like 3D overuse nausea, limited number of glasses, and the fact there are two distinct modes in media consumption, the hardcore/ for the sake of the media itself, and the casual/ for the family and friends and socializing. And 3D is best appreciated in hardcore mode, but most people want to watch the Super Bowl in casual mode.

I might have hit the ringer that most others were dancing around, by coming up with my nightmare scenario. Maybe the nightmare scenario didn't ACTUALLY happen as true, but is, most likely, an accurate prediction of what WOULD happen if someone WERE TO put the Super Bowl on broadcast TV in 3D without considering the inability for 70% of the people to watch it.

Let's admit in February of 2012 the only way you COuLD have put 3D on broadcast TV (i.e. Rabbit Ears) was to either necessarily ruin it for a 2D audience, OR broadcast separate 2D and 3D version on 2 subchannels. The problem with the second option is that there are enough local TV stations who license out their sub-channels to minor broadcast/cable/satellite TV networks that the contractual obligations to those networks combined with a lack of free bandwidth would force local stations to either boot a minor network for the game's length, or abandon either the 2D or 3D version of the show. Guess which of the 3 gets the boot most often in that case.

But like Kirk, Spock and McCoy were gabbing about on Star Trek 4, before they leave 20th Century Earth, maybe some people's best guesses are better than other people's facts. Without me taking the known facts and running them into my brain I wouldn't have discovered the Achilles Heel of 3D, namely 2D unfriendliness.

I noticed there was no color hated in the 50s and 60s, except in this situation:

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_colours :

Most teams choose to wear their colour jerseys at home, with the road team changing to white in most cases.[2] White road uniforms gained prominence with the rise of television in the 1950s. A "white vs. color" game was easier to follow in black-and-white.[2] According to Phil Hecken, "until the mid 1950′s, not only was color versus color common in the NFL, it was actually the norm."[2] Even long after the advent of colour television, the use of white jerseys has remained in almost every game.

I believe, (I heard, can't find source of the actual incident, but the reason for above rule) an early american football game that appeared on US B/W television of 2 uniforms chromatically different but luminently the same (like red vs blue, typical of the NFL until they made their games B/W TV friendly.)
made the 2 teams indistinguishable on B/W TV and prompted a letter writing campaign to either TV stations / a network and/or a team/league complaining of such things.(If they didn't catch the mistake before they went on air, it just took one bad game to find that white uniforms are luminently different than deep colors on B/W TV)

Literally, they either headed off that incident or has it and instantly corrected. Stereo TV never had an incident where sound data was lost when making it mono compatible. Closed cationing was even recorded on a pre-1980 Betamax. I got a tape of a caption testing broadcast in Rankin-Bass's Return of the King on ABC. I had no idea it was in there until MANY years later.

I know certain facts may not be true, certain "facts" are hypothetical situations played out, but my conclusions are hard to dispute. That 3D TV has to be 2D-friendly in order to succeed.

And probably the best format for that is alternate frames, like 30 Hz x 2 eyes, being recognized on older, non-3D TVs as 30 Hz x 1 eye. If it's true that ATSC can "downscale" 1080p to 1080i or 720p, or from 60 Hz to 30 Hz, then it should be easy to fit a 30 HZ broadcast x 2 eyes has the same bandwidth as a 60 Hz broadcast, and can downmix it for 1 eye by having the old TV think it's a 30 Hz production and ignoring the code of the "x 2 eye".

Does anyone deny that 2D-friendliness is AN important factor for 3D to succeed? Would most people say if 2D TVs can display a 3D broadcast like it's 2D, then there would be less 3D hatred?

There's no surround sound hatred. It's just ignored, until you discover a hidden treasure once you have the key of a surround sound device. The same could be true of 3D if designed right.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

But the facts I had explicitly known before (i.e. networks floating trial balloons about 3D Super Bowls, certain people responding against it, and let's hope we all agree that those 2 are facts) made me suspect there was something about 3D that was 2D-unfriendly. (a suspicious opinion at first, but later experience with 3D TV shows it's a true one)

BOLD: No - I do not agree that is a fact because there is no supporting information. You keep trying to allude to it as being a fact but it isn't. Not once in all the articles I have read and posted here has there been a statement by either the NFL or the Broadcasters involved in the Super Bowl during the time period you have stated, that there were discussions about a 3D broadcast.

Here is a fact you can ponder: 111 million tuned into the SB in 2011 and 112 million for SB 2012. Here's another: 57 cameras were used in the 2012 SB. I strongly doubt there were 57 3D cameras in the world in February 2012 let alone camera operators skilled in shooting in 3D.

I had Dish Network from 2001 onward , so I had no experience with 3D TV at all. I didn't know that there were separate 2D and 3D channels on other services.

VERY limited both in number and content

I found web videos on YouTube where videos were published in side-by-side half and played perfectly fine on my 3D TV, but even though there were no runtime errors in 2D, found there was no way to get a 2D picture recognizable by most as a standard shot, (meaning not half width) unless I simulviewed either the left or right side, which required glasses anyway.

Why haven't you addressed the 50% loss in resolution using SbS 3D? Not once have you mentioned that. By 2012 TV was fully entrenched in HD. SbS 3D results in SD resolution - a BIG step backwards.

Every seemed to be playing horseshoes around the true reason there is 3D hatred. They quote things like 3D overuse nausea, limited number of glasses, and the fact there are two distinct modes in media consumption, the hardcore/ for the sake of the media itself, and the casual/ for the family and friends and socializing. And 3D is best appreciated in hardcore mode, but most people want to watch the Super Bowl in casual mode.

Hatred - that's a pretty strong adjective isn't it. Wouldn't "dislike" fit? There is no other event on TV that generates parties other than the Super Bowl. And said parties are NOT limited to homes. Many bars have them.

I might have hit the ringer that most others were dancing around, by coming up with my nightmare scenario. Maybe the nightmare scenario didn't ACTUALLY happen as true, but is, most likely, an accurate prediction of what WOULD happen if someone WERE TO put the Super Bowl on broadcast TV in 3D without considering the inability for 70% of the people to watch it.

Do you really believe that ALL 30% of USA households that purchased a 3D TV were actually watching 3D content? That seems a bit naïve to me. At the time if you wanted to buy an HDTV you got the 3D feature. It's the same today with people buying 4K TVs. According to the DEG's Q1 2019 report, 53.4 million households have a 4K TV. The number of households is small for those actually watching 4K content. Remember; no cable or OTA 4K content.

Let's admit in February of 2012 the only way you COuLD have put 3D on broadcast TV (i.e. Rabbit Ears) was to either necessarily ruin it for a 2D audience, OR broadcast separate 2D and 3D version on 2 subchannels. The problem with the second option is that there are enough local TV stations who license out their sub-channels to minor broadcast/cable/satellite TV networks that the contractual obligations to those networks combined with a lack of free bandwidth would force local stations to either boot a minor network for the game's length, or abandon either the 2D or 3D version of the show. Guess which of the 3 gets the boot most often in that case.

Did you read the link I posted about how much an ad costs for the 2012 SB? Do you understand the principal about wanting the absolute largest audience to see your ad, one that cost you millions of dollars?

You continue to focus on the technology forgetting that REVENUE is the first, last and always goal of the broadcaster who bid for the rights to broadcast the Super Bowl.

But like Kirk, Spock and McCoy were gabbing about on Star Trek 4, before they leave 20th Century Earth, maybe some people's best guesses are better than other people's facts. Without me taking the known facts and running them into my brain I wouldn't have discovered the Achilles Heel of 3D, namely 2D unfriendliness.

And once again you promote your agenda, one in which you are totally wrong. It has ALWAYS been the glasses be they shutter or polarized. The fact that they reduce the display/screen brightness substantially seems lost on you. As does things like eye strain, difficulty for those who wear regular glasses, nausea (nausea, increased salivation, sweating) and disorientation (dizziness, vertigo, fullness of head) and headaches.

I noticed there was no color hated in the 50s and 60s, except in this situation:

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_colours :

Why would there have hatred (there's that word again!) for color TV? We live in a color world, not one in B & W. Everyone knew that color TV was the next step for television and welcomed it.

BTW - I have no idea what that link is.

Most teams choose to wear their colour jerseys at home, with the road team changing to white in most cases.[2] White road uniforms gained prominence with the rise of television in the 1950s. A "white vs. color" game was easier to follow in black-and-white.[2] According to Phil Hecken, "until the mid 1950′s, not only was color versus color common in the NFL, it was actually the norm."[2] Even long after the advent of colour television, the use of white jerseys has remained in almost every game.

I believe, (I heard, can't find source of the actual incident, but the reason for above rule) an early american football game that appeared on US B/W television of 2 uniforms chromatically different but luminently the same (like red vs blue, typical of the NFL until they made their games B/W TV friendly.)
made the 2 teams indistinguishable on B/W TV and prompted a letter writing campaign to either TV stations / a network and/or a team/league complaining of such things.(If they didn't catch the mistake before they went on air, it just took one bad game to find that white uniforms are luminently different than deep colors on B/W TV)

Colors look different in B&W

Literally, they either headed off that incident or has it and instantly corrected. Stereo TV never had an incident where sound data was lost when making it mono compatible. Closed cationing was even recorded on a pre-1980 Betamax. I got a tape of a caption testing broadcast in Rankin-Bass's Return of the King on ABC. I had no idea it was in there until MANY years later.

I know certain facts may not be true, certain "facts" are hypothetical situations played out, but my conclusions are hard to dispute. That 3D TV has to be 2D-friendly in order to succeed.

LOL - actually they are very easy to dispute as I have shown throughout this post. I believe you have to accept the fact that other than 3D Blu-ray, 3D for the home is dead. And . . . it is dying in theaters:

Global 3D box office slump continues

It would seem that moviegoers are no longer excited about 3D. Global 3D box office slumped 20% last year and the decrease occurred across all regions, according to MPAA.

Last year, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) said that 3D box office in the US and Canada hit a 8-year low.

- “Global 3D box office was $6.7 billion in 2018, a decrease of 20 percent compared to 2017. The decrease occurred across all regions. The smallest decrease in percentage terms was in the Asia Pacific regions (-14%) where China’s 3D box office the prior year (2017) included the top box office film in Chinese history, and the largest was in the U.S./Canada (-34%) where 3D wide releases decreased 21% over 2017. Global 3D box office was 16 percent of total box office in 2018,” the MPAA report said.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1554281023

BTW . . . Global box office revenue for 2018 hit an all-time high of $41.7 billion

And probably the best format for that is alternate frames, like 30 Hz x 2 eyes, being recognized on older, non-3D TVs as 30 Hz x 1 eye. If it's true that ATSC can "downscale" 1080p to 1080i or 720p, or from 60 Hz to 30 Hz, then it should be easy to fit a 30 HZ broadcast x 2 eyes has the same bandwidth as a 60 Hz broadcast, and can downmix it for 1 eye by having the old TV think it's a 30 Hz production and ignoring the code of the "x 2 eye".

ALL TVs require 60 Hz to operate via OTA. 30 Hz would result in substantial flicker making the picture unwatchable

Does anyone deny that 2D-friendliness is AN important factor for 3D to succeed? Would most people say if 2D TVs can display a 3D broadcast like it's 2D, then there would be less 3D hatred?

There is no need for 3D to be 2D "friendly." It would be easier to simply have separate 2D and 3D channels. Then the 3D lovers would have there show and the 3D haters () could watch the same show in 2D. Remember - the last outpost for 3D is ATSC 3.0.

There's no surround sound hatred. It's just ignored, until you discover a hidden treasure once you have the key of a surround sound device. The same could be true of 3D if designed right.

Even if autostereoscopic 3D (no glasses) were truly perfected, you would encounter another problem, once again you have to sit up and sit in a very specific place in front of the display. Not all seating positions on a couch made for 3 people will be able to see Auto 3D. And watching Auto 3D outside of a "sweet spot" is unwatchable.

[tripletopper]

My point was that 2D un-friendliness sank 3D at least just as much as the glasses requirement. There are 2 modes of partaking in media. Active, ie. media for the media's sake, and casual, ie. socializing and doing other tasks are important. 3D viewing requires an active mindset. Super Bowl parties for 30 of the 32 teams' fans and any non-die-hard-partiicular-team fans will probably watch it in causal mode. Parties tend to a more casual viewing mode than isolated viewing.

If the NFL were filmed in 30 frames a second, then a second eye would not strain the broadcast, plus you have full 180op resolution in both eyes. And it could be more 2D friendly.

And yes, people are willing to hunker down and engage movies actively, hence why 3D cinema and 3D Blu Ray barely suffered until a lack of 3D TVs came up. It's jsut tast most 3D fans have an "Almond Joy/Mounds fan" mentality. ANd Blu Ray and theater recognized it more than TV did.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

My point was that 2D un-friendliness sank 3D at least just as much as the glasses requirement. There are 2 modes of partaking in media. Active, ie. media for the media's sake, and casual, ie. socializing and doing other tasks are important. 3D viewing requires an active mindset. Super Bowl parties for 30 of the 32 teams' fans and any non-die-hard-partiicular-team fans will probably watch it in causal mode. Parties tend to a more casual viewing mode than isolated viewing.

And I keep proving to you that it was 100% the glasses. Telling the same story - an incorrect story doesn't change that.

If the NFL were filmed in 30 frames a second, then a second eye would not strain the broadcast, plus you have full 180op resolution in both eyes. And it could be more 2D friendly.

1080i, 720x60P, 1080x60P, 2160x60P and 4320x60P. Those are the "HD" video formats (HD, UHD-1 and UHD-2). There is NO 30 fps format. And they weren't going to invent one for any Super Bowl. The ONLY 30 fps format that I know of was the old Todd-AO 70mm format. It was shot and shown in 30 fps instead of the normal 24. Only two movies were made in this process: Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days

And yes, people are willing to hunker down and engage movies actively, hence why 3D cinema and 3D Blu Ray barely suffered until a lack of 3D TVs came up. It's jsut tast most 3D fans have an "Almond Joy/Mounds fan" mentality. ANd Blu Ray and theater recognized it more than TV did.

People . . . how many people? When a 3D Blu-ray is released, how many copies do you think are pressed?

Figures for 3D Blu-ray sales aren’t often made available, but they do – when they surface – paint a picture of a very niche format. At the peak of the format, average sales for a Blu-ray 3D version were around the 15% mark. Few films this year have got anywhere near that (Passengers is an exception). Just 3% of sales of Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2 on its disc release in the US came from 3D Blu-rays, for instance. Anecdotally, the shelf space given to 3D Blu-ray in the branch of HMV mentioned at the top of the article has shrunk. As the hardware supply contracts, it’s not hard to see the discs going the same way.

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/...-of-blu-ray-3d

Keep in mind that that article was written in Nov. 2017. The 3D Blu-ray user base isn't increasing. it's decreasing!

Box office revenue generated by 3D films in the United States and in Canada from 2006 to 2017 (in billion U.S. dollars)



https://www.statista.com/statistics/...north-america/

You already have the stats for 2018.

[BLMN]

I had ESPN 3D on Directv. Tried a few NBA games, College games (Basketball and Football) Soccer (2010 WC). I Think the best was Basketball, it really gave you that feel of being there. Football wasn't so great, maybe the camera angle view didn't help ?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by BLMN

I had ESPN 3D on Directv. Tried a few NBA games, College games (Basketball and Football) Soccer (2010 WC). I Think the best was Basketball, it really gave you that feel of being there. Football wasn't so great, maybe the camera angle view didn't help ?

Probably the distance factor - from the camera(s) to the players. Much closer in B-Ball than F-Ball. Regulation basketball courts measure 94 feet by 50 feet. Professional football fields are 360 feet by 160 feet.