ESPN to Scrap ESPN3D at end of 2012

[timcat4843]

Originally Posted by bootsy

Too many times.
The content was the problem with this channel unfortunately.

I can guarantee you if they showed the NBA Finals or MNF or any live sporting event
on this channel consistently, simultaneously with regular ESPN this channel would
probably still be active and doing well.

All the major sporting events should be broadcast in 3D:

NFL Super Bowl
MLB World Series
NBA Finals
NHL Stanley Cup Final
NASCAR Daytona 500
IRL Indianapolis 500
Kentucky Derby
NCAA College Football National Championship
NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Championship

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by timcat4843

All the major sporting events should be broadcast in 3D:

NFL Super Bowl
MLB World Series
NBA Finals
NHL Stanley Cup Final
NASCAR Daytona 500
IRL Indianapolis 500
Kentucky Derby
NCAA College Football National Championship
NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Championship

Yeah i wish. Hopefully one day this comes true.

[Jsmith82]

Wait, 2012 Wimbledon 3d is on? I gotta GO!

*stands up, gives boss the finger, runs to car, speeds home, watches......... tennis.*

[Show spoiler]that is my "oh look, I'm watching tennis face". lol.

I think ESPN is making a good decision due to lack of content - my .02 is that they should move to an On-Demand service and cover events / host past events.

I would gladly pay 19.99+tax for say the Master's Cup in 3D. That would be great, I love golf - good fit. Same for X-Games events.

For sports that routinely play daily, baseball for instance - charge something cheap - 2.00 or something like that a game. If you're home watching the game, you can up it to 3D for the change in your couch.

Obviously we're miles from something like Baseball in 3D until all cameras in all stadiums are 3d capable, but it's a nice thought.

I really hope to see Boxing events get a 3D option. That would be sweet....

Coming soon in Jsmith's hopes and dreams, Pacquiao vs Marquez V - in stunning 3D..

One can hope, right?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

One can hope, right?

Good luck.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/...nd-broadcasts/

Some quotes:

"ESPN 3D's audience ratings were below The Nielsen Co.'s measurable threshold, and in March, the Motion Picture Association said box office revenue for 3-D showings in the U.S. and Canada was flat in 2012 from a year earlier at $1.8 billion. The number of 3-D films released in the period dropped by 20 percent."

"Last year, an estimated 6 percent of TVs in the U.S. were able to show 3-D programming, according to the most recent data from research firm IHS Screen Digest. Even homes that have 3-D TVs don't appear to be using them very much, said IHS analyst Sweta Dash.
The lack of programming and the discomfort of having to wear special glasses could be contributing to the problem, she said.
"It's not convenient for people to watch for hours and hours with glasses," Dash said. "They get tired."


"With 3-D TV, two cameras have to be rigged together on a special mount to create the 3-D effect. And because viewers can get dizzy with quick cuts, camera operators specialized in 3-D stay focused on single shots for longer. That makes it hard for producers to simply use "one eye" of a 3-D camera for 2-D broadcasts. Instead, camera positions and personnel costs were just multiplied for events shot in both formats."

That's from the article.

Hope springs eternal...

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Hope springs eternal...

Very true.

A lot of that article makes sense surrounding the technicalities of 3D broadcasting, especially in real time with quick shots and trying to maintain focus - I couldn't imagine how tough it would be trying to track an overthrow error to first and keep the ball in focus. The Olympics is a prime example of how an event must be preplanned in order to get a solid 3D broadcast. ESPN was ahead of itself offering a 24-7 3D channel, especially when so many households couldn't watch it if they wanted to.

On Demand events, such as major golf tournaments, Superbowl, World Series, Title Fights, etc.. I could see success in it though I will be the first to admit it's not going to sweep the nation and wow the world, more or less if they made their money back it would be enough to justify the broadcast as a 'favor' to the 3D audience.

Regarding the dwindling profits and movies, sales going down, 3D is the GP's ugly stepchild, etc... that part of that article. The 'experts' have been tooting that horn for years. Like discussing politics, nobody ever changes the others mind, they just point and quote and say how wrong the other party is - thus is discussing the in or out of 3D, a dead end for discussion. My opinion, it's where it is - lot's to look forward to if you're a fan of the genre. We're not going to see much of any major wave until 4k is inexpensive and glasses are MIA.

Now 4k glasses free 3D TV?

Road Trip said it pretty well:

[Show spoiler]Barry, hit the lights. It's.... boner time.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

Regarding the dwindling profits and movies, sales going down, 3D is the GP's ugly stepchild, etc... that part of that article. The 'experts' have been tooting that horn for years. Like discussing politics, nobody ever changes the others mind, they just point and quote and say how wrong the other party is - thus is discussing the in or out of 3D, a dead end for discussion.

The discussion always gets diverted from the basic problem: The industry tried to change television overnight, right after selling 17 million high definition televisions in the year before 3-D was released. That way lies madness.

So there are 6% of households that can see 3D. Did the movers and shakers really think that a cartoon like Avatar was going to change enough households into 3D havens?

6% of televisions have 3D. Of that, what percentage are sports fanatics? Of that, how many are Olympic lacrosse fanatics and want to see it in 3D?

None of this ever made sense. It's not a debate where points are won, and the other guy is wrong. Bottom line, it's a numbers game.

6% total market participation, and niche markets are only a small percentage of that?

This failure was predicted from the beginning. It's not a debate, it's a reality.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The discussion always gets diverted from the basic problem: The industry tried to change television overnight, right after selling 17 million high definition televisions in the year before 3-D was released. That way lies madness.

....

This failure was predicted from the beginning. It's not a debate, it's a reality.

First part - 100% true.

Second part. 3D in general as a format, I don't agree - however I don't think that was what you insinuating which leads me to switch up to the following: 3D sports channels and 24 hour 3D programming, I totally agree (with you). Thus verifying what you first said in the quote above, it's a good statement.

Wimbledon 2012 anyone?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

On Demand events, such as major golf tournaments, Superbowl, World Series, Title Fights, etc.. I could see success in it though I will be the first to admit it's not going to sweep the nation and wow the world, more or less if they made their money back it would be enough to justify the broadcast as a 'favor' to the 3D audience.

On Demand would be through cable systems, where the industry's pretty well been permanently forced into a ghetto by UFC and Howard Stern. They're the only ones still watching the PPV On-Demand channel because they're the only ones who remember it.

Filming a 3D Superbowl or day-by-day Olympics as a title to be downloaded/streaming title later online, through more mainstream marketes like Vudu for example, would at least have wide enough exposure to make SOME money.
Travelogue channel WealthTV had an entire series of 3DTV documentaries available through Vudu and its own smart-TV apps, and providers weren't exactly rushing to pick up the channel itself. ESPN would have a lot more clout to go that route for big-scale events, if they knew enough to plan out the camera logistics beforehand.
And while we're on the subject, how were the figures on the PPV-channel '12 Olympics?

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And while we're on the subject, how were the figures on the PPV-channel '12 Olympics?

I don't recall it going over extremely well. I watched, the opening was cool but the picture quality kind of stunk. However I did choose to watch 3d over 2d, but that's just me.