ESPN to Scrap ESPN3D at end of 2012

[fitprod]

ESPN Scraps Little-Seen 3D Channel

Don't be surprised if the other 3D channels in the US are scrapped eventually as well. There's just not enough of an audience. (I'm sure Cablevision will be folding MSG 3D... If ESPN 3D couldn't make it nationally, that surely can't survive locally.)

Cable companies will probably keep their PPV options, but 3D as a standard for a full broadcast channel is just not viable.

fitprod

[Spaulding]

People are using this to dance on 3D's grave. But really how many times has this channel aired 2012 wimbledon?.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Spaulding

People are using this to dance on 3D's grave. But really how many times has this channel aired 2012 wimbledon?.

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.

[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.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Spaulding

People are using this to dance on 3D's grave. But really how many times has this channel aired 2012 wimbledon?.

yeah. It is hilarious. You have BDUs that don't want to waste BW for channels that very few customers want. You have customers that don't care because there is almost no content to watch and then people act as if it stopping is a big deal.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yeah. It is hilarious. You have BDUs that don't want to waste BW for channels that very few customers want. You have customers that don't care because there is almost no content to watch and then people act as if it stopping is a big deal.

Starting it was the big deal. Dual camera setups, special angles, long takes that differed from what was "traditional" with standard television, etc.

Somebody green-lighted this goofy idea. What's revealing is the absolutely zero interest from the major broadcast networks, who could actually have much lower costs when producing shows in-studio. They never even mentioned doing it - they saw how bad the idea was, trying to turn the entire production/distribution chain in this direction. For Avatar fans? Are you kidding? Plus filming commercials? Forget it.

The fact that they even went down this road makes it appear that someone was paid off, or got a benefit someplace, like Toshiba did with HD-DVD to the studios. ESPN only had to invest bandwidth - whoever wanted this thing would have to find production companies to film 3D content. A thundering silence followed.

[Hunk Golden]

I've always thought it was a little gimmicky, and I'm someone who enjoys it. Blu-Dog has made some good points here and in other threads about it. I think that 3D home video has pretty much flopped, and has done so for various reasons (in no particular order):

[Show spoiler]1) Bad economy (No ability or desire to buy a new tv)

Our parents generation had the manufacturing jobs. You could, with little to no education, get a job in a factory which paid well and provided good benefits. You could work in one shop for 30 years and then retire. Your spouse didn't HAVE to work, but could if s/he chose to do so. Those are pretty much all gone. The few that are left don't pay as well as they did 20 years ago. I have friends who work in the same John Deere plant their dads worked in and are making less money than their dads did in the 70's/80's. We now have a lot of crappy service industry jobs, and they don't pay. You have a lot of couples who both work and may make something like $9-$13/hr. Now everything costs more, so you have less money and it doesn't go very far.

Point is, you have a lot of people just getting by. If they splurged on an HDTV in 2006 - 2010, you can't expect them to run out and buy another tv already. Even those who can afford it probably don't have the desire to buy a new one just for the 3D effects. That's a lot of $$ to shill out for something to get (possibly) one extra feature (if you have a nice HDTV already). In the "old days" our TV would last 20 years or more.

2) Movie studios pushed it too hard just to squeeze extra grosses out of too many movies

Instead of making the 3D really important to the movie (and making sure it was done really well), studios would post-convert any crap movie they could to 3D - and then do a bad job with the 3D. So you see a crap movie, you're turned off. If the 3D sucks, you're more turned off (especially turned off of the 3D).

3) Whereas people may be willing to pay an extra $3 (or whatever) at the theater for escapism, they may have absolutely no desire to have 3D at home (and/or don't want to pay for all the equipment)

Seeing a movie here or there in 3D may seem like fun, but a lot of people probably don't feel like they'll use it much at home. Or they may have the desire to have it at home, but can't or don't want to pay for it. You can see a lot of movies at $3 extra for the price of the 3D set/player/content. If a low end 42" set and Blu-ray player costs about $600, that's the price of seeing 200 3D movies at the theater.

4) Lack of content

There always has been very little content through TV providers. I'm with Dish, and the only 3D they have is PPV/On Demand movies. Those providers who do have 3D channels don't have many 3D channels and/or only show the same content (over and over) on those channels.

I've heard that there are by-mail 3D Blu-ray rental outfits, but I don't know if any of them have a good reputation. I know Blockbuster and Netflix don't provide 3D rentals. Netflix has some available via streaming, but not everyone has the bandwidth to watch that (I don't at 6 MBPS).

So that leaves buying Blu-rays. Given that most people have moved away from buying physical media, good luck with that.

5) 3D may just be a gimmick/fad

This is a point of a lot of argument on here. A lot of us like it, but I think a lot more people don't care. They can take it or leave it. I just don't see the #'s that support a lot of love for 3D. Some people will say, "There are 'X' number of movies being released in 3D this year." That's a terrible argument. It'd be like me saying 3D is dying because my local AMC theater only has one 3D offering right now (Superman). Neither statement tells the whole story. Hollywood will keep releasing a lot of movies in 3D if they can get any extra $$ out of the box office grosses by doing so. That doesn't mean 3D is popular. It just means that the cost of shooting in 3D is less than the extra amount they make on 3D at the box office. The studios would release movies that cost $25 per ticket but came with a complimentary lap dance if they could make more $$ doing it.

[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?

[tigermoth]

Originally Posted by Hunk Golden

I've always thought it was a little gimmicky, and I'm someone who enjoys it. Blu-Dog has made some good points here and in other threads about it. I think that 3D home video has pretty much flopped, and has done so for various reasons (in no particular order):

3D Blu-Ray is doing fine. It hasn't flopped at all. It is the only home video format for movies that is doing well and made significant gains compared to standard BD and DVD which have lost sales recently compared to last year q1 and q2.

ESPN closing isn't a big deal. The company said they aren't dropping 3D from their business. Even people who are invested in 3D as a buisness knew ESPN 3DTV wasn't going to work out this early in the game.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

3D Blu-Ray is doing fine. It hasn't flopped at all. It is the only home video format for movies that is doing well and made significant gains compared to standard BD and DVD which have lost sales recently compared to last year q1 and q2.

There is no way to quantify "doing fine", "doing well", or "significant gains". That's actually advertising talk, and isn't a way to measure progress, or market penetration.

It's not even based on a perceived notion. Brick and mortar sales locations don't even bother to set up a 3D section any more, nor do they tout sales of glasses, or any other 3D accoutrements. I don't see demos of 3D equipment any longer, anywhere.

If you're going to measure any sort of acceptance and toss in quantifiers like "Q1" and "Q2", it's probably better to put the actual numbers in, if they're available. It's a pretty powerful claim that 3D "is the only home video format for movies that is doing well", which I find odd, and which again has no measuring points.

Originally Posted by tigermoth

ESPN closing isn't a big deal. The company said they aren't dropping 3D from their business. Even people who are invested in 3D as a buisness knew ESPN 3DTV wasn't going to work out this early in the game.

The game, whatever it is, isn't changing at all. Real infrastructure changes are needed to support high definition - be it 2K 3D, 4K, or 4K 3D. The real driver for the 3D format was television manufacturers, not content producers or broadcasters.

At 6% of households even capable of seeing this stuff, even niche marketers are not funding any changes in production. Do you think anyone is willing to invest in some fraction of 6%, and expect a return? It's not "early in the game", since the game has not even started, and nobody has even bought any tickets.

[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.

[fitprod]

Well the next shoe may be dropping... FIFA is evaluating their plans for 3D broadcasts of the 2014 World Cup. It was inevitable, without ESPN, the exposure would only be Europe, and it probably isn't worth the cost.

Deadline - Global Showbiz Briefs, FIFA Reviews World Cup in 3D.

Will NBC even bother with 3D broadcasts of the 2014 Olympics at this point?

I'm sure Sony or someone will be putting up money for 4K broadcasts though. (World Cup and Olympics...)

fitprod

[dobyblue]

Wimbledon rocks, but yes I'd love to see all those events listed several posts up shown in 3D, add the Austin F1 Grand Prix also. Watching Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton, et al, racing around that gorgeous new track in 3D would be sweet.

Sadly this is only the third season that F1 has been shown in HD to begin with, so I don't expect 3D there for several more years as the FIA controls the broadcast technical specifications, not the host country/venue. 1080i50 MPEG-2 @ 42 Mbps.

At least you guys have a 3D channel, in Canada we get a 30 minute loop of the same crap, just demo stuff of a plane flying around and some nature shots.

We got the Masters in 3D the one year.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

3D Blu-Ray is doing fine. It hasn't flopped at all. It is the only home video format for movies that is doing well and made significant gains compared to standard BD and DVD which have lost sales recently compared to last year q1 and q2.

ESPN closing isn't a big deal. The company said they aren't dropping 3D from their business. Even people who are invested in 3D as a buisness knew ESPN 3DTV wasn't going to work out this early in the game.

Bluray was well up on last year for q1. Q2 I think it is doing poorly but q1 was very positive.