ESPN to Scrap ESPN3D at end of 2012

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

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

What really helps to make it clear is units sold, or real percentages.

[A Sith Lord?]

As a tennis die hard, was wondering if you all could explain how awesome Wimbledon is in 3D?

I was planning on getting a 3DTV, and was hoping to see some tennis in 3D at some point.

[Canada]

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?.

I don't know that 3D is right for TV but there has been some really great 3D in movies.

[Spaulding]

I have no want for my favorite tv shows to be in 3D. But Blu Ray 3D is great just watched Life of Pi gorgeous. Looking forward to this years crop.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by MasturB

As a tennis die hard, was wondering if you all could explain how awesome Wimbledon is in 3D?

I was planning on getting a 3DTV, and was hoping to see some tennis in 3D at some point.

Wimbledon 2013 will be in 3D beginning with the Men's quarter finals.

fitprod

[Canada]

Is 3D Dead

No 3D is not dead as people said there was only a limited amount of content in 3D while Hollywood seems to roll out 1 or 2 films a month. 3D is is not doing that well as far as TV is concerned but it's not going any where.

[PiratesCove]

Too bad only a few months left....

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by bootsy

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.

which is kind of ironic since espn 3d recently got the rights to air MNF in 3d starting in 2014.

Which they very obviously won't be doing now.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Canada

Is 3D Dead

No 3D is not dead as people said there was only a limited amount of content in 3D while Hollywood seems to roll out 1 or 2 films a month. 3D is is not doing that well as far as TV is concerned but it's not going any where.

It's got roughly 6% market penetration in the United States, slightly less than that in Great Britain. It's not dead. I don't know how to describe it. "Coma" comes to mind.

[whotony]

I'm guessing the 2012 in the title is supposed to be 2013?

[tigermoth]

Originally Posted by whotony

I'm guessing the 2012 in the title is supposed to be 2013?

And scrap is supposed to be "on hold".

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It's got roughly 6% market penetration in the United States, slightly less than that in Great Britain. It's not dead. I don't know how to describe it. "Coma" comes to mind.

If it's 6 percent penetration, then 3d tv is currently at the percentage of homes that had color tv between 1964 and 1966.

I couldn't find the statistics for the percent of homes with color tv in 1965.

1964=3.1 percent of U.S. homes with color tv

1966=9.6 percent of U.S. homes with color tv.

and just for comparison:

1950=9.0 percent of U.S. homes with tv sets. (these were all black and white sets).

[3Dfan]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

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.



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.

Ay 6 percent. most households did not have color tv, but it was less than two years after that all prime time network shows were in color. (1966)

And actually, it was only one year after that most prime time network shows were in color. (1965)

Most people still had only black and white sets for years after that.

But color tv set sales steadily increased until more people were buying color sets than black and white sets (in 1972).

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by 3Dfan

Ay 6 percent. most households did not have color tv, but it was less than two years after that all prime time network shows were in color. (1966)

There was no change on the receiving end, and production was largely centralized for television shows. You didn't need a special set, or other gear. It was received in both black&white, or in color, same thing, over the air.

[quote=3Dfan;8183670]And actually, it was only one year after that most prime time network shows were in color. (1965)

Again, no real production changes, only to the television cameras at the studio, or in film stock.

Originally Posted by 3Dfan

Most people still had only black and white sets for years after that.

But color tv set sales steadily increased until more people were buying color sets than black and white sets (in 1972).

The explosion in color television came with the introduction of solid state circuitry, not color broadcasting. Prices dropped like a stone, as well as repair and maintenance. Instead of expensive repairs, people bought new sets, which were less expensive, more reliable, and came with the new remote control technology for on-off, channel changing, and sound muting.

No additional technology was needed (no wearable devices to see it, for example), or external gear such as receivers, speakers, etc.

The parallels drawn between color television and 3D are not accurate or apt. People were tired of taking tubes out of their television and taking them down for testing at the local supermarket (this was quite common in the 1960's, I remember going down with my father to do it - on Saturdays, there was sometimes a line of people) and solid state removed that hassle. Either that, or call out the repairman - sometimes $30 to $50, a huge sum at that time, more expensive than car repair.

There were multiple factors for the adoption of color television, not just a "gee whiz" factor.