PDA

View Full Version : ESPN to unveil 3-D television network in 2010



odeez
01-05-2010, 04:40 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4796555

Sports broadcasting will enter a new dimension in 2010 ... the third dimension, as ESPN will unveil the industry's first 3-D network.

ESPN 3D will showcase a minimum of 85 live sporting events during its first year, beginning June 11 with the first 2010 FIFA World Cup match, featuring South Africa versus Mexico, ESPN and ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer announced.

Other events to be produced in 3-D include the 2011 BCS National Championship Game, college basketball and football contests, up to 25 World Cup matches and the Summer X Games. Additional events will be announced at a later date.

"ESPN's commitment to 3-D is a win for fans and our business partners," Bodenheimer said in a statement. "ESPN 3D marries great content with new technology to enhance the fan's viewing experience and puts ESPN at the forefront of the next big advance for TV viewing."

ESPN has been testing ESPN 3D for more than two years, even showing a USC-Ohio State college football game in select theaters and to 6,000 fans at the Galen Center on USC's campus.

"This is a turning point for 3-D," Consumer Electronics Association CEO Gary Shapiro told USA Today.

This is going to be awesome. Though it may be too much. I just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D and it blew my mind. I had to pull the glasses off a few times.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 05:12 PM
So we go and buy IMAX3D glasses? If so, where and how much?

When I saw Avatar, the effect was hit and miss, but that might have just been the theater, not the movie. When it hit, it could be pretty effective, though.

I'd certainly at least check it out.

I'm assuming also that this will work for any TV? Or perhaps at least any HDTV?

Slick Pinkham
01-05-2010, 05:46 PM
I'm assuming also that this will work for any TV? Or perhaps at least any HDTV?

You would think so, but from the wording on articles I read today, you may need a new TV. That would suck (and maybe kill the whole idea).

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0105/ESPN-3D-kicks-off-the-year-of-3D-TV.-But-will-consumers-buy-in


But will consumers be willing to pay top dollar for new TVs? And what about the glasses?

"A new TV, higher monthly bill, and I have to wear goofy glasses 'round my house? Seriously?" tweeted Mike Rocco of Tulsa, Okla.

Many consumers never moved to high-definition (HD) technology and would probably be skeptical of making an even further and more expensive technology leap.

"Honestly, I still haven't upgraded to HD yet," tweeted Mike Nagel of New Hampshire. "TV just isn't that important. Doubt I'll go 3D when it's available.

Slick Pinkham
01-05-2010, 05:50 PM
more on this- I guess some but not all of the recently released HDTVs are 3D-capable:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4310812.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop


First things first, you need to find out if your TV is 3D-capable. Because it's still a fairly niche feature, TV manufacturers often don't state whether their sets come loaded with the capability. Still, a surprising number do. In fact, every single new DLP set is 3D-capable, and a fair number of new plasmas are. (Samsung is making a big push in this area.) If you're unsure about your set, call customer service or check the instruction manual.

even with a 3D capable TV you need more stuff- an emitter (now $130) and glasses (from the linked popular mechanics article)

ilive4sports
01-05-2010, 06:04 PM
I think this is going to be awesome. I have to check if my tv is capable. I would spend the extra money cause I think its going to look amazing.

I dont see why people are complaining about this, I mean its not like you have to pay extra, you could just continue your regular service.

CableKC
01-05-2010, 06:10 PM
I think this is going to be awesome. I have to check if my tv is capable. I would spend the extra money cause I think its going to look amazing.

I dont see why people are complaining about this, I mean its not like you have to pay extra, you could just continue your regular service.
The 3D HDTV technology is fairly new and isn't available for all brands. If you bought a brand new HDTV recently ( like within the last 2 or 3 months )....I'm pretty certain that this is one of the features that they would have advertised and therefore something you probably would have noticed was included when you purchased the TV.

KnicksRGarbage
01-05-2010, 06:40 PM
Everything I've seen in the theater that is 3-D (3or 4 movies now) has completely sucked. Horribly. It just makes my eyes hurt and it looks rather blurry at times and the actual "neat" 3-D parts happen very few times and definitely not worth the extra cash I shelled out for those ridiculous glasses.
I have little faith in this.
Unless of course they better the method or create a new system to broadcast in 3-D that is cool. Then it would be epic :D

CableKC
01-05-2010, 07:09 PM
Everything I've seen in the theater that is 3-D (3or 4 movies now) has completely sucked. Horribly. It just makes my eyes hurt and it looks rather blurry at times and the actual "neat" 3-D parts happen very few times and definitely not worth the extra cash I shelled out for those ridiculous glasses.
I have little faith in this.
Unless of course they better the method or create a new system to broadcast in 3-D that is cool. Then it would be epic :D
I agree......although I haven't seen Avatar ( which I'd hope is way better 3-D then some of the othee 3-D movies ).....all the other 3-D movies I have seen....have sucked. Of course, most of them were Animated CGI 3-D movies...so it was harder to tell the difference....but I don't find it interesting.

I'd have to see a live-demo of a 3D HDTV. Since this is relatively new technology, it's all dependant if the industry and consumer truly embrace it as a trend...or a fad. For now, I'm guessing it's a fad.

gummy
01-05-2010, 07:34 PM
Everything I've seen in the theater that is 3-D (3or 4 movies now) has completely sucked. Horribly. It just makes my eyes hurt and it looks rather blurry at times and the actual "neat" 3-D parts happen very few times and definitely not worth the extra cash I shelled out for those ridiculous glasses.
I have little faith in this.
Unless of course they better the method or create a new system to broadcast in 3-D that is cool. Then it would be epic :D

Yeah, there is actually a sizable portion of the population (8-10% if I am remembering properly) that can't process/see the 3D consistently and some who can't see it at all or it gives them headaches and such.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 11:44 PM
Avatar is in it's own tier with regards to 3D. This isn't like the stuff that came before.

If sports is more like Avatar, it will be neat.

I Love P
01-06-2010, 12:41 AM
I can not wait to see our top 5 pick look like hes popping out of the TV next season.

Reckoner
01-06-2010, 02:51 AM
How cool would the melee have been in 3D?

Hicks
01-06-2010, 09:56 AM
How cool would the melee have been in 3D?

As little as ever.

Bball
01-06-2010, 10:09 AM
As long as it requires glasses it's a fad... novelty... and won't get off the ground.

:geezer:

Hicks
01-06-2010, 10:16 AM
As long as it requires glasses it's a fad... novelty... and won't get off the ground.

:geezer:

Just like Avatar?

Bball
01-06-2010, 10:23 AM
Just like Avatar?

Movies can get by with it a little... with enough hype... and a big enough movie... once in a great while...

I just don't see the transition into the home on a regular basis.

People are not going to sit around watching TV with special glasses. Not gonna happen... :geezer:

Hicks
01-06-2010, 10:25 AM
I wonder how much R&D has gone into contact lenses that allow for the same effect? Niche audience, perhaps, but if they wore comfortably, I'd try them.

Pacersfan46
01-06-2010, 10:26 AM
Just like Avatar?

Avatar wasn't ONLY in 3D

-- Steve --