BBC delays investment in 3D claiming it's hype at the moment..

**Stuart** · 09-03-2011, 23:05

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...adcasting.html

Apparently the BBC is to delay any decision on investing in 3D production claiming it's mainly hype at the monent and it still has concerns that 3D may "fail to deliver/take off".

They will be filming Wimbledon in 3D in association with Sony, but have not announced any 3D projects beyond that.

Buckingham Palace has already said that the Royal Wedding will *not* be televised in 3D.

TBH, I'd like 3D to take off. Avatar looks absolutely stunning (pity it was marred by such a boring storyline) , as do some of the in-shop demos. As does Tron (which does have a fairly good story as well). Beyond that, however, I have seen nothing that really makes me want to spend the money on a 3D capable set.

But, I do think that the companies involved need to pull their finger out and develop something that really shows off 3D in the same way as Avatar. I don't think that sequels, cheap computer generated cartoons and 3d remakes/reissues of old films is going to cut it.

v0id · 09-03-2011, 23:13

Smart move by the BBC.
The 3D viewing fad will die off in a year or two, and maybe come back again in 20 or so years ..if its history is anything to go by

Edit: It doesn't work anyway

**Chris** · 09-03-2011, 23:13

As someone who already has to spend his life wearing glasses, I can think of nothing worse than having to wear specs just to relax in front of the TV in the evening. If I ever have the money (and when the tech is reliable enough to cope with my prescription) I'd love to have laser surgery - at which point I would hope sunglasses would be the only thing ever to perch on my nose ever again.

moaningmags · 09-03-2011, 23:14

The thought of sitting in my home, chilling out on the couch with a pair of dark glasses on while I watch tv simply doesn't appeal.

danielf · 09-03-2011, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

As someone who already has to spend his life wearing glasses, I can think of nothing worse than having to wear specs just to relax in front of the TV in the evening. If I ever have the money (and when the tech is reliable enough to cope with my prescription) I'd love to have laser surgery - at which point I would hope sunglasses would be the only thing ever to perch on my nose ever again.

At the ripe old age of 45 I find I need to wear my glasses to watch TV (as I have done for years), but have to take them off to change channels as I can't read the lettering on the remote with the glasses. Like you, I can do without an additional set of specs (or the hype of 3D which doesn't appeal to me in the first place). Then again, I can't be bothered with surround sound either. I'm not interested in a pin dropping somewhere sounding like a series off bombs going off, so maybe it's just me turning into a grumpy old man.

Acathla · 10-03-2011, 00:09

I agree with comments already made. I wear glasses to see all day, every day and the last thing I would ever want to do is to wear another pair of glasses to sit in front of the TV to relax.

I can't stand these 3D cinema movies where they add a completely pointless and unrelated scene just to get some 3D 'effects' going on.

The sooner 3D dies, the better for me. Such a waste of money and efforts by the movie studios when they could be investing to find some new and original story ideas! (and bring affordable, high quality, legal movie streaming to our homes!)

Jameseh · 10-03-2011, 00:13

Invest their money in recording all original content in HD and setup BBC Two HD much more worthwhile than little more than a tech demo for those with good eyesight and money to burn. Dump BBC Three and invest in BBC Four more and they're on the money, or our money.

**Paul M** · 10-03-2011, 00:40

Ive tried a few films in 3D, and tbh, dont find them much better really, in fact my eyes dont like it on smaller objects at all, they seem to lose focus on the object. I take the 2D option at the cinema where possible.

Jimmy-J · 10-03-2011, 01:29

There'll be no need for the glasses within a year or two.

**Maggy J** · 10-03-2011, 11:39

I'm waiting for holographic TV.

Ramrod · 10-03-2011, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

As someone who already has to spend his life wearing glasses, I can think of nothing worse than having to wear specs just to relax in front of the TV in the evening. If I ever have the money (and when the tech is reliable enough to cope with my prescription) I'd love to have laser surgery - at which point I would hope sunglasses would be the only thing ever to perch on my nose ever again.

Same here

& I can't really see it taking off atm, too fiddly to bother with......

Taf · 10-03-2011, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

At the ripe old age of 45 I find I need to wear my glasses to watch TV (as I have done for years), but have to take them off to change channels as I can't read the lettering on the remote with the glasses.

Time for varifocals mate. They'll change your life as they did mine!

The missus got her first ones a fortnight ago and now swears by them.

10-03-2011, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

As someone who already has to spend his life wearing glasses, I can think of nothing worse than having to wear specs just to relax in front of the TV in the evening. If I ever have the money (and when the tech is reliable enough to cope with my prescription) I'd love to have laser surgery - at which point I would hope sunglasses would be the only thing ever to perch on my nose ever again.

in the orient there is already sets for sale using the same idea as the 3DS the only problem is there is a very small optimal viewing angle which will take some getting over

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/...-ces-50002101/
---------- Post added at 12:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm waiting for holographic TV.

already in developement

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19684...broadcast.html

tweetiepooh · 10-03-2011, 12:24

Which? did an article on 3D and one the biggest minus was that watching 3D is more tiring than normal TV. You have to concentrate more, can't just have the box on in the corner and glance up at it while reading.

When 3D is as convenient as watching 2D, no glasses, not tiring, can just watch through corner of eye etc like it currently is or real life is then it may catch on.
----
On the spec front I too am loosing some near vision but varifocals would be a pain driving since I look at instruments through bottom part of lenses and I still need distance for that. I can still read with them though so it's not too bad yet.

Sirius · 10-03-2011, 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

As someone who already has to spend his life wearing glasses, I can think of nothing worse than having to wear specs just to relax in front of the TV in the evening. If I ever have the money (and when the tech is reliable enough to cope with my prescription) I'd love to have laser surgery - at which point I would hope sunglasses would be the only thing ever to perch on my nose ever again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moaningmags

The thought of sitting in my home, chilling out on the couch with a pair of dark glasses on while I watch tv simply doesn't appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acathla

I agree with comments already made. I wear glasses to see all day, every day and the last thing I would ever want to do is to wear another pair of glasses to sit in front of the TV to relax.

I can't stand these 3D cinema movies where they add a completely pointless and unrelated scene just to get some 3D 'effects' going on.

The sooner 3D dies, the better for me. Such a waste of money and efforts by the movie studios when they could be investing to find some new and original story ideas! (and bring affordable, high quality, legal movie streaming to our homes!)

Agreed

The only reason Sky has jumped on it is to be able to offer something no one else does.