BBC stops production in 3D

[Andy Wilkinson]

BBC ends 3D Trial...another nail in the 3D coffin?

BBC to put 3D production on hold following unsuccessful two-year pilot

About time they came to their senses, now if other networks would do the same. 3D TV is a gimmick, just like quadraphonic audio was in the 70's.

[Roger Gunkel]

The BBC were forced to try 3d on the crest of the last post Avatar 3d surge. They fought as hard as they could not to get involved, and to say that their experiment was a failure is laughable. They never actually tried, with just the Olympics opening and closing ceremonies, a few evenings of 3d Olympic highlights when everybody was in bed, one Strictly Come Dancing, the Queen's Speech and a forth coming Dr Who. All that over 3 years unless I missed one. The cameras and most equipment were supplied by Sony, so there was no real hardware investment and absolutely no incentive by the BBC whatsoever for the public to support that abysmal attempt. Why buy a 3d tv if there is nothing to watch on it? The promise of lots of great programming was a dream of the manufacturers, and was never supported by the broadcasters, especially the BBC. Without programming it was always going to fail.

At least Sky made a real attempt to produce something, but as a top end premium package by subscription only, that again gives little incentive to the man in the street. The BBC has always said it would rather invest in 4K technology because that is what their engineers want to do. The fact that it will look no different whatsoever to HD on a typically sized domestic tv, is of no interest to them. It gives them them more flexibility with their productions and an excuse to spend vast sums of public money to indulge themselves.

The final death knell that leaves 3d back with the hardcore enthusiasts, was the complete failure of manufacturers to standardise, leaving people with expensive glasses that were brand dependent, 3d cameras that wouldn't show 3d pics on their 3d tv and a plethora of useless cameras and camcorders that had too little flexibility, lens separation or a standardised format.

Everyone trying to stick their snouts in the consumer trough, with nobody stopping to put anything in it first.

Roger

[Andy Wilkinson]

More, this time "from the horses mouth". Can't say I'm remotely surprised. 4K is where it's heading, as we all know.

BBC abandons 3D over tiny viewing figures and fears of wasting money - Telegraph

[Roger Gunkel]

The BBC had already started to invest in 4k before the 3d resurgance and were miffed to be expected to try 3d broadcasting. After completely wasting £100 million of the publics's money on a failed computer system, they are now facing investigation for paying each other senior management payoffs of over £25 million, way above contract agreements. I'm not surprised they can't afford to try something else.

Roger

[Ronald Jackson]

I actually have a 3D telly, and also pay for the Sky 3D "package". I never watch it anymore, couldn't get used to 3D sport, particularly football, and not enough other content except animated films and endless repeats of the occasional 3D wildlife programme. Must cancel!
2D to 3D quite good though, particularly wildlife stuff. Need a sufficiency of D.O.F. and being broadcast in HD helps.
Would like 4K, saw a trial 84 inch machine in London a few months back, but a fair way off I reckon, no content apart from feature films.

Ron

ps for all her faults I love Auntie Beeb

[Gary Nattrass]

I think 3D has it's applications in cinema and for gaming or specialist imaging but for mainstream TV it is just too much of a gimmick.

I had to laugh when SKY thought that all the pubs would pay even more to let their minimal customer base to watch it whilst getting drunk with 3D glasses on, I closed my pub four years ago due to lack of customer base and with the european ruling on landlords being able to get their service from any supplier I can see their monopoly diminishing now that BT is in the game too.

It isn't all SKY's fault though as I think a lot of the drive in premiership football was from the FA to milk even more money out of them.

I work on premiership matches for other international broadcasters and the cost of doing 3D must be astronomical as it doubles the resources required at the OB truck end but triples it at the stadia end as there are three cameras for a lot of the positions so it has meant a lot of other rights holders have been unable to do any presentation coverage due to lack of space on gantries.

Interesting that a lot of the people I work for have pulled out for next season as they have found it too hard to get rights for a reasonable cost and with BT throwing millions at next seasons premiership coverage I predict that SKY will drop 3D too as they will have to concentrate on cost base and mainstream coverage to compete with BT.

We shall see but it all comes down to production costs at the end of the day and if the viewing audience isn't there anyway it makes it an easy decision for any broadcaster or production company.

[Guy Caplin]

I must say I am hardly surprised that the BBC has dropped 3D. It has been tried many times from Baird's experiments in the thirties, both on film and on TV. I am old enough to remember the 3D film releases in the late fifties and the only release in my view worth watching was Kiss Me Kate. Hollywood soon dropped making 3D movies. In the eighties some TV channels in the 'States ran experimental anaglyph 3D cleverly using only one colour camera, but again they soon dropped it. In the nineties I was peripherally involved a 3D medical channel set up in the 'States, which broadcast coverage of operations, mainly for teaching purposes. This used alternate field switching and electronically polarised glasses. They tried to develop an entertainment channel for the general public, but again it failed. The success of Avatar was surprising but, as they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer. History has shown that public interest in any new 3D system, which requires wearing glasses, soon drops off.

[Roger Gunkel]

I have had a 3d tv for 3 years, and have not subscribed to Sky as I have no intention of paying for the premium package just to watch 3d repeats and football. Why do sky seem to think that football is all that anybody wants to watch in 3d sport? The whole 3d broadcast experience was about trying to make big profits on the crest of a wave at every stage of the game, rather than gently nurturing something that might have gradually become more popular given years rather than months, rather like colour tv was gradually introduced.

My only 3d broadcast viewing was from the miniscule output from the BBC. Last year's Wimbledon Men's final was great in 3d and used a very natural depth without any clever effects. Although I have no interest in tennis, the 3d made it a more realistic experience for me. The same with the Olympics ceremonies and highlights, much more immersive than the same thing in 2d. They were done well, and the 3d was just right for making it more real, but enabling you to forget you were watching in 3d rather than ramming it down your throat. I occasionally switched to 2d to remind me how flat and unnatural the images are that we have become accustomed to see on our screens.

I don't like having to wear special glasses, but then I have to wear ordinary glasses to watch 2d tv anyway, so ist it that much of an inconvenience? The passive format should have been the choice for all tv manufacturers, as the active route has been another big sales killer in my opinion, because of the ripoff prices - more trough wallowing.

I enjoy 3d and have done so since many years before Avatar. I take all my family stills and video in 3d so have a lot of use for my 3d tv and in addition, 3d photos and video are a part of my business. I don't do a lot of 3d for business, but when I do, it pays for my 3d hobby :-)

Roger