Options
No more 3D from the BBC
ProDave
Posts: 11,398
Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23195479
So no more 3D from the BBC. and since ITV etc have never even tried it, that means no free 3D tv.
So no more 3D from the BBC. and since ITV etc have never even tried it, that means no free 3D tv.
0
Comments
When I eventually buy a new Tv, I just want a Tv, simple as that. i would love one without a tuner, but at the size i would want that would be expensive.
The last manufacturers to offer the sort of picture-quality-without-compromise approach that you want both pulled out of the market due to poor sales. Pioneer and Fujitsu. The basic fact is that without all the bells and whistles TV just don't sell in enough volume to keep things economical. Sad fact but true, the numbers on what you're asking for just don't add up.
So people buy these TV sets with all the Bells and Whistles as you put it and then they don't use the features.
surveys galore have proved that very few people have their smart TV sets connected to the net.
i know a few people who got smart Tv sets mainly because it was difficult to get anything else or the Tv was on offer, but out of them I think 2 have got their set connected to the net and only one uses the connection.
The main problem with so called Smart Tv sets is that unless you pay a fortune they are slow and offer very little. the same with 3D sets, they are normally expensive and the cheaper ones seems to cut corners on other things like quality, just so the 3D feature can be added.
My next door neighbour got a 46inch Samsung smart Tv set with 3D. the 3D glasses was put into a box and have never been used, the smart function is never used. even the HD tuner is not used, everything goes through sky. i wonder how many other people have paid £700 or so for a Tv to have these features and never use them?
Not that I am looking at the moment as my Tv is working fine, but when I do, I want a 42 inch or larger plasma, full Hd, but they are getting difficult to get, failing that then it will have to be a LCD/LED one.
Not interested in the other bits, i got my Ps3 for netflix and catch up, not that use catch up that often.
I know my use of a TV set is different to most people as I don't have a Tv licence, so I don't watch TV as such.
As I said, I just want a Tv set to be a TV set, I am not even bothered about a HD tuner. If projectors was cheaper and the bulbs was not so expensive I would think about having one of them instead.
That said, 3D tv done well is excellent; it's just that you have to look elsewhere for the right content.
I've never seen the point of 3D, it's not even near a realistic 3D view that you view naturally. In the Cinema it detracts from the story so is used mainly in non character driven films, with scenes thrown in just to display the false effect.
Right decision by the BBC to stop squandering money on it.
What I would like to see is BBC launching a BBC Sports channel, so they can shove all their sport on to it rather than deal with sport overruns, or showing sport at midnight etc. Also would free up the regular channels to show their normal content as well. This to me is way more critical than 3D or built in Smart features.
This webpage claims 3D tv is already dead!:
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-3d-tv-movement-already-dead/
I think Hollywood and Nintendo wasted a huge potential but even non-glasses 3D can give you a headache and you need to sit in the 'sweet spot' - an exact position to see the 3D. But the 3Ds with 3D films might have convinced other brands to push the tech into the home market but it hasn't happened thus far.
Terrible movies are what usually kills off 3D.
No-glasses 3D was a better option and with multiple focal points you could (in theory) easily see the 3D effect from any seating pos. But this wont be happening now as the main push was with the less sophisticated glasses 3d, which most people don't want.
Also, people like to have different things on in different room - multi-room tv. So I couldn't really see 3d working. You would need to build it into all TV's - all prices, all brands, all sizes. Keeping it only on the primary tv in the house was always going to keep it on the margins of the market. Have a look at how HD is done - all TV's, even small + cheap LCDs now have HD displays (even if they require an external HD source device).
Was the release of unmitigated shit that sank it last time around..
In fact "B'wana Devil" was the movie which kicked off the 3D craze and its director Arch Oboler went on the make one of the worst movies in history but in brilliant Spacevision 3D: "The Bubble" (it also, probably, inspired Stephen King's "Under the Dome").
In addition to a few dud movies, lazy projectionists who didn't closely supervise the rather tricky Polaroid presentations and cinema chains who didn't want to invest in new kit, also played their part in 3D's downfall. This also explains the popularity of inferior red/green anaglyph prints at the cinema; they could be shown on existing equipment and were much easier to cope with. This also led to many Polaroid prints being junked which is why so many early 3D movies no longer exist in their original format and survivors are still greatly sought-after.
3D is a great experience when used carefully and correctly; unfortunately, even today, it's often used as a gimmick to boost the performance of lacklustre films.
The combination of a good movie and great 3D is, sadly, as rare as ever.
How did the Anti-BBC brigade stop it? I certainly did not stop it.
That said I suppose before long pretty much all TVs will be 'smart' and 3D enabled as standard but of course you don't have to use these features.
But there is no room on Freeview anyway, so they would have to do it on Dsat only, I also thought the BBc had no money anyway as they had to freeze the licence for 5 years.
but i still don't see that i have made any difference by being Anti-BBC, apart from not giving them £145 for the last two years.
We was not really able to do what we wanted to do, so it was money wasted, so back to normal HD.
I don't think Sky would like that, for starters. They may submit a disupte to the Competition Authorities.
And neither would the sports authorities, such as UEFA. They would hate for mainstream sports to be shifted to a minority sport-dedicated channel.
And neither is it very public service to put it on a dedicated channel, even though it should be FTA.
bearing in mind that the BBC Trust has to do a PVT and (with OFCOM ) an MIA before a new channel is set up ....
the Idea of a sports channels is unlikely to get beyond a PVT .... and if they got to an MIA that would also be likely to fail.... so the BBC would not do it!!!
But the Other publicly owned PSB does not have that restriction ..... but is anyone calling for them to have a sports channel .... alongside their film channel.
If you mean the company that had sports rights issues when they were trying to get people to get subscriptions to the predecessor of Freeview that they owned, then I wonder why they won';t set one up
No I mean the publically owned PSB that pays its Chief executive about 1.8 times what the BBC plays Lord Hall....
and is a public corporation at .124 Horseferry Road
(rather than the commercial PSB which pays its "boss" £3.7m )