[Matt_Aspden]

As tweeted by Blogtor Who on Twitter

[Nick_DK]

I'm sure if it's a feature length type of movie in 3D, the BBC will put it in cinemas around the country.

[Matt_Aspden]

Doctor Who Official ‏@bbcdoctorwho

It's coming… #DoctorWho in 3D! Steven Moffat calls it 'A whole new dimension of adventure for the Doctor to explore.' http://bbc.in/Ymx7dj

[shortcrust]

Brilliant! So glad I bought a 3D tv.

[DiscoP]

I guess it's good news for the future and all that but do many people actually own 3D TV's?

[Corwin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21413511

[sovietusername]

Wait, so is this for the cinema? Are they making a movie or...? Only, I didnt know there even were 3-D TV's. When did that happen?

[shortcrust]

Originally Posted by DiscoP

I guess it's good news for the future and all that but do many people actually own 3D TV's?

I'm not sure what the stats are, but not being able to watch in 3D really shouldn't detract from anyone's viewing pleasure.

The link sort of implies that a move to 3D may not just be for the special. I really hope it's a permanent shift.

[fastest finger]

I had a feeling this was coming from viewing the new titles, the way the effects move on the screen and especially when you go through the TARDIS doors at the end. It screams "ready for 3D"

[shortcrust]

Originally Posted by sovietusername

Wait, so is this for the cinema? Are they making a movie or...? Only, I didnt know there even were 3-D TV's. When did that happen?

Most non-budget new TVs can do 3D just like the cinema (well almost like the cinema!). My sister just got a 32 inch one for £300. The BBC have done a few 3D programmes and Sky do quite a lot.

[DuncanEmery]

well I hope the story doesn't end up being written to be good in 3D rather than just ensuring it is a good story. most people do not have 3D TV so really might just be a waste of money by BBC

[MeddlingMonkey]

Originally Posted by shortcrust

I'm not sure what the stats are, but not being able to watch in 3D really shouldn't detract from anyone's viewing pleasure.

The link sort of implies that a move to 3D may not just be for the special. I really hope it's a permanent shift.

You say that, but I hope they do not go down the tacky road of pointing things at the camera.

[codename_47]

That's a shame...

A show of the magnitude of Doctor Who should at LEAST be in 4D

[nyingy]

Originally Posted by Corwin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21413511

I wonder if they'll do Call the Midwife in 3d, also?

[saladfingers81]

This is dire news. I won't repeat the various reasons why 3D is a stupid gimmick which diminishes the creative process...i will leave that to Mark Kermode. But how sad that the ultimate celebration of a timeless classic ageless show is going to he hampered by a stupid, tacky flash in the pan gimmick like this. Pathetic pandering. 3D is already dying on its arse and the directors with class like Nolan and Scott have been sceptical. Lets just hope the direction of the special isn't full of blatant and tacky 'oooh look its flying towards the screen!!!'wackyness. For a writer I respect so much there seems to be an increasing element of lowest common denominator crowd pleaser about Herr Moffat. And its not good. But hey. I am sure the seventeen people dumb enough to fork out for a 3D tv will be delighted.

[saladfingers81]

Originally Posted by MeddlingMonkey

You say that, but I hope they do not go down the tacky road of pointing things at the camera.

but the sad thing is you can be certain they will. Even some very good films of the last few years have featured scenes that are inexplicable when not viewed in 3D and were shoehorned in for the effect. It will look dated and piss poor in a matter of years and quite why they feel the need to do this when viewers of 3D are a massive minority is mind boggling. Moffat trying to play at being Hollywood. Again.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by sovietusername

Wait, so is this for the cinema? Are they making a movie or...? Only, I didnt know there even were 3-D TV's. When did that happen?

It is not a film for cinema. The BBC release said they will broadcast it using their HD Bandwidth. 3D tv has been around for a couple of years. In fact we bought a tv recently and they pretty much all had 3d as standard. Some programmes (if you have access to the right channels such as sky ones) are broadcast in 3d. Or you can buy a 3d film on bluray if you have one of those devices. Or, on our telly, you can push a button and it turns anything into 3d by software magic (although the results are hit and miss I'm told).

As it happens our new telly did not come with the silly glasses you have to wear so I cannot tell you if 3d is any good (also we only have freeview and don't have a blu ray so no specially made 3d to watch either). We are too tight to but some glasses.

[Abomination]

Not particularly bothered about this, as I just don't care for 3D... try and try as I might to enjoy it on TV or in cinema, and it's never come across as anything more than a novelty gimmick. Nonetheless, I hope people who like their 3D will enjoy this, and I hope the writers produce a story with substance, so we don't just end up with "style" - a factor that has played more of a concern in the Moffat era than the RTD era for certain.

[Lulz77]

Do you just need a 3D TV? Or do you need to pay for special services/channels/box?

[saladfingers81]

Originally Posted by nebogipfel

It is not a film for cinema. The BBC release said they will broadcast it using their HD Bandwidth. 3D tv has been around for a couple of years. In fact we bought a tv recently and they pretty much all had 3d as standard. Some programmes (if you have access to the right channels such as sky ones) are broadcast in 3d. Or you can buy a 3d film on bluray if you have one of those devices. Or, on our telly, you can push a Byron and it turns anything into 3d by software magic (although the results are hit and miss I'm told).

As it happens our new telly did not come with the silly glasses you have to wear so I cannot tell you if 3d is any good (also we only have freeview and don't have a blu ray so no specially made 3d to watch either). We are too tight to but some glasses.

what model have you got? Because on mine you have to press a Keats...

[shortcrust]

Originally Posted by MeddlingMonkey

You say that, but I hope they do not go down the tacky road of pointing things at the camera.

Originally Posted by saladfingers81

This is dire news. I won't repeat the various reasons why 3D is a stupid gimmick which diminishes the creative process...i will leave that to Mark Kermode. But how sad that the ultimate celebration of a timeless classic ageless show is going to he hampered by a stupid, tacky flash in the pan gimmick like this. Pathetic pandering. 3D is already dying on its arse and the directors with class like Nolan and Scott have been sceptical. Lets just hope the direction of the special isn't full of blatant and tacky 'oooh look its flying towards the screen!!!'wackyness. For a writer I respect so much there seems to be an increasing element of lowest common denominator crowd pleaser about Herr Moffat. And its not good. But hey. I am sure the seventeen people dumb enough to fork out for a 3D tv will be delighted.

Hardly any modern 3D productions do this. It's more about subtle layering inwards than things popping out of the screen.

I personally love 3D films and TV, but as already mentioned, it's not compulsory!

[TEDR]

TVs have been 3d capable for a few years, to the point where it's become just a commodity feature that nobody wants or uses. On most sets the extra 3d glasses are ridiculously expensive*, and it's relatively rare that people want to devote their full attention to the TV anyway.

The usually cheap 3d conversions have also made the whole technology look like a bit of a joke anyway — that's what creates the paper cut out appearance; films actually shot with two lenses are still the exception even amongst those released in 3d.

And that's all without even starting on the difference between what a real 3d image would look like and how it would act versus what a stereoscopic 3d image looks like and how it acts. With stereoscopy an assumption about exactly where the viewer is sitting is inherently built into the footage and everyone not sitting just there gets a broken perspective. In cinemas that's less of an issue than with TVs because the viewing angles tend to be less.

So, in summary: there are a lot more 3d TVs than you think but, no, it's not a practical or popular feature.

If we don't lose anything by going 3d then it's probably a good idea since some people like it but if it involves budget juggling so as to detract from other episodes then I'd suggest the real benefit being chased is a publicity hit.


* because the sort with two little LCD screens that alternate between opaque and clear is much more common than the sort with a polarising filter over the screen that flips phase every scan line; it's only the latter sort that works with the same throwaway 3d glasses that they lend you at cinemas. With refresh rates already being quite high, the former type of 3d can be added to a TV pretty much just by adding an infrared emitter to signal left frame or right frame — it's very cheap to do.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by saladfingers81

what model have you got? Because on mine you have to press a Keats...

I wandered lonely as an autofill victim and edited my post before I saw you had already quoted it. Grrrr!

[saladfingers81]

Originally Posted by shortcrust

Hardly any modern 3D productions do this. It's more about subtle layering inwards than things popping out of the screen.

I personally love 3D films and TV, but as already mentioned, it's not compulsory!

To name but two major 3D productions of the last year both the Avengers and Prometheus had at least one instance of gratuitous 'woah man!its coming right at me' silliness which directors of the calibre involved would never have used otherwise.

[saladfingers81]

Originally Posted by nebogipfel

I wandered lonely as an autofill victim and edited my post before I saw you had already quoted it. Grrrr!

sorry. But as autofill errors go yours was a beauty! And it just shows what a cultured chap you must be.