Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

No more 3D from the BBC


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2013, 22:47
ProDave
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Northern Scottish Highlands
Posts: 11,302

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.
ProDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-07-2013, 23:31
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,256
Maybe now the TV manufactures will stop putting it in their TV sets and upping the price. i can;t see it myself, the next thing is to get rid of this smart Tv rubbish in almost every TV.

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.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 00:25
Chris Frost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 4,616
Maybe now the TV manufactures will stop putting it in their TV sets and upping the price. i can;t see it myself, the next thing is to get rid of this smart Tv rubbish in almost every TV.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 10 years then you can't fail to have noticed that year on year TVs have got cheaper, year on year, without fail. In fact that's part of the problem that the TV industry has. None of the major manufacturers make much (if any) money out of TV because the prices keep falling.

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.
Chris Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 06:16
Gill P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,876
I like my Smart TV "rubbish" as you call it. We watch Netflix most every night and it is great having free iPlayer and ITVPlayer (with our Samsung). I wouldn't have wanted a 3D TV anyway.
Gill P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 06:41
tiger2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stoke-On-Trent
Posts: 5,311
Like most people I have no interest in the current technology being used for 3D, I want better picture quality and connectivity thru a Smart TV when looking to buy a new TV.
tiger2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 10:28
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,256
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 10 years then you can't fail to have noticed that year on year TVs have got cheaper, year on year, without fail. In fact that's part of the problem that the TV industry has. None of the major manufacturers make much (if any) money out of TV because the prices keep falling.

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.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 10:43
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,281
Sport in 3D is generally pitiful so the BBC's efforts won't be missed. Sky's 3D service is also not very good and was one of the reasons I stopped my subscription.
That said, 3D tv done well is excellent; it's just that you have to look elsewhere for the right content.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 11:26
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,414
"Recent figures from the US suggest no more than 120,000 people are watching 3D channels at any one time." This from a country with a population of 314 million, kind of puts 3D into perspective, even taking into account the penetration of 3D channels.
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.
call100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 11:58
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 16,056
don't want 3d or smart features built in either. Smart features are a poor relation to a pc (connected to the tv).

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.
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:03
tiger2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stoke-On-Trent
Posts: 5,311
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.
Ain't gonna happen thanks to the usual anti BBC Brigade many of whom spout their drivel on these vey boards. It would be seen as competing with the Pay TV Sport Channels
tiger2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:16
Ray_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328
I think games giant Nintendo ruined the huge potential of non-glasses 3D with the lack of feature films for their 3DS games console. Had the Hollywood studios and NIntendo flooded the market with non-glasses 3DS films (sold at a fair price) in 2011 then it could have opened the floodgates for more non-glasses 3D tvs and non-glasses 3D broadcasts. As it stands, there are no 3D films for the 3DS, there are very few non-glasses 3D tvs on the market and they cost a fortune to buy even if you want one, so it seems we're stuck with glasses 3D for the home and most people can't be bothered with the hassle. The result is the BBC is ditching its 3D service.

This webpage claims 3D tv is already dead!:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4...-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.
Ray_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:21
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,281
3D glasses are not a hassle, they don't cause headaches and there's no sweet spot. All they do is filter light.
Terrible movies are what usually kills off 3D.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:37
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 16,056
no matter what the facts about the sweet spot for 3d or not, the majority of people don't want to wear special glasses to watch tv. Its as simple as that.

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).
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:44
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 57,951
Ain't gonna happen thanks to the usual anti BBC Brigade many of whom spout their drivel on these vey boards. It would be seen as competing with the Pay TV Sport Channels
And for large chunks of time, there would be little sport to show anyway (either down to lack of fixtures/tournaments at many points during the year, or lack of rights). For example, what sport would the BBC have Mon-Fri most weeks? What would they show at 11am on a Tuesday, or 2pm on a Wednesday most weeks?
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 12:54
alcockell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 20,296
3D glasses are not a hassle, they don't cause headaches and there's no sweet spot. All they do is filter light.
Terrible movies are what usually kills off 3D.
Hmm - like back in the 50s then. You could hardly call crap like Bwana Devil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MMBdQ6pSV4 - Oscar potential.

Was the release of unmitigated shit that sank it last time around..
alcockell is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 13:08
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,281
Hmm - like back in the 50s then. You could hardly call crap like Bwana Devil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MMBdQ6pSV4 - Oscar potential.

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.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 18:56
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,256
Ain't gonna happen thanks to the usual anti BBC Brigade many of whom spout their drivel on these vey boards. It would be seen as competing with the Pay TV Sport Channels
How did the Anti-BBC brigade stop it? I certainly did not stop it.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 19:04
tiger2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stoke-On-Trent
Posts: 5,311
How did the Anti-BBC brigade stop it? I certainly did not stop it.
By creating a climate where the BBC cannot start any new channels because it is already 'too bloated', even if if those channels are desperately needed. I suppose that the BBC have circumvented many of the restrictions with the Red Button (+HD) service now on the EPG.
tiger2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 19:48
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 7,393
3D on a TV is fine for watching a film sort of thing but I'd not sit there all day wearing specs to be honest and there's not that many 3D films about, certainly that interest me.

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.
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 22:44
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,256
By creating a climate where the BBC cannot start any new channels because it is already 'too bloated', even if if those channels are desperately needed. I suppose that the BBC have circumvented many of the restrictions with the Red Button (+HD) service now on the EPG.
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.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 22:46
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,256
Filming in 3D is a pain in the neck, a mate of mine hired a 3D camcorder and you need to be careful where you point it to get the right shots other wise it looks awful.

We was not really able to do what we wanted to do, so it was money wasted, so back to normal HD.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 10:41
AidanLunn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,373
don't want 3d or smart features built in either. Smart features are a poor relation to a pc (connected to the tv).

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.
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.
AidanLunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 10:54
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,086
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.
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 12:22
AidanLunn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,373
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
AidanLunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 13:10
ixHellstormx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The Athens of the North
Posts: 1,892
I wonder how many people that complain about 3D being rubbish/crap, just a fad and so on have actually sat and watched 3D content. When done correctly, it can and does add to your viewing pleasure. Hop across to the Sky 3D forum and take a look at the positive posts from most viewers. Animated films and wildlife documentaries can be fantastic in 3D and quite a few video games can be played in 3D (I do it quite a lot) and it adds to the experience and enjoyment IMO.
ixHellstormx is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:16.