Jason Goodman
Well-known member
There has been a lot of talk about ESPN's termination of 3D broadcasting and the “end” of 3DTV. While it is less than positive news for adoption of 3D in the home, the reports of 3D's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Although ESPN is a very high profile broadcaster, its footprint on 3D overall has been relatively insignificant from a market penetration and revenue generation standpoint. For many, it was no surprise to see ESPN 3D go. There has been virtually no advertising letting the public know that ESPN 3D was available. As a result, viewership and advertising revenue have been nonexistent. The hype surrounding its disappearance may be the first many have heard about ESPN 3D at all. ESPN 3D currently has less than two thousand Twitter followers compared to over six and a half million for their main (2D) Twitter feed. I personally cannot recall seeing even one billboard in Los Angeles or New York compelling people to watch ESPN 3D.
Do sports fans want 3D? Sports was such a huge driver for HD, conventional thinking expected the same of 3D. This was a flawed assumption. In the 1990's HD brought with it another key technology, the flat panel screen. Prior to the advent of Plasma and LCD, the largest television you could buy was a 40 inch glass tube CRT weighing over 100lbs. This is tiny compared to today's 50-55 inch standard with new sets easily exceeding 80 inches. Lightweight flat panel HDTVs have redefined the modern sports bar. The 16x9 format along with these factors, significantly improved sports entertainment viewing. When you consider how little stereoscopic information a spectator in the stands of a live game actually sees, the idea of sports in 3D almost doesn't make sense. Even in great seats, stereoscopic perception drops off significantly with distance. People in front of you, the guy selling beer and the players on the bench have more visual depth cues than the action in the game. Given the distance of a normal camera position and the need for massive telephoto lenses, 3D sports is a virtual non-starter. The novelty of 3D might be interesting to some, but it doesn't fundamentally change the experience and it doesn't go to the core of what fans want from that type of entertainment. Most sports fans are interested in the excitement unfolding in real time, not the added pizazz of stereoscopic presentation. Despite what hype-sters say, sports was NEVER the killer app for 3D. It is, was and always has been the spectacle of cinema that benefits most from the added visual drama of a properly executed stereoscopic presentation.
The bigger problem with 3DTV adoption is that broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers have all fumbled the ball so badly it is hard to believe. The US general public's awareness of and access to 3D broadcasts has been minimal. As a 3D industry insider, even I was met with significant obstacles when I tried to view a 3net broadcast. My cable operator, Time Warner, didn't offer the channel. I needed DirecTV and only DirecTV in order to watch. At a time when many are canceling cable service and streaming TV over the internet, 3D broadcasters should make their channels available to internet connected smart TVs via downloadable apps. An ESPN 3D app on my LG 3DTV could give me instant access and could be ad or subscription based. Manufacturers bungled 3DTV with a classic Beta VHS format war. Some pushed expensive, cumbersome electronic glasses that were incompatible across brands. Others opted for low cost, lightweight passive glasses that viewers could keep from cinema outings for essentially free viewing at home. Consumers were confused. Retailers were equally to blame, demoing passive sets with active glasses, active sets with broken glasses, and in-store 3D promotions that included large amounts of 2D content.
Even I couldn't believe my eyes at CES 2010. Avatar was still in cinemas, breaking box office records and shattering expectations of what the movie going experience could offer. In addition to being one of Hollywood's greatest directors, James Cameron is one hell of a salesman, speaking in superlatives and predicting if not mandating the future of entertainment technology. When he said '3D is going to revolutionize entertainment,' manufacturers listened. Capitalizing on the Avatar-induced 3D hype was a no brainer for Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and others, but content is critical and access to that content is just as imperative. Cameron has shown he can spur the industry like no other, but even he can't make sports fans want something they don't need and costs Disney a boatload of cash to provide.
The 3D entertainment format is alive and well. Three of this week's top ten grossing films are 3D, eight if we look to the top twenty. Five of the top ten grossing films of all time are 3D. Since the release of Avatar, 3D films have accounted for 33% of all domestic box office according to the International 3D Society. When you consider the overall impact of 3D and its ability to generate revenue, the outlook is still very positive, particularly in rapidly expanding international markets. Fifteen percent of all domestic Blu-ray sales are 3D. Netflix offers streaming 3D in limited areas. The fact that all new premium televisions can support 3D technology is good. The fact that ESPN cannot is largely irrelevant.
Although ESPN is a very high profile broadcaster, its footprint on 3D overall has been relatively insignificant from a market penetration and revenue generation standpoint. For many, it was no surprise to see ESPN 3D go. There has been virtually no advertising letting the public know that ESPN 3D was available. As a result, viewership and advertising revenue have been nonexistent. The hype surrounding its disappearance may be the first many have heard about ESPN 3D at all. ESPN 3D currently has less than two thousand Twitter followers compared to over six and a half million for their main (2D) Twitter feed. I personally cannot recall seeing even one billboard in Los Angeles or New York compelling people to watch ESPN 3D.
Do sports fans want 3D? Sports was such a huge driver for HD, conventional thinking expected the same of 3D. This was a flawed assumption. In the 1990's HD brought with it another key technology, the flat panel screen. Prior to the advent of Plasma and LCD, the largest television you could buy was a 40 inch glass tube CRT weighing over 100lbs. This is tiny compared to today's 50-55 inch standard with new sets easily exceeding 80 inches. Lightweight flat panel HDTVs have redefined the modern sports bar. The 16x9 format along with these factors, significantly improved sports entertainment viewing. When you consider how little stereoscopic information a spectator in the stands of a live game actually sees, the idea of sports in 3D almost doesn't make sense. Even in great seats, stereoscopic perception drops off significantly with distance. People in front of you, the guy selling beer and the players on the bench have more visual depth cues than the action in the game. Given the distance of a normal camera position and the need for massive telephoto lenses, 3D sports is a virtual non-starter. The novelty of 3D might be interesting to some, but it doesn't fundamentally change the experience and it doesn't go to the core of what fans want from that type of entertainment. Most sports fans are interested in the excitement unfolding in real time, not the added pizazz of stereoscopic presentation. Despite what hype-sters say, sports was NEVER the killer app for 3D. It is, was and always has been the spectacle of cinema that benefits most from the added visual drama of a properly executed stereoscopic presentation.
The bigger problem with 3DTV adoption is that broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers have all fumbled the ball so badly it is hard to believe. The US general public's awareness of and access to 3D broadcasts has been minimal. As a 3D industry insider, even I was met with significant obstacles when I tried to view a 3net broadcast. My cable operator, Time Warner, didn't offer the channel. I needed DirecTV and only DirecTV in order to watch. At a time when many are canceling cable service and streaming TV over the internet, 3D broadcasters should make their channels available to internet connected smart TVs via downloadable apps. An ESPN 3D app on my LG 3DTV could give me instant access and could be ad or subscription based. Manufacturers bungled 3DTV with a classic Beta VHS format war. Some pushed expensive, cumbersome electronic glasses that were incompatible across brands. Others opted for low cost, lightweight passive glasses that viewers could keep from cinema outings for essentially free viewing at home. Consumers were confused. Retailers were equally to blame, demoing passive sets with active glasses, active sets with broken glasses, and in-store 3D promotions that included large amounts of 2D content.
Even I couldn't believe my eyes at CES 2010. Avatar was still in cinemas, breaking box office records and shattering expectations of what the movie going experience could offer. In addition to being one of Hollywood's greatest directors, James Cameron is one hell of a salesman, speaking in superlatives and predicting if not mandating the future of entertainment technology. When he said '3D is going to revolutionize entertainment,' manufacturers listened. Capitalizing on the Avatar-induced 3D hype was a no brainer for Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and others, but content is critical and access to that content is just as imperative. Cameron has shown he can spur the industry like no other, but even he can't make sports fans want something they don't need and costs Disney a boatload of cash to provide.
The 3D entertainment format is alive and well. Three of this week's top ten grossing films are 3D, eight if we look to the top twenty. Five of the top ten grossing films of all time are 3D. Since the release of Avatar, 3D films have accounted for 33% of all domestic box office according to the International 3D Society. When you consider the overall impact of 3D and its ability to generate revenue, the outlook is still very positive, particularly in rapidly expanding international markets. Fifteen percent of all domestic Blu-ray sales are 3D. Netflix offers streaming 3D in limited areas. The fact that all new premium televisions can support 3D technology is good. The fact that ESPN cannot is largely irrelevant.
