|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: ESPN launching first 3D television network
|
Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 01-05-2010 10:13 AM
ESPN 3D
ESPN launching first 3D television network
Espn 3d By Georg Szalai and James Hibberd
ESPN is launching the industry's first 3D television network.
The sports programmer is making a big bet on the format, announcing plans introduce a 3D TV network this summer.
The Walt Disney Co. unit said Tuesday that the new channel -- ESPN 3D -- will feature at least 85 live sporting events during its first year, beginning June 11 with the first 2010 FIFA World Cup match South Africa vs. Mexico.
Other 3D events will include up to 25 World Cup matches, the 2011 BCS National Championship Game, college basketball and football, and the Summer X Games.
"ESPN's commitment to 3D is a win for fans and our business partners," said ESPN and ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer. "ESPN 3D marries great content with new technology to enhance the fan's viewing experience and puts ESPN at the forefront of the next big advance for TV viewing."
ESPN has been testing ESPN 3D for more than two years. For example, it showed a USC-Ohio State college football game in select theaters and on USC's campus.
To watch the content, viewers must have a 3D-ready TV set, and might need a new set-top box. And yes, viewers also must wear 3D glasses.
Plus, the added cost of producing content in 3D will likely get passed onto the consumer, resulting in another cable pay tier similar to current high-definition packages.
That ESPN would be the first network to announce a 3D channel is no surprise. Sports was a key driver in viewers embracing HD, while ESPN constantly explores new technological advances to enhance its content. ESPN is also the most widely distributed cable network.
"This is a turning point for 3D," Consumer Electronics Association CEO Gary Shapiro told USA Today.
The recent box office success of "Avatar," which recently passed $1 billion worldwide and is set to become the #2 movie of all time behind director James Cameron's own "Titanic," has helped prove the 3D format can draw a stunning number of viewers.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-05-2010 10:55 PM
I'm just not sure how a 3D sports TV network is feasible, at least in the near term. There's a number of different, obvious drawbacks in trying to shoot and broadcast sports in 3D.
We all know this sports 3D thing (and any other 3D cable network) will have to be some form of 720p. There is no sufficient bandwidth to do it in 1080. Plus you have that 60Hz clock cycle thing the broadcasters can't abandon. Home viewers will need some new cable box that takes a 720p/60 signal, decodes the 3D sync data included and splits it into two 720p/30 streams for left eye and right eye views.
Now how the hell is this going to work with any existing TV sets? My somewhat new-ish 120Hz Sony Bravia XBR4 52" TV is pretty kick ass, but it and its HDMI 1.3 ports may be too antiquated to support any 3D sync functions, much less be able to work with any shutter glasses.
I paid $2999 plus sales tax for my TV set (and more coin for the extended warranty). I don't feel like blowing a bunch of money for a new 3D enabled TV already. That get's to an even bigger problem:
Where the living f*** are all the 3D TV subscribers!!?
"Oh! But IT'S 3D!!! It will look GREAT-O-RAMA!! Everyone will be falling over themselves to upgrade!"
Really?
Ever since I worked at a local broadcast TV station back in the early 1990s I've kind of paid attention to where the cameras are placed at events like parades, TV commercials and sports broadcasts since it reminds me of my own experiences doing that stuff. Look where the cameras are placed at the most popular American sporting events: FAR AWAY. You're not going to get a vivid 3D-like depthy-phiggidy-poppin-ass image when the camera is far away from the action.
Sports like football, baseball and basketball will have to be shot in very different ways in order for the 3D effect to be compelling. That nosebleed seat view of the football field or baseball field is really going to feel like the nosebleed view when the action of interest is flat and distant and the only 3D objects in view are the assholes trying to wave their arms in front of the camera. Blah!
I think soccer would suck oily ass in 3D. Wow, is it really 3D? It still looks 2D because of that giant soccer field.
In order for 3D football, baseball and basketball to work the cameras will need serious redesigns and still need to be much closer to the action than usual in order for the players to pop out from the background. If the broadcasters use the same distant camera placements the 3D effect is going to be fleeting at best.
Ironically, 3D sports TV would be better for those sports not quite so many people like. Bowling? Yeah, actually I can imagine bowling working very well in 3D. Poker tournaments? That table ain't very big. Bring out the 3D river cam! Trick shot pool table tourneys? Ping pong? Those will work in 3D.
Mixed martial arts would probably work well since that cage isn't very big. Maybe SpikeTV should be the network looking to jump into 3D sports. They can do that as well as 3D girls jumping on trampolines. I might be willing to upgrade my TV set for that!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-05-2010 11:59 PM
Not to argue with the overall agreement of the dificulty to make GOOD and "right" 3D out of many sports, but just letting you know that you can "scale" the 3D effect with distance by simply increasing the interaxial between the lenses/cameras.
Thus, telephoto shots can have nearly as much depth (separation between objects) as you want, and with post-processing or convergence control, you can decide what objects will be in front or behind the screen at any distance.
Although the effect of this, called hyperstereo, brings some (manageable) 3D distortions similar to the 2D distortions you get when you use a (extreme) telephoto or (extreme) angular, but in the z-axis instead of x/y.
The most direct effect of non-corrected overuse of hyperstereo is that things look "fine" (with a lot of "3D"), but they look like miniatures for some reason you can't pinpoint (until you read the science behind it).
The short version is: it's not hard at all to do "exagerated 3D" in sports to compensate for the distance and have it look OK and with plenty of "3D" on the telly.
But to do 3D-sports right, .... that's a whole new level of technical challenge.
Not even Avatar does 3D right. Haven't seen it personally in 3D, but comments on professional stereography forums point to all sort of errors, such as frequent specular reflection disparities (long, boring, technical explanation can be included if there is enough interest, but not recommended ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-06-2010 02:59 PM
That's right. And another bonus-reason why most 3D films nowadays are either animated films, where it's OK for the characters to look like miniatures (think Coraline or Toy Story) or why Cameron was smart with Avatar to insists on the "brain-notion" that the blue Aliens are 4 meters (13 feet?) tall, so when you see them "miniaturized" you are not sure of the scale you are suppossed to be seeing it as they look like people but are suppossed to be supertall.
And then, when you see the aliens next to real humans, your brain doesn't reject the notion the people look like miniatures in wide shots because, well, compared to the tall humanoid aliens, people ARE suppossed to look like miniatures. Same thing with the giant girl of Monsters vs Aliens ... you just weren't sure how tall she was or how tall the other monsters were ... it was "unreal" and thus accepted by the brain as normal even on wide hyperstereo shots that could make them look like miniatures.
But you have to be careful with the 3D stuff or you can end up with something looking like a doll of Michael Jackson instead of the real thing flying in Captain EO.
Imax has the advantage that the screen is (was) so huge to begin with, you can actually scale depth to appropiate dimensions on most types of shots. But on a smallish theatre screen, that's a whole different story, specially when you can only "shoot/post" the movie "once" for a wide range of screen sizes. Another reason why Cameron rightly insisted in using the largest screens available for Avatar.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic