BBC Gives Up On 3-D Television Programming

RockDoctor writes "After spending several years on supporting the uptake of 3-D TV, the BBC has accepted that people don't want it, and are turning off their 3-D channels following an uptake of under 5% of households with 3-D equipment. I can just feel the joy at not having wasted my money on this technology."

Comments

Buddha says...

[Zemran]

...stop wanting stupid shit

ESPN 3D is ending as well

[Joe_Dragon]

3D needs to drop the glasses to work.

Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well

[i.r.id10t]

And a common standard... otherwise it is VHS vs. Beta again.

So what's the problem here?

[fustakrakich]

3D or implementation? I want to see Wimbledon in a hologram, played on my coffee table.

Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision.

[fyngyrz]

When actual 3D displays become commercially available at consumer prices, you'll see 3D programming and support all across the spectrum, no pun intended. Stereovision is a cheap, headache-inducing hack, and one thing it isn't is "3-D."

Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision.

[Crudely_Indecent]

On top of that, it's damaging to developing minds. Sega dropped development of a 3d product years ago because of a study they commissioned - the results depicted that children exposed to the 3d display suffered permanent problems with depth perception. Most adults recovered quickly from the 3d interface, but children were permanently affected.

It was discussed on /. here: 3D Displays May Be Hazardous To Young Children

For that reason alone, I won't allow my children to attend a 3d movie, and I won't have 3d equipment in my house.

Yea! Another thread for the luddites

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

As expected, here's the general themes of the posts so far:

1) I hate 3D. Therefore this thrills me.
2) 3D has always failed. No surprise here.

Well, here's reality. 3D movies are here to stay. But despite the usual hysterical ramblings that insist that "everything" is in 3D, reality begs to differ. Major Hollywood big budget action flicks (ie. superhero moves, "stuff blows up" movies) will be in 3D. Comedies and dramas likely will not be. All animated films from any major studio will be in 3D from now on. Roughly 20% of the films released will be in 3D. The market has shown a willingness to support 3D under these conditions. However, 3D TV penetration is low. TV providers aren't carrying 3D feeds. I actually do have a 3D TV, which I love, but my TV provider chose to not carry any 3D channels. So although I have the equipment necessary to watch TV shows in 3D, I cannot do so. So it's no surprised that 3D TV channels are dying. But in terms of movies, sorry folks, but it's staying.

Re:Fads

[jellomizer]

The thing about 3d is that you need to get it right (enough) before it really gets popular.

The Old 3D movies failed because of the Blue/Red filters really messed with the colors in the movie, once Color movies became more popular the 3d effect was less popular.

The New 3D movies (are better) and seem to be still somewhat popular in the theaters. The Polarized Glasses give you a better view and still get the 3d effect. However, there are still the headache problems, and the movie makers still exaggerating the effect, they are thinking 2d and adding a 3d effect to it.

The 3D TV isn't there yet. People don't watch TV like they do for movies. It is much more distracted, we watch TV, play with the Dog or the Kids, perhaps browse the internet on our phone or laptop, we get up cook dinner.... Having glasses that makes you just sit there just isn't the TV Experience.