Content is key
So when do we get 3D enabled playercams?
Imagine the effect on Formula 1!
As Manchester United scored its first goal against Arsenal yesterday at the Emirates Stadium, a lucky few secretly soaked up another football triumph: the world’s first football match broadcast in 3D. The game was the first live sporting event broadcast over Sky’s soon-to-launch 3D TV channel, and I was invited down to one of …
Unless you're going to watch the match solidly for the duration, you're gonna want to take those specks off. Which means that glancing up a the screen when things hot up will provide nothing but a blurry squint fest.
Good tech, bad use of. Keep it in the home and at cinemas I say.
I'm not sure of the advantage of 3D to the actual game of football, as the most important shots are wide shots of the whole arena. I'd be more interested in seeing this technology in action for snooker and motorsport. Seems unlikely though - even with the millions of Formula 1 fans over the world, they still haven't moved to high definition.
The TV was LG's 47" 3D TV, sure the 3D impression may not be great with players confined to a 2D surface, but until football is played in anti-grav conditions I'm afraid thats what we're stuck with
I've read plenty of reports that say the effect was pleasing, and there seemed to be a sense of depth, but the actual gameplay of football isn't as suited to 3D as Rugby, Golf and even Snooker
Obviously negative articles score more hits though... so whatever floats your boat, Reg
Yeah, the Irish location was Fagan's pub in Drumcondra, which just happens to be former taoiseach, bertie ahern’s local, that’s the same bertie ahern whose (slow selling) autobiography is also published by murdock’s publishing empire, the same ahern who is a sports columnist at the Nudes of the world , and the same murdock empire who also publish’s aherns daughter celia
Amazing coincidence isn’t it.
Yes football is probably not the best choice
cleverly done Darts could be terrifying :)
as mentioned Formula 1 would be amazing
specially created programmes would obviously benefit.
However 3d does have a limited audience, because using said specs for many creates headaches and nausea, no matter how good the technology is, some people just can't manage it.
I for one can easily handle polarised or red/green specs, but the shutter ones are awful after a few minutes.
Eurogamer expo saw to that. :)
and finally , do people really want 3d tv?
I await the Tenpin Masters and Weber Cup in 3d if only to get closeups of the more attractive females! :)
Sport/ was a damned good reason to upgrade to HD, however for things like soaps and dramas HD makes little difference.
3D however is where I think the roles will be reversed.
As much as I don't want to see Peggy Mitchell's mug in HD, things like soaps and drama would work really well in 3D, espcially if they're scripted with 3D in mind. I can well imagine watching things like 24 or Heroes in 3D. Sport however, not so much.
Nature programs seem to suit both technologies rather well! Nature the best thing for technology? Whatever next!
Totally agree. Also, 3D does not work at all for people like me with a squint.
Nice to see all those 'normal' people looking as daft as I have had to every day for my life for the last 35 years wearing goofy glasses. Bet they don't get the piss taken out of them as they sit in the pub having a quiet drink!
From what I read here, the 3D effect really stands out in rather close-up shots. Anything with a wide angle or with great depth-of-field appears to be too much to make a difference.
So, translated to the famous notion of "content", it would mean that Desperate Housewives, with all the close-in action, would gain immensely from this technology, whereas Lord of the Rings would falter in the wide-area scenes, which are the most beautiful.
Although I'd be as happy as any other bloke to witness fine Bulgarian Airbags (tm) in full 3D, it would be a somewhat small subset of all the stuff I watch on TV. Still, it remains as good a proof as any that the only thing 3D is really going to be good for is porn.
Which probably explains why Nvidia is pushing 3D-enabled video cards with all its might. It knows that, if it is to stay relevant in the PC world, it has to master this emerging technology as best it can.
I've been watching 3D a.k.a stereo vision (its not really 3D - wait for the laser projectors) emerge for a while now and it seems that only certain shots - close-ups and objects emerging from the screen - really show off the effect. Unless we're going to have Toe-Cam [TM] we're really not going to see much benefit.
Yes I just made this comment so I could say Toe-Cam. Coat on, door out of.
I fail to see any need nor benefit for HD on televised sport, let alone 3D. You're watching a group of people playing a game, not the experience of some cinema photographer and lighting experts, not some challenging camera work or direction. It's just a game, usually watched by people wholely or at least partly under the influence - what a waste...
It's a bit like having a full multi-speaker surround system and listening to sport radio - what's the point?
Dont forget the other sports that it WILL work well with.
Womens Beach Vollyball
Long distance shots are not ment to be 3D, you can make them 3D by seperating the cameras by a larger distance but the fact is the brain would not handle it well and make you sick.
Dont forget that 3D home video cameras will be comming out along with the TVs!
3D TV is the greatest thing to happen since flat screens first showed up!
Next stop, Holographics TV's
Televised TV is the most boring thing I've ever experienced. The commentators are invariable over-excited or just blether nonsense constantly (or both).
3D couldn't persuade me to watch it.
I did enjoy Avatar though, so it's not like 3D TV wouldn't interest me - they just picked the wrong show.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019