Home

By Chris Blair

I must admit, I’m not much of a fan of 3D in movies and television. About the only time I’ve ever enjoyed it is at amusement park rides and shows, such as Mickey’s Philharmagic at Disney’s Magic Kingdom or Muppet Vision 3D at Disney’s Hollywood Studios. I’ve also read that shows like Terminator 2: 3D at Universal Studios are great fun. But even then, most of the enjoyment comes from the completely over the top 3D effects. 

At the movie theater the much ballyhooed Real3D seems to be more hype than substance, typically dimming the image to the point that it looks muted and muddy. Even worse, the process often distracts from the story rather than enhancing it. That’s not just my opinion either. Film critics like Roger Ebert and renowned filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola have been outspoken critics of 3D. And consider that Coppola made a 3D movie for Disney theme parks starring Michael Jackson back in 1986. The film, called Captain EO, was recently put back into several of Disney’s parks following Jackson’s death last year!

So now here we are almost 2 months into the launch of the first 3D TV Network, ESPN3D. Coupled with the craze surrounding 3D movies, I figured it would be a good time to see how 3D television is doing. But after spending nearly an hour searching online, there’s surprisingly very little in the way of news or reviews about any of the networks or programming.

Discovery Channel’s 3D network doesn’t have a name and hasn’t even announced an official launch date, only saying it will be sometime in “early 2011.” ESPN3D debuted in early June with 3D broadcasts of the World Cup. I can’t help but notice the lack of fanfare about it both then and now. How many people watched a World Cup match in 3D? According to industry reports, not many. Official estimates were under a million. And remember, soccer is hands down the most popular spectator sport in the world and the World Cup the most popular sporting event. ESPN even brought technology journalists to their Bristol, Conn. headquarters to watch one of the matches in 3D, and even those reviews are lukewarm at best. Note that ESPN likely had the room setup for the absolute best possible viewing experience too!

Another popular sporting event that was broadcast in 3D even before the launch of ESPN3D was The Masters. Comcast produced it and while golf doesn’t seem like a prime candidate for 3D, reviews for it were actually better than those of the World Cup. The most common positive comment was that the 3D images showed the topography of the course, which is undulating and hilly, something that’s completely lost in 2D. Many reviewers also said it made distances of shots seem more accurate, meaning if Phil Michelsen was standing 150 yards from the green, when the camera was behind him, the 3D image made that more realistic looking than in 2D, which tends to compress distances.

But the negative comments were plentiful too, with reports of weird double-vision like effects when objects close to the camera (but in soft focus) came into view. Or the same double-vision issues with background elements, like people in the galleries. Perhaps these are technical issues that can be ironed out, but it’s surprising that a notoriously slow-moving sport like golf received better reviews than a fast-moving sport like soccer.

Before it starts to sound like I’m a fan of sports programming in 3D, I’ll go on record as saying a 3D sports channel is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. Just go back to the dismal reviews of the 3D imagery in virtually every 3D motion picture released since Avatar. It’s preposterous to think consumers are going to buy new, 3D televisions and those expensive, silly-looking glasses for live sporting events when the process brings nothing but novelty to the experience. And what about advertisers? Will they continue to pay a premium to advertise in 3D events when they see the dismal audience numbers?

I do believe 3D has a place in some types of programming and films, especially animation, children’s movies and computer generated films that allow for virtually limitless possibilities in terms of visual effects. But sports in 3D? Traditional television dramas? I just don’t see how the cost of entry (a new TV, expensive glasses) is worth the novelty effect it provides.

Roger Ebert even argues (quite effectively I might add) that 3D imagery is less realistic to viewers than traditional 2D motion pictures, saying: “Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.” Plus, virtually all 3D that I’ve seen definitely does NOT mimic how human vision works. Hence, I’m often distracted by the different planes of imagery

Here are some other links to interesting articles about 3D, including a review from the Time/CNN blog about the World Cup matches, a list of 3D movies in theaters and theme parks that dates back to the early 1990’s, and a PC Magazine review of the World Cup matches and an earlier 3D sports TV test of an NFL football game.

Filed under: Thoughts & Musings on July 31st, 2010