3D

[paulkucinskas]

WHEN IS ATT GOING TO START BROADCASTING ANY 3D CHANNELS? CANT WAIT. SUXX WITHOUT 3D ((

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

You can make programming requests at the website below.

http://uversechannels.att.com/

[dwinth]

---

paulkucinskas wrote:

WHEN IS ATT GOING TO START BROADCASTING ANY 3D CHANNELS? CANT WAIT. SUXX WITHOUT 3D ((

---

In addition, AT&T U-Verse has dropped it's only 3D channel, ESPN 3D.

http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/espn-3d-picked-att-u-verse-bang-dropped-nary-whimper/2011-08-01

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[kryptonite]

They do have 3D on demand, right?

[gregzoll_1]

---

paulkucinskas wrote:

WHEN IS ATT GOING TO START BROADCASTING ANY 3D CHANNELS? CANT WAIT. SUXX WITHOUT 3D ((

---

Really.  For your answer, when broadcasters decide that it is a good move, and probably will only be limited such as it is now.  Personally, I think that 3D will have to come a long way, before you see it mainstream, and probably never in our lifetime.

[bigbevo77]

Agreed. It seems as though 3D is going the way it did the previous 3-4 times the entertainment industry has tried to cram it down the publics throat as the "next great thing." Meaning an initial success and an intense desire to have it, and then a gentle fade into obscurity. Its wont work until you don't need glasses and you don't get a massive headache from watching it for 3 minutes. Like you said. Probably not in our lifetime.

[quisp65]

Uverse needs 3d for image if for no other reason. That's what Directv is thinking when they offer 3d and allow it for everyone to see. Directv is saying we're on top when it comes to content being offered.
Sometimes it's not about how much is sold.  Hardees a while back started introducing a healthy selection of sandwiches because they know the one person that needs to eat health food often influences where all the other people go for lunch. Having the sandwich helped increase Hardee's sales even though they expected it wouldn't sell much. Uverse needs to think about this more.  But then, come to think about it, they do have 3d on demand.  

[toledodan]

i like 3d as well. it sucks they dropped espn 3d but there is shows on demand for purchase and free.

[jbdet313]

I think most Uverse customers, if asked this:

"Which next service improvement would you like us to embark upon: (A) Improving your HD experience through better picture quality, number of HD channels available, or number of HD channels you can record/view; or, (B) Add comparable numbers of 3D TV services as our competitors?"

The resounding majority would be selecting (A).

And let's face it. AT&T had the ESPN behemoth doing its 3D. If people weren't somehow swayed by ESPN ...

[quisp65]

They have on demand 3d for free?

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Sports is one of the higher-demand types of programming. If ESPN can't get people to watch in 3D at a profitable level, it would seem unlikely that other 3D channels could possibly be profitable.

3D is currently simply a gimmick that doesn't offer any compelling value in increasing the viewing experience. On any standard TV provider like U-Verse or DirecTV, a 3D broadcast robs the picture of 1/2 the spatial resolution, requires uncomfortable glasses, and diminishes the color rendition and contrast because of the glasses' polarized lenses. This is a step backward in picture quality, not forward.

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

I agree SJ.  I have been trying to wrap my mind around the prospect of buying a tv that would diminish or having lesser pic quality.  I love the way HD looks and I am not willing to give up that quality for 3D.  At least not right now.

[Galiathsgirl]

Do you guys still really believe that by aquiring 3D capabilities you will have to forfit HD???  It is time to start researching rather than running with what you hear!  And to those that CRY about the headaches from 3D, remember that it is a problem with you and your eyes, because the other hundreds of thousands of people that are out there enjoying it dont happen to be on here crying.  And for the rest of the people out there that dont have it, there are 2 different types: Those who dont care and those who cant afford it!  So put your energy towards making and saving money for a new 3Dtv instead of sitting at the computer moaning about something that doesnt even concern you!  No one wants to hear it anyways!!!

On a positive note, I am enjoying my 50" 3Dtv in full 1080 and it is awesome!  I highly suggest passive so you dont pay an arm and a leg for shutter glasses that weigh too much and are uncomfortable.  My father was just as skeptical about 3D and picture quality and now they are loving it every night!  If you have noticed, for the last few years 3D has been becoming bigger and bigger and now nearly every top name movie is coming out in 3D at the theaters.  I dont think they would do that if it wasnt desired or better yet "profitable".  And to those that havent tried it at home yet, the 3D at home is far superior to that at the theater!!  I would happily pay for some channels in 3D!

[heather9274]

What channels are you hoping to see in 3D? You do realize right now there are no stations that are not 3D that even broadcast in 1080P let alone filming anything in 3D. If all you care about are movies then there are plenty of movies to buy or rent in 3D but it will be a long time before any broadcast network does more than a few events in 3D.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

Galiathsgirl wrote:

Do you guys still really believe that by aquiring 3D capabilities you will have to forfit HD???  It is time to start researching rather than running with what you hear!  And to those that CRY about the headaches from 3D, remember that it is a problem with you and your eyes, because the other hundreds of thousands of people that are out there enjoying it dont happen to be on here crying.  And for the rest of the people out there that dont have it, there are 2 different types: Those who dont care and those who cant afford it!  So put your energy towards making and saving money for a new 3Dtv instead of sitting at the computer moaning about something that doesnt even concern you!  No one wants to hear it anyways!!!

On a positive note, I am enjoying my 50" 3Dtv in full 1080 and it is awesome!  I highly suggest passive so you dont pay an arm and a leg for shutter glasses that weigh too much and are uncomfortable.  My father was just as skeptical about 3D and picture quality and now they are loving it every night!  If you have noticed, for the last few years 3D has been becoming bigger and bigger and now nearly every top name movie is coming out in 3D at the theaters.  I dont think they would do that if it wasnt desired or better yet "profitable".  And to those that havent tried it at home yet, the 3D at home is far superior to that at the theater!!  I would happily pay for some channels in 3D!

---

Hi one-post wonder.  Welcome to a forum where people are actually informed.  I'll be happy to teach you a few things.

1. Yes, 3D from a TV provider (like U-Verse or DirecTV) robs the picture of 1/2 of the spatial resolution.  That is a fact.  ESPN3D is broadcast at 1280x360 per eye, which is HALF the spatial resolution of the normal ESPN HD broadcast of 1280x720.

2. A total of about 1.1 million 3D TV sets have been sold, but the number of 3D Blu-Ray players and 3D provider subscriptions is a mere fraction of that.  That puts 3D viewing in the home in the few hundred thousand sets range.  Considering there are hundreds of millions of TV sets in the country, that puts the penetration rate down around 0.1%.  That's not even scratching the surface of the required sales to make the technology economically viable.

3. Your elitist attitude of "you either don't care or can't afford it" is presumptuous and offensive.  I and many others could easily afford how ever many 3D sets we think we would need, use, or want.  The number of them that I need, could use, or want is exactly zero.  Not because I don't care, but because my 2D LCoS TV produces an infinitely better picture.

4. Your 50" 3DTV can produce full 1080 3D only from Blu-Ray.  If you think you're getting full 1080 from any other source, you're sadly mistaken.  In addition, there are a grand total of less than 150 titles available in 3D on Blu-Ray.

5. I have personally viewed several different 3D TVs, with both the polarization technology (passive glasses) as well as alternate-shutter technology (active glasses).  I was impressed with neither.  In both cases, the loss of brightness and contrast is significant, and the color space is skewed as compared to 2D viewing.  The glasses make it impossible to properly calibrate the TV to ISF standards since the calibrated picture never reaches your eyes, but instead is altered by the glasses.  In addition, the 3D effect is minimal, adding significant depth to the objects in the frame only rarely, and when it does, it looks artificial and forced -- so far away from a natural scene as to be distracting.  And this is of course, expected.  Human eyes use two pieces of information to determine object distance: The parallax error from each eye, and the focal distance from lens accomodation.  It turns out that the latter is actually more significant to the brain, but all current 3D technologies only feed depth information to you via the former.  This is why it "doesn't look right".

6. The 3D wave of movies in the theater has slowed down significantly.  Hollywood has not seen significant draws to theaters solely because of 3D showings, and in fact on some films have lost sales because various people won't go see the film in 3D.

7. AT&T U-Verse carried ESPN3D for over a year, priced at $10.00 per month.  Sales were so low that AT&T pulled the channel.  If people won't pay to watch sports in 3D, what evidence is there that they will watch anything else in 3D?

Now that you have the facts, maybe you can think about those things whilst you also check your attitude at the door.

[AmishGuy91]

Well said Joe. I love sports, love 3D movies, and had ESPN3D, but the technology just isn't there yet. I found watching it to be very uncomfortable and the picture was not better than its HD counterpart.

[oufanindallas]

Bravo SJ.  I agree 100% with your post and I personally can't wait for this 3D fad to go away.....again.  Very few movies are shot in 3D which is the only way to truly get the full experience.  Most are shot in 2D and converted.  Not worth it.  My wife gets head aches watching 3D so we don't go to the movies to see 3D and I haven't been impressed with them and IMO they aren't worth the extra money.  I have also posted enough links proving that 3D is a passing fad.

[CostaMesaCAGuy]

I'm hoping 3D will not be a part of our life in the near future.  I don't want to have to purchase a 3D HDTV and a 3D Blu-ray DVD player if most of the channels start broadcasing in 3D.  I already put a lot of money down on an HDTV and a Blu-ray DVD player three years ago, I don't want to upgrade again soon if ever.

[husky523]

I probably am not as informed as some and more informed than some here when it comes to parts, but it is my understanding that the 2D viewing on a TV that is equipped with 3D is frequently better than a 2D only TV cause it has better processing, frequently has a faster refresh rate, contrast and the like.  We bought a 55" Samsung 7050 from costco, and I can tell you that next to all the other TV's there, the 2D picture was just better, clearer, and sharper.  I have yet to experiment much with 3D, other than turning on the 2D to 3D function for a minute or two, which I thought was cool cause it added a small amount of depth.  Honestly the glasses it came with are very comfortable and light, definitely more so than the ones they give you in the theaters.  As far as passive vs active, I would think active is better since the passive looses resolution from the TV regardless of the resolution of input.  I will definitely be checking out the 3D on demand soon, and will invest in a 3D blu-ray player when I find a good deal on one.  But I would love to see 3D programming improve.  With the rate resolution and quality has improved over the past 12 years from analog CRT to digital CRT and the levels of HD, and the broadcast world being about 1 step behind the whole time, I would love a good in home 3D experience as the broadcast market advances!

Oh and I chose A as well, can't wait for 6 feeds into the house rather than our current 4, and more HD feeds, we frequently run into conflicts with several family members watching shows and recording shows.

TJ