3D Golf Kicks Off With Sony
By Kickntrue on 1/14/11
Nine content distributors will be providing their tv viewers with access to The Sony Open in 3D this weekend.
DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Shaw Communications, Rogers Communications, Blue Ridge Communications and Armstrong Cable Services are scheduled to carry Golf's 3D coverage on Jan. 15 and 16, as is parent Comcast.Those are some pretty huge names which I'm guessing cover well over 50% of the tv viewing audience nationwide. The issue of course- is the 3DTV. While I don't know exact numbers (I'm not sure anyone really does), I do know that 3DTV's haven't exactly been flying off the shelves as expected. Not only do you pay more for the extra dimension- but also needed are very expensive and clunky glasses. Even if you have a 3DTV personally- it's hard to show it off to your friends- unless you're willing to swap glasses- or you've gone out of your way to purchase a few more pairs at over $100/per.
On top of any of the actual hardware issues- there's the big question people have seemed to answer with their wallets- do people even want 3D in the first place? Avatar was great and all (I'm blaming that for all of this 3D hoopla...), but do you really want to watch Barney and the CBS Nightly news like they're sitting in your lap? What do you guys think?
I think my opinions are coming through pretty clear- but hey- I want to have an open mind. Some people who've seen sports in 3D say it's awesome. It's "new" in that your brain needs to learn to reprocess some things a bit- but that it really could catch on. I'm open to it- but let's not forget that 3D was "available" in the 70's and people thought it would be the next big thing then- and ... well, it wasn't. You could argue the technology wasn't as good- and I'm sure that's true to some degree- but I just can't help but think the bottom line is- the experience just isn't improved enough to overcome the obstacles.
Are there any oobers with a 3DTV that will be enjoying the Sony Open in a new dimension this weekend?
[ comments ]
why would you need to watch golf in 3d? i dont get it.
Kurt the Knife says:
one of the benefits is th ability to resolve the varying elevations and changes in terrain (especially greens) that two dimensional displays can't do as well.
I don't see 3D TV being a viable option until they can do a couple things.
1. Needs to be glasses-free. I spent many years wearing glasses just to be able to see, and I have no interest in putting glasses on just so I can watch TV.
2. If it's not going to be glasses-free, from what I've read, the 3D TV's that are out there only give a good 2D picture if you are right in front (centered) on the screen... like the old big screen/rear projection TV's were. If they can't get it "glasses free" and they can't improve the picture/viewing without glasses, it will go the way of BETA, Laser Disc and Sony's MiniDisc- Great idea, poor implementation.
Yeah, 3D doesn't work for my bad eyes either, so it's not something I'm interested in. Though, if this is the path to true virtual reality (holodeck, anyone?) then I'm all for it.
@mjaber- we can put a man on the moon- so i'm not going to poo poo on what they "can" or "cannot" do, but my understanding is that you can do 3d without glasses with a one to one relationship- where the device knows the position of the viewer, but 3d without glasses for multiple users is ... "impossible (how about I add, 'right now')" That is why a handheld gaming unit like the Nintendo 3DS can exist- because it's one user- where it knows the users eyes- but not a 3DTV.
/this is my understanding- not facts.
I think a 3D TV particularly for golf would be great. Just think about swing analysis, being able to pause your favourite players in 3D and view the swing lines would be great. Also, looking down a fairway and seeing the depth of trees, rough and elevation changes would be a plus.
@Kickntrue... It's true we can put a man on the moon, but we can't do something simple like find a substance for our roads that won't crack and break in the winter. Maybe 3DTV will fall somewhere in between?
For the record, BETA went away not because it was inferior (it was actually a better format than VHS), but because Sony was stupid.
Same thing with the MiniDisc. I had one and loved it. Sony failed to market it well. It was a digital, re-recordable media before you could even WRITE to a CD.
Kickntrue & mjaber, maybe it was really a studio in Pennsylvania!
I still argue against it being called 3DTV, trade descriptions violation I think. It's still projected on a 2D surface so it isn't actually 3D. I see in 3D everyday without big clunky glasses...oh and that's free.
I'm currently sat here watching the Jo'burg open and that's not even in HD.
@Paolo- Great point! I say that same thing to people all the time- about living and seeing in 3D. You want 3d?! Open your eyes!
We had men on the moon before we realized it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage.
Interested in seeing if the whole 3D TV thing is just a fad.
Until 3D hits the level of sci fi movies and we don't have to wear glasses, i think it's not going to catch on except in movies. What's great about 3d in the movies is that while you have to wear glasses, it's a simple polarization. Those glasses are like 25 cents each. The way they have to do it for the TVs is much more expensive and much more delicate technology and it just isn't worth it. I couldn't imagine the processors handling video gaming or anything like that. Much like when plasma first came out, it'll be great for a while but something better will come along eventually and kill it -- hence why most people have an HD LCD instead of HD plasma.
@birdie... a couple 3DTV makers are already exploring the "passive-glasses" option. I think LG had a couple TVs at the CES that used the same glasses you would get in the theaters.
like a lot of things, i'm sure it all comes down to $$$. they can probably do a pretty reasonable 3dtv without glasses, but hardly anyone wants to fork over the dough they're asking for a tv that you do need the glasses for, much less what the tech would cost for a glasses-less viewing experience.
[ post comment ]