espn 3d network Options

[brooklyneast05]

Historians specialising in broadcasting media may come to look back on 11 June 2010 as a crucial date in the transformation of the way people consume television in the home.

The American sports broadcaster ESPN has announced that it will use the starting game of the World Cup between South Africa and Mexico to unveil the first dedicated 3D television network, allowing viewers at home to watch the match in the glory of three dimensions.

The move is far more than a mere technological gimmick. Industry advocates are pinning hopes on 3D-TV as the next stage in the development of the medium after HDTV and Blu-ray.

The obstacles to lift-off are phenomenal. Home users will have to invest in new 3D televisions which at least initially will cost more than $2,000.

They will also have to get used to the ignominy of wearing those funny goggles in the home, a necessary accessory as current 3D technology relies on the glasses to filter two sets of synchronised footage separately to the left and right eye thus creating the three-dimensional effect.

There are experiments underway with glasses-free 3D, but the technology is primitive at present.

ESPN hopes to lure rich and experimental viewers — the so-called "first adopters" for whom money is not an object — to invest in the new televisions by promising to broadcast at least 85 live sporting events to its new 3D channel in the first year, starting with 25 World Cup games and then moving to professional basketball, college basketball and football. It will also hope to grab the attention of extreme sports followers by broadcasting the annual X Games competition featuring skateboarding, rally car racing and other events in Los Angeles in July.

read the rest of the story here

what do you think

[creole]

isn't there other ways to watch 3d on tv without paying too much

[IVIike]

I don't really get what's so great about 3D its fun sometimes, but not for everyday entertainment... you wont catch me buying one of those new tvs. I think it's kinda dumb

[Mikeplyts]

I can get 3D DVD movies cheaper than that. Way cheaper.

[synapse]

I can get 3D DVD movies cheaper than that. Way cheaper.

Not even close to what these television production companies are doing. 3d that you see in the movies is not what they mean when they use 3d here.

[Mikeplyts]

Not even close to what these television production companies are doing. 3d that you see in the movies is not what they mean when they use 3d here.

3D, 3D, same difference.

[sixfive]

It's completely different. ESPN bloggers have seen it and they're super impressed with it and those guys usually know what's up.

[Mikeplyts]

No matter what type of third dimensional effects it's in, it doesn't change the fact that I, and mostly everybody else, will spend that amount of money for this new technology, unless there's some really really big fanatic of ESPN and sports and stuff like that who'd be willing to spend any amount of money to get one of the most advanced viewing experiences of television. And even if someone does buy it, it'd probably get boring to them eventually watching the same network with the same programs in the same three dimensional effects so either way, you're still going to watch Texas get their asses beat by Alabam, or Kobe make some other "amazing" jump shot and regardless of the effects, someone viewing it in 2D (or normal/standard effects, whatever) could, might, and will have just as much fun, joy, thrill, and so on as someone else viewing it in 3D. I mean, jus' sayin'.

/rant

EDIT:
Fixed typo, thanks JC.

[none345678]

people who think sitting in front of a TV for hours isn't boring are not going to think this is boring.

[Mikeplyts]

people who think sitting in front of a TV for hours isn't boring are not going to think this is boring.

Touché. But they'd have to do something else eventually, no?

Otherwise, I guess the "loophole" or whatever you want to call it to my "theory" is the exception of those people that can literally sit in front of a television for hours without getting bored and practically have no life. *shrug*

[none345678]

Yeah, but people who spend thousands of dollars on there computers or game counsels aren't on them 24/7. Not to mention people spend 2k+ on regular televisions.

[Mikeplyts]

Yeah, but people who spend thousands of dollars on there computers or game counsels aren't on them 24/7. Not to mention people spend 2k+ on regular televisions.

True true, but I'm just saying, I don't really get to the point of why you would go as far to even spend that much money on something you actually don't really need. It's more about the content anyway, right?

[brooklyneast05]

No matter what type of third dimensional effects it's in, it doesn't change the fact that I, and mostly everybody else, will spend that amount of money for this new technology, unless there's some really really big fanatic of ESPN and sports and stuff like that who'd be willing to spend any amount of money to get one of the most advanced viewing experiences of television. And even if someone does buy it, it'd probably get boring to them eventually watching the same network with the same programs in the same three dimensional effects so either way, you're still going to watch Alabama get their asses beat by Texas, or Kobe make some other "amazing" jump shot and regardless of the effects, someone viewing it in 2D (or normal/standard effects, whatever) could, might, and will have just as much fun, joy, thrill, and so on as someone else viewing it in 3D. I mean, jus' sayin'.

/rant

alabama beat texas

and watching espn doesn't get boring because espn is a sports network, which means there is a never ending stream of new games that no one has ever seen because they haven't been played yet.

people will buy it, not most of us, but people will. sports guys who have the money, just like they buy gigantic screen tv's when they could buy one half the size and still enjoy the game. it's part of the sports viewing culture. you buy a big ass tv and invite all your friends over to make them jealous.

[Mikeplyts]

alabama beat texas

Oh, sorry, typo.

you buy a big ass tv and invite all your friends over to make them jealous.

Ah, so that's why. Thank you, JC.


EDIT:

Oh, and I wanted to point something out on this statement here real quick.

and watching espn doesn't get boring because espn is a sports network, which means there is a never ending stream of new games that no one has ever seen because they haven't been played yet.

I think I may have phrased that incorrectly, but I was referring to how the person watches ESPN, not ESPN itself.

[brooklyneast05]

it's not any different than any other hobby, people buy something more expensive to enhance their enjoyment in every other area of entertainment.

[Mikeplyts]

it's not any different than any other hobby, people buy something more expensive to enhance their enjoyment in every other area of entertainment.

Yes, but why even bother? Why do you need something more expensive to enhance enjoyment of something you like to do or watch?

I don't know, I might be asking a wrong question, but it's just, for example, I got an awesome new fiberlight skateboard for Christmas and some nice, genuine person gave me a bit worn out, not very brand new skateboard the same day for free and I enjoy the experience just the same. If I want to watch a skater do some sweet tricks on television, I don't want to see it in 3D, I want to see the trick.

[brooklyneast05]

Yes, but why even bother? Why do you need something more expensive to enhance enjoyment of something you like to do or watch?

I don't know, I might be asking a wrong question, but it's just, for example, I got an awesome new fiberlight skateboard for Christmas and some nice, genuine person gave me a bit worn out, not very brand new skateboard the same day for free and I enjoy the experience just the same. If I want to watch a skater do some sweet tricks on television, I don't want to see it in 3D, I want to see the trick.

because people think it's better? i think watching a movie in theatres on a big screen with a better picture is better than watching it on my laptop. it's the same logic. i think watching a game on my tv is better than watching it on a 12 inch tv. it doesn't change that i love the sport, it just makes it better/easier to watch. why not enhance the enjoyment of something if you have the money to.

maybe people wanna see them do the trick + in 3d

that's you. i hate riding piece of shit skateboards because i'd rather ride one that rides well. the experience isn't the same if i'm riding a toys r us board. it's not as fun. but i could skate on a toys r us board, so why should i use a better one? because it's worth it to me to enjoy the experience more.

i'm just saying, people have hobbies and things they like. they like to spend money on them. if i have money to spend on something, i like to spend it on something i like. i'm not one for having a huge tv either, but if i had no money worries in the world, i probably would. plus like i said, sports watching is a social thing.

[Mikeplyts]

Ah, well, okay then. You, sir, are a good debater.

[brooklyneast05]

i'm not trying to debate

[Mikeplyts]

Good arguer?


Seemed like a small debate, I think.

[creole]

YOU NEVER WIN
IF JC DEBATES