DirecTV will have ESPN 3D at launch, next to its own N3D channel
By Richard Lawler 
posted March 29th 2010 9:15AM
posted March 29th 2010 9:15AM
posted March 29th 2010 9:15AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
what a waste of time and money. they should put more effort into bring uncompressed HD channels than this 3D crap. i cannot wait for this 3D gimmick to go away.
@slimmer
/rant
if you're going to bitch, at least get your terminology correct. Uncompressed video doesn't exist on any consumer medium. Everything is compressed. Blu-ray is compressed in h.264 and vc-1. Please state it as low bitrate compression. Thank you.
/rant
@FNG
Why don't you go read a book or two before you make your dumb azz comments. Look it up on wiki. there is such a thing called uncompressed HD. i know several people who work for our local station that broadcast all of our local sports teams and they receive the signal from the stadium uncompressed and send it to the local carrier uncompressed. It's the provider who compresses it to shit to fit it on there 20+ old network. they need to stop feeding us all these stupid channels and worry about the ones the majority of the people watch.
@slimmer
Did you miss the part where he said "any consumer medium"?
Just think about that for a minute then reply. Or tell me a provider, any provider that has the bandwidth to start offering uncompressed HD video streams for all the HD channels - cause uhhh, they're real big.
Plus, what channels you think are useless others love. Some people even think ESPN is a waste of bandwidth, bless their hearts.
please stop wasting "our" money on pointless technology. just bring us cheaper tv in HD. We've been patient, it's taken 10 years to bring us this level of HD don't diverge from the process.
@iPaul Really... Cheaper HD?... It's only $10 a month!
@clacombe lol you don't know what you are talking about.
there is OTA - free
and
try get cable or satellite only HD channels package , impossible.
Is it yet safe to say... Stop Whining About 3D!
It's not a gimmic and it's here to stay. As if Avatar's nearly $2.5BN wasn't enough, there's Alice in Wonderland's $300M and How to Train Your Dragon's Top Spot this weekend (and having awesome WOW moments specifically BECAUSE of good 3D).
People are ENJOYING 3D. And it's being done right like never before -- Dragon did not have a single "pop out of the screen" moment in the whole movie, the 3D was there to enhance the visual elements -- much like HD enhances visual elements with Higher Resolution and more color than NTSC/DVD. Imagine that!
So as long as the trend continues the way it's been going -- with good quality 3D -- I'm happy to see it making its way into the home.
And if you *still* don't want it... don't pay for it. Period.
-Pie
@EatingPie one film does not make an industry.
and example:
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14793902
Gods willing, the heavens will open up one day so Zeus can smite this 3-D fever gripping Hollywood and the world.
Given 2010s track record — with "Alice in Wonderland" and "How to Train Your Dragon" gobbling up millions — that's about as likely as Kate Gosselin winning "Dancing With the Stars."
Unlike its 3-D predecessors, "Clash of the Titans," opening today, is dubiously different. Director Louis Leterrier originally shot a respectably entertaining redo of the 1981 cult classic in 2-D. Then along came the invasion of James Cameron's gangly big blue people in "Avatar" and the resulting 3-D mania. Cuckoo green with envy, "Titan's" producers furiously added the effects.
In
the end, who cares how obnoxiously calculated the 3-D reupholstering is? What matters is whether the enhancements of a reportedly $180-million production make the film better — and the answer is a big fat no.
Did you really say "gods willing"?
First off, I cited one movie because it's current. I could easily cite the 10 or so I've seen, about half of them awesome in 3D.
Secondly, I was aware that Clash was filmed in 2D originally. I am also aware that Alice in Wonderland was filmed in 2D originally as well.
Thirdly, I said *3D done right*. That's imperative, and that's what's happening with the best of the 3D fare. Even the crummy 3D movies aren't throwing crap out of screen at you like the old days. They're trying to use it to enhance the experience, just like widescreen and IMAX before it.
And finally, obviously I need to repeat my "stop your whining" call. :p
-Pie
I won't buy a 3D enabled TV until that is basically all you can buy. The same will be true for the the vast majority of people. It's just not worth paying a higher price.
This isn't news to the industry, they know this. And so, as always, there will be collusion to eventually phase out the lower-end systems and get everyone on board with 3D. That's how our capitalism works.
@cdubc2012
Wow you know what "the vast majority of people" want! How about some stock tips while you're at it! :p
Interesting that the evidence is pointing the opposite directly. Panasonic has sold out of their first batch of 3D TVs at Best Buy, and then there's the issue of the most successful movies in the last 6 months being all in 3D (meaning people are seeing them).
-Pie
@EatingPie
So you heard some marketing about them being sold out of the first shipments. Can you tell me how many TV's that was?
The fact that people went to a movie, doesn't mean they'll buy a TV at a premium, especially when you can get a great product w/o 3D for much much less. It's just not a justifiable purchase to most consumers.
Obviously the tech will come down in price, but so will the non-3D prices. The only way the industry will get people to switch is if the collude to remove non-3D from the market, so that consumers (as a whole) aren't really presented with the choice in the first place.
Btw, you clearly didn't understand my first post since, somehow, you assumed that I don't think 3D will catch on. It will, but because a 3D feature is not worth the $1500+ asking price (not including the glasses mind you), the industry needs to get rid of the cheaper option. Just like they did with SDTV.
Also, that if they can reduce the price on 3D HDTVs so much that there is little difference in price between them and comparable HDTVs, then they have effectively removed regular HDTV's from the market.
That can't be the ESPN 3D logo, it's too blah and flat. I'll let other people argue over 3D's fadness, but seeing as how I bought my 37" Samsung last August, 3D is a long way off for me.
-Brian
So I guess the "capacity for 200 HD channels" DirecTV's been hollering about for the past 6 months is all about 3D and not regular HD? Where are Turner Classic HD, NatGeoWild, BBC-HD, and all the other HD channels they do not currently carry? All the shuffling they are doing of the Premium channels is just to make room for 100 feeds of 3 sports channels? Hell, half the HD "channels" they carry right now are just the various Fox Sports regional network feeds, which aren't real channels.
I am with the above posters, I just spent $2000 on a good quality LED-HDTV, and am NOT about to junk it just to get 3D. Avatar was great in the theater, but I have no need of it at home, at least not until this TV dies, which hopefully will be many years from now.
It took 10yrs for the pitiful roll out of what is classed as broadcast HDTV. 3D would take longer and is pointless.