ESPN 3D officially launches with FIFA World Cup coverage: live from Bristol
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted June 11th 2010 12:12PM
posted June 11th 2010 12:12PM
It's official, one of the most popular networks in the US (if not the world) kicked off its 3D branch in style today, and we made the trek to ESPN's campus in Bristol, Connecticut to experience it first hand. Put simply, the campus is any gadget or sports nerd's paradise; technology is oozing from every corner of every building, including the one we gathered with other press today in order to witness the start of a monumental three-dee journey. At the front of the large conference room was a 72-inch Samsung DLP, which was delivering the 2010 FIFA World Cup kickoff in 3D from Johannesburg, South Africa. It should be noted that none of the 25 World Cup matches that'll be delivered in 3D aren't being shot by ESPN; instead, FIFA has contracted HBS to shoot and distribute a "world feed." We didn't notice too many glitches during the opening match, but ESPN assures us that native transfers will look even better once they kick things off here in the homeland with the MLB Home Run Derby from Anaheim on July 12th. As for the tech side of things, ESPN was taking in the 1080i50 side by side 3D signal and converting it to the US-friendly 1080i60 side by side, and since DLP sets expect the checkerboard 3D format, a RealD POD was used to make the link between the cable set-top-box and the TV. The glasses were supplied by XpanD, but not the same universal shutter glasses that we expect to be available at retail soon.
Afer we took in the setup, we sat down to enjoy the match, which was opened with a handful of pristinely shot 3D commercials -- of course. A Sony spot kicked off with a soccer team practicing, and naturally ended with a goal exploding in slow motion; without a doubt, this was one of the more spectacular uses of 3D that we've seen, though we're guessing that the budget for the ad was somewhere near the stratosphere. The other commercials weren't any less impressive, with another trio concerning a Gillette razor, Toy Story 3, and a downright comical 'This is SportsCenter' ad where Niel Everett gets a little too close to a pricey 3D camera with his trusty Louisville Slugger. We'll be bringing you more coverage from here in Bristol as the day continues, with the grand finale coming in a special Engadget Show segment that should go up next week. For now, head on past the break for a few impressions from the 1-1 draw.
As we mentioned, ESPN's not even responsible for shooting this one, but the shots were breathtaking. The soccer fans on site were probably the most impressed, but we witnessed not a single person scoffing at the content. The 3D effect was impressive and tastefully presented with minimal things being thrown at you -- although the score bug in the upper-left will take some getting used to. The image wasn't perfect (expected for a first attempt), as at certain times the signal would wig out and at others -- when the ball moved fast enough -- it got fuzzy. Representatives from ESPN tell us that a native 720p 60 3D signal performs better during fast motion, which is something we'll see during the Derby and Summer X-Games. Although frame compatible 3D isn't double the resolution of HD like Blu-ray's Full 3D HD, there was plenty of detail to soak in, and it's unmistakably HD quality. Sadly, we didn't get a chance to compare the detail to the HD feed.
Another unique aspect of the event was that ESPN had both active shutter and passive glasses 3DTVs showing the match, which is a unique opportunity to compare the two technologies -- not that it matters since all the consumer 3DTVs use active shutter glasses at the moment -- and while both were enjoyable, the active shutter TV was preferable. Granted, the Hyundai (passive) display wasn't nearly as humongous as the 72-inch Sammy, but make of that what you will.
Overall, the first 3D broadcast from ESPN 3D is an exciting occasion for 3D fans and sports fans, and we're getting closer and closer to believing that the format actually has a chance at catching on in the home.
What.a.match!
@JustThatNerdyGuy I live in new britian connecticut.. engadget come visit me !!
@JustThatNerdyGuy
Not even 3D could save Day 1 from this sad display of football. Hopefully tomorrow we'll see a real match or two.
@TareG What are you on about, did you not see how well South Africa played in the second half and nearly scored twice near the end!
Wow. This article has a lot of acronyms with no definitions included. Kind of a pain to read and try to interpret.
mtf
@mrtexasfreedom All directly dealing with sports or TVs, DLP had a hyperlink. Anything else you weren't really missing out on any info.
@mrtexasfreedom
I didn't notice that. HDS maybe, but I just assume that's some company that was hired to film all of the games.
@mr88 actually, I classified HBS in my mind (and somewhat correctly, though probably more incorrectly and definitely missing your point) as a name and not an acronym, but I actually did this subconsciously .
Like CBS. I don't quantify CBS, ESPN. ABC, BBC, Sky (wait, that isn't an acronym :-D) as acronyms even though I think all but maybe ESPN actually have a somewhat well-known meaning (BBC is probably the best known). I just Googled ESPN - Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.
niiicee.. . well.. as of now, am happy that i can watch it live on espn.go.com. At least I need not have a tv to watch the world cup. .
Fucking Mexican team!!!! I'm so mad!!!!!!
@SskyNnet Don't worry, bro. Uruguay and France will send them back home.
@Rennis agree. Mexico always fail to deliver when it matters. I just hope South Africa will make it through to knock-out stage at least...
@SskyNnet
@kaca88
you better worry aholes cause Mexico isn't going anywhere but second phase
@SskyNnet
I got Mexico on a World Cup sweepstake with work and i still wanted them to lose! :(
@Nezarules Doubt they'll pass. All jokes aside, Mexico might have individual players that may or may not be of "talent", but they won't do anything against France or Uruguay. Their only chance to pass to the second phase was if they got three points against South Africa, followed by at least a tie to either France of Uruguay, but they failed.
Be realistic for once. Stop being nationalist. I know you love your country and what not, and I respect that. But they are simply no match for stronger teams. If you think that they have a chance simply because they won over an old, slow, playless side of Italian seniors, then......good luck to you. I do admit that here in the Concacaf Mexico might be partly the "one to defeat" but that's only because the Federation wants it like that. It's all politics. Anyway....long live the World Cup.
@Rennis
check this http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/statisticsandrecords/headtohead/team1=mex/team2=uru/index.html
France is the strongest opponent of the group for Mexico.
But still lets wait and see what happens, in futbol nothing is cast on stone.
@SskyNnet Actually, If you do watch the games in which Mexico plays against the best teams a lot of the times they do play better then and even dominate the game but that is only with teams that have been W.C champions or close to it. It's just that with teams that Mexico could easily beat they slack off or something. The sad thing is that even if Mexico is the better oponent they don't have an actual striker, and well we all know no one can win a game without goals.
@Nezarules Those statistics include friendly games, an Sub-17 match, heck, even a beach soccer match. But let me ask you this. When has Mexico, not counting the Sub-17 match, knocked out Uruguay in a death match that wasn't played in Mexico or the United States for that matter? When has Mexico actually ended the dreams of Uruguay and knocked them out of a tournament that actually mattered?
If statistics meant something, you could argue that Mexico has beaten Brazil a few times. But then again, they have never knocked them out of a tournament. You could reply with, "They beat Brazil in the Gold Cup final in 2003!." Yeah...but...Brazil was invited, first of all. So they didn't really cared. Sub-23 team reached the final on a tournament where they were the invites. Second, it was played in Mexico's home turf......on a Concacaf Competition. Mexico was designed to win that tournament. Just like the recent Gold Cup.
You might also say, "They beat Brazil recently on the Copa America in Peru. 2 nill, I think.' Yeah. But again, they didn't knocked them out. Brazil went on to win the final. Mexico got creamed on the next round against Argentina.
Honduras, on the other hand, eliminated Brazil on the Copa America in 2002. KNOCKED THEM OUT. See the difference? Now, I'm not saying Honduras is better than Mexico. Although I do believe Mexico will not benefit from seeing a side from Central America rise and stand against Mex. Like I said before, it's all politics.
Nevertheless, good luck.
"World Cup matches that'll be delivered in 3D are being shot by ESPN; instead, FIFA has contracted HDS to shoot and distribute a "world feed." "
Uhh... do you mean "aren't beign shot by ESPN" ?
Also, I would've loved to have seen RSA's goal in 3D.
Damn that would've looked amazing.
@Indefinite Implosion
Read the whole sentence...
"It should be noted that none of the 25 World Cup matches that'll be delivered in 3D are being shot by ESPN" ...it clearly says that none of the matches are being shot by ESPN.
@Indefinite Implosion Yeah that goal was amazing, the camera was positioned just behind the corner of the net. You couldn't ask for a better shot if it.
Whoops.
Missed that 'none' when I read it...
@Indefinite Implosion
Their Using Sony Handy-Cam 3DHD. You know the one thats hand made in Japan from Samurai's, using hattori hanzo Steel.
All I can say is WOW! I'm glad I spent about 7k on a new 3D theater setup. LOVE IT! The World Cup alone is worth it for me. Expensive? Yes. Worth it? Definitely. If you know anyone with a 3D TV and access to the games, go see for yourself.
@Ecran
I have a 3D projector, but I don't have access to the games' stream. :(
@Ecran
Nah...you're lying.
Good to hear the effect was decent.
One correction I would make is that LG has a passive polarised 3D TV available in europe and presumably the US soon enough (the effect on which I prefer to active shutter based TVs) its just a shame so few games are in 3d, else I'd have bought a 3d Tv for the world cup.
Too bad cablebivision won't carry it. I had my C8000 all ready to go for this world cup.
South Africa got robbed in that match. Pure Wilde beast crap. There were two clear penalties inside the box that should have resulted in penalty kicks but needless to say that didn't happen.
Sorry for the rant. Hopefully this is impressive. I have seen 3d rigs in some friend's homes and I have yet to be impressed by the 3D effect. Me myself, I will hold off and keep my Kuro for now.
@librapaj
Robbed? Like the bull offsides against Mexico? Should've been 2-1, Mexico. South Africa got lucky. The refs definitely seemed 'friendlier'. (And I supported SA).
@CDice You misunderstand the offside rule.
"A player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the field and is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the next to last opponent."
The South African keeper came off his line and left only one defender on the line thus the Mexican was offsides.
@bder215
Thank you sir for the clarifying the uninformed of the rules of what other people call the real football. The Mexican player was offside by a mile. On the other hand, twice did a Mexican defender pull down a SA player by the jersey with no call. I would say that the Ref's must have dropped their whistle on those two plays.
This is why nbc shouldn't carry the U.S. Olympic coverage anymore. They keep using the same old technology. ESPN would be amazing. Apparently Disney isn't afraid to invest an amount of money where no one even bothers to count the number of zeros on the end of the number.
I'm not really a sports fan, but ESPN has all sorts of neat effects and technologies that keep the tech-enthusiast side of me entertained. Plus, since they have eight cable channels, or whatever, in addition to ABC, they wouldn't have to do some crazy time shifting with no explanation for the viewer.
I'm glad to see that at least some one is trying to move the way we watch TV forward. They would have insane ratings whether they spent the money on this or not. In the age of cutbacks and to-rich-for-their-own-good executives, thank you Disney, and thank you ESPN.
Africa United !!!
Sad about ZAR though, could easily have won :o
what channels on timer warner? i didnt see any coverage...time warner says the games will be broadcast startign at 6PM!!!!
HELP!!!!!!!
@king_electric_warmonger
time warner NYC i mean!!! help!!!
Looks amazing is all i will say.
soccer doesn't interest me
Gimmick!!!!
glad to see the tone of these posts has changed.
3 months ago, every other post would have been "3d sucks" "3d is a gimic" "3d will fail"
FRANCE vs. URUGUAY... in 15 minutes
Mexico, never stop disappointing me.
@sinco :
Mexico has played 5 times the first match in a world cup. Never has won.
"It should be noted that none of the 25 World Cup matches that'll be delivered in 3D aren't being shot by ESPN;"
Double negatives FTW!
Hopefully everyone has noticed how queer the room looks full of people wearing 3d glasses just to watch tv. Looks like a room full of blind folk. Oh the irony.
@pingu324
And what do you think people said when they saw a group of people watching a TV for the first time? "Look at the weirdos just staring at a box for hours!"
Technology changes. Get used to it.
I saw the game in a Cinepolis Theater here in Mexico, looks amazing. Some camera angles don't really show 3d (Aerial 3/4) and some are just beautiful (Corners and goalies). Even if you don't like futbol, you should try seen it while it last.
I wish Mexico had won, South Africa is the least strong team in the group...
@engadget ... on what do you base this ".. closer to believing that the format actually has a chance at catching on in the home." granted, sports fans will buy anything (ESPN360 is the proof of that ... $10 for a soccer match ?!) as will gamers (most of us have multiple consoles) so 3D will definitely find a place in the home, just like quadraphonic sound ...
objectively though:
1) Current TV transmissions standards (SDI) mean that for live 3D to be transmitted over normal TV channels the signal is interlaced one way or another ... this means that we loose 1/2 the information (not resolution) per eye for each frame, it also means we lose 4 times the information for a given time-interval. This mostly means we get a very flat color picture ... see Avatar, most people will agree the normal version had much better color resolution
2) 3D doesn't work for all shot-types, it means overall he viewer looses out on fast transitions, action-shots ... shame really
3) The current 3D camera lens systems always gives you the feeling that you're floating over the field like in a video game ... only the wider-angle shots with little zoom give a believable picture. (though Sony seems to be working on a new prototype that tries to eliminate this ) but it never gives an accurate view "as if you were there"
The more I look at this the more I get the feeling the broadcasters are forcing this technology on us to 'keep us sweet' in the hope something better comes along soon ...