The BBC has been running a trial in which it films and broadcasts certain sports events and dramatic productions in 3D. Although this trial is still not over—the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special in November will be one of the final 3D broadcasts—the decision has been made: once the trial ends, 3D will be abandoned, at least until 2016.
This follows from ESPN's decision last month to shut down its 3D sports broadcasts by the end of the year.
The reason for both companies' decisions is the same: it turns out that nobody actually watches 3D TV. The BBC did have some successful broadcasts—it's estimated that half of the 3D-equipped households in the UK watched the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics in 3D—but other broadcasts, such as Mr Stink (a 1-hour book adaptation shown at Christmas last year), saw just 5 percent of 3D-capable viewers watch in 3D.
And why does nobody watch 3D shows? Because it's a pain to do. Kim Shillinglaw, the BBC's head of 3D, said that audiences find it "quite hassly." With most 3D TV sets requiring special glasses and being picky about where exactly you sit, watching in 3D is less convenient, especially when lots of people are crowded around the set.
The BBC's trial has, therefore, confirmed what we cynics knew already: 3D was a gimmick that people can't be bothered with.
I'm not a complete 3D-hater. It can add a certain something—I saw Avatar in the cinema in both 2D and 3D, and the 3D made the already lush virtual world even more engaging. But if you're just slobbing it in front of the gogglebox, the extra effort hardly seems worthwhile, especially when most content isn't designed for 3D anyway.
Even 3D movies tend to make poor use of the technology, with most films not being meaningfully enriched by the extra dimension and annoying glasses.
The TV industry seems to have realized 3D's lack of appeal rather sooner than the BBC. 3D TV technology of some kind is now endemic, at least among high-end TV sets, but if this year's CES was any indication, TV manufacturers have already stopped pushing it as a meaningful feature, instead pinning their hopes on 4K.
Listing image by _zand
This follows from ESPN's decision last month to shut down its 3D sports broadcasts by the end of the year.
The reason for both companies' decisions is the same: it turns out that nobody actually watches 3D TV. The BBC did have some successful broadcasts—it's estimated that half of the 3D-equipped households in the UK watched the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics in 3D—but other broadcasts, such as Mr Stink (a 1-hour book adaptation shown at Christmas last year), saw just 5 percent of 3D-capable viewers watch in 3D.
And why does nobody watch 3D shows? Because it's a pain to do. Kim Shillinglaw, the BBC's head of 3D, said that audiences find it "quite hassly." With most 3D TV sets requiring special glasses and being picky about where exactly you sit, watching in 3D is less convenient, especially when lots of people are crowded around the set.
The BBC's trial has, therefore, confirmed what we cynics knew already: 3D was a gimmick that people can't be bothered with.
I'm not a complete 3D-hater. It can add a certain something—I saw Avatar in the cinema in both 2D and 3D, and the 3D made the already lush virtual world even more engaging. But if you're just slobbing it in front of the gogglebox, the extra effort hardly seems worthwhile, especially when most content isn't designed for 3D anyway.
Even 3D movies tend to make poor use of the technology, with most films not being meaningfully enriched by the extra dimension and annoying glasses.
The TV industry seems to have realized 3D's lack of appeal rather sooner than the BBC. 3D TV technology of some kind is now endemic, at least among high-end TV sets, but if this year's CES was any indication, TV manufacturers have already stopped pushing it as a meaningful feature, instead pinning their hopes on 4K.
Listing image by _zand