BBC Says 3D TV is a Hassly Experience, Takes 3-Year Break

News
By
published

BBC bidding 3D adieu for now.

The BBC has decided to take a bit of a break from its 3D efforts. The British broadcaster has announced that it will be easing off on 3D following a special 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who. RadioTimes cites Kim Shillinglaw, the BBC’s head of 3D, as saying 3D hasn't taken off and that the corporation will be taking a three year break from the development of 3D programming.

 

"I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK," Shillinglaw told the RadioTimes. "Watching 3D is quite a hassly experience in the home. You have got to find your glasses before switching on the TV. I think when people watch TV they concentrate in a different way. When people go to the cinema they go and are used to doing one thing – I think that’s one of the reasons that take up of 3D TV has been disappointing."

Shillinglaw's comments on 3D TV follow similar comments from British retailer John Lewis. Last month, John Kempner, Vision Buyer at John Lewis, was quoted as saying that while there is an interest in 3D, it's not the primary purchasing decision anymore, and the noise and consumer interest surrounding the technology is not where it was two or three years ago. Kempner highlighted the need to wear glasses as a big reason customers are slow to catch on to 3D viewing in the home.

"The usage of 3D for home viewing is very limited," Kempner told Trusted Reviews. "As an experience I think people maybe enjoy it at the cinema, but in the home it’s not quite such a wonderful experience because of the requirement to wear glasses."

The BBC said it would reconsider 3D further down the line and "see what happens when the recession ends and there may be more take up of sets."

Jane McEntegart
21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • drwho1
    I still don't care about 3D TV's
    not now nor 30 years from now.

    4K/8K in the other hand might peek my interest.
    Reply
  • airborne11b
    I have a 3D vision 2 monitor and love it. It makes games look so much better and the 3D offered by it is so much better than what you get in the movies.

    I love my multi-monitor setup and my 2560 x 1440 monitor as well, but if a game does a good job supporting 3D, I always plug it in first.

    But I can understand why some people don't care for it too much.
    Reply
  • SirGCal
    Something like only 40% of the population can see the fake 3D the way these TVs intend it to work anyhow (I forget where I got those numbers, but that was the bigger example). I'm one of the greater percentage that just doesn't get it. I've seen many, even have 3D units at home that never get used just cause that's all you can get anymore in a higher-end unit. But I just don't SEE the 3D thing... Even at the IMAX, it's very rare that it works properly for me. Avatar was about the best so far and honestly the ONLY one that worked to some extent for me. But even still at home I never use 3D mode.

    Again, 4K units are far more attractive a proposition for me, but then we get the next version of BluRay, etc. to handle 4x the pixel count, etc... And I have to start the process all over again of replacing my collection.
    Reply
  • vinhn
    It was a marketing gimmick back then and 3D at home isn't really 3D, we do see some popping out but not as vibrant as in cinema.
    Reply
  • spat55
    3D is good, but it is not worth these things

    1. Wearing the damn glasses, I have to wear them everyday as it is.
    2. The price is very off putting, like "smart" TV.
    3. It isn't that good anyway, feels slightly fake, looking forward to Rift.

    So I would much rather they hurry up with 4k TV' and monitors more than anything else, and I think I could of told them this 5 years ago, like most of the rest of us would have.
    Reply
  • halcyon
    I have to agree. I have a nice Samsung 3D 60“ and I never use the 3D. ...not even for movies. I guess it is a hassly experience.
    Reply
  • Vorador2
    I have a 3DS and never used the 3D effect. It looks weird.

    3D doesn't work well because current techniques don't completely fool the eye. Until that hurdle is surpassed, 3D won't be more than a gimmick.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    11105396 said:
    3D is good, but it is not worth these things

    1. Wearing the damn glasses, I have to wear them everyday as it is.
    2. The price is very off putting, like "smart" TV.
    3. It isn't that good anyway, feels slightly fake, looking forward to Rift.

    So I would much rather they hurry up with 4k TV' and monitors more than anything else, and I think I could of told them this 5 years ago, like most of the rest of us would have.

    Yep! The first allmost good 3D was the Hobbit because of the high definition and higher refress rate than in normal. All other 3D even in very good movie theater have been really bad in fast moving scenes. The Hobbit was guite good, but I supose that the refress rate should have been even higher, to really work well. I slow moving parts that 48 Hz was allmost enough... so that there was very little flickering and jerky movent. We need much better 3D until it is fine. The 4K/8K instead is a valid upgrade.

    Reply
  • ihavenoid4u
    sux 2 b all of you in this comment section. i love 3D! 3d movies when done right like Star trek into darkness are amazing. movies like iron man 3 just hurt someone who might be curious about 3d. my 3ds? i love it too. some games suck but some are really great and 3d can make the games even better. i consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy 3d since so many hate on it.
    Reply
  • airborne11b
    The problem lies in the cheap glasses I think. The cinema 3D with those cheap plastic glasses looks terrible and adds almost no depth. Even on Avatar it was lackluster and only a small improvement.

    However, sit down in front of a 3D vision 2 monitor with a pair of $150 electronic 3D shutter glasses and crank up the depth %. The result is simply amazing. Nothing else I've seen, TVs, movies, 3DS, even come close to how good my VG278H looks.
    Reply