3D TV is dead says BBC controller
3D TV is dead and 4K Ultra HD TV already matters far more than 3D ever did, according to the controller of production for BBC North.
Mark Harrison, reporting his findings from CES 2013 for Broadcast, stated that Ultra HD TV, along with smart TV, was the star of this year's show – and that together they sounded the death knell for 3D TV.
"Last year, some still insisted you couldn’t operate in the future without a pair of 3D glasses, but now the specs are being reserved for gaming and movies at the cinema," Harrison said.
"3D’s place has been taken by 4K, or Ultra HD. We are years away from being able to make and transmit in 4K, yet it matters far more than 3D ever did: it enables manufacturers to focus on making bigger, better, normal TVs."
While the prevalence of Ultra HD TVs was undeniable, and the relative quiet around 3D TV certainly noticeable, a huge bank of 3D screens at the entry to the LG stand plus Philips' 60in glasses-free 3D TV, amongst other 3D screens, showed there was still manufacturer interest.
The comments raise questions over the BBC's commitment to delivering 3D content. As it stands some 3D content has aired on the BBC HD channel, though the meagre amount of Olympics coverage in 3D left some disappointed. The Sky 3D channel remains the only dedicated 3D channel in the UK.
Content for the next generation of Ultra HD TVs remains a similarly sticky subject however, though the first 4K Ultra HD channel has now gone live and Sony has other ideas for its TVs.
Harrison suggests that this, making 4K Ultra HD content, will be the focus: "That means that while budgets get tighter, the need to make high-quality digital output that can hold its own on a screen next to on-demand 4K movies will ensure production remains ambitious."
Comments
The Controller of Production for BBC North (whatever that means - are there ones for South, West and East?) has headed out to Las Vegas to attend CES. Er, I'm sorry: Do not tell me this is good value for money.
For all the BBC's comments on value for money it's worth remembering every new house, flat and apartment actually contributes more to the BBC revenue.
Personally, give me the choice to pay or not pay. If I don't I won't receive the BBC. Where is the problem? I'd prefer that then the Controller of Production for BBC North heading off to Las Vegas and pontificating on the future of TV sets.
for the majority of people, the optical performance of their eyes for the size of their TVs and the distance they sit, 1080p isn't much of an improvement if at all over 720p!
That said, before all this 4k and 8k malarky, lets get HD sorted out properly first, why's there no BBC3, 4, News, CBBC in HD? It seems to be an excuse to play with technology and not finish things off properly.
It's all very well talking up 4k and 8k, when the existing HD channels are poor due to compression artifacts: DVB-T2 is sufficiently compressed to spoil HD significantly (not entirely the Beeb's fault, too many channels chasing too little bandwidth, but there should have been more carriers rolled out with analogue switch off to give the wanted capacity). And even so the Beeb then ruined HD on DVB-S2 so as to avoid making DVB-T2 less desirable.
We already had the pain of a complete change of standard from DVB-S and DVB-T to S2 and T2, requiring a TV upgrade or adding an STB.
And don't get me started on the failure to adopt DAB+ sufficiently early.
The BBC have many very good technical people working there, and I imagine they probably struggle every day with the politics and stupid games. Its time the organisation was split completely into infrastructure/technology and media/content/production.
Management at the BBC are only now getting to a position their viewers were at four years ago in regard to the quality of High Definition broadcasts - get the quality issues of HD right and put the H back into hD: http://no7.co.uk/bbc/
When I visited Television Centre, as part of the BBC HD Campaign in 2010, we were shown tests of 3D by proud BBC R&D technicians who deliberately undermined our concerns about the degradation of the HD service from its former glory during the early years pointing to the future of 3D.
I have nothing against 3D as a service for those who want it, and believe the Beeb should be in there, but they squandered their opportunity with HD and I hope they will not do the same with 4K.
When the BBC gets it right, such as with the Olympics last year, they show what a great asset they are to this country and the licence payers, but over the last few years they have ignored their loyal supporters in favour of corporatism and over-paid management navel gazing.
Surely the reason why 3D wasn't quite so prevalent at CES 2013 is that it is no longer "new technology", but something that is established in the marketplace.
Shows like CES are only generally interested in the next new thing.
Reports of 3DTV's demise are at the very least premature. Google "FIRST-EVER 3DTV OWNERS STUDY DISPELS MYTHS ABOUT HOME 3D ENTERTAINMENT" for a counter perspective to Harrison's.
The biggest problem is an absolute dearth of 3D films worth watching.
Since 3D is a feature available on most TVs now, I'd argue that the technology is pretty well established. As I say, what's missing is 3D content that's technically and artistically accomplished.
Good , well made 3D seems to be nice though... as I said before, I watched Promethius in 3D foirmat the other night there.... it looked real nice.
Some other 3D things look naff, so there must be s decent way to show it then ?
As of yet too many folk cannot afforrd 3D tv..... and mostly across Europ and I think USA as a whole most people still watch odl style tv /
Once 3D tv becomes the norm for people with the prices dropping, it will HIT its 'boom' as the likes of OLED, never mind 4K is a LONG way off as yet.
I'd imagine until the 3D capable TV's become a more decent affordable price for the ordinary common 5/8 then it has still to hit it's 'boom-time'.
I can take it or leave it but to be perfectly honest I watched Prometgius in 3D last night and it was superb. It didn't make the movie any better but it was real nice to see it in 3D format on my new 51" TV.
:)
Which is the more expensive format for new future TV between the much talked about OLED and 4K ?
I'm not sure I get the excitement about 4k any more than I did about 3d. It seems to me that they're both just measures to entice us to replace TVs with new ones. With the switch to HD it was a no-brainer once it became affordable, but there was a massive difference, similar to the video-DVD-BluRay path. My HDTV runs just fine though, and I don't stare at it wishing it was better (or care about upgrading to 3d). I'm sure I will end up upgrading to 4k at some point, but again, not until it's affordable and/or my existing TV breaks. Surely the masses are the same?Despite all the references to the BBC, nothing will happen in this country until Sky decide to push it as a format. I don't think the UK will be ready to upgrade TVs and sky boxes again for a few years yet.
The BBC guy is spot on - 3D is only for a very small minority who are happy to be wooed by what is essentially a very basic visual effect.
When you need glasses to enable you to experience something, it's already a disaster. What's the point in spending decent money on a high quality television for you to then reduce that quality through cheap plastic lenses. Makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to pay almost £100 for active glasses - who's going to hand a pair of those to a 2 year old? Fail.
Give me a bigger, higher resolution screen anyday.
The argument is clear from Sky's point of view - they can make money with it, of course they're going to push it. Talk about selling sh*t and convincing people it's chocolate - Sky are experts.
Good. The more influential people speaking out against 3D the better in my opinion. Its actually becoming difficult to see films at the cinema in 2D!
In response to the seperate debate over the licence fee -The BBC offer the best channels, by some margin, and I therefore have no problems with paying.
People always want to knock BBC reagrdless of what is actually being said. Going back to the original issue its no secret and been covered lots of times here in the forums that 3d just isn't doing it. Yes most Tv's sold have 3D, because that's what the manufacturers have pumped out in the shops. Bigger and higher quality HD is what most people would want. Normally you may watch Tv whilst surfing the web, reading the paper and the last thing you want to do is to keep on taking your lassess off and on. 3D is dead for the home !
BBC gain nothing from 3D, and it costs more to produce, so of course they are against it. Sky on the other hand seem to be producing more 3D content, and whilst most content is in 2D plenty of people watch the Sky 3D channel.
I have only ever seen 3d tv in costco and I was unimpressed.I do not know one person who has it or is thinking of getting it.The BBC would be stupid to waste money on a gimmick and should concentrate on quality programs, thankfully they appear to understand this.
I really enjoy watching 3D at home and many of my colleagues now have 3D tv's and love it too. It takes time for these technologies to grow (and cheaper 3D Blu-ray prices wouldn't hurt)! The reason 3D wasn't a a big feature at CES is because it's not new tech now. All the UHD and OLED tv's that were on show this year will have some sort of 3D capabilities and will do it better than the current range of screens and I think once they become mainstream tech and more 3D Blu-ray becomes more affordable (Sorry, but I'm not paying more than £20 for a blu-ray), 3D will find its niche. It's not going to be the reason to buy a tv but it will still be an option... And one ill still go for (I've got 50+ 3D titles already and I'm looking forward to even better quality on a UHD 4k screen if I can ever afford one.
And yet another idiot at the BBC - Tech up or die BBC - 3D & 4K Ultra. Sky will eventually kill you off if you don't keep up.
Pay tv providers could be accused of many things, but a bargain they aren't!
If you work out how many of the channels that Sky offers for £60 a month you actually watch regularly, how many you watch at all you'd probably be in for shock.
Many realise pay tv isn't the vfm they once thought it if they take the time work out their viewing habits, rather than obediently handing over the money in the misguided belief that £xx pcm for xxx amount of channels is good value.
And I don't watch any of it but can't opt out. Sky is a bargain at £60 a month. Imagine if you had to pay Sky every month even though you don't watch it. It's the same thing. Sky sports is superb, BBC Sport is like the History Channel.
Agreed. The BBC is an absolute bargain.
£12 per month for all the BBC TV channels, radio stations, websites, iPlayer...? My god, it's EXTORTION!
I don't mind paying it one bit. It's far better than having to put up with wall-to-wall ads.
megalomaniac Thu, 17 Jan 2013, 1:45pm
@jjbomber or we applaud the BBC for not wasting licence fee money forcing something (broadcast 3D) on the vast majority of people that either explicitly don't want it or just don't care about it.
Well said Mega', I have never understood the interest in 3D, that Hollywood, in particular, has always kept pushing at us. Still it has kept the wheels of industry rolling and kept wallets empty.
I'm not sure I see the point in 4K. 8K has already started to hit the news and it sounds like a stop-gap for that. It's beginning to remind me of mini-discs...
@jjbomber or we applaud the BBC for not wasting licence fee money forcing something (broadcast 3D) on the vast majority of people that either explicitly don't want it or just don't care about it.
Although of course the 2012 3D Queen's Speech was produced by Sky News.
In other words, there won't be any more 3D from the BBC until the Queen's speech next Christmas. I think it's time to do away with the compulsory tax that is the TV license. Put the BBC in the real world.