Cowboys Stadium 3D scoreboard experiment doesn't go so well, turned off in less than seven minutes

You know 3D has a long way to go when even Jerry Jones can't manage to sell it for longer than seven minutes: the vaunted real-time 3D scoreboard display experiment at last night's Cowboys game was turned off to loud cheers after just six minutes and fifty seconds of being active. The problem, as usual, was glasses: most of the 80,000 people in attendance didn't bother to put on the headgear required to see the 3D effect, and instead saw a blurry anaglyph image -- which they then booed. What's more, some who wore the glasses complained that the 3D effect caused nausea, although probably not as badly as the Cowboys' 20-17 loss to the Chargers. HDlogix actually has the tech to do glasses-free 3D, but it simply doesn't work when scaled up for the world's largest HD monitor -- a problem they'll have plenty of time to solve when the Cowboys fail to make the playoffs with another couple December losses.

[Nicnac Posted Dec 14th 2009 2:59PM]

check out all the old farts in here "3d is a fad" "2d is good enough"...

If people like you had your way, we'd still be watching b&w 4:3 television.

Ebert today called Avatar a game changer. Likened it to Star Wars (1977). Says from now on, everything is different...

keep up with the times, old dudes....

[MeanSpyvie Posted Dec 14th 2009 4:26PM]

Ebert is an even older fart than most anyone here.

3D is not new at all, it has been tried many times in the past going back 50 years or so, using the same basic tech as this experiment.

Avatar is a pinko propaganda flick.

[Nicnac Posted Dec 14th 2009 6:18PM]

@MeanSpyvie

Because Ebert is older than you, means his opinion isn't worth anything? He called Transformers 2 junk. Do you disagree?

Of course 3d is not new. That's not the point. The point is when it becomes something we MUST have for movies and games. Avatar seems like the best chance for us to have it next year.

I won't even address the last part of your comment because your 'avatar' disturbs me...

[badasscat Posted Dec 14th 2009 6:58PM]

@Nicnac If Ebert's opinion is worth something, then so is the opinion of the other "old farts" in this thread...

We're jaded because we've seen all this before. Those stupid blue and red 3D glasses? They look ridiculous to us *because* they look so old and quaint. To me, they're like something out of the 1970's. Next you'll be writing about how bellbottom pants and disco music are the next big thing.

I don't think there's anything in particular about Avatar that's any better or worse suited to 3D viewing than any other blockbuster film.

[Ducman69 Posted Dec 14th 2009 7:42PM]

@MeanSpyvie 3D as a concept and primitive execution isn't new just as the automobile has been around forever, but to dismiss the recent advances in 3D technology is like likening the 300mpg hybrid Aptera to a Ford Model-T.

You don't have to be gay for the former to appreciate the latter. Technology is always improving to approach reality, and 3D is a necessary step in that direction, not just crisper pictures. =)

And btw, the new glasses use polarization, not simple color filters as in years past.

[Jordan Posted Dec 14th 2009 8:13PM]

@Nicnac: Anybody would call Transformers 2 junk. Here's the problem with Avatar:

How many years has it been in development? James Cameron has been working on this movie forever. Maybe 3D works in this film, and I hope it does. But it will only work because they have focused extensively on making it work. Will other films do the same? No.

The glasses still exist. Nobody wants to wear 3D glasses. So maybe you're ok with wearing them in a movie theater, but how about at home? What about all the people who already wear glasses? These are the same issues revolving around 3D that have always exist and will continue to do so until 3D exists without glasses.

Avatar may be good, but it's not going to do anything for 3D. There will be the initial buzz, especially if the film is good, but after that it's all downhill. After that we get release after release of crappy half assed 3D films that make people once again not want to wear glasses even in a theater.

Just because Ebert said it's good, doesn't make it so. Just because he thought T2 sucked, doesn't mean everything he says is true. Everybody thought T2 sucked.

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 16th 2009 11:57AM]

@Nicnac


3-D is a fad, it will hopefully be a failure. It is a leap backwards in terms of a quality picture. Game changer? What is it changing the game from? Great picture to half-a$$ed 3-D?

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 16th 2009 12:02PM]

@Jordan

And Don't ever say T2 sucked, because T2 stands for Terminator 2. Don't ever disgrace the "T2" shorthand again when referring to that heap of garbage known as Transformers 2.

[goff Posted Dec 14th 2009 3:08PM]

I hope the cowboys lose every game they ever play.

[Dan Fruzzetti Posted Dec 14th 2009 3:13PM]

I would guess that the real problem with glasses-free technology is it "doesn't scale up" to such a wide variety of viewing angles, rather than just scaling up in size. I assume scaling it up in size isn't tough as long as you have good control over viewing angles.

[kevout Posted Dec 14th 2009 3:13PM]

I love all the Cowboys trash talking in this article. They suck! Especially compared to my team....

Wait. Nope, Bills fan. Scratch that.

[dmccall Posted Dec 14th 2009 3:27PM]

3D with no glasses seems like surround sound with a sound-bar setup.

[cburris52001 Posted Dec 14th 2009 4:51PM]

I'm impressed that a geek forum writer has enough sports knowledge to know of Jerry Jones and the Cowboys horrendous December record, as well as being able to tie that to a missed playoff spot. Props to Nilay!

[Shovel Man Posted Dec 14th 2009 5:27PM]

I really don't understand all the hate on Dallas.

Makes no sense to me.

[Demolition Man Posted Dec 14th 2009 6:32PM]

@Shovel Man Two words... "America's Team."

[kcmurphy88 Posted Dec 14th 2009 5:39PM]

Maybe they need to get the team uniforms in red/blue combinations so that everyone needs the glasses to see the game.

[ddhboy Posted Dec 14th 2009 5:39PM]

I got a migrane just thinking about how stupid all of this is. You ARE at the game, wearing 3D glasses to feel like you're at the game while your sitting in the stadium, is completely stupid. If you can admit to yourself that watching the game on a 3D monitor is better than actually spending more money to watch the game in person at the stadium, maybe you should just get an NFL pass from your cable/satellite provider and never set foot in the stadium again. Equally stupid is the companies involved who believed that fans would prefer to watch the game on a monitor than with their own eyes, probably the reason why they bought tickets in the first place.

[frizbplaya Posted Dec 14th 2009 5:56PM]

Maybe in the future we'll have 3D holographs and look back and laugh at the awkward "3D glasses stage." If that's the case, wake me up when 3D is good.

[isotrex Posted Dec 14th 2009 6:01PM]

This is one of the priceless moments and instant classic event.
I diagnose it as EPIC FAIL with a prescribe dosage of FACEPALM.

[Spencer Posted Dec 14th 2009 7:01PM]

Sorry, this is the first I've heard of this, but in-stadium 3D on the screens? Give me a break, watch the game, that's in 3D, right in front of you!

[Tunnelman Posted Dec 14th 2009 7:09PM]

My dad was at the game. Apparently the announcer came on and asked everyone how they liked the 3D, and everyone booed. Once the regular picture came back on everyone cheered. So the fans at the stadium made it pretty clear how they felt about it.

[boe Posted Dec 14th 2009 8:55PM]

I spent $5000 to have my eyes surgically altered so I wouldn't have to wear glasses - if I'm willing to spend a huge wad o' cash and have surgery just to avoid wearing glasses - do you really think 3D technology is going to be a profit center or something in demand by home consumers?

[mlmangum Posted Dec 14th 2009 10:55PM]

Ouch Engadget, that jab to the Cowboys really hurt

[RandallLind Posted Dec 15th 2009 12:46PM]

Nobody wants to wear 3D glasses. If they continue pushing this crap a lot of people will stop watching TV.

Now if they make it where you don't need glasses then it most likely will catch on until then it a niche market.

[Scarabaeus Posted Dec 15th 2009 12:52PM]

You need to see the difference between anaglyph 3D (with the two different colored images) and the one with polarized lenses. The anaglyph stuff gives you headeaches, and the glasses negatively affect everything you are watching on screen and off. With the polarized lenses, each eye gets all the color, with less or no headaches, and when watching off-screen stuff they are like light sunglasses.

There will be no decent 3D without glasses for a long time, but please don't dismiss good 3D for that crappy anaglyph stuff.

[Pugsly Posted Dec 16th 2009 1:24PM]

Ben, can we please now admit 3D in the home is a FAIL?( at least for the foreseeable future?) You now have 100,000 potential viewers deem it useless. I know you guys like it, but you always said once people see it they will change there mind, they saw it and, well,.......

But, love the podcast, under 30 days to CES!!!

[Teer1998 Posted Dec 16th 2009 6:01PM]

I was at the game. Only thing uglier than the way the Cowboys played was trying to watch replays in 3-D. They finally announced the 3D, and the loudest resounding BOOs I've ever heard at a Cowboy's game. The cheap 50's style glasses they handed out ruined the HD board and made it impossible to watch the plays. If you tried to switch between no glasses and glasses it hurt your eyes so bad it wasn't worth the effort. TOTAL FAIL! Number 1 comment I heard was if live football isn't good enough then 3-D sure ain't going to be any better.

[EdgeOne Posted Dec 17th 2009 8:01AM]

Yet more proof that all the money in the world doesn't keep you from being a clown. The only good thing left about the Cowboys franchise is their cheerleaders. Indianapolis Colts are the new America's team!!

[Daveiops Posted Dec 17th 2009 9:51AM]

Well she's hot. Wouldn't mind her in 3D-Reality.

[iSeek Posted Dec 21st 2009 10:37AM]

I did see Tridef player (DDD.com) and 3Dfier (3Dfier.com) gives good results on realtime 2D to 3D playback. You can download a demo version from both site to see it yourself. My personal opinions, 3Difer is better and supports many file format through media player classics...

[derrickONLINE Posted Dec 29th 2009 2:50PM]

All they have to do is show the first porn flick in 3D and watch sales jack...I mean jump off!