You know it's coming: the inevitable slew of boutique
3D television channels that will serve nothing but gratuitous content the same way all those HD-specific stations and their nature programs did a few years ago.
Comcast wants to be at the forefront of the 3D
exploitation capitalization to come, and while its current offerings are modest (a 3D version of
The Final Destination, a
Jonas Brothers concert, and other stuff your step-brother Billy might like) and only offered in anaglyph format (red/blue glasses), the good news is it isn't charging any extra for the content -- yet. Better still is a confirmation that it won't let DirecTV have the real 3D
spotlight to itself for long, as VP Derek Harrar confirmed it will offer the same
frame-compatible 3D (which
doesn't require a new cable box, only a 3DTV) "this year." Comcast isn't saying exactly what else is coming next, but specialized channels should be cropping up before the summer is through, and you can be sure they'll be grouped into a premium "3D Tier" for the ultimate in billing surcharges.
posted January 26th 2010 8:27AM
People still pay for TV, and now they are going to pay more for a gimmick?
Impressive.
Wake me up when I can see Mariah Carey at award shows in 3D. Then I'll buy that TV.
@7egend
yes 3d boobies or gtfo!
Comcast is NOT a kitteh!
@xCrunk Wake me up when comcast removes the 250GB cap. This month alone I've done this. January 2010 (Incoming: 74259 MB / Outgoing: 175174 MB) That is about 243.6GB There are five days left in the month and I have to watch my bandwidth.
Sad little king of a sad little hill.
I love Firefly as much as any other nerd, but 3D is a sad little hill? Tell that to James Cameron
@EGOvoruhk || One movie does not a revolution make. People were willing to shell out the extra cash to see Avatar, but are they willing to shell out much more extra cash to purchase a 3D television? Are they willing to wear funny glasses and/or sit in very specific positions at home to see the 3D effects?
And what about movies like Up In the Air or Extraordinary Measures, just to name a couple current releases? Those movies don't stand to gain anything using 3D, as is the case for most movies. I just don't see 3D becoming the next big thing in television, at least, not any time soon. I can see the benefits to watching even the most trivial shows in HD, but the scope of shows improved by 3D would be very limited.
It's 2010 and we can't even get major national television networks in some areas to go HD and you can forget about the local stations.
@karmaghost Any movie would gain from being in 3D. Sound and color made ANY movies more "true to life", so why should 3D be treated any different ?
@karmaghost
"One movie does not make a revolution."
fixed.
Sidenote, the picture for this article is hilarious.
@FabDex 3D screws up the existing color.
King of 3D? More like emperor.
And someone needs to tell the emperor that he ain't got no clothes on.
Perfect picture to represent the pathos of both Comcast and 3D Tv.
3D is one of the biggest gimmicks ever.
@Eraser
I think someone told God that at one point too.
He was like, "trust me! This 3D universe thing has legs!".
We saw how thaaaaat panned out.
@LAY || "Hey! You guys want to come over to my place to watch the big game in 3D?"
"HELL YEAH!"
"Sweet. Oh wait, there's five of us and I only have four sets of 3D glasses. We'll have to draw straws..."
OR
"Sweet. Oh wait, there's really only 3 or 4 specific positions you can sit in for the 3D effect to work. That means one of you guys is going to have to sit on someone's lap."
@karmaghost
Well, shoot. Why don't I stop at the Radio Shack on my way over and pick up a couple of extra pairs? You can never have too many specs on game day, I always say.
Howsabout some lower rates instead? Kthanksbye
I'd make some comment about comcast, but then my network will get throttled down
I'm sorry Comcast, but I am looking to spend LESS with your shitty Buy-Everything-and-Own Everyone company.
Especially when FIOS hits my area.
If you could ACTUALLY provide me with the internet speeds I am paying for, MAYBE I will think about staying with you.
@BMills
good luck getting better speeds on anything but fiber. And honestly, what do you need faster internet than what comcast provides anyway? My parents live in the chicago suburbs, and their service is faster than I could ever imagine needing.
King of crap is more like it. Anaglyph 3D has been sucking for 40 years, no reason to watch it now. Not only is it going to suck, but it is going to make people think the new 3D technologies suck too -- which it doesn't.
Major FAIL Comcast.
@BenD
Agreed, anaglyph 3d is ancient and to dust it off as the new hotness really shows how uninventive and quick to turn a dollar these companies are. For everyone else, catch up on some history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy
I hate Comcast!
this will confuse things even more. polarized 3-D is already complicated enough... why bother by going BACKWARDS in time?
this will simply reinforce people's idea that the anaglphy 3-D is what will be coming down the road on the Direct TV standard and the Blu-Ray standard when it is NOT the same 3-D standard. *sigh*.
I'm sure it will look great! Especially during fast action scenes where lots of pixelation occurs because Comcast compresses the signal so much.
May be Comcast will not be the King of 3d but truly it is a truly Drama Queen.
@magallanes King of 3D? More like emperor.
And someone needs to tell the emperor that he ain't got no clothes on.
Maybe the cable and telcos should concentrate on shoring up the quality of their regular HD services before lurching on to 3D. Just a thought.
@dwboston1 I was just going to post something similar. How about adding more HD instead of claiming that their OnDemand HD counts as actual HD channels. Maybe after their analog switch over they'll start adding more HD.
@mburstin
You are correct: http://www.multichannel.com/article/314752-Comcast_Rides_51_HD_Channels_Into_S_F_Bay_Area.php
Tim, good thing you crossed-out "exploitation", because it seems like Engadget "exploits" 3D news a lot these days...
What's the point in this? The stupid red and blue glasses are only going to put people off the idea of 3D that actually is any good. When Channel 4 did "3D Week" a couple of months back interest was lost by everyone within less than a minute of watching.
Although I'm bitter cause they don't work with my eyes.
i can has 3D?
When a corporation is given a license to print money several times over, this is the kind of innovation that we get. If it takes more bandwidth to deliver 3D, you can be sure that your other services will suffer as a result. This is because Corporations of the day are loathe to invest in infrastructure because their "shareholders" demand an instant ROI.
Jeez Louise! As a Cablevision customer, I'm still waiting for MSNBC in high-def! Will I see 3D before that is accomplished? Damn companies need to get their priorities in order.
@metric,
No. I don't watch TV at all (except for the occasional sporting event and I can barely tolerate that) because it is low-brow corporate trash laced with consumerist propaganda. However, my wife puts on MSNBC occasionally and it's the only channel I could remember to make my point. As soon as the TV goes on, I put on my noise-cancelling headphones and open the lappy.
The point is that I pay for all the fees and gear for digital HD and I'm not getting it on lots of channels. Will I get (and pay for) 3D before that changes?
On another note, I assume you watch Faux news because your knee-jerk comments have a familiar tone to them.
its amazing how a picture can be so misleading lol. the first thing that came to my mind is that comcast was renaming itself to comcat.
I thought the King of 3D programming was John Carmack.
I think 1080p over MPEG4 should be more of a priority. Perfect the current technolgies before diving head first into another one.
I have a Motorola DCX3400 and it is physically capable of decoding a 1080p MPEG4 stream and outputting it along with Dolby TruHD over HDMI.
First things first! Can't build a house without a foundation!
@cypherx Dude, you missed the whole point of 3D. It requires your CUSTOMERS to spend money on new equipment, but not COMCAST. To support MPEG-4 they would have to replace a lot of those OLD set top boxes that don't support it. Sure it would be a good idea to do that first for the 2:1 quality improvement or bandwidth reduction BEFORE moving to 3D which will either reduce quality or use more bandwidth to get the 3D effect (estimated at roughly 50% more bandwidth for the same quality). But that would involve Comcast spending their own money. They'd rather spend yours.
How bout Comcast actually give their customers a decent amount of HD channels (not on demand crap) before they dwell into the world of 3D.
Shaq's got your back with free 3D glasses when you sign up for Comcast Triple Play! Simply sign a 2 year contract and after your 3rd consecutive payment, Comcast will mail you a pair of 3D glasses to use when you pay $9.99 for a new release 3D movie!
I'm in - thanks Shaq!
You guys do understand that 3D is just a new feature of the latest HDtv. That actually benefits the people purchasing new TVs? Why would you not want more features for your money? There not 3d only they will look even better them last years models even if you never us the 3d mode.
In reality this tv are true 120hz tvs. Also if comcast does add a 3d tier that is another benefit to people that don't care for 3d. Because you simply don't pay for it!!!
@Harpdogg
I see what you're saying, but I'm more upset that they're moving onto a new feature when we have yet to make the most of the current one. We're how many years into HD programing and I still have channels with no HD offering and HD channels that are nothing more than stretch-o-vision. How about we work on that first?
@daaper I actually have nvidia 3d vision for pc and it does Add to most experiances. So I think that as more people can actually see 3d in a home setting it will become more popular. Not mass appeal but if about 10 million household have access to it over the next 5 years it will get more support. And its great for marketing.
As far as better quality HD that's going to take about 10 years simply because as more primetime tv is filmed in HD there will be more content to show. Comcast can't control what the providers send to them. They can do there best to not make it worse but much of the bad HD is bad because Tbs/TNT/espn send them garbage in the 1st place.
Just look at Blue Ray movies to see how diffenrent quality can be from one production company to the next
I really don't think 3D has any hope of catching on in the "average" household unless they can make autostereoscopy (glasses-less 3D) moderately priced. I really can't imagine people watching TV with 3D glasses on. Maybe 3D will catch on with people that have dedicated home theaters specifically for watching films, but I don't see people casually watching 3D TV with glasses- be them polarized or active.
So, I suspect the current 3D movement is a fad. Maybe it will happen someday, but not for quite a while.
@reggie14 Agreed. The one thing that MIGHT make sense is gaming on the HDTV with 3D. Since it only involves the one or two people and not everybody in the room. And you'd probably already wearing a headset anyway. And there's no issues with content since it can be created dynamically. Might see that being a big feature on future XBox and PS3 models once enough 3D-capable TVs (at no price premium) get sold...
Stupid f*ing gimmick.
Friends, they have trouble delivering a clear HD picture, let alone 3D. And, that is why I am a DirecTV customer after 20 years with Comcast in all its incarnations. I can't imagine how much bandwidth this will absorb.
Dont they have to finish upgrading to HD first?