Comcast CEO not sure 24x7 3D is in our future
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted February 4th 2010 1:37PM
posted February 4th 2010 1:37PM
Everyone in the home entertainment industry is talking 3D, and because most of the details remain unknown, we are left speculating more than not. One of the questions is if 3D will be like HD in the way that we'll demand all programming be in 3D and this is one we're just not sure about. We're not the only ones either as Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts is wondering the same thing. In a Q&A session at the a Congressional Internet Caucus event last Wednesday he said "The question is, are you going to want to sit there and wear glasses four hours a day to watch TV. I don't think so." And we couldn't agree more, in fact we believe 3D will be used more like surround sound -- sure some use it all the time, but most just turn it on for big events or movies. We'll all have to wait and see how this turns out, but we just can't imagine a day when all TV is viewed in 3D, at least as long as glasses are required.
I don't like the surround sound analogy.
The thing about 3D is that it only really works for certain things, particularly CGI and computer animation (the same as CGI really!). Avatar itself looked obviously better in the CGI (animated) scenes of the planet, rather than live action scenes inside the compound. And converting 2D content to 3D won't work either... think colorization.
Surround Sound almost always benefits a film when done correctly. You don't *need* it, but it will always work, and films and TV shows benefit from a good surround mix. The main reason people don't use surround sound are space and money issues. The main reason people won't use 3D is that it doesn't work in a lot of situations (not to mention headaches, and whatnot).
-Pie
"And we couldn't agree more, in fact we believe 3D will be used more like surround sound -- sure some use it all the time, but most just turn it on for big events or movies."
What? Who turns off surround sound? Even TV shows have surround sound. And there's no point to leaving the extra speakers unused. Almost any receiver can make use of the extra speakers even if the source is plain stereo.
At any rate, as long as glasses are involved, or extended viewing sessions cause dizziness, discomfort, headaches, etc. it's pretty clear that all content will not be in 3D.
@Niraj I have. I haven't bothered to hook up the extra speakers since I moved, and the while center channel speaker is okay, you do miss out on some audio cues because they are being directed to speakers which aren't hooked up. Not so bad when watching TV, horrible when playing a game that "warns" the player of enemies/attacks with sound.
@(Unverified) That's a special case, where you haven't hooked up all your speakers. I was taking issue with the article's assertion that most people would turn off the surround sound except for some things. Of the people I know with a surround sound system, none would ever turn it off for certain content...there's just no reason to do it.
The thing I dislike the most about 3D is the brightness level.
The contrast ratios and brightness specs of the TVs we buy are important enough to be listed on the box, but wearing the 3D *sunglasses* makes it seem dimmed.
Add to that a society of people who have LASIK surgery instead of wear glasses where their night-vision isn't always the best and the prospect of 3D more than for a movie or two a week seems unlikely.
In a theater, you're already at an event-type of setting, sitting in seats that aren't as comfortable as your couch; eating junk food you paid way too much for; and with people you don't know.... popping on some 3D glasses doesn't seem troublesome. But in my own home / home theater where comfort is king, that's the last thing I want to do.
@harley3k i had lasik and my night vision is perfect. alsovision is 4x better than 20/20. i see 3d fine and never had any problems with long term viewings
If 3D was such a big deal that people are trying to make it out to be, it would have taken over gaming by now. Gaming is already an experience where you interact, use a controller, etc. Wearing glasses wouldn't be much of a stretch.
I just don't see 3D TV being more than a gimmick, just because TV manufacturers and Content producers want us to spend more money.
And lets face it as far as content is concerned, not everyone out there is going to put the James Cameron style of effort in producing it. As with 2D TV, quality is going to vary.
Any photo showing a Comcast executive MUST be altered to display devil-like horns or a pile of crap to signify their true name: Comcrap.
I agree that 3-D TV is a gimmick, which I feel is being employed mostly because the quality of a lot of programming is horrible. Something is needed to draw attention away from the fact that you are watching garbage, so 3-D garbage would be new.
I'm not saying all of our programming is garbage, but after you sift through all of the crap and look at how much money you pay for cable TV, you might want to wait for the DVDs. And after spending 1000s of dollars on a new TV, needing new equipment AND content doesn't sit well with most consumers. If in a family of four it would require 3 extra pairs of glasses to even see it it doesn't seem to be practical (especially if you already wear regular ones).
From what I've been reading here, it looks like glass-less TVs will be showing up in about 3 years, so the debate is only temporary. Well, at least for those that don't mind buying yet again another TV.
The public 3D events, even Avatar, seems to point toward 3D being used just for special events rather than promoting it for everyday use.
Like HD with the networks, HD started out a prime-time only thing and only over time will it eventually spread to a 24/7 thing. And I'm still waiting for my cable co. to get all the channels over to digital.
IF 3D really catches on, the vast majority of programming would eventually be 3D and 24/7, but it would take many years of popularity and demand. It's possible, but I have to agree, it's not likely. Most will treat this as a fad and between the nay-sayers and those that can't even see 3D, we'll most likely see it relegated to be a special feature for your Blu-rays and major sporting events on TV. And a cable channel or 2 that is dedicated to 3D.
I don't think you can compare it to surround sound. Once you get surround sound set up, it really requires no extra effort to use all the time. My harmony turns on my receiver, my receiver routes all my video and plays the audio. The speakers are already all mounted. In fact, it requires extra effort to not watch everything in surround sound.
There is not really any scenario where watching in 3D becomes easier than not. Even if you get everything set up, you still have to get out out the glasses to watch. If I had to muck with settings every time I wanted it, or had to turn on speakers, I'd probably never use surround sound either.
I'm curious about all the comments which called 3D TV a gimmic. How many have actually *seen* a 3D TV (non-anaglyph)?
I like 3D HDTV, and was surprised at how good it looked in a Sony demo I saw. The CGI still looks far better than "live action," and it really does enhance the viewing experience in the right situation.
However, any talk of 24/7 3D on all channels is wrong on all levels. A 3-D channel devoted to 3-D *produced* content (not "upgraded") would be fine, but there is no reason to force everything to 3-D at this point (and it won't happen anyway, since there are too many "legacy" HDTVs that can't do 3D at this point).
-Pie
What? Comcast has a future? Thats news to me!
VR is the future. 3D is a step toward that. It will take at least 10 years before the general public even begins to think about having it at home.
He obviously doesn't realize that one day 3D will work well enough that everyone will want it. Clearly no one wants to wear 3D glasses all of the time but when images seems a bit more realistic, everyone will want in.
When is the holodeck coming out?