Sky to close 3D channel

[Stuart]

Seems that 3DTV doesn't have as bright a future as some might have hoped.

Sky have announced that their 3D channel is to close. They will still carry on demand 3D stuff though.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/new...pbaT8G1spe3fkx

What do you think? Has 3D failed in this country, or is this a sign that the future for TV is on demand?

Personally, I think the former. I never thought 3D would do well, because it costs a lot of money, and the glasses make a lot of people uncomfortable, but it doesn't (IMO) add anything to films or shows unless they are big action "event" type films or shows.

[jodash]

I thought 3DTV was great especially watching swimming front room always looked soaked! just have to use my 3D Blu-ray player now

[muppetman11]

I can see both points , I loved certain content in 3D however some things I didn't see the point.

I thought the best examples of 3D I saw were concerts , some sporting events , certain movies and the David Attenborough stuff.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Stuart

What do you think? Has 3D failed in this country, or is this a sign that the future for TV is on demand?

Neither. 3D is niche, and as with much niche content, on demand is the best place for it. If people want to watch it, they can, and if they don't, they don't have to subsidise it.

[Stephen]

Hopefully if Sky put it all on Demand then VM may get access to it sometime.

When I have some time to kill, I may try to find a thread from years ago in which we argued over the future of 3D. I seem to recall I was sceptical.

I am not surprised at this. Whatever 3D adds to the experience of TV viewing, it takes away by the requirement to have glasses ready for everyone who wants to watch. On that basis, it simply can't work in the realm of casual viewing, or having the TV on in the background while cooking, ironing, doing homework or whatever else goes on in a busy family home.

Restricting it to on demand is sensible, because planned viewing is the only way it works.

[MovedGoalPosts]

I've had a 3D TV for a couple of years. I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched something in 3D. I only bought it because it was on offer at a similar price to the non 3D version.

Even with a good sized screen, 3D on TV is just not that immersive viewing in the way it can be at the cinema. Even at the cinema many films made in 3D could just as easily be watched in 2D. Indeed the only thing I have watched to date that really made me sit up and take note was Avatar, the thing that started off this whole process.

I'm not so sure about planned viewing killing it on Sky, after all I rarely watch anything live these days frequently timeslipping or whatever on the TiVo. It's probably more like, as with all Sky's Movies channels, they are showing the same thing over and over, so the limited repeating content isn't actually attracting that much of an audience to have a chance of being viable.

[alferret]

We have just got a 3D TV although it was brought with 4k in mind and we've used 3D a couple of times so far, content.picture seems good only thing is those glasses, the bloody things make me tired within half hour and I fall asleep. We have active not passive, don't know if I would fair any better with those types but I ain't forking out for another new TV.
From what I have read, 4k is the push for manufacturers now as 3D didn't rely take off at all.