The Most Interesting Thing About This Years Super Bowl

with out question is…… drum roll please…. 3D

the fact that no one asked if the game was being televised in 3D before hand.

No one talked about wanting to  watch in 3D

No one was upset that the game was not broadcast in 3D. There weren’t irate call ins to talk radio. In fact, I don’t think anyone realized that it wasn’t being broadcast in 3D because no one cared.

It was the same thing earlier in the season when the NBA did a game in 3D. Not a single person asked me about it. No one in the media brought it up. No one talked about watching it.  That is saying a lot.

The future of 3D is not sports. A bunch of guys are not going to spend a lot of money on glasses to look goofy sitting next to each other.  Nor will they sit on top of each other  to watch a non glasses 3D . (non glasses 3D requires viewing from right in front of the TV.)

That’s not to say that 3D doesn’t have a future on TV. 3D will work for things people tend to watch alone or with one other person. If you bought the 3D TV. If you bought the glasses . You probably bought just a pair for yourself. Maybe a significant other or child.  Noticing that a movie is on in 3D and grabbing the glasses, that could work. Noticing that a travel show is in 3D (say… Get Out from HDNet , now shooting in 3D) and grabbing your glasses works. Again, any show that you would typically watch by yourself, it’s no problem grabbing the glasses and chilling in front of the TV.  It’s a unique experience when you want something different. It can really make some shows a lot more interesting.

Having to buy a bunch of glasses for you and your buddies to watch the game…..too much risk that someone takes a picture of the group and posts it on Facebook. That shit lives forever…..

35 thoughts on “The Most Interesting Thing About This Years Super Bowl

  1. I think 3D has some sort of future, but only if they utilize glasses free 3D. This eliminates the uncomfortable feeling of wearing ridiculous glasses in front of others. There are already slot machines in Vegas using this technology and the best example is the 3DS by Nintendo. I think the ultimate problem with 3D and the general public now is all the complexity of it. Similar to the introduction of HDTV, 3D viewing requires complicated glasses that require charging, some have long wires, and most are around the $200 range per pair. Not the simple “just put them on” movie theater glasses associated with most 3D viewing. Without a clear path and constantly changing technology I think people are just leary to take the plunge. I know I am. After all look at HD DVD and Blu-ray. People who adopted HD DVD early we esentially let out in the cold with worthless (although not cheap to purchase)players and disc. After the format war ended Blu-ray has soared. The movies are affordable and players are under $100. Ultimatly getting a clear, simplified format and affordable pricing will tell the tale of 3D tv.

    Comment by jebhoops23 -

  2. Interesting post. I enjoyed reading this post very much.

    Comment by ashu3337 -

  3. Except for about 10 people watching the game alone, everyone else is enjoying beer, bbq’s and the company of friends, activities that are’nt so 3d glass friendly.

    Comment by melbournedents -

  4. Pingback: The Most Interesting Thing About This Years Super Bowl

  5. Pingback: Weekly Roundup: 5 Tips for Your Small Business - CityMax Small Business Website Builder Blog | CityMax Small Business Website Builder Blog

  6. I hate 3D!

    Comment by hotandsnot -

  7. what a good thought

    Comment by emphasizebpo2011 -

  8. Pingback: Is the Nintendo 3DS the saviour of 3D TVs?

  9. bring on 4K!

    Comment by 4ktelevision -

  10. All good points… Wearing 3D glasses, and watching the game with your friends, then getting up to go to the bathroom, and removing the glasses, then putting them back on again, just seems like a hassle…

    The future of eyewear for the NFL does not lie in 3D technology, but in goggle hats to be worn at a Pittsburg Steelers’ Game, when it’s 10 degrees and snowing. These will not make the game 3D, but they will protect millions of fans, and keep them in the stands longer, enjoying the game longer, and spending more. Throw in some built in headphones with and AM/FM tuner to listen to the game, then we have an all in one mobile NFL Fan Command Center…

    Comment by goodbhats -

  11. Saw Bieber in 3D this past weekend. For the most part it just made everything blurry…but the confetti at the end made it all so worthwhile.

    Comment by Yorick von Fortinbras -

  12. Pingback: Articles of the Week: What We Learned From Reganomics | Stocks on Wall Street

  13. Pingback: Weekend Coffee Links: Love Edition

  14. Pingback: Friday Bytes 2.11.11 | CXO Footnotes

  15. Pingback: Return to Super Bowl Advertising | Living in a Media World

  16. Personally, I think it probably has more of a future with gaming than with regular TV. But even there I’m still not completely certain. The autostereoscopic Nintendo 3DS hits the shelves here in the States on March 27th; haven’t seen this much hype for a new system in a long time, and seems to be strong 3rd party support and great feedback from developers.

    However, there are a lot of questions still about the narrow margin for viewing it, possibility for headaches and such from long periods of play. Nintendo itself even issued a eye health warning about young kids playing it, though opthomologists disagreed with it. Preordered one myself, though having issues seeing with depth perception and seeing 3-D effects (never could “see” the image in a stereogram for the life of me), and issues with headaches and motion sickness, not sure if I’ll be able to see the effect properly or if it will have me barfing like Linda Blair. But even if so, it has a slider to turn off the effect. Now, should it really be a smash hit, the next “big thing,” then you may see a bit more demand for it with TV programming, but even then, just isn’t the same as a handheld gaming system that doesn’t require glasses and also has the advantage of taking 3-D pictures and video.

    Comment by bucfanpaka -

  17. Pingback: Thursday’s Linkage

  18. I hitnk therugelachman is right. 3D is in the hands of adult entertainment industry. They have determined the winner of Beta vs VHS, Blue Ray vs HD DVD and they seem to be making more money off of streaming internet feeds, Aps etc… than anyone else. If they figure they can make money off of it, then thats going to be the leading mechanism in bringing it about (and it meets Mark’s criteria – watch alone, want a unique experience & makes watching it a lot more interesting.)

    Even if it catches on, it’s going to be a while. Only half the TVs in my house are HD and I need HD boxes for those. I’ve got digital converter boxes on other TVs and the ones just hooked up to the wall I’ll have to go buy or rent a converter for soon. My cable & internet bill is already $150 a month and I’m paying for 300 channels I never watch. I don’t see me forking over another $15 a month when they release the next tier of programming that is all 3D, even if I did but those glasses to watch porn.

    Comment by psmcgarrity -

  19. Pingback: Top Posts —

  20. Pingback: The Wireless Weekly: 2.9 |

  21. Given how most major sports are shot, particular angles would benefit from 3D (i.e. corner kicks in soccer, field goals for football, penalty shots for hockey) but on the whole, most games are shot in wide angle, field/court-length shots and diminish the 3D experience. MMA/boxing, however, could be a benefactor from the in-your-face action and close angles that’d highlight the finer nuances of the sport.

    Personally I am not clamoring for 3D technology/content, although my friends and I did love “Avatar” in IMAX 3D. There’s a space for it, albeit a more intimate, personal one for specific types of consumption that you noted.

    Comment by LikeTheWhiskey -

  22. I don’t have anything against 3D, but there is a lot of technology I’d like to see before 3D. Most obviously, I’d like to have access to a menu of source cameras. I want to see how the entire play unfolds. There are things happening down field that affect the quarterback’s decisions that we can’t see. Maybe I want to see everything from the overhead camera. Give me that choice.

    I think the game would greatly benefit from enhanced data collection from the field. Place very accurate positioning transponders in every helmet and football and that data becomes very valuable. An abstraction of each play could be sold to ESPN for an enhanced Gamecast presentation for cell phones and other low bandwidth applications. Individual player data could be correlated to camera data, sorted in a database and used by NFL coaching staffs for analysis. There is all sort of data that we’re leaving on the field that can be used in many (profitable) ways.

    Comment by strettadotcom -

  23. 2 markets will be successful with home 3D: childrens programming and porn. (not together, obviously).

    Comment by therugelachman -

  24. Right on. Couldn’t agree more. I think 3-D is fun at tourist places like Epcot in Orlando, or in the big IMAX theaters, such as the one at Smithsonian. Epcot focuses on technology sometimes, so it’s a good fit. And at Smithsonian, you could see dinosaurs in 3-D, a movie about space exploration, etc. Aside from that, it’s goofy. I have zero interest right now in home television 3-D. The Super Bowl is super enough without it.

    Comment by dcangelo -

  25. Wow, lots of negativity here. I agree with everything you wrote, Mark, except about 3D without glasses. I work with autostereoscopic 3D technology, and there are TVs out there that have up to 120 degree viewing angle. No need to stack the guys up with these screens!

    Soon we will have the ability to stream ESPN 3D in real time on these displays, and then they will be the answer to all the negative comments on here. No need for silly glasses, no need for single line viewing. It is here, and will be tested in sports bars around the country during football season this year.

    I can’t wait to show you a Mavs game in 3D without glasses and just like you would watch regular big-screen TV. More to follow!

    Comment by gunghoglen -

  26. Mark,

    I found Roger Ebert’s blog very interesting as well, “Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed.”

    Comment by nealvi -

  27. Call me a luddite (I’m only 28) but I fail to see why anyone would want 3D ANYTHING outside of a theme park attraction. When I watch things in 3D, I spend all my time wondering whether my glasses are working correctly and if what I’m seeing is supposed to be popping out at me. As far as I can tell, it’s just a gimmick and I don’t think there’s much demand for it, especially when most of the country just upgraded to EXPENSIVE HDTVs.

    Comment by Daniel Daugherty -

  28. Pingback: The Most Interesting Thing About This Years Super Bowl | RuanLe

  29. Very interesting, but disagree that 3D will still be successful. If sports viewers (who have been argued as the demographic most needed to usher in the 3D era) don’t care that the biggest sports event is in 3D, then it shows there is not a huge market pull for it.

    It will be a niche technology a select few viewers embrace, but will not be a determining factor in cable subscription or new TV purchases if 3D options cost extra. People will dabble in 3D if its part of a product or service they would get anyway, but that alone doesn’t bode well for its long term success.

    Comment by andrewdbs -

  30. Why wasn’t it in 3d? JEEZ!!! I can’t believe I couldn’t use my $50,000 TV and my $300 3D glasses to watch it! That’s the only thing that bothered me!… Well I’m done with my super pretentious guy impression.

    Comment by jaredawesome -

  31. I agree. The reason I have thus far resisted even thinking about getting a 3D TV is because I typically like to do other things while watching TV (like I am right now..), can’t really do that with the glasses. Sports is a perfect example of that, the glasses just get in the way of interacting with the other people watching it with you, or making beer/snack runs, or logging on to Twitter to see what others are saying about the game and commercials, etc.

    Comment by Mike McBride -

  32. Interesting point… I really hadn’t thought about it at all.

    I definitely have thought about your points about sports in 3d, though. I don’t think anyone wants to wear the dumb glasses or sit in one spot (I haven’t seen that tech in a TV, but I know the technology exists). If you’re going to do that, you might as well go to a movie theater or bar. The point of being at home is being able to relax and move around, and 3D technology (currently) takes away that home advantage, so to speak.

    Until they find a way to let you view 3D TV from any viewpoint (how that would work, I have no idea), I don’t see 3D sports becoming popular. Even huge fans like me don’t sit in one spot for hours… or want to wear the glasses.

    Comment by firebertjustice -

  33. I couldn’t agree more. It was definitely a failure when Jerry tried to implement it for part of the Cowboys home game. Cool for television, bad for sports.

    Comment by jjonesttu -

  34. Was it in 3D? I didn’t care, still don’t so ignore my question.

    Did anyone want to see the horrible commercials or the abomination that was the halftime show? How do people that saw that in 3D, assuming it was, feel about that. Worth it or did you burn the glasses? 😉

    Comment by TestShoot -

  35. I have a 3D TV and it gives me a headache. Others have said the same. I’m just not interested. Its just an uncomfortable viewing experience

    Comment by boxslayersports -

Comments are closed.