BBC Abandoning 3D Broadcasts

yea they are better spending money paying the likes of Jonathan ross 6mil a year for crappy chat shows

actually its amazing how alike bbc and c4 have became they both broadcast the same BS these days wheres the original uniqueue programs that the tv license funds? and im not talking about ******* walking on ice or any other crap game shows that should be left to bbc2 or bbc3
 
arknor said:
yea they are better spending money paying the likes of Jonathan ross 6mil a year for crappy chat shows

actually its amazing how alike bbc and c4 have became they both broadcast the same BS these days wheres the original uniqueue programs that the tv license funds? and im not talking about ******* walking on ice or any other crap game shows that should be left to bbc2 or bbc3
Click to expand...

Huh?

The bbc haven't paid Ross for years. And what's your complaint with c4? They get some public funds, which is why they still manage to take some chances, unlike itv and all the other ad funded channels who have to play it safe to keep viewer numbers and ad revenue high. And how would keeping guff on bbc2 and bbc3 make the use of the license fee any more acceptable that they're spending the license fee on guff?

And yeah, 3d is rubbish.
 
Last edited:
"the likes of" jonathan ross
I'm pretty sure ITV get a small portion of the tvlicense since 2009 but only a few hundred million a year

anyway BBC has nothing for me until they start making adult programmes again.
I don't own a TV.
I don't have a TV package.
I don't pay for a TV license.
I don't watch live TV.

Luther is probably the one program I would watch on the bbc, drwho used to be good until they decided to change the target audience years ago and go for even younger viewers
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
yea they are better spending money paying the likes of Jonathan ross 6mil a year for crappy chat shows
Click to expand...

They're actually pay ex directors ridiculous amounts of money. It was in the paper the other day.
The National Audit Office found that in the three years to the end of December, 150 departing executives were paid £25 million in compensation settlements.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Whilst I'm no massive fan of 3D (it tends to feel blurred/forced for me), it is a bit of a shame that they're cutting it.
I guess they've finished the research they wanted/needed to do to see how feasible it is and how much the public like it, and found it wanting.
That doesn't surprise me at all given the limitations of 3D sets at the moment, and that other broadcasters in the likes of Japan and the US who had dedicated channels are cutting them back/off completely due to the lack of public interest.



arknor said:
yea they are better spending money paying the likes of Jonathan ross 6mil a year for crappy chat shows
Click to expand...

Seriously you're well out of date - not to mention fallen for the DM/tabloid rubbish it was only "reported" that JR was paid 6 million, and it was to his production company (hence when he was suspended by the BBC, they continued to pay some of the money so the crew who worked on his shows weren't hurt by his suspension).
IIRC it was pretty much confirmed by JR himself after he left.
And for that 6 million the BBC got all of Film xx with Jonathon Ross, Friday Night with JR, his radio show and various smaller programmes - in programming terms it worked out at well under the published rate the BBC would pay for that type of content (something like 150 hours of TV a year with the radio work being free).
I'm no great fan of JR, but the tabloids really put the boot in and it annoys me a bit when their line of rubbish gets taken as gospel.
 
3d on film can be great(not that directors know how to use it, which is dumb, do directors not sit down and watch 3d films and go these exaggerated 3dness is crap and its far far far more effective in the more subtle 3d scenes.), but for normal tv don't see the point.
However would love to see f1 in 3d as well as wildlife documentaries.
It has its place, but for the run of the mill programs I just don't see the point.

The penetration of 3d tv is still quite small. I don't have one, but the few friends which do, think like the above, on certain things they'll go 3d but for the most part they watch in 2d.
 
Last edited:
I said ages ago on here that 3D would die soon. People didn't believe. Now ESPN and the BBC are getting rid of it.

I hope it does go.
 
THMRK said:
I said ages ago on here that 3D would die soon. People didn't believe. Now ESPN and the BBC are getting rid of it.

I hope it does go.
Click to expand...

I've been wanting it to die out for some time too, far too gimmicky and not much use.

Just prefer it 2D and in best quality possible. doesn't need changing until V.R is at the top of its game :p
 
Until you can flick between 2d and 3d at the press of a button and without needing glasses, it won't catch on for tv. At least for me it won't.
 
Have a tv that is 3d capable and never even bought the glasses to use.

Went to watch Avatar when it first came out in cinemas, and while I enjoyed the film well enough, the best use of 3d was the animation of a dog fetching a ball before the film started.
 
We have recently bought a Panasonic GT50 TV from JL and paid £590 for it. So all was good with that and yet the 3D aspect of the TV was not much of a consideration when we bought it. A few weeks later on, having decided, but very much unsure of the wisdom of doing so, to buy two pairs of glasses for £40 from eBay, we are really very impressed when watching 3D content.

We have got quite a few films now in 3D, some of the better ones seem to be the animated type. So whilst I do accept that it has its problems it has surprised me how much we enjoy it.

I just hope that it does evolve to the point where all the 3D work is done in the TV, with no need for glasses, and that the brightness and viewing angles etc is no longer compromised.

I suppose now it is a push for 4k to become an accepted standard, although the cost and point of it at the moment is beyond most peoples pockets.
 
I think it's a shame this is being discontinued, but if the general population's appetite isn't for 3D, then it's good that the BBC isn't continuing to spend money on a lost cause.

I applaud the Beeb for jumping on this tech in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom