A senior BBC technology chief has admitted that viewers are becoming “less and less enthusiastic” about 3D TV. Speaking at the recent Future TV summit in London, the BBC’s Andy Quested said that although the broadcaster was one of the keenest proponents of 3D television, audiences had progressively gotten lower each time they televised a new show.
 |
| 3D TV dead in the water? The BBC seems to think so |
Quested made his comments following the end of a two-year testing period at the BBC. During that time, the broadcaster experimented with televising several shows and events in 3D, including its flagship Strictly Come Dancing programme, the comedy show Mr. Stink, natural history documentary Walking with Dinosaurs, and last summer’s Olympic Games.
But unfortunately, it seems that 3D TV just doesn’t appeal to British viewers, despite there being an estimated 1.5 million households that now own 3D capable TVs.
According to Quested, the BBC’s 3D coverage of the Olympics opening ceremony was watched by around half of all 3D TV owners in the UK, and consequently deemed to be a success. But following that event, 3D TV audiences for the rest of the Olympics declined rapidly, with subsequent shows drawing an average of just 4,000 viewers, suggesting that most people have little interest in the special effects at home. Last Christmas’s broadcasts of Mr. Stink and the Queen’s Speech proved to be disappointing as well, drawing the interest of less than 5% of potential viewers, Quested added.
“We saw viewing figures fall dramatically after the Olympics, and from our point of view as a public service broadcaster that’s pretty worrying,” stated Quested.
“The thing is we have to justify the money being spent. Is this something best left to a private broadcaster? I’m afraid to say that it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a 3D channel launched on the BBC now.”
No Future for 3D TV?
It’s pretty hard to ignore the BBC’s numbers, which suggest that 3D TV in its current form really doesn’t interest that many people, but we should bear in mind the limited extent of the Beeb’s trial period. To date, the Olympics opening ceremony coverage was by far and away the most popular 3D programme on the BBC, given the nature of the event. However, it’s hardly surprising that there were less viewers watching specific sports events in 3D, given that these don’t capture the imagination in quite the same way.
In hindsight, filming the Queen’s Speech in 3D probably wasn’t the most inspired idea either – her majesty is hardly the most animated of characters these days, and having her sat in a chair talking to viewers doesn’t really exploit the full potential of the technology. Maybe if the BBC had chosen more sports events, like a World Cup qualifier or FA Cup football match, or alternatively some movies to broadcast in 3D, we’d see greater audiences.
In any case, Quested didn’t completely rule out a future for 3D TV, saying that the development of “glasses-free” 3D TVs could one day deliver a truly compelling experience that might just make a difference.
Source: 3D Focus
Mr Stink was shown simultaneously in 2D on the BBC’s main channel and on BBC HD, they probably just watched the main channel because of routine, perhaps if it was shown on BBC 1 in 3D it would have got a far bigger audience.
I don’t think they have shown enough to come to this conclusion, show some films in 3D and show them prime time on BBC 1 and advertise as much as possible and then lets see what happens.
3D is great but to watch it as a family you need a lot of expensive glasses and the content is not their to justify it, mainly use it for 3D gaming myself when not everyone needs to watch.
@FoxyMulder:
Didn’t BBC have a “WATCH IN 3D” prompt at the top right corner during those shows? If I remember that detail correctly, that’s pretty good promotion…
@David
Yes they did, i still think they need to show a lot more regular programming before they can call it a flop, there has been nothing shown since Xmas and the only news i have read on future programmes is the Doctor Who 50th anniversary episode in November of this year.
If there were regular broadcasts, a couple of times a week, the audience would grow, a few programmes a year tells us nothing, in my opinion.
“viewers are becoming “less and less enthusiastic” about 3D TV.”
That’s because it’s a poor gimmick.
“A poor gimmick”. Yep, it just doesn’t work. With or without glasses.
I have never failed to be unimpressed by 3D. it looks nothing remotely like real life, and that’s the object of the exercise, right?
No the object of the exercise is not to look like real life, why would people want real life, we want to be entertained, 3D at its best does that.
Bear in mind the issues of kit as well I tested many active sets and wanted them to be great but couldn’t get on with the boss eyed feeling and strain. I went passive and its a new better world so apart from a convincing glasses fre set the next best idea is 4 k passive in my opinion. Agree with the narrative that content is king for 3D success Prometheus. Being my fav so far
I think you can thank Hollywood and the gaming industry for trying to add value to your visual entertainment,their intent was simply to sell you more consumer products.A more subtle 3D screen technology which doesn’t need glasses would be the way to go as the somewhat exaggerated experience of 3D now lacks sensual empathy for the viewer.The primary reason why 3D is slow to be adopted by commercial TV is the lack of usable content and the cost of producing quality broadcasts.3D is still vulnerable to obsolecence and may suffer from R&D cutbacks so it’s potential life in it’s current form may be relatively short.
3D is now here to stay, unlike the fifties and eighties where it died out quickly due to the expense required for cinemas to adopt it, now all cinemas use digital projection systems and are capable of showing 3D, the cost to convert some films has fallen too.
As for subtle 3D, we don’t want subtle, we want great pop out and great depth, subtle won’t work, the problem is that Hollywood is not using the technology correctly, too many films are converted and not shot in 3D, they should shoot using 3D AND 2D cameras, give us great 3D for those who want it and great 2D for those who want it, that would require different shooting angles for each format.
As Paul says above, the future of 3D will be passive and with 4K you can get 2K to each eye and the image will look stunning and without the usual limitations, that’s the future though, for now i still enjoy a great 3D presentation as seen in films like A Turtles Tale or Resident Evil: Afterlife.