ESPN 3-D
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4796555
This could be cool, or it could also suck. 3-D tech is evolving, I'll be interested in checking it out anyway.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
You can't be SERIOUS!
January 5th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Erin Andrews in 3D. Hmm, this is sounding more appealing already.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
Pam Ward in 3-D???? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Wtf is wrong with me?
January 5th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
that's effing sick. You've got mental problems.
January 5th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
Pam Ward in 3D > Holly Rowe in 3D
January 5th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
Holly Rowe is super fine. I would wreck that moon-faced hottie.
Pam Ward is a dude.
January 5th, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
Hannah Storm in 3-D...
Anyone catch the Rose Parade before the game, in that skin tight top? Pushing 50, and still workin' it.
Of course, once Fox loses the Bowl games, that could have meant TCU Cheer Squad in 3-D.
Now if we could only get Denise in 3-D....
January 5th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
Wow! That's one fine dance team.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
You sir, are a hogger.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I guess I'm still a little skeptical about how 3D will add to the experience watching at home. It seems like more of a gimmick than a game-changing feature, but I'm sure the same could be said of a lot of emerging technologies when they were in their infancy. I won't be buying a TV until I'm out of school anyway, so we'll see what happens in the next few years I guess.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
If not, I recommend you do. Its a cool movie and the graphics are just boggling.
I can see how something similar would be great for TV. It adds depth perception, which you forget after a while, but could be awesome for watching football.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
What is up with all of the movies coming out in 3-D?
It was like every movie that was being previewed before Avatar was a 3-D movie and frankly I don't think that the 3-D aspect of Avatar was impressive or added anything to the movie.
3-D was cool in the 90s I don't understand the recent resurgence.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
3-D movies is Hollywood's response to HD home theater systems. With the greater numbers of people who have home theater systems that can provide a better movie viewing experience at home than at the theater, the movie studios are trying to find ways to ensure people keep coming to the theater at $10 a person instead of a $5 per family rental (or cheaper).
January 5th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Mostly true, but...
1) Who rents movies anymore? Unless it's on demand / PPV of course.
2) Movie studios still make bank from all the Blu Ray sales to retailers / netflix / blockbuster
So it's just another avenue that some movie makers are using. Not going to totally change the game or anything. I mean, the sound at most theaters is better than most home systems, and HD projectors is the real next logical step.
January 5th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
1950's: Who needs color?
1960's: Who needs cable?
1970's: Who needs satellite?
1980's: Who needs VCR's?
1990's: Who needs home theater?
2000's: Who needs High Def, Digital Broadcasting, Blue Ray, etc.?
The advancement of technology is exciting. We aren't transitioning to 3-D because we need to. We are transitioning because we can. (Well, movie theaters do it because they need to sell tickets.) Lucky for you, at least for now, you are given the option of 2D versus 3D at the theater.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
When I was born/really young we apparently still had a really old black and white TV. My grandmother supposedly told my parents that we had to get a new TV because "how [am I] going to learn [my] colors?"
In 10-20 years a kid will be born somewhere and the grandmother will demand a 3D TV because "how is he going to learn depth perception?"
January 5th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
We aren't transitioning to 3-D because we need to. We are transitioning because we can.Am I the only one that read this as if John F Kennedy were saying it?
January 5th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
which say that "ESPN coverage is superficial; it lacks depth."
ESPN exec: "Huh, we lack depth? Okay, we'll go from 2-D to 3-D !!!"
January 5th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
...all those UM fumbles coming into my living room wouldn't have been a cool technological advance, imho.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
I don't know, I think it would have been cool to have Tate running into my family room, finger-pointing in triumph on his TD run against the Irish.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
you could have "reached out" and grabbed Forcier by the neck and yelled "PUT TWO FUCKING HANDS ON THE BALL, DIPSHIT!!!"
January 5th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
It's supposedly awesome. Kind of how HD was a big upgrade for sports, 3D is apparently unbelieveable for watching games. I don't even know what it could be like. I'm afraid i'd actually get tackled but the reviews so far have been very positive. ok back to work...
January 5th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
CES is happening this week in Vegas. 3D TV sets will supposedly be making their debut, and will possibly be in mass distribution by the 2010 holiday season.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
Done right, 3D games could be almost as good as being there. Add in a good surround system and HD Widescreen and I think this is how I would like to watch games.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
Still going to miss out on the over priced food and drink and the drunk college students screaming, but I would be cool to try out.