Never mind the 3D, give me the content!

It doesn't matter whether you're plugged into the of world of technology or not, you can't have failed to notice that a revolution is coming. We are living in a world where 3D films and TV are now a reality. Again. We've had attempts to popularise 3D before but the requirement to ware oddly coloured glasses resulted in a number of issues, but don't worry, this time they've got it right. We don't have to worry about wearing silly red and blue glasses, this time the technology is much better as now we have cool dark glasses using either polarised spirals, or one of several incompatible systems of expensive active shutters. The screen may look darker, you may get headaches and you will be paying more, but just look how real the emperor's new clothes look!

I've only been to the Cinema to experience 3D on two occasions, the infamous Avatar and this year's England versus Ireland Six nations Rugby match. It was very impressive, but it's far from the immersive experience we were promised, and there's the small matter of the 100 years of cinematographic experience of working in 2D that doesn't translate well to 3D. Shallow Depth of field is great for focusing our attention in 2D but it doesn't work in 3D, and directors and cinematographers need to re-learn how to hold our attention in 3D. I'd rather see the film studios let directors learn how to tell stories in 3D than watch them attempt to cash in on 3D films by retro-fitting a 3D effect into films that were shot in 2D. 

But for all the focus and talk about 3D on the silver screen the Cinema isn't where the biggest 3D revolution is expected to happen. Film, TV studios and the hardware manufactures are betting big on 3D in your living room being the big sell for 3D, and live 3D sports broadcasts are expected to be the 'killer application' for 3D. And this is where they lose me. 

I'm a Rugby fan and there's very little live rugby to watch in plain old 2D never mind 3D. It seems that the broadcasters are excited about the next step in technology and how it might be used to increase average subscriber revenue, but why can't they work on getting the content sorted first before trying to sell me the next £1000+ device that won't show me what I want to watch?

The record companies are in serious trouble, but there is a lesson to be learnt from their past. They got rich reselling the White album every time there was a format change. The TV Networks and hardware companies seem to have moved on to selling the next new format before selling me the content I am happy to pay for today.

I cancelled my subscription to Sky Sports in June this year when 30 minutes into the South Africa versus Italy Rugby match, Sky switched coverage to a different channel. The problem for me was that Sky don't make the channel they moved the coverage to available to my Cable supplier. My monthly subscription to Sky Sports only allowed me 30 minutes of an 80 minute match. This isn't a technical limitation, it's a marketing limitation designed to differentiation the product Sky sells over their own Satellite network from the product they sell over third party cable networks. If you want all the sports you pay for, you need to pay Sky for a Satellite dish.

None of this has anything to do with providing customers with the content they want, it's about maximising revenue at the cost of your competitors. I understand the business principle but when, as a customer, I become a pawn in a game between Sky and other providers I'm just as likely to give up as I am to move suppliers. I don't want 3D, it doesn't need to be HD and I'm happy to pay, just give me the content.

Comments

[Stuart Swindell]

I agree about rugby in 3D, it was interesting but really is was missing decent commentary.