ESPN’s producers go deep with 3D technology

  Is it a gimmick or the real deal?

   The three dimensional picture burst onto the scene (and through the screen) with the release of Avatar last month.

   But, along with raves for the James Cameron movie, there was plenty of skepticism about the future of 3D.

   After seeing Avatar, Nick Mokey of Digital Trends wrote, “The visuals were spectacular. The first shots of the forest floor made me feel as if I was there. But, by hour two-and-a-half, I was about ready to take off the glasses. If James Cameron can’t even keep us glued to the 3D effect for three hours, what will owners of in-home 3D televisions think after their third episode of Dexter?”

  3D has appeared over the decades in various incarnations, but quickly made an exit. The question becomes: Is it here to stay this time?

   Is there really a demand for 3D?

  What will it bring to a sports telecast?

 Is the sports viewer, or any viewer, prepared to wear 3D glasses for two to three hours?

 And what about the cost to the consumer and the TV networks producing the content?

  Answers: A 3D set costs about the same as a high definition television. At this point, the eye glasses seem pricey, as much as $200 a pair.

  There are some “direct use” 3D sets that do not require glasses, but the TV with glasses set is superior.

  The cost of producing 3D content is about 30 per cent higher than an HD production, but Canadian networks have no plans to produce programming, because there is no market. Virtually nobody in Canada has a 3D set.

  For Canada, and elsewhere, the focus is still on HDTV, which is years away from market saturation. Right now, HD is in about 30 per cent of Canadian households. If you’ve forked over $1,000 or more for HDTV, you’re not going to run to the store any time soon to buy a 3D set.

  The United States is very different. Its TV market is 10 times the size of Canada’s. Depending on the statistical sources, 500,000 to two million U.S. households have 3D sets. ESPN anticipates 3D sales taking off in 2010.

   As for content, the Discovery Channel announced earlier this month that it will have a 3D channel up and running by 2011.

   But ESPN is the groundbreaker. In June it will roll out a 3D channel in time for the World Cup. It will air 85 telecasts, including 25 World Cup games, this year.

  ESPN started developing 3D two years ago. It shot some of its 2008 “X Games” in 3D. Last September, it used the technology for the Ohio State-USC football telecast and aired it in movie theatres.

  I talked to Phil Orlins, an ESPN coordinating producer who has worked on many of ESPN’s 3D tests, and Kevin Stolworthy, the network’s senior vice-president of technology, about 3D.

 A “true difference maker”

 If HD was an evolutionary step for television, 3D is something much more — a revolutionary step, they say.

  “I think 3D is in many ways more unique and almost revolutionary because it is truly a different way to watch TV, especially for sports,” Orlins said. “There are a lot of complicated aspects about it, but it is a difference maker.”

Producing compelling content

   The challenge for producers is to give the viewer the 3D experience without it becoming a distraction.

  “We wrestle with the expectations of sports fans and viewers, because you want to optimize the 3D experience,” Orlins said. “But at the same time we don’t want to alienate the viewer by not showing them the game in a way they’re comfortable seeing it. So, there’s definitely a balance that needs to be struck.

 “I don’t think people are going to go to spend thousands of dollars to watch 3D on TV and then walk away and say it looked exactly the way it did in 2D. That’s not going to be satisfactory.

 “By the same token, if it’s a baseball game, they’re not going to be satisfied if they’re saying, ‘Well, I had a great 3D experience, but they shot every pitch from a camera next to the batter.’

 “To balance those two competing desires is a great challenge.”

Stolworthy: “We believe a little more subtle 3D is better than over-the-top 3D. You want to tell the story of the game. The question is: Where does it become comfortable telling the great story and providing 3D versus a great 3D impact, but maybe not the best camera angle?”

 Sports best suited for 3D

  3D is most effective for events that are played in a relatively small and defined area.

  “Sports that allow you to get reasonably close to the action or definitely close to the action are ideally suited for the 3D experience,” Orlins said. “A boxing match is a dynamic experience and frankly would not be the most difficult project for us to do. Where our job becomes exciting is finding a way to capture the dynamic 3D experience in sporting events that wouldn’t be easy.

 “Basketball takes place in a little bigger area than boxing does and it’s not quite as predictable as to where the centre of attention is. But it is still very, very manageable by sports standards.”

 Golf in 3D

 Orlins says, “The flight of the ball is slightly enhanced by 3D, but it’s not an exceptionable winner.  I hadn’t thought about this going into the testing, but it became quite apparent to me that most sporting events are played on flat or essentially two dimensional fields. Golf is played on a more natural and undulating type of terrain. I can tell you, the visuals, the way you pick up the undulations, the elevations of the drop, things like that, were truly spectacular, like I’ve never seen before.”

  Stolworthy says, “I think some of us were surprised. It’s pretty compelling, the sand coming at you, that sort of thing.”

 Hockey in 3D

  Hockey may not be great 3D sport. As with golf, the projectile is small and moves at great speeds. What’s more, the cameras can’t get as close to the action as in basketball.

  Still, Orlins notes that hockey promotes itself as a sport best seen from a good seat in the arena. And 3D does convey that sense of being at the game rather than at home watching TV.

 “I wouldn’t say I’m the biggest hockey fan,” he said. “But you always hear that few sports that are better in person — that benefit more from the human experience — than hockey. And I think 3D at its best gets you closer to the human experience of watching a sporting event than any broadcast medium we’re been able to use in the past.

 “So, I think in that sense, if you buy into the statement that hockey is so explosive and dynamic in person, I’d like to think 3D would bring more of that to the home.”

  NEW OLYMPIC CHANNEL

  This has yet to be announced, but the International Olympic Committee is set to launch an Olympic TV channel at the Vancouver Winter Games that will provide programming to the IOC’s rights holders around the world. The concept is to have cameras positioned at all the venues to provide content over and above the footage made available by the IOC host broadcast.

 NHL blew it

   A reader points out how the NBA capitalized on a great opportunity, but the NHL did not.

    On Thursday night, each league had its marquee players going head to head.  For the NBA, it was Kobe Bryant vs. LeBron James (Los Angeles Lakers-Cleveland Cavaliers). The NHL had Alex Ovechkin against Sidney Crosby (Washington Capitals-Pittsburgh Penguins) — for the first time  this year.

   The NBA’s game aired nationally in the United States on TNT. The NHL game was on TV, but it was carried on the NHL Network, which had limited distribution, rather than Versus which is available to a much larger market. A missed opportunity. Note: NBC will air the Ovechkin-Crosby rematch on Feb. 7.

 Regional hockey audiences way up

 Rogers Sportsnet’s audiences for regional NHL telecasts have jumped 62 per cent over last season, mainly because of huge increases enjoyed by Ottawa Senators and Toronto Maple Leafs.

  Toronto Maple Leafs: Up 110 per cent, averaging 669,000.

  Ottawa Senators: 111 per cent increase, 154,000 average.

  Calgary Flames: Plus 60 per cent, 222,000 average.

  Edmonton Oilers: Plus 36 per cent, 214,000.

  Vancouver Canucks: Plus 19 per cent, 329,000.

   Worth noting is these five teams are experiencing average to abysmal seasons, so Sportsnet has done well. Still, the numbers are up largely because of the new measurement system, Portable People Meters, which has pushed up viewership for all live sports programming.