91Èȱ¬

I thought it was OK but the strength of the 3D wasn't as much as I'd have hoped. It seemed as though it was '3D Lite'. It was only the close-up action that you could notice a significant difference. I commend the 91Èȱ¬ for trying this out though, I'd rather 3D Lite than no 3D at all. I'm hoping that next time this will be improved.

I'm excited about the possibility of the Olympics in 3D. Some of the sports with be perfect for the format, especially close-ups of events like pole-vaulting and long jump.

I tried both 3D and HD, and preferred the HD coverage of Wimbledon. For me the 3D didn't really enhance the coverage, but it did seem to take away some of the sharpness or clarity I had on the normal HD channel. Movies like Avatar are excellent in 3D, but if the Wimbledon coverage is anything to go by Ill probably be leaving my glasses off and be happy watching sports in HD. Perhaps some more 3D coverage of other sports will help change my mind!

3D will never be pofitable. It is not practical. Why would families want to put on dark glasses to watch the telly? Yes homes where the occupants are techies with no children will coment how good 3D is, but what happens when they decided to have children?
If the 91Èȱ¬ what to satisfy less than 1% of licence fee payers by having a 3D chanbel, hope they are ready to face the consequences when the auditors come in.
IMO the 91Èȱ¬ should look at leasing any 3D equipment for one-off sports like the Wimbledon final, or the Olympics, so that technology growth does not pass them by? Most important, the 91Èȱ¬ should look at industry sales figures of 3D TVs. TV companies are loosing money by the minutes as consumers are saying a fat big NO to 3D TVs. A lot of peolpe who initially but such TVs hav mostly returned them for a refund, or simply dont use the function
For now HD is the way forward, not 3D. Sky as a commercial channel will compensate their 3D losses with other profitable divisions. 91Èȱ¬ doesnt have this luxury, so it should keep clear

So #3, did you actually watch the 3D coverage? Or is this just a rant about 3D TV generally? I think the 91Èȱ¬ should be praised for trying these things out. I'm sure it wasn't as expensive as you've been making out. Even if it was, I personally, would happily pay my licence fee for innovative coverage like this. You don't HAVE to watch everything in 3D on a 3D TV, but it's a nice addition for big events. The Olympics in 3D could be spectacular.

Congratulations to the 91Èȱ¬ for trying something different ( Wimledon in 3D ) whilst not as good as some programes we have seen in 3d, at least now some one else apart from Sky trying this, Keep up the good work and try some more sports etc as soon as possible then people will be able to see some of the superb images from a 3d screen.watched speedway on Sunday in 3D nearly got run over, superb

"3D itself is actually rather old technology with the first movies dating back to the 1950s".

This is wrong on two counts. Firstly, there were quite a number of 3D films made in the 1920s; the 1950s B-movies were just the first mainstream, commercial productions made in 3D. Second, the various different systems used to render TV and film in three dimensions today are assuredly not 'old': they're miles more sophisticated than anything available fifty years ago.

Well its nice that you tried it, but the overall quality suffered for it, and inevitably, it was never going to be as vivid as in the cinema.
Thing is though, more than half the people I know don't even have 91Èȱ¬ HD, let alone 3D TVs.

Thank you 91Èȱ¬ for giving me and my invited neighbours such a pleasure! My licence money well spent. I watched the 3D coverage on my new 47" cinema TV with light weight glasses which fit nicely over my own glasses, no batteries required!
The whole experience was enhanced by superb shots of the surrounding scenery and the depth of visual perception on crowd scenes was amazing. Keep it up 91Èȱ¬, as 3D TVs are here to stay, so keep on transmitting in 3D!

For me the 3D coverage was poor. Having the one angle behind the players was pretty annoying. A good effort from the 91Èȱ¬ but i switched it off and went back to HD.
Maybe when they use more cameras it will be better.

I enjoyed the 3 D coverage of both finals, although I felt that the Mens final worked better in 3D than the Womens. I was also disappointed in the trophy presentation which I though didnt work well in 3 D.

In HD you don't notice that you are watching the matches from one end, whereas the low angle of the 3D coverage made it more obvious and wonder whether there may be an argument in future to trial HD coverage from both servers end e.g., like SKY do in their cricket matches.

Overall the 3D coverage was good and I hope the responses we give encourage the 91Èȱ¬ to cover some of the Olympics in 3D.

The 3D image quality was poor - the idea was good but the execution was sadly lacking. When I flicked it onto 3D I found the 2 pictures didn't quite align so there was a slight ghosting of the image to the left which made it very frustrating to watch. I know it's still a new technology but until it's at a stage where it can actually add to the experience I don't really see the point of broadcasting major events in this way.

I'd be disappointed if further 3d broadcasts took away some of what precious little HD broadcasting us Freeview HD customers already get. Particularly during the Olympics.

I really enjoyed the 3D coverage, I also found no loss of picture quality due to watching in 3D. Perhaps those with different sets (active vs passive etc etc) would notice more difference. I think sport is the thing that could make or break 3D in a home environment, once you've watched football or golf (now tennis!) in 3D it can feel a touch boring watching the normal transmission, even in HD.

Look at the Masters golf coverage, now that really gave the viewer a totally new perspective of the layout and terrain at Augusta.

I feel that 3D will not take off plus I looked at how the 91Èȱ¬ HD Channel looked and didn't like the fact that for all that to come together required an expensive 3D TV and glasses. I think the 91Èȱ¬ should step away from 3D and just make sure that its Sports Coverage is in HD first before running into 3D especially as the Host Broadcaster for the Olympics in 2012

I watched the men's final in 2d for two sets and then 3D for two sets. Although the level of tennis may have dropped a little later in the match, my enjoyment of the coverage grew immeasureably once I switched to 3D (active).

There was no noticeable drop in picture quality and overall the sense of depth and realism was quite stunning. I found myself more appreciatiev and in awe of the tennis on show simply because I could really see and FEEL what the players were doing with the ball in a way that is literally flattened and dampened in 2D. I haven't been that involved in a tennis match on TV since Borg McEnroe in the early 80s!

It was actually like being there, rather than watching on TV. Of course many people argue that being there is not as good as watching on TV, but if you want a better experience of Centre Court, this is it.

I think expectations play a large part. many people expect the ball to look like it's flying out of the screen or something...but the real plus for 3D is the opposite; the sense of real DEPTH BEHIND the screen. The 3D effect itself is not 'stunning' in a cheap B-movie way, thank goodness (except for one or two shots), but quite natural, and once the mind switches into a 'viewing the action through a window' mode, and normalises the experience, it's incredibly enjoyable.

Thank goodness the 91Èȱ¬ is doing this at last, way behind some competitive sports channels but I guess conservative is the 91Èȱ¬'s middle name.

Please serve us more!!

I was just wondering why different commentary teams are used for the 3D coverage?

if i'm honest i'd rather the 91Èȱ¬ invested the time, effort, money and bandwidth into giving us 1920x1080 resolution, higher bitrates, surround sound and/or a 3rd HD channel.

3D is not going to take off. i don't own a 3D TV and unless the manufacturers start to ONLY produce 3D sets, i will not buy one. i went to a professional 3D demo night where we were shown different sets and a projection system and both myself and the person i was with agreed it was a waste of time and money. it succeeded in actually taking us out of the movie instead of making it more involving as it is intended to do, as we were focusing more on how it looked (like several 2D planes on top of each other, not actually 3D) and how sick it made us both feel.

so yeah, anyway, focus more on picture and sound quality than fads like 3D. if you really want to look to the future, start investing more in Super HD as you started doing here >> /news/technology-11436939

I've enjoyed the higher horizontal resolution of 2D broadcasts during this test period, so even though I don't have a 3D tv (and am unlikely to get one) I'm happy for you to keep the trial going for occasional programmes for the benefit the rest of us gain the rest of the time. :-D

I watched Wimbledon at home on my 3D TV and thought that it really added to the experience. I think that for sports like tennis it is sometimes difficult to get a feeling for the length and width of the court, the speed the ball travels at and also the speed at which the players cover the court and for me, watching the final on 91Èȱ¬ HD (3D) got these aspects spot on. The commentator was right when he mentioned that the 3D pictures allowed the viewer to see how 'grueling' tennis was.

I don't know if people were watching the 3D coverage in bars wearing basic glasses but in my own home experience with 3D and surround sound and purpose manufactured glasses the coverage and experience was great.

I can only hope that 91Èȱ¬ start to roll out 3D more often for sport, nature and other programmes because it definitely adds to the experience of a range of programming as Sky 3D has already proven in my opinion.

I have to agree with #12. For Freeview viewers we need more HD, not 3D. I also felt sorry for those who weren't interested in tennis - you couldn't get away from it! I did enjoy the HD coverage, though, and it added a lot over SD. I've also been enjoying the F1 HD coverage.

Who really cares? I don't have 3D, I don't have HD, I don't have satellite or cable, our largest set has a 20 inch screen and the oldest was bought in 1983. The picture through Freeview is perfectly good enough - anything else is a waste of money.

I really enjoyed watching the final in 3D. Obviously the quality of the 3D compared to what you get in the cinema, wasn't the same, but I still enjoyed it. It made the experience of watching the tennis feel more real, almost like I was there.

More 3D sport would be great, but I also think it could be extended to other areas of TV, such as nature programmes, etc.

I checked out both the HD and 3D broadcasts on my Panny Viera 3DTV...

The HD broadcast was stronger but for a first 3D broadcast it was extremely impressive and showed the match in such a different light. I was actually able to see when the ball was out without having to rely on the umpire or commentators.

In terms of the quality of the 3D. It was highly immersive, the detail was pretty good for broadcast quality and it was nice to see some free 3D content without having to pay the world for subscriptions and films.

If the 91Èȱ¬ can manage to broadcast the F1, MotoGP and some FA cup games in 3D i will be a very happy man !!!

Keep up the good work 91Èȱ¬ !!!

I loved the tennis in 3D, it brought a real depth to the picture. It's great that the 91Èȱ¬ are looking at new technologies. People who didn't see it really can't comment, look forward to more sporting events in 3D and more HD content too. Carry on the great work 91Èȱ¬!

I own a 3d set, and saw the match in 3d at the bbc TV center. It was great. The depth worked really well with tennis, exceeded my expectations. I think the 91Èȱ¬ should continue to experiment with big events, but should start filming a big documentary in 3d now, as they take years to make anyway, and by then 3D will be available in most new sets.

I find it hilarious that most people criticising the 3D coverage are those who don't own a 3DTV... why bother commenting? Just because you went to a showroom and didn't like it.

Please ignore all this rubbish from PEOPLE who didn't watch it in 3D.

The coverage was superb, I felt like I was there I have a brand new 55" Sony 3DTV and it was fantastic. A few more quirks like the graphics, stats etc being a bit more exciting would've been terrific. Also another camera angle (or two) would've been double superb.

Overall B+ for the coverage... and I would love to see some Olympic events in 3D... swimming and diving I feel will be immense in particular.

F1 in 3D is next I feel... the more events/shows are in 3D - the more general public will embrace it.

#27 above

the reason people who don't own 3D Tvs are commenting is because Danielle Nagler tweeted "If you want to add to the discussion about #3D #wimbledon, or what's next, you can comment here" and in the actual blog above it states, "...how much appetite do you have for more sport or major events in 3D, or would you rather we offer as much as possible in 2D HD? We'll be reviewing the audience research in the coming weeks and we'd also expect to see some decisions emerging about London 2012 - which means now's a good time to give us your thoughts".

the 91Èȱ¬ don't just want to hear people praising 3D, they want to know what the public actually want, be it more 3D, less 3D or more, better HD.

and professional demonstrations of top end kit (one system demonstrated to me was worth in excess of £100k) allowed me to make an informed decision about 3D.

I watched the womens and mens finals (plus a bit of the mens semi-finals) in 3d on my 40" Samsung, and I enjoyed the experience. Slightly ironically, the best 3d effects I felt were to be found with the circular wimbledon logo, the oscillating stats board after sets, and the 3d Hawkeye footage (which was frustratingly rare!) - I suppose animated content is easier to "3dify". Some of the crowd shots were pretty nice too though.

The actual tennis looked quite good, but I thought the drop in detail quality from HD was noticeable. Due to the angle it was difficult to see where shots were landing in the far half of the court. This is solved by the high angle of the normal coverage, however I think the 3d coverage definitely gave you the illusion of actually being in the royal box. Millions of people applied for 2012 100m final tickets despite knowing (I would hope!) that one will be able to "see" the race best on TV - they were after the actual experience and I think 3d TV coverage comes closest to providing that in the home.

I sadly didn't watch the wimbledon final in 3D, but have watched some 3D sports before via Sky.
I've found it makes a big difference what make of television you watch your 3D on - some so-called 3D tvs are actually very poor quality, where as some are breathtaking. This is one of the reasons why I haven't yet purchased a 3D set yet - as I can't afford the breathtaking ones! The other more important reason though, is that I'm waiting for the 'glasses-free' 3D tvs which are supposed to be out very soon. I think once these hit the stores 3D tv will finally really take off, as the glasses are a major put-off for a lot of people.
With this in mind I do think the 91Èȱ¬'s long term goal should be to film everything in 3D as standard. To 3D or not to 3D that is the question... and the answer is YES!

"We'll be reviewing the audience research in the coming weeks"
__________________________________

Haha! You mean the 91Èȱ¬ will be asking people who have invested thousands of pounds in retrograde technology whether they're ready to admit yet that they've wasted their money. Just a thought, but pride being a hard thing to swallow, my guess is it's still too soon.

I can't help but feel that the main overtone of these comments so far is oneupmanship from people boasting about the fact that they've got enough money to buy a massive 3D TV.

Have to disagree with that #32 it seems more like people who are bitter that they don't have 3d and others who for some reason are acting smug that they haven't invested in a technology that they don't want. I mean if they don't want it then thats all good.. but to be so self righteous like poster #31. Why bother?

Despite being a massive sports fan I particularly enjoy wildlife programs in 3d. The 91Èȱ¬ produce some of, if not the best wildlife documentaries.. it'd be fantastic if they were to produce them in 3d.

#28 You can't criticise what you haven't seen.

Claims such as this:

"A lot of peolpe who initially but such TVs hav mostly returned them for a refund, or simply dont use the function"

Most people have returned the 3D sets, yeah right... any evidence of that?

"Yes homes where the occupants are techies with no children will coment how good 3D is, but what happens when they decided to have children?"

Ironically, I have a child in the house, and she loves 3D a lot more than the adults - she plays her PS3 games in 3D, and she loves all the cartoons and movies that are getting released in 3D.

"3D is not going to take off. i don't own a 3D TV"

Well there you go, why bother at all? There are not only people who are praising 3D, there are a few who gave relevant feedback about quality and camera angle - you know the ones who actually watched it and are making an informed judgement.

#33 is spot on, in every aspect. People either feel smug about not owning a 3DTV or people are bitter that they can't afford it. I'd love to hear from someone who actually bought a 3DTV and hates it, rather than people who don't own one at all.

Point is if 91Èȱ¬ receive feedback, they can IMPROVE their 3D coverage and the better the coverage - the more people will want to watch it.

I don't have the equipment for 3D at home, and nor do I have the money to spend on it even if I wanted to sit wearing 3D glasses while watching TV... which I don't.

I've seen Sky's 3D promo in the cinema, and the sports footage looked unconvincing to me - cardboard cut-outs of footballers.

In my view, 3D will be a niche in the home for at least 5-10 years, and in the meantime getting the HD delivery system right (full 1920x1080 resolution) is a priority.

I've watched Sky's 3D football coverage, and the massive drawback is the camera angle - it's as though you're sitting in the front row of the stand, so you don't get as good a view as normal.

Also for sport such as football, with long distance viewing, the difference between HD and 3D isn't that noticeable - if anything 3D almost makes the game appear computer-generated.

The 3D coverage was a great experiment from the 91Èȱ¬. The 3D effect was possibly not trialled with the right sport though. I haven't seen other sports in 3D but I thought tennis, with the smaller ball may have been less suited than say football. I'm not sure it enhanced the coverage much but maybe we can see Formula 1 trialled - that would be a great test of 3D.

When I watch anything in 3D I find myself thinking "wow, that's impressive technology". That's not really a good thing when you're watching sport as the content should be at the forefront of your concentration rather than the quality of the visual representation.

I think the problem is that although it looks amazing it's not a 100% convincing 3D effect. The technology needs to improve to make the experiance seem more natural. Then it will be jarring to go back to 2D in the way it can be to switch from HD to "standard". At the moment it's more of a relief if I'm completely honest.

11. MagpieRH

Forgive me if i'm being condesending but I just wanted to check...you did have your glasses on while watching the 3D? If you did and there was still ghosting i'd say your TV is the problem, not the tech.

I watched it, loved it. More please!

I loved watching Wimbledon in HD for the first time (for me) this year along with your F1 coverage, have enjoyed the big jump up in quality & detail in HD. My favourite sporting event after the Olympics is the Tour de France and watching that in HD this year is stunning.

So, what am I saying?

Although 3D is interesting, I feel that my 91Èȱ¬ swould be better spendin the money on more HD sports coverage and a third 91Èȱ¬ HD channel. Oh - and thank you for the excellent shows so far.

But; why did the pictures from Ascot not look good in HD this year?

I was very Impressed at the 3D content during Wimbledon and so was my girlfriend ,we both watched the whole thing and i usually hate tennis . the depth was great and the quality of picture too .watched it at home on a 40" Samsung .
I'd like to see Top Gear and Formula 1 broadcast in 3D . How many 3D cameras do you have ? they should get far more use ....Big success in my book!! Thank you 91Èȱ¬ , Barry

I see a lot of people complaining at ghosting on there 3D tv's . this is not the broadcast but the tv 3D settings . I had to adjust this on my tv and everything was perfect after that . if there is a way of placing an adjustment test screen up to calibrate tvs. I'm sure everyone would enjoy it far better

I predicted this would happen when interactive streams were removed for HD - that HD itself would soon find itself in a similar boat making way for 3D.

So as for 2012 - for day to day coverage absolutely no to 3D - the 2 HD channels are needed. However for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies when no other events are taking place if the events are already being filmed in 3D they might as well be broadcast if the 91Èȱ¬ can do so on 91Èȱ¬ HD, with the regular HD coverage on 91Èȱ¬1 HD.

First of all many thanks to the 91Èȱ¬ for showcasing this new technology and I very excitedly donned my 3D specs for my first sighting of 3D on my compatible TV.

Having watched the mens semis on Saturday, for me personally, I much preferred normal bog-standard HD, opposed to the 3D coverage. The 3D images I found unrealistic and cartoonesque like. Everything at the front of the image is grossly exaggerated and blown up (a line judges head in the corner) and the detail in the rear of the picture lacks any HD like focus and clarity. Perhaps, I might have needed to re-adjust my TV's presets for 3D images to more of my liking, but even so the overall effect was disappointing to me. But again, praise to the 91Èȱ¬ for giving us the opportunity to view these images in the first place. I too would prefer a third HD channel, than any consideration given to 3D.

Wimbledon in 3D allowed me to appreciate many different technical aspects of the game which are not possible on 2D t.v sets, Even in the best HD!

When I was a boy my father took me to my first athletics meeting, seeing the athletes on the track allowed me to see the professionalism, skill and ability of the athletes in person. There was many different things I remembered that seemed much different being there than rather watching it on the tele in 2D. After attending the meeting I had a greater appreciation of the sport. Watching tennis in 3D was like being there on court!

The way the players were mixing up their game, from Top spin, speed and bounce of the ball, their athleticism, many technical aspects of tennis shot in 3D from the world’s best players was breath taking. The in depth technical ability of the players cannot be captured in 2D Or the best HD picture.

Yes the actual picture quality was not as good as the HD footage but I would rather feel like I was there on court and have a greater appreciation of the technical aspects of the game than have the best detailed screen. Ohh and yes my t.v is full HD.

3D isn't for everyone and some movies cut in 3D are rubbish but when it is shot correctly the experience in 3D is far greater than HD in my opinion.
A big thanks for the beeb for being bold and shooting Wimbledon in 3D, I would love to see some nature and other sports content shot in 3D.

I was lucky to win a competition to see the men's finals at my local cinema, and this was my first 3D viewing.

When I put on the 3D glasses it was a fantastically deep effect, it did really feel like I was sitting on centre court. As a big tennis and Wimbledon fan it was a great to see it from a different perspective - to be able to see more of the band playing before the match, the 3D highlight footage of the semi finals, and even details like the on court fridges being stocked! I enjoyed the wider angle replays of the whole court, and felt that the lower camera angles enabled me to appreciate the players' skills more - the spin and speed of the ball, the movement of the players', and the power behind their shots.

However, since catching up on 91Èȱ¬ iplayer there were elements of the 2D broadcast I missed. The cinema broadcast didn't start until 1.45pm (although I had been told beforehand there would be activity on the screen from 1.05pm!), and I missed the pre-match build up of interviews with the players, past champions and introduction by the brilliant Sue Barker. I also missed the fantastic Wimbledon music, it seemed a bit strange without it! I also felt that the moving 3D stats were unnecessary and defeated the object, as it was a bit distracting to read them whilst they were moving. At times the picture seemed quite dark and the sharpness was lost, and as I was watching on a cinema screen I assume this would hinder TV viewing considerably. There were less variety of camera shots, and as a result sometimes the players disappeared from view. Also, there were not as many shots of the players' facial expressions in 3D. Although I did enjoy being able to see more of the reactions in the player's box due to the wider camera angles.

I did enjoy having a different commentary and the different insights were interesting, although having said this there was nothing wrong with the 2D commentary. It was a shame there were some sound problems during the trophy ceremony, but these were on both versions at different points and I suppose it was just one of those things! However, I thought the sound in the cinema would have been a bit louder - there wasn't really a surround sound effect.

It was also a shame there were not more people in my local cinema for the 3D broadcast, only 11 in total including myself and my partner, and this effected the overall atmosphere. Although we were getting involved in the match you were still aware you were in the cinema, and perhaps people were respecting this - unlike if you were watching with friends and family at home when you may get more raucous! I can understand why there weren't more people in the cinema though, unless I'd won the competition I would not have been able to pay the extra expense.

Overall it was a good experience to see Wimbledon in 3D, and I think it's good the 91Èȱ¬ is willing to try new things out and ask for audience feedback. I'm grateful I had the chance to see the first 3D broadcast (it maybe the nearest I ever get to Centre Court on Men's finals day!), and that I received the brilliant commemorative programme. However, I think the drawbacks of 3D (the extra expense, having to wear the glasses, the loss of picture brightness) outweigh the postives at the moment, and I prefer watching Wimbledon in the sunlight (hopefully!) in the comfort of my own home where the kitchen and other amenities are within easy reach. I do not own a HD TV either but having seen them in action I think it would be wiser for the 91Èȱ¬ to invest further in this technology, but I agree with #44 maybe the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics could be filmed in 3D if this is viable.

In my opinion the most important issue is that the 91Èȱ¬ secures Wimbledon coverage after 2014 and beyond. I think Wimbledon and the 91Èȱ¬ are an iconic partnership, and if this jewel in the British sporting calendar was lost to a pay-to-view channel it would be awful. I'm now looking forward to Wimbledon 2012...think it'll be in good old 2D for me!