[nwtv2003]

Sky definitely had a Sky 3D channel for a few years but I think the plug was pulled around 2014/15. Although I never owned a 3D set I remember seeing a Sky 3D advert at the cinema (before a 3D film) and the best part was the Sports coverage, but I don’t think that lasted too long. If memory serves for an average Premier League game in 3D, I recall reading that they needed an additional entire camera set up just for 3D.

The BBC HD channel was used for 3D events for a little while, they certainly used it for Wimbledon in 3D once, this was after BBC One HD was a thing. Although I recall seeing that coverage on my TV and it was simply 2 pictures side by side. Eurosport also had a 3D service on Virgin Media, but this I think was only a pop up one about 10/11 years ago, maybe for an Olympics or French Open?

[James2001]

Yeah, Eurosport 3D was for the London Olympics.

I know the BBC at least had the opening in 3D too... strangely with different commentary, seeing as it was the same ceremony even if from different cameras I'm not sure why they needed different comementary. Can't remember if the BBC covered anything else in 3D.

The only 3D films I've ever seen at the cinema were the Hobbit trilogy, and that was only because of the HFR, which was only available on certain 3D screenings, I'd have gone for 2D HFR if the option was available. From what I can gather, the Avatar sequel does have HFR in 2D, though it switches between 24 and 48fps depending on the scenes (24 for dialogue, 48 for action etc.), which strikes me as a worst of both worlds.

[Andrew Wood]

A BBC HD pointer to set your 3D tv to side-by-side mode

theident.gallery 

[James2001]

I seem to remember the Eurosport 3D channel was top and bottom rather than side by side... both got used by different people.

[IanJRedman]

Sky definitely had a Sky 3D channel for a few years but I think the plug was pulled around 2014/15. Although I never owned a 3D set I remember seeing a Sky 3D advert at the cinema (before a 3D film) and the best part was the Sports coverage, but I don’t think that lasted too long. If memory serves for an average Premier League game in 3D, I recall reading that they needed an additional entire camera set up just for 3D.

The BBC HD channel was used for 3D events for a little while, they certainly used it for Wimbledon in 3D once, this was after BBC One HD was a thing. Although I recall seeing that coverage on my TV and it was simply 2 pictures side by side. Eurosport also had a 3D service on Virgin Media, but this I think was only a pop up one about 10/11 years ago, maybe for an Olympics or French Open?

BiB - Yes, broadcast 3D was always in the side-by-side format (or top and bottom as mentioned above): two slightly different pictures, horizontally squeezed into one frame, which could then be combined by the TV to form a 3D image. This was the only way to achieve 3D over linear broadcast infrastructure. IIRC, this was at a time when the BBC's HD channels still routinely used 1440x1080 rather than the full 1920x1080 resolution. For 3D broadcasts they would increase the resolution to the full 1920 pixels, to compensate for the drop in resolution when the pictures were combined - you'd essentially only get half the vertical resolution, so an effective 960x1080 image.

Meanwhile, 3D Blu-ray would use a superior format whereby two full HD frames were stored, rather than shoehorning them both into a single frame, so you'd get full HD 3D which wasn't possible on broadcast.

Strange to think this was all cutting edge a decade ago, now it's obsolete in the home market!

[James2001]

I think a fair amount of early HD content was only 1440x1080 anyway, as that's the format HDCAM used, so you wouldn't have got better resolution even if the channels did broadcast the full 1920. Whether that was still the case as late as 2012, I'm not sure.

[thegeek]

Here's a brief bit of testing the BBC did from Wimbledon 2011, which went out one morning on the BBC HD channel. YouTube recognises it as a 3D clip so can give you options on how to display it: side-by-side, as originally broadcast; for 3D glasses; or if you're on a phone, for a VR headset.

youtu.be 

They showed matches from the later stages (semi-finals onwards?) in 2011-2013. London 2012's opening and closing ceremonies were shown too, the 100m final, and a daily highlights programme each evening - I think just a standard OBS-produced package.

The ceremonies would have used different commentary because there would have likely been fewer cameras in use, and different things on screen. You couldn't have the commentator describing one thing while the 3D cameras were looking at action on the other side of the stadium. (On a similar vein, BT Sport's first season of UHD used a separate commentary because they were using largely different cameras)

I think tennis was about the only thing I saw that really worked in 3D, on account of the fact that there's a wide depth of field, and typically the director doesn't need to cut around to other cameras that much. I think once my brain was processing the 3D-ness of a scene, changing angles just 'broke' that and took another few moments to adjust.

It looks like they also did the Strictly final in 2011:
youtu.be 

The technology has definitely died a death as far as live production is concerned. I doubt there are any OB trucks left that could handle it - the few that were have been converted to UHD.

[Steve in Pudsey]

If memory serves for an average Premier League game in 3D, I recall reading that they needed an additional entire camera set up just for 3D.

Yes it was almost an entirely separate OB with cameras on the opposite side of the stadium to the standard coverage. This also meant a separate commentary team.

I watched one of the games in a local pub and found it pretty underwhelming. Lots of close ups to make the 3D effect work but that make it harder to follow the action, I didn't find it added much to the experience.

[JT95]

Just a comment on 3D TV is general and put my two cents in, I think we all saw the future where HD channels would be the norm and nearly everything would be filmed in HD. And I can still see a future where something like Coronation Street eventually gets filmed and broadcast in UHD/4K, and that then becomes the broadcasting norm.

However even in the 2011-ish hype of 3D, I could never see 3D becoming commonplace on TV, it’s novelty works for big budget movies or sporting events, whereas HD and 4K compliments everything.

[Technologist]

Just a few issues of why 3D on Tv is not easy - but some things have changed since the last time it was tried
But there is a  lot which is fundamental optics and physiology - which cannot change!

Starting at the camera
You need to have an interocular distance of about 76 mm -
Too close to (easily) have two lens together 
So had a semi silvered  mirror to split the shot
But this means that the polarisation of  light into one camera is different from the other
Thus each eye sees specular and highlights differently - so the viewer feels sick!
This again is an issue with having to track the lens operation very closely or else you get
Strange reactions from the viewer....
Then what is the vergence you have set - a sort of toe-in to the subject 
and is this moving coherently as the distance of the key object moves.

To make it look right the matching of shots is very important otherwise the illusion collapses.... 
as it often does on pans.....or tilts

Transmission to the viewer
The one thing that has come easier is that you can have the bit rate to have and transmit
The two time locked images (if they are not the viewer feels sick!)
And things like ST2110 allow flexibility on what is carried in the stream! 


Viewing - 
It would be good to be able to see without wearing glasses -
And not to have to sit in a sweet spot in the middle of the screen
And that your family and friends siting with you have the same pictures.
Not very easy to achieve .....

And then your eyes focus  on the plane on the screen - a few metres away
which is not where the object you are looking at appears to be
And then there are issues of vergence.


But actually we use stereopsis very little in “seeing”  with both eyes.
If you do the maths the view the eye sees is identical if the object is more distant than about 15m say.

We determine how far something is away but cues such as occlusion
and the fuzzy effect of distance and by seeing the objects in focus or not 
And if we move our heads how much more do we see!

So a lot of issues - they are generally a bit easier in the cinema Greater Interocular etc.
And of course with CGI you throw away the camera
And glasses are not so much of a problem! (although the attenuate the light!)
But POST can be a problem

But it is things like HDR WCG certainly NGA - these make what you are watching more life like
More pixels above say UHD1 /4k works  better in Cinema
And HFR work for Tv - but there for theatric projection it needs to be either say 100/120fps
Where it looks just life like (unlike TV)
Or retaining 24Hz triple flash for the historic images from film!