[by Seamus Byrne, Gozmodo Australia]

While the 3D Wimbledon broadcasts didn’t make it to Australian televisions, Sony and Hoyts got together to bring the Men’s Final to a few Australian theatres. As someone who attended a Wimbledon final in the flesh exactly 10 years ago, I thought I’d head along to see how close big screen 3D tennis gets you to the real thing.

I got lucky in 2001 with a ‘People’s Monday’ ticket to see Pat Rafter take on Goran Ivanisevic. An all-time classic final and an amazing live experience. Ten years on, could the 3D come within any distance of giving me the ‘being there’ sensation?

As someone who is not at all keen on the 3D experience in cinemas, this all got a lot closer than I expected.

At first it still all seemed very subtle. Too subtle? However once we were watching Nadal and Djokevic warm up it was starting to make sense. Tennis may just be one of the perfect sports to watch in 3D on a very, very big screen.

One of the enemies of a good 3D experience is big camera movements. You are in a seat sitting still watching a ‘window’ into the 3D domain. If your view into the screen can feel as much like a natural window into another 3D space, all the better. With the tennis we are only being asked to focus on three things. Two players and one tennis ball. All moving through a very well defined and, in broad sporting terms, very small field of play. Very little camera movement required.

I watched the first set from second last row of the approximately 300 seat cinema.

More than any other TV experience watching tennis (which I enjoy but wouldn’t call myself a serious fan) I had a great sense of ball movement. The subtle feeling earlier was replaced by just feeling like I was watching the ball glide and curve through the air like it should. Where 2D loses depth it forces your brain to interpret where things are in space. Here I got that ideal 3D sensation of watching an object move through 3D space. For example, I’d heard Nadal put astounding spin on the ball, and you get a sense of it in 2D. But in 3D I could truly perceive how far the ball would curve and dip off his racquet and with real kick. I felt I could follow the action in a long rally better than ever before when sitting at home.

The atmosphere in the cinema also built up slowly, but by the end of the first set the theatre was clapping and reacting to the action like we were courtside. Not 15,000 fans worth of Centre Court, but far better than I expected from a random bunch of people up late on a school night.

After the first set I moved to the second row of the theatre. That’s when I was hooked. With the pictures taking over my field of view I now really felt I was sitting there in the midst of the action. Amazing pictures giving me a real view of two men at war on a tennis court.

Let’s get it straight: no, this wasn’t like 2001. Nothing but being there could be. But this cocktail of gathered tennis fans plus very big screen plus immersive 3D perspective plus great match equals something much better than you get at home.

Right now I’m dreaming of a genuine wall TV to get the same feeling at home. But that’s a bit tooFarenheit 451 for comfort…

For now I’d suggest keeping an eye out for similar events in future. Whatever your sport of choice, if you get the chance to have a shared fan experience on a cinema sized 3D screen when it’s all happening somewhere you just can’t get to in person, check it out. It’s the only 3D cinema experience that is better than 2D.

And don’t forget, 3D is nice when done right. But satellites are a miracle. Thanks to AsiaSat 5 and Optus D2 for making the live pictures possible!

See the original post here: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/07/wimbledon-3d-the-nadal-djokovic-cinema-experience/

[By Tom Hoffarth, Staff Writer]

Already a bit frazzled by an erratic performance in a first-set loss, and now acting frantic in the face of a 2-1 deficit in the second set of the Wimbledon women’s final, she stood rigid at the baseline, her back to the net, and tried to regroup.

Maria Sharapova looked as if she lost her focus.

Please, take my 3D glasses. Seriously. My focus may be lost, but I can just as easily run out to the lobby and get another pair. And a popcorn refill.

Oh, like Sasha Vujacic could do any better right about now.

This was a history-making moment in the 125th edition of Wimbledon. A live 3D feed was available in nearly 200 theatres worldwide, from Australia to Uruguay.

Southern California had five of the 50 U.S. theaters. England had 40 more.

That must have been the reason why a couple dozen of us had rolled out of bed before dawn and shuffled over to the otherwise deserted Rave 18 theatre over at the Howard Hughes Promenade near Westchester, getting there in time for the 6 a.m. start.

“Enjoy your movie,” the half-awake ticket-taker said as she handed over a receipt. “I mean, your film … I mean … Just go up the escalator.”

And there it was, Centre Court on the planet’s most famous tennis venue. Grass, in all its visual ultra-dimensional splendor. And it wasn’t even an episode of “Weeds.”

During Friday night’s Dodgers-Angels broadcast, Vin Scully marveled at the fact that it was 70 years ago – July 1,

1941 – when the Dodgers played the Phillies at Ebbets Field on the first day of programming for the first commercial television channel.

Department stores had just starting selling TV sets back then, but very few had one in their homes. Anyone curious enough to want to see the game on WNBT Channel 1 in New York likely did so while standing on the sidewalk peering in through the store windows.

“And the reports were that the picture was awful,” Scully said. “We’ve come a long way in 70 years.”

Now, 3D TV sets are supposed to be new hot ticket at the local Best Buy; plain-old HD sets are so last week. But take it further – when you’ve got access to specially-equipped theaters presenting a big-time, fan-friendly event that even encourages behavior like yelling at the 50-foot-wide screen, why buy into that home-experience hype job?

Yes, some actual cheered in the theater. And the noise even simmered a bit when the chair umpired called for quiet.

It felt that real in the mind’s eye.

When a blue-outfitted ballboy jumped up after a point, sprinted to the net, grabbed the loose ball, and scrambled out of the picture, it was more than just another “Avatar” moment. The surround-sound picked up every thump of his feet pounding the sod.

All that was missing was “Smell-a-vision.”

Even Sharapova’s sharper-image shrieks – “shouts or screams or whatever you want to call them,” as BBC commentator Barry Davies described – became far more pronounced in this venue. For better or worse.

Unlike the way NBC or ESPN presented Wimbledon coverage over the past two weeks, this 3D production stuck to the low-court angles. Viewers could make a distinct visualization between the players and the crowd.

Most of the live play was from eye-level behind the baseline, with the occasional head of a line judge getting in the way. That only added to the feel that you were actually there watching over his shoulder.

Previous 3D experiments with football and basketball work to some degree, but not as well as tennis or boxing. The screen is less cluttered, the combatants more intimate and dynamic. It can feel like a video game at the highest level, but with real human movements.

At the right angle, a 100-plusmph serve flies right at the audience.

It’s tough not to flinch.

Like at that point in the match when the strikingly embraceable Sharapova was trying to refocus.

Petra Kvitova was serving, down 40-30 at break point. She hammered a backhand right at Sharapova, who somehow returned it with a two-handed flick of the racquet, sending the ball fluttering back over Kvitova’s head.

And directly toward me.

The ball dropped in for the point, and then hopped into the crowd. How could I possibly let it get past me? Must have been the glare.

Next time, I’ll be better prepared. With 3D sunglasses. Unsmudged by popcorn butter.

See the original story here: http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_18400955