yeah I saw this too here:
Anybody have any ideas where in Dublin would have 3D ready sets?
must be somewhere posh..
"BSkyB will not name the pubs, for fear of overcrowding, but has said football fans at four London establishments, two in Manchester and one each in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Dublin will find they have the option of watching the game on a 3D screen."
Can you imagine this being kept under wraps? As soon as the venue is sussed, the texts will start flying like news of a free bar. I know someone who works for Sky and they will not release the name of the venue. I was underwhelmed with some scenes in Avatar, like looking through a window with condensation, so I will be a 3-D Luddite!
Just mentioned on Today FM , Ray Darcy show running a competition.
Yeah, just heard D'Arcy say he personally thinks it might be the Submarine because it shows all things football, but he wasn't privvy to the details. It would have to be a big venue alright, it could be anywhere to be honest. Could be somewhere like the Wright Venue.
I doubt its the Sub because of the screen location, major job to change that
Qbar on D'Olier street is the venue.
Is there more than one venue as I've heard its somewhere else?
It could well be. The soccer forum have this list from Digital Spy:
Cardiff - The Blackweir Tavern (North Road)
Dublin - Qbar (D'Olier Street)
Edinburgh - Belushis (Market Street)
London - Bar Kick (Shoreditch)
London - The Elk Bar (Fulham)
London - The George (Liverpool St)
London - Sirocco ( Soho)
Manchester - Binary Bar (Castlefield)
Manchester - O'Sheas (Princess Street)
Maybe a media event in one place and a public event in q bar. The event I was told of was ticket/invitation. Sorry I cant say as I gave my word not to disclose, i'm sure it will leak out from the venue over the weekend.
Yeah, I heard a diff venue also.
An interesting article on 3D.
3D TV is here, but is it really the next big thing?
Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:24PM EST
Everyone who attended CES last week got an eyeful of the latest, greatest crop of 3D TV sets, but is 3D really the game changer that TV manufacturers are saying it is?
It's been a few days since I returned home from Las Vegas, which is to say that I haven't had the pleasure (or eye-straining burden, depending on how you look at it) of putting on a pair of 3D glasses for a good 72 hours now ... and frankly, I haven't missed it all that much.
Don't get me wrong: It was definitely a thrill to see clips from "Avatar" on a 46-inch 3D TV set, and I got a kick out of watching the lifelike 3D footage from that recent U2 concert movie and even the ubiquitous underwater montages of scuba divers swimming around with multicolored schools of fish.
But would having a 3D TV in your living room really be a life-changer? That was the message that the big TV makers were furiously flogging at CES, where you couldn't turn around with staring a massive 3D TV screen in the face.
Honestly, I just don't know. Part of me worries that I might sound like one of those naysayers who complained back in the day about the addition of color or sound to the movies, a pair of innovations that seem like no-brainers today.
That said, I really do think that 3D is in a different category from color and sound, especially in terms of all the trouble it takes not only to shoot in 3D but to deliver and even watch 3D film or video. Between the stereoscopic 3D cameras, the various and insanely complex polarized and active-shutter display technologies, and the sheer fact that (for now, anyway) viewers must wear 3D glasses for the effect to work, well ... is the net effect really worth it, particularly on a day-to-day viewing basis (as opposed to a once-in-a-blue-moon event like "Avatar")?
Personally, I just don't know. I do think that "Avatar" was immeasurably enhanced by being shot and presented in 3D, but the movie and its world were tailor-made for the 3D effect (and let's not forget that James Cameron & Co. spent 15 years and who knows how many dollars to crank out the groundbreaking movie). On the other hand, I watched "Inglorious Basterds" on Blu-ray the day I got back from the 3D extravaganza in Vegas, and I didn't waste a moment wishing that I could watch the action in 3D; 2D was just fine, thanks very much.
Also, consider the fact that wearing 3D glasses for hours in front of your TV might not be the most convenient thing, especially from an eyestrain standpoint. And practically speaking, some events—such as football, or soccer—won't look all that amazing in 3D anyway, save for close-ups on the sideline or distractingly exaggerated 3D effects. Consider this: In real life, even with plum seats on the 50-yard line, you're not gonna see a whole lot of depth on the field. That's just the way our eyes work; our depth perception decreases the further away we look.
And what about garden-variety TV shows like "The View" or "Anderson Cooper 360": Do we really need to see Elisabeth Hasselbeck or Coop in 3D? I don't.
So maybe 3D will end up being just a "special event" thing, for that infrequent occasion when "Avatar" or, say, "24: 3D" is on (although several TV carriers and networks, such as DirecTV, ESPN, National Geographic, etc. seem intent on launching 24-hour 3D TV networks).
In that case, the question (if you happen to be in the market for a new HDTV anyway) becomes: Do I buy a 3D TV, or a new TV that happens to support 3D?
It's an important distinction, especially when it comes to price. After all, when it comes to 3D TVs that use "active-shutter" technology (that is, 3D glasses with LCD lenses that open and close rapidly in sync with the TV screen, thus ensuring that your left and right eyes see the correct left or right image at the right time), we're really only talking TV sets with super-fast refresh rates.
It could be that in the coming few years, just about every mid- to top-tier HDTV that comes down the pike supports refresh rates fast enough for 3D, leaving you free to buy—or not to buy, if you're simply not interested—the accessories: namely, the 3D glasses (which could be pricey, to the tune of $100 or so) and an infrared emitter (which keeps the IR-enabled glasses in sync with the TV).
The key issue, of course, is price. If the new fast-refresh, 3D-ready sets cost about as much relative to their equivalent earlier-generation models, then what's the harm? If you really want to watch your 3D Blu-ray of "Avatar" (which, by the way, requires a 3D-capable Blu-ray player, or the PS3 once Sony releases the proper firmware), then you'll have gone ahead and bought the necessary glasses and emitters; if you don't care about 3D, you'll skip the accessories, no harm, no foul.
If, on the other hand, TV manufacturers try (cynically) to foist a premium price tag on their 3D TV sets, well ... that's another story, of course. (For the record, only Vizio has revealed its 3D TV prices so far; no one else has flipped over their cards quite yet.)
Remember, though, that these are simply my (long-winded) musings a week after the "Must See 3D" show that was this year's CES. I don't have a 3D TV here at home, much less a crystal ball; I could easily be eating my words in a few years' (months?) time.
Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you're thinking about all this. Are you dying for a 3D TV at home? Will 3D be a game-changer for home video? Or do you think it'll be just one of many other HDTV features that we'll use every once in a while, if at all?
No. I think it can look fantastic in the cinema, Avatar and U23D being two examples but I can live without it at home.
I heard the venue was the living room on cathal bruagha street. They have a massive screen there.
Ditto...kinda. I could live without it at home but would still like to have it at home assuming the premium for the hardware and content isn't excessive.
I agree with pretty much everything in the quoted article too.
The Pub thing really has me scratching my head though as do 3D tv's tbh.
I could totally understand the special event screening of matches in Cinemas. But in pubs?? There are no 3D consumer Projectors yet. The matches are in all likelyhood going to be shown on multiple 42-50in 3D capable screens in these venues. Put it this way. I see the point of Nvidias 3D gear for PC gaming cause your eyes are 18-24" from a 22" screen. I don't see the point in having a 42-50" 3D display in my living room and sitting on the couch 10-12-14 feet away. So I definately don't see the point in craning my neck over other punters heads to see a 42-50" 3D screen 20-30 feet away.
This is a bad move imho. This endeavour of kitting out the pubs and offering them the service first is generally to generate interest with the public. Public demos as it were. 3D football on a 42" scree 30 feet away will impress no one.
That said, Can I wait to watch 3D Avatar and other movies and 3D Discovery/NatGeo docs on my future 10ft diag PJ screen(someday,someday ) in my future home cinema room. No Sirree. I cannot wait!
In short, I just don't see the point of 3D unless one is sitting 12-14ft from a big ass PJ screen.