Pub showing 3D matches?

kryogen

Anyone know of any pubs in the town with 3D capabilities?

Sky are launching there sky 3D for the United/Chelsea game at the weekend so there would be plenty of custom for anyone who does i reckon!

JPA

kryogen wrote: »

Anyone know of any pubs in the town with 3D capabilities?

Sky are launching there sky 3D for the United/Chelsea game at the weekend so there would be plenty of custom for anyone who does i reckon!

Masons show just every match they can so they would be the obvious choice if anyone was going to have it. You could ring them and ask or is it a secret?

abouttobebanned

Flash has it in Revolution.

iseegirls

Norris's have it too for Saturday

ziedth

I'm really interested to see is this worth it. Is anyone going to check it out?

seanybiker

3 quid deposit on the glasses in norris' I think.

AdMMM

Don't bring your girlfriend whatever you do! You'd be forgiven for thinking John Terry was ****ing her at times!

kryogen

seanybiker wrote: »

3 quid deposit on the glasses in norris' I think.

you a norris' head??

seanybiker

kryogen wrote: »

you a norris' head??

na. Used to be me local a few years back.

kryogen

mine too lol

honeybadger

will the storm samuel l jackson pulp fiction style glasses work for the 3d for the games ?:)

seanybiker

honeybadger wrote: »

will the storm samuel l jackson pulp fiction style glasses work for the 3d for the games ?:)

give em a shot sure.
Remember years ago we used them paper glasses with one red and one green eye lol.

honeybadger

seanybiker wrote: »

give em a shot sure.
Remember years ago we used them paper glasses with one red and one green eye lol.

i rember them too boy lol hope this new 3d lives up to the hype tho,,i say flashes will be packed on saturday with dodgy looking fookers wearing glasses so

nkay1985

I'd considering giving this a go alright. I've heard that you can get a bit of a bad headache after watching a match but it'd be worth a look I suppose.

ziedth

Ya like I went to see avatar in the cinema and was blown away. Now I know it won't be anywhere near the same but 3d tv's aren't as expensive as I thought they would be so I think I'll def give it a goo.

Aquos76

Remember to receive 3D from Sky, not only would you need a 3D TV, but also a Sky HD package which is €70+ a month for sports package, and thats wont include ESPN or Setanta either.

ziedth

Hmmmm,

I had not thought of that.

seanybiker

Dont watch sport meslef so couldnt give a shyte.

dayshah

honeybadger wrote: »

will the storm samuel l jackson pulp fiction style glasses work for the 3d for the games ?:)

No, 3D-tv uses a different system

burkey85

kryogen wrote: »

you a norris' head??

I am, surprised there gettin it in,
Won't be goin to watch the match though, its on too early.
You'd end up spending the whole day there:D

ziedth

^^ bad thing?

kryogen

burkey85 wrote: »

I am, surprised there gettin it in,
Won't be goin to watch the match though, its on too early.
You'd end up spending the whole day there:D

day? try weekend!

jesus i remember the days when the session used to start on thursday evening and finish on monday morning up there lol

i might pop me head in to see if Eoin and Majella actually do get it in, surprised myself when i heard it

burkey85

ziedth wrote: »

^^ bad thing?

Never a bad thing:D
But it doesn't help being on the dole and trying to pay for a summer holiday

Tellox

Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit, but does anyone have any idea on what kind of tech the 3d tv's are using? If it's the same as the cinemas (i.e: avatar-style), I'd avoid them like the plague. Those glasses work by basically tricking your brain into falsely perceiving depth - while a film every now and then won't really do any lasting damage, sitting down watching 3d TV all day will quite literally wreck your depth perception.

Also, they just wreck my head. Migraines + looking like a tool.

seanybiker

Tellox wrote: »

looking like a tool.

change your head ?
surely isnt any way they do it a way of tricking your brain to perceive it in 3D as the people are not in the room playing the game.
dont see the big problem with 2D. Saying that when I had over 300 video's I couldnt see DVD's taking off either.

Tellox

seanybiker wrote: »

change your head ?
surely isnt any way they do it a way of tricking your brain to perceive it in 3D as the people are not in the room playing the game.
dont see the big problem with 2D. Saying that when I had over 300 video's I couldnt see DVD's taking off either.

Oi, my head is gorgeous.

But really; http://www.justeyewear.com/blog/technology/the-dangers-of-3d/

I have to constantly take mine off for a few seconds every now and then when watching a 3d movie, always wind up with minor headaches too

seanybiker

Tellox wrote: »

Oi, my head is gorgeous.

But really; http://www.justeyewear.com/blog/technology/the-dangers-of-3d/

I have to constantly take mine off for a few seconds every now and then when watching a 3d movie, always wind up with minor headaches too

Sorry bout the head lol.
People have been saying for years that the normal television is bad for you so they're bound to be banging on about the 3D aswell.

dayshah

Tellox wrote: »

Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit, but does anyone have any idea on what kind of tech the 3d tv's are using? If it's the same as the cinemas (i.e: avatar-style), I'd avoid them like the plague. Those glasses work by basically tricking your brain into falsely perceiving depth - while a film every now and then won't really do any lasting damage, sitting down watching 3d TV all day will quite literally wreck your depth perception.

Also, they just wreck my head. Migraines + looking like a tool.

The thing is that when using your eyes normally, you don't change what you are looking at that often (relatively speaking) but with a film the angles change every 30 seconds or so, so your eyes have to refocus.

For me 3D is better when its for something slow moving, and with distant landscapes (like a Western). It could work ok for soccer once they don't switch cameras too often.
For snooker I think it would be perfect.

kryogen

I have heard that it isnt that great really for football alright, (despite the marketing campaign) but for something like snooker it would be fantastic i bet!

abouttobebanned

Or darts

ziedth

Or porn

Minstrel27

3D football isn't even in HD.

kensutz

Saw England v Ireland in 3D and it was ok. Nothing fantastic, as soon as you see it once that's it. The novelty would wear off quite quickly.

dayshah

kryogen wrote: »

I have heard that it isnt that great really for football alright, (despite the marketing campaign) but for something like snooker it would be fantastic i bet!

Basically I think 3D needs "set pieces" to allow your eyes adjust. It would be terrible for hurling because there is too much change. Might be ok for Rugby with the line outs and scrums. For films, only ones where the background scenery is important, like Westerns. I didn't like avatar.

As for darts, how about put a camera in/over the board so it looks like the dart is coming straight at you

ziedth

Playercam in 3d would be pretty cool too, do they still do player cam?

danjo-xx

who wants to wear glasses:p

2Bv¬2B

honeybadger wrote: »

will the storm samuel l jackson pulp fiction style glasses work for the 3d for the games ?:)

Yes, In-fact the glasses that will be used in Norris' are from Storm,..................

AdMMM

ziedth wrote: »

Playercam in 3d would be pretty cool too, do they still do player cam?

Would probably be the easiest to do. Not very exciting though because you'd soon realise just how lazy everyone is!

honeybadger

well did anyone get to try it out today,,what ye think

seanybiker

honeybadger wrote: »

well did anyone get to try it out today,,what ye think

burky one of me mates rang me after the match off me brothers phone and said the 3D was crap.

Clano

i was in norrises. i thought it was ****e tbh.
the only times you would notice it is when the camera is focused on a player like at a corner or throw in, otherwise when the player is going across the screen and is zoomed out you would hardly notice it.
and you also need to look like a muppet with them glasses:p

burkey85

Clano wrote: »

i was in norrises. i thought it was ****e tbh.
the only times you would notice it is when the camera is focused on a player like at a corner or throw in, otherwise when the player is going across the screen and is zoomed out you would hardly notice it.
and you also need to look like a muppet with them glasses:p

X 2, Was up in Norris' myself, close ups look well cool but other than that the picture is just clearer.
Aswell as that the corners of the screen were very blurry.

I'd say boxing or horse racing would be good in the 3d

ziedth

Boxing would def be better,

like what has been said long sweeping games like pitch games prob won't suit it.

foxylad2

ziedth wrote: »

Boxing would def be better,

like what has been said long sweeping games like pitch games prob won't suit it.

Sky showed some excellent clips before the game yesterday. a bit of Rugby, tennis, boxing -
looked good -
its something different to add an edge to your home viewing
some loved it - some were not bothered

2Bv¬2B

I think all this 3D TV is just a novelty and will just die out.

I can see a market for 3D games with big ass TV's but I mean are you going to watch X Factor in 3D? The Simpsons in 3D? Films will take off but I think you will only get the expected experience in a cinema, with a very large screen.

I don't think you will achieve the same experience in your home.

jonnyfingers

I watched a bit of the match in 3D before watching the majority of it in 2D. For me there are a few problems with it.

1. There is one main camera that looks across the pitch. Then there are some cameras by both goals to look down the pitch. But the view stays on the main crossfield camera and only uses the goal cameras for replays.

2. The main camera angle is quite flat (low down), obviously to give the 3D more depth.

Both these problems result in not being able to see what's going on on the far side of the pitch clearly. There are no zoomed in shots during play. Only a few for replays.

The last problem was that the 3D match had a 4 second delay. In a pub with multiple TVs I could see what was going to happen in the corner of my eye before it happened on the TV I was watching.

So to sum it all up 3D football has promise. But only if you're very close to the TV and they add a few more camera angles. For now I'll stick to 2D.

Trick of the Tail

I think 3D TV is being a bit rushed onto the market, when its not really perfected yet - both by broadcasters and TV manufacturers.

As I understand it, the current type of 3D TV is compatible with existing TVs - but they will have to be good quality ones to get the benefit, and many large screens used in pubs are LCDs (as they're the cheapest) and large LCD screens are horrible quality.

The artifacts they show will mess up the 3D effect to an extent.

If the screen is an HD Plasma, then it may work OK. But as I say the broadcasters are still learning how best to do it too.

I really hate the idea of having to watch a 3D programme with silly glasses on. The trickery involved really causes the eyes to behave unnaturally - there is no depth of vision really, but it looks as if there is so the eyes try to focus on things at different depths only to find that the focussing doesn't work.

I've seen 3D TV which doesn't need glasses - THAT was impressive. It was like looking through a window.

Again the technology isn't good enough yet, though.

Andy.

foxylad2

alinton wrote: »

As I understand it, the current type of 3D TV is compatible with existing TVs - but they will have to be good quality ones to get the benefit, and many large screens used in pubs are LCDs (as they're the cheapest) and large LCD screens are horrible quality


Andy.

3-D requires new 3-d ready tv's, HD is not good enough -
and i agree - for soccer - more work needs to be dont for more close up shots - the long shots of the pitch just dont do it

2Bv¬2B

foxylad2 wrote: »

3-D requires new 3-d ready tv's, HD is not good enough

Whats the difference?............................. it's all just a digital signal anyway, I can't imagine a 3D telly being any better than a high end HD telly, and I believe high end HD tellys are capable of 3D

dayshah

2Bv¬2B wrote: »

Whats the difference?............................. it's all just a digital signal anyway, I can't imagine a 3D telly being any better than a high end HD telly, and I believe high end HD tellys are capable of 3D

Its not just signal. You need to polarise light differently for each eye. Only special TVs can do that.

jonnyfingers

dayshah wrote: »

Its not just signal. You need to polarise light differently for each eye. Only special TVs can do that.

Correct. Passive 3DTV works by alternating between two pictures at a very high frequency (faster than the eye can detect, so it sees two pictures on screen), polarising each picture differently and wearing standard polarised glasses that will seperate the two pictures into one per eye.

While most HDTVs are probably capable of switching between the two pictures required for each eye at the high frequency needed, a polarising filter would need to be fitted over the screen that will work at that same frequency, to keep only one picture going to each eye.

Now it may be possible in the future to buy some sort of polarising add-on that could be fitted to your existing TV. But by then it might just be cheaper to buy a whole new set.