Sky 3D launches today

watty

But it's not actually 3D.

Is it really worth the expense and the headaches? Don't waste time with the BBC reprint of Sky Advertising blurb. Do some research.

Anyone here signed up yet?

200motels

watty wrote: »

But it's not actually 3D.

Is it really worth the expense and the headaches? Don't waste time with the BBC reprint of Sky Advertising blurb. Do some research.

Anyone here signed up yet?

I think 3D is not what it's cracked up to be, I get headaches from watching 3D in the cinema and I've been into the local Sony shop to see the 3D TV'S and I don't like it, it's not real. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

thomasking22008

it really really crap for ryder cup sky 3D uk no real golf ball hit my head

Tom Cruises Left Nut

Looked pretty good this morning, watched it for 15 mins before I went to work.

Interesting to see how Monsters vs Aliens looks later

Kensington

I can see it's use for gaming alright, but for TV? Just a gimmick I think.

Tom Cruises Left Nut

watty wrote: »

But it's not actually 3D.

Is it really worth the expense and the headaches? Don't waste time with the BBC reprint of Sky Advertising blurb. Do some research.

Anyone here signed up yet?

Hi Watty

Have had it for about a month, has only been the previews and reruns of football matches but they look really really good.

I went with the 50" Samsung plasma, active glasses. No headaches or anything else, could sit there for hours with them on (have used the 3d upscaling on the xbox for a few hours straight with no issues)

Its good to finally have some content to watch !

lawhec

This new 3D Stereoscopic service is very realistic, I seen a demo a few months ago featuring an English Premiership soccer game at Anfield, fell asleep in the middle of it, woke up and found my wallet was nicked! :eek:

Seriously though, from my "3D" experiences at the cinema, I'm not really fussed. From watching four separate 3D movies, only one didn't give me headaches (Toy Story 3). HD is to me a more appreciative leap forward I feel.

watty

Some people with deep pockets will enjoy the extra effect. But it's hard to see Stereoscopic TV do as well as the Nintendo 3DS. It's a niche product and without Sky's commitment to do it it's hard to see how the TV makers would sell the Product. Even Avatar isn't released in 3D on BD yet.

Manc-Red

watty wrote: »

Some people with deep pockets will enjoy the extra effect. But it's hard to see Stereoscopic TV do as well as the Nintendo 3DS. It's a niche product and without Sky's commitment to do it it's hard to see how the TV makers would sell the Product. Even Avatar isn't released in 3D on BD yet.

HD was always going to sell due to the exceptional increase in both quality & audio, that would appeal to anyone really....

This though smells like a gimmick, anyone I know who's viewed 3D has either felt ill or soreness around the eyes a day or so later - I can admit that I was interested in the football previews that was being screened in the various pubs around, I too felt weird for a day or 2 later I must admit.

The real issue as a fan of Live events for me is that the 3D experience is not a whole one - ok, there are moments that are amazing - these moments are not enough to satisfy me into going out and buying a rather over-priced tv for the sake of rare moments of mind-blowing 3D.

HD is HD, this is not 3D though.

Still lots of work in this technology to be sorted out for someone like me to invest.

Super HD, now that gets my mouth watering.

Dr. Nick

Haven't seen 3D, except 30 seconds of Monstersi nc. in the Blanch Hardly Normal shop. Looked good, but definitely a gimmick.

Anyway I think HD isn't worth paying €15 a month extra for, it'll be going once I come to the end of my 12 months....

watty

Manc-Red wrote: »

HD was always going to sell due to the exceptional increase in both quality & audio, that would appeal to anyone really....

HD is nice for films on a 60" screen. Not so compelling for news, Soaps or TV shot "safe" for SD and even safe for 4:3, too much close up too close and not enough further "back" wide shots. Action too constrained to 4:3 area. Decent HD needs to be "shot" solely for WS and HD. But for kids brought up on 405 Line B&W the jump to 625 line Colour was the big one.

1920 x 1080 HD is a big jump for Analog Color 525 line USA, about 500 x 480 effective resolution (640 x 480 square pixel). Also the USA went in for big CRT and rear projection up to 56" even in Analogue days.

Good SD Digital is 720 x 576 in Europe. Even now the majority of Screens here are 22" to 32". You want to have been watching SD TV on 48" at least to really appreciate the move to HD

3D HD ironically is 1/2 HD resolution.

Manc-Red

watty wrote: »

HD is nice for films on a 60" screen. Not so compelling for news, Soaps or TV shot "safe" for SD and even safe for 4:3, too much close up too close and not enough further "back" wide shots. Action too constrained to 4:3 area. Decent HD needs to be "shot" solely for WS and HD. But for kids brought up on 405 Line B&W the jump to 625 line Colour was the big one.

1920 x 1080 HD is a big jump for Analog Color 525 line USA, about 500 x 480 effective resolution (640 x 480 square pixel). Also the USA went in for big CRT and rear projection up to 56" even in Analogue days.

Good SD Digital is 720 x 576 in Europe. Even now the majority of Screens here are 22" to 32". You want to have been watching SD TV on 48" at least to really appreciate the move to HD

3D HD ironically is 1/2 HD resolution.

My main reason for watching TV is solely sport & concert - These on HD have been brought into the future with HD, I've a 32" Sony Bravia, the differences in quality from SD to HD is massive to any eye.

Movies too are now so exciting to watch.

Maybe I've good eyes??

byte

No, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Maybe that's down to heavy compression on SD digital signals (as an SD TV with a good clean analogue signal from a Tx was always good too), but there is definitely a noticeable difference on even a 32" with HD. Sharper picture, and better colours too IMO.

Kristopherus

Manc-Red wrote: »

My main reason for watching TV is solely sport & concert - These on HD have been brought into the future with HD, I've a 32" Sony Bravia, the differences in quality from SD to HD is massive to any eye.

Movies too are now so exciting to watch.

Maybe I've good eyes??

You must have exceptional eyes.:) I find very little difference between SD & HD on a 32in TV. Much more noticable on the bigger sets imho.

lawhec

Kristopherus wrote: »

You must have exceptional eyes.:) I find very little difference between SD & HD on a 32in TV. Much more noticable on the bigger sets imho.

The size of the TV is only one part of the equation, viewing distance from the screen is also a factor. Closer you are to the screen, the more the difference should be apparent.

Noffles

Lot of nay sayers on here.... I see no relation to the 3D in the cinema and the home screens, the home screens tech is FAR better and is so much easier to watch... even though I haven't got one yet I will do, watched a 55" Samsung the other day and was hard pushed to leave the shop without it... it's the futuer and it is ****ing brilliant... and in 3D

Minstrel27

Noffles wrote: »

it's the futuer and it is ****ing brilliant... and in 3D

I am sure they said the same the many times in the past that they tried to push it on the masses. It failed each and every time then.

watty

Updated the blog article to explain why the HD on 3D is half resolution and some other bits. Off topic rants are "unpublished"

It may not "fail" as such this time, especially if the feature is standard in higher end HDTVs no matter if you want it or not. But I can't see it being on mainstream channels any time soon. BBC transmitting SD, HD and 3D copy of same channel doubles transmission costs. And where is the content? Also will NEVER work for 20% of people even if they have TV display tech that doesn't need glasses (unlikely to be viable except on personal screens such as phone and Nintendo 3DS). It's not the glasses, or passive vs active, refresh rate or any such thing that causes headaches and eye strain, it's inherent to Stereoscopic images. The technology may even get banned eventually outside of cinema and handhelds on health grounds.

Manc-Red

Kristopherus wrote: »

You must have exceptional eyes.:) I find very little difference between SD & HD on a 32in TV. Much more noticable on the bigger sets imho.

I have great eyes, yes:D:D

trap4

watty wrote: »

Updated The technology may even get banned eventually outside of cinema and handhelds on health grounds.

The health worries are nothing but alarmist hyperbole - http://www.today3d.com/2010/07/3d-tv-projects-no-eye-damage.html

And the main reasons for eye strain at the moment are because directors and editors need to figure out how to shoot and cut for smooth convergence point transitions. They'll learn.

Minstrel27

trap4 wrote: »

And the main reasons for eye strain at the moment are because directors and editors need to figure out how to shoot and cut for smooth convergence point transitions. They'll learn.

They would want to learn quickly.

Manc-Red

trap4 wrote: »

And the main reasons for eye strain at the moment are because directors and editors need to figure out how to shoot and cut for smooth convergence point transitions. They'll learn.

The point of research and development prior to launch surely is to iron out these major issues?

I do agree it will get better - I do wonder though if the damage will have already been done from the negative reviews before this is sorted?

watty

There has been Stereoscopic Film since 19th Century.

The eye strain is because the screen is at a FIXED distance. It's a fixed 2D plane. The 3D from two offset images is an illusion. The eye tries to focus closer or further and the image goes out of focus.

because directors and editors need to figure out how to shoot and cut for smooth convergence point transitions.

Almost irrelevant.

Also it doesn't work AT ALL for about 1/5th of people. This is an optical illusion. It doesn't exist in real life.

There is a problem and it's been known about for maybe over 100 years.

It will get very very little better, because intrinsically it can't. Prolonged viewing will ALWAYS give headaches.

John mac

watty wrote: »

Also it doesn't work AT ALL for about 1/5th of people. .

I'm one of them.
after watching Avatar last year in the cinema only 3d effect i saw was the droplets floating on the first scene.
i have yet to have a go at the 3d tv thing. but will not be getting it , saving until one of these come out... 24 gigs a second data stream.. :eek:

Manc-Red

HD is superb but Super HD

WOW!!

scout353

Watched the Ryder Cup in 3D and I thought it was superb!

Won't be buying it anytime soon though!!!!

Minstrel27

Manc-Red wrote: »

HD is superb but Super HD

WOW!!

No. Sky's promotional crap tells me Sky HD is stunning. It's not really.

Manc-Red

Minstrel27 wrote: »

No. Sky's promotional crap tells me Sky HD is stunning. It's not really.

Was I discussing Sky there??

Minstrel27

It is a thread about Sky so I guess I was wrong to assume.

Manc-Red

Minstrel27 wrote: »

It is a thread about Sky so I guess I was wrong to assume.

Yep ye were, I mentioned Super HD - Wow! - A reference to a new format in development.

watty

It's for Public venues and Cinema, not for home.