Channel 4’s week-long 3D TV spectacular only started last night, but rival broadcaster Sky has already chipped in with its opinion on how viewers should experience 3D in their living rooms. While Sky told Register Hardware that it isn’t “blasting” C4’s 3D TV week, a spokesperson for the subscription-only broadcaster said...ahem …
Yet another subscription charge probably.
And that'll be something else that sky viewers will have to fork out extra money for.
Would be interesting to see how many people are going back to free view because they don't want to pay the extra subs for channels in HD, let alone another subscription for the same channels in 3d.......
..all this 2D screen / 3D glasses stuff why don't they just provide a a complete in-room holographic system ?
I'm pretty sure we knew all this. And of course C4 is using current technology, what other choice is there today, Sky? The real question is what the free services will do once there are some 3DTVs out there and Sky have launched their service. They're all being quiet probably waiting to see whether it flops.
I think the Paris "angle" is obvious.
Don't talk to me about Sky ! (to paraphrase Marvin).
A colleague was due to get Sky installed. She waited in her house all day on the appointed day. No one appeared. She nipped out for 5 minutes and returned to find a message from the installer. Phoned him back - apparently he''d been waiting in the street in her town for about an hour.
As she lives on a farm up a lane with no adjoining houses and 2 miles from the nearest town she found this quite amazing - but "he wouldn't discuss this". So she has no idea where he was and as she'd previously had a phonecall from an installer in Wales asking where her house was it could have been anywhere in the UK.
Anyway, would you trust a supplier who is so technologically challenged that it cannot use a GPS or get addresses correct to supply any advanced viewing system ?
It'll need to be.
I wonder what the content will be, is there really much "3D" content? I guess that's coming, but right now?
I also wonder what the effect of watching "3D" content for many hours will be. Now I know the world is "3D" but the world isn't "fixed focus", the unnatural part of watching "3D" content is that the viewer must fix their focus on the display, even though much of what they are viewing suggests otherwise. Additionally "fuzzy focus" in the scene (like when you look over someone's shoulder at the part of the scene the director wants you to look at) is really confusing for the brain (the foreground "fuzzy" part of the scene cannot be brought into focus). I imagine if the viewer watched large amounts of it they'd suffer headaches. While it might seem quite natural, it really isn't.
I also think Sky are going to find it hard to tempt people into paying EVEN MORE. If HD was a hard sell, this is going to be really difficult.
"Would be interesting to see how many people are going back to free view..."
As it happens, me. My flatmates insisted but as I'm moving out I can now get rid. Having just checked out the Sky player on Xbox 360 (and the ridiculous cost therein) I'm now more convinced than ever that Sky market their product to stupid people.
Offended? If you have Sky, you pay to watch adverts. Genius Sky, stupid customers.
@ James 5
RE the in-room holographic system. Does anyone remember "Wild Palms"?
Waste of time and money
3D TV will never go anywhere unless it's a precursor to holographic systems.
The general public has only just started getting HD TV's but haven't seen the value in them yet as there isn't enough HD delivery unless you subscribe, either that or you kick yourself for buying a HD TV when you have to go out and buy another so that you can receive freesat HD.
Surely they should have looked at the whole Blu-ray issue, the tech and discs aren't exactly flying off the shelves.
I saw Up in 3D at the cinema and it was miles better than any 3D I'd seen before... I was expecting to be uncomfortable and get a headache but I actually forgot I was wearing them after a while and became completely engrossed in the experience.
3D is a waste of time for years yet
Some day a TV will arrive which does not require glasses (or impose other stupid viewing requirements), does not cost the earth, does not induce eyestrain or pounding headaches and which implements the appropriate industry standards so that it will be compatible with all range of input devices.
But that day is not here. It's not even clear when it will arrive. And even if it did, there isn't much content to show on such a device.
3D is clearly many years from mainstream adoption, which in turn should tell you what you're going to get if you subscribe to a Sky 3D service - the shaft. Sky still charges too much for HD and that's supposedly mainstream these days.
The tech adoption driver for 3D will be ...
This has been a driver in all media formats so far.
I don't know that I'd relish the thought of it, but whatever floats your boat.
Paris for obvious reasons
@ James 5 - your friend left the house, and that was the moment the installer chose to turn up. That's known as Sod's Law, and it's hardly under the control of Sky. Rupert Murdoch may be a sod (probably the nicest thing he's been called in a good few years), but it's not his own personal law.
Also, @ andy gibson - wow, someone else actually remembers Wild Palms! Every time I mention it to a friend, they always look at me as if I dreamt it. You're not any relation to William Gibson, are you? I figured maybe you were only watching it to catch your brother's cameo.
Sky and their hardware partners are obviously timing their service carefully, to make everybody change from HDTV to 3D. That is, after everybody's made the LCD to HDTV change; following on from the Widescreen to LCD change; following on from the colour CRT to Widescreen change; following the black and white to CRT change; etc.
I'm not saying I'd rather be squinting at a miniature 1950's black and white television, but I'd rather technology was driven by consumer choice and genuine innovation, rather than manufacturer profits.
My next bet is on Smell-o-vision.
For real 3D and infinite resolution...
...go to the theatre or a concert.
Every 15 years-or-so we see film studios and broadcasters trying to resuscitate this "technology" from the late 1800s.
3D technology without the need for stupid glasses exists.
If they aren't using that, I'm not interested.
That goes double if Sky/NewsCorp are involved.
3D Must Die
It doesn't add anything. It's a fad. A good script well acted can be more 'immersive' than 3D. Ooh, I get it now: get some cheap shit, make it 3D, profit! Can we please, please, please get the digital / HD stuff done and working well (my STB, a V+ box, is slow and buggy) before trying to shovel rubbish at us.
It's already here...
I have already seen a 3D TV that requires no glasses.
If anyone else wants to see, it is in Harrods, London - (TV dept).
I can't remember if it was an LG or Samsung set, but was very good.
Would I buy one? No, not even if it was £1000
Looking at it was very uncomfortable for my eyes.
im sorry but i dont find this 3d stuff exciting at all it didnt work in the 80s i cant see it working now people are getten headakes because our eyes cant cope with the glasses think il stick to 1080p thanks it looks amazing and it dont hurt the eyes unlike 3d
Money grabbing fat cats
I refuse to use SKY because they endlessly put adverts on (more so than even ITV and other companies) AND have the cheek to charge subscription fees on top! Their broadband costs were also jacked up...
Now good old Murdoch wants to start charging for his on-line content...
Well good luck with that Murdoch, your tabloids and channels are rubbish anyway and thankfully the BBC give us TV, radio and on-line content as part of our VFM licence fee!
Because even Paris knows how to give good service at low costs
Word of Advice...
A word of advice Sky... Work the kinks out of your current systems before striding head long into revamping OLD technologies. The day I class it as 3D TV is when I DON'T have to sit there wearing Geordie LaForges visor, looking like a d*ck!
It's bad enough that I have to wave my arms to operate a Nintendo Wii, now I have to wear David Blunketts glasses to be able to see it properly!!