Sky 3D to launch in April

Is It Just Me...?

Not sure if this applies to anyone else (I could just be a freak) but I can't watch 3D as the merging of the two images in my head causes me excrutiating headaches within minutes. Anybody else with the same problem?

Of course with all the media hype about it, the future (in this little corner of the IT world) ain't looking so bright anymore =:(

Quantity - not quality?

Apart from the obvious need to see a wildebeeste being torn apart in HD and the rush towards the next CGI wars - why have any real plot, all you need is things whizzing around -- what is it for?

Increasing Sky's profit from mugs is the obvious but sitting around and commenting on how well the make-up department has covered the spots on newsreaders faces seems a bit lame to me.

Unless you really, really have to see footballers as they spit.

So for now - why?

Initially at no extra cost?

So expect a +£10 per month hike once $ky decide they can get away with it? Add that to the ridiculous premium they already charge for HD content. Greedy ****ers.

huh?

In the pub with a pint and plastic specs. That'll be a winner... not.

Fail

Old Murdoch really is THAT arrogant to think that people will want to sit at home with stupid oversized NHS specs on just to watch his formulaic TV pish. What an arsehole.

This is not the technology to bring 3D to the sitting room. Cinemas, yes, that works because going to the cinema is a little bit of an occasion but as an every day requirement to wear goggles to channel surf, don't think so.

Full realism?

So, for full-on realism, will they ensure it's being viewed on a 14" screen at the far end of the pub? That's about the level of detail one can see from up on the terraces.

Not a football fan, so I think this is a waste of bandwidth and technology. The sales figures will show I'm in the minority though!

Trumping O2?

This rather takes the sails out of O2's much-heralded "UK's first ever live 3D sports broadcasts" the following weekend doesn't it? http://www.o2blueroom.co.uk/3drugbylive

Bet they're peeved.

HD > 3D

HD works as it does improve the picture on the now commonplace larger TV, also pretty much everything is recorded in HD or above, so content isn't a problem.

3D requires new TV/setup box hardware and the programmes to be shot with a 3d camera. Aside from the likes of avatar, the only thing I've seen confirmed by Sky for 3d is 'Gladiators'. Blimey I'm practically gushing at the choice of 3d content :P

Luddites the lot of ya

Good Lord listen to yourselves! It is the first broadcast and you're chucking stones at it already. And the anti-Murdoch prejudice is plainly ridiculous. FFS people, get a life!

The TV manufacturers are producing the sets anyway, not just for Sky or the Brits - don't be so arrogant to think so. They see a global market for the technology, they may be wrong, but only time will tell. Sky are merely producing the content for the devices, and "initially" giving it away. But yes, of course, it is entirely reasonable for Sky to later on charge for what will then be premium content as HD is today. And yes sheeple, you will have a choice of whether or not to buy the content. No one is forcing you to watch 3D with specs, ridiculous or otherwise.

Weren't you lot the same that were carping on about HD when it first arrived? Twats.