Once again, innovation comes from the private sector rather than the subsidised tax junkies at the beeb.
Satellite broadcaster Sky has said that UK viewers could be treated to 3D broadcasts inside 24 months. The firm’s Director of Strategic Product Development, Gerry O'Sullivan, told The Times newspaper that a 3D service “could be launched any time in the next two years”. “Could” is the key word here, as O'Sullivan stressed that …
If the Beeb used my licence fee money to fund this "innovation", I'd be royally hacked off. Their iPlayer work, on the other hand - very good. And that's coming from a Mac owner.
Seriously - red and green specs? Are they going to be delivered to me on the back of a cereal packet, too?
HD is barely worth the bother of switching as it is (I'm not bothering until my Sky+ box dies, SD looks fine on my 40" 1080p anyway), 3D even less so.
@JonB, I think you find that gimmicks come from a company that has to maintain a it viewing figures which http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_Sky_viewing_figures.png
No one is talking 3D in the TV industry its a gimmick the industry has just adjusted to HD never mind the next big thing. Sky will really have to show that 3D can make money and shot things 3D and not just process 2D footage which a number of companies are doing.
You mean the company that put advanceed television viewing back years by choosing the cheaper PAL standard rather than the digital sound and widescreen-supporting D(2)-MAC that the more forward-thinking countries were adopting?
Even on their own satellite channels the BBC were broadcasting widescreen years before Sky got around to it.
@JonB - you are joking, right? Name one single innovation that Sky has come up with, other than convincing idiots to pay for three hundred channels of crap.
Didn't Sharp release a 3D monitor that didn't need glasses a few years back? It required you to sit in a very well defined area, but it looked cool. Not seen one in the wild though...
This post has been deleted by its author
Dear God why? Quick everyone, buy a digital TV, quick everyone, buy an HD TV, quick everyone, buy a proper HD TV, now 3D? lol, what a load of crap. Their basic service is barely worth it, what with it being stuffed with adverts 33% of the time, unless you take out a 2nd mortgage of course to watch 3 year old films and overblown circus, sorry football matches.
Why the hell would you need Red & Green Stereoscopic glasses on a 3D TV. A bog standard TV can display Red/Green stereoscopic images, hell, even paper can! Surely you would need polarizing glasses or something along those lines? Surely the future can't be 3D but in 2 amazing horrific colours!?!?
So Sky see their traditional sources of income being squeezed and this is the best response they can come up with?
This is the same crappy "3D" tech which they've been flogging for years, it's a joke. For Sky to be persuing this gimic speaks volumes about their confidence in their future with FreeSat, terrestrial HD and Virgin storming into their home turf. What's next, Smellovision?
To the guy who thinks this is the sort of 'innovation' required from the BBC, I'd scream bloody murder if they even spent a single pound of my license fee persuing such a stupid technology.
After spending £400 on a HDTV, another £200 on Sky HD, as well as the £120 p/a subscription fee for Sky HD, on top of theSky subscription, there is no way in hell that I'm going to spend another £400 on a new TV as well as the usual £200+£10pm fee that Sky will want to charge for the service.
HDTV is still sort of new, people who have just upgraded will not want to pay for a new upgrade, even within 2 years
@ JonB - Why would the BBC want to spend millions of taxpayers money on a system which no one can use right now, and may never want to use? The Japanese are already using Super-HD, so it could end up a fight between Super-HD and 3D-TV, do you really want the BBC spending licence fee money on a system which may lose the battle against Super-HD? Or would you rather they let the private sector take the risks, and just do what they do, broadcast the content.
TV system I saw had an enormous LED backlight then two differently polarised LCD screens in series, hence requiring the luser mounted left/right polaroid glasses. OK for Italians, watching TV indoors wearing sunglasses!!
Other webstuff mentioned that there are around 4 other competing 3D technologies, I wish there was actually some RF Spectrum defined to carry all those important 3d Jordan pixels across the airwaves.
Anyway we have to be nice to SKY as don't they still employ the NDS spetsnaz?, strange how the two French satellite systems TPS and ABsat were on Hotbird until recently (...with new Viacess keys leaked regularly) now there's just a monopoly CANALsat using , surprise, NDS encryption technology on Astra. Do I really need a decoder card posted to a French address or can I just buy in a French supermarket? Ciel, non merci!
there's a whole lot of negativity on here, at least someone's trying the BBC are far too busy pissing my license money on twats like Ross to afford to innovate and showing far too much crap reality TV, even the "edgy" BBC3 is mediocre at best. Yes Sky is subscription service and no one is forcing you too, you could watch terrestrial, or go virgin, Sky have done some great things the HD is excellent, if you can't see it you have a bum TV or bad eyes.
/Rant at naysayers.
Im not too sure about red and green specs, dont they use polarized glasses? they look like light tinted sunglasses. Either way i hope it does come because it means that HD wont be their premium service and so hopefully drop the high price tags and 'HD subscription' charges!!
I embrace this new technology, i embrace all new technology its a step in the right direction instead of nothing!!
.. the BBC don't spend money on R&D ? All those "I'm glad they spend our money on TV than silly innovations.." really don't know what the BBC do.
They spend a *HUGE* amount of money on R&D every year. A few years back they spent a fortune on developing a plasma TV with a company called Delphi - which to be honest was really pants anyway. Did sell a few units because of it's "Developed in conjunction with the BBC" sticker but wasn't worth the huge price tag.
No, don't do motorbikes at all. Must be a different one. Wouldn't the world be boring if we all agreed though?
Certainly kicked up a shit storm with that one didn't I. ;)
I wasn't really suggesting that the beeb should do it, just observing that the private sector is where it comes from, not the subsidised tax junkies at the beeb. It's interesting that those who don't want their tax spent on innovation do want it spent on the iPlayer though.
Most of you lot seem to think that the red and green 3D visualisation requires special transmission and receiving equipment? Surely to god with a little thought you can see that the reg has just tacked on a load of bollocks there? If it is glasses it'll be polaroid. Also you lot do realise that you can get 3D displays that don't require glasses?
>I'm not sure but I doubt that a 3D signal can be broadcast on the analgue spectrum.
Analogue is getting turned off. However, it's self evident that multiple video streams can be transmitted at once anyway. Do you think that BBC 2 turns off when you switch to BBC 1?
>And of course the BBC didn't develop the iPlayer did it ...
You tube led the way there. To the point where after massive development cost the beeb shifted the product to act more like it. I bet youporn has more viewers.
>Damned if you don't, damned if you do.
Well, yes, that's a fair point.
>Sky costs three times as much and provides bugger all quality programming.
You don't have to pay for it though. No want, no pay.
>Hate to burst your bubble.. BBC did a trial of 3D broadcasting last year.
Burst away, being proved wrong is to be educated as they say. I hadn't heard about that, I think there'll be a few on here deeply upset at that news. At least one unnamed individual will be screaming "bloody murder" about it.
There's some criticism of it from a commercial viewpoint, ie. no-one wants it. You really don't know unless you try it. Ticking along producing endless radio panel games for the last 40 years might seem like a good plan if you follow that line of thinking.. oh...
Every specs-requiring 3D TV we've seen of late uses polarising lenses, not red and green ones, but that's what Sky said they were using.
Won't it be fun if they launch a 3D TV service that requires red and green glasses than none of the available tellies can use? He-He.
FWIW, Reg Hardware remains entirely unconvinced there's any benefit to having 3D TV, for all the (two) cool 3D Imax movies we've seen. We do like Imax. We think it'll go the way of the 'interactive movie'.
Are we right or wrong? What do you think?
>but that's what Sky said they were using.
Well, if that's what they said I guess that's what you have to report.
My apologies for the suggestion that you just tacked it on for effect.
>Won't it be fun if they launch a 3D TV service that requires red and green glasses
>than none of the available tellies can use? He-He.
But any telly can display the red and green pictures.
What would the special hardware do?
>entirely unconvinced there's any benefit to having 3D TV
Ditto, but then I'm unconvinced about HD as well, yet they're all going a bundle on it.
It has been possible for years to send a depth channel plus normal 2D video and render with a variety of formats at the receiving end. Overhead was less than 10% of the video track and is probably much better now. That ability is also a nice side-effect of one of the better technologies for processing 2D footage into 3D.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019