July 28, 2010

Sky 3D launches on October 1st - chemists stock up on Nurofen

Having finally recovered from the 3D "experience" of (the otherwise excellent) Toy Story 3 - blurry vision for a good ten minutes after removing the glasses and a cracker of a headache later on - I plan to steer well clear of this particular innovation.
According to The Telegraph Jeremy Darroch, Sky’s chief executive, said: “As with High Definition, 3D is set to transform the way TV is enjoyed in homes nationwide. Following hot on the heels of the success of 3D cinema, Sky customers will now be the first anywhere in Europe to experience 3D TV from the comfort of their living rooms. They can look forward to a fantastic mix of live sport, blockbuster movies, and innovative entertainment and arts shows.”
I think not. 

6 comments:

Dan said...

You may be one of the unfortunate few with an eye impairment that means the 3D effect doesn't work 100% and causes headaches.

joff81 said...

i have to agree with this. although 3D looks awesome it too gives me a massive headache and also left me feeling sick.

i do wear glasses for distance and as such probably fall into the bracket of those who shouldnt use 3D technology as i have sight issues.

Nialli said...

I wear glasses but if that's a restriction of the technology it will never be mass market - more than 75% of adults require sight correction.
I experience the 3D effect fine but, like most of the audience who emerged blinking last Sunday, I find the post-3D experience a little uncomfortable.
Also, I don't find the current technology though remotely lifelike - everything is either in the foreground, middle or background, very distinct layers, which is distracting rather than absorbing. And the colours are distorted by the grey in the specs. So glad Nolan didn't shoot Inception in 3D.
I've seen Sony 3D TV too; not impressed. Not only do you need a massive screen to make it worthwhile, it has the distinct layer problem even worse.
I don't want it in my living room and don't believe I'm alone in that.

paul said...

I just cant see why you would want to by a 3dtv until the technology is there to do it without the need for glasses. I have watched football on several occasions now aswell as super league. Football is a complete waste of time its a wide angle shot for most of the game you cant tell its in 3d at all. Its only the sky on screen stuff that stands out and then you feel sick. Everyone in the pub round mine now watch the other 2d tv's, already they cba with 3d

JRW said...

Of four in my house not one gets on with any of the current 3D technologies. At best its a headaches after half an hour, but my 13 year old can only manage a couple of minutes. IMHO 3D is still decades away from mass market. I hope it both works and is affordable before then, but I suspect I'll have retired before it gets there ...

Moroboshi said...

Agreed on the headaches, but also interesting is a huge limitation that broadcasters have had to accept when airing 3D content - it won't be in HD. Due to the entire production and broadcasting chain already being in place for 1920x1080i or 1440x1080i there's simply no way to double the bandwidth without massive costs. So the solution (which is currently in use in the US) is to half the resolution of the picture. So if you want 3D, say goodbye to HD.

Blu-Ray 3D is different however, and has enough bandwidth for 1920x1080p in 3D, although with a lower bitrate. (max 30mbit) This has been achieved by increasing BD bandwidth to 60mbit, which is then halved for 3D. Current BDs max out at 50mbit (of which 45mbit or so goes on the video).

As a comparison broadcast 3D will be around 10-20mbit at 720x1080i or 960x1080i. (broadcast PAL SD is 720x576i) So 3D 'HD' is barely any higher res than SD.