BSkyB To Launch 3D TV Service In 2010

TheSync writes "The Guardian reports that BSkyB will launch Europe's first 3D TV service in 2010. You will need the Sky+ HD set-top box, and a '3D ready' TV set (glasses-based stereoscopic system such as LCD shutter glasses or polarized glasses). Note that the first 3D TV service was from Nippon BS Broadcasting BS11 for use with Hyundai 3D sets."

Comments

Pfft.

[thatkid_2002]

My TV is 3d already. It's kind of a rectangular prism style shape with a curvy CRT screen.

Re:Pfft.

[fractoid]

Pfft get a 2D TV like all us cool kids have. Nerd. Everyone knows flatscreens are cooler.

Re:Pfft.

[CarpetShark]

Mine's an ancient device called 'Outside'.

Re:Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Pfft.

[Inda]

I only have one eye you insensitive clods!

Re:Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I only have one eye you depth-sensitive clods!

Fixed that for you.

Re:Pfft.

[Phoghat]

Bah, it's been around since the 80's:

From SCTV

pointless?

[timmarhy]

the 3d effect is diminised without a wrap around screen though?

sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to agree with the willfail tag, alas, this is BSkyB, the UK's favourite waste of money, murdoch is far, far more popular than the BBC with a certain, very large, braindead section of the british public.

Re:sheeple

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

I'd like to agree with the willfail tag, alas, this is BSkyB, the UK's favourite waste of money, murdoch is far, far more popular than the BBC with a certain, very large, braindead section of the british public.

To add to this, I'll agree with the 'braindead' part of your post. I can't see why people would praise BSkyB over the BBC, the BBC at least provide the service we're paying them for. Here, I bought a new Sky+ HD box and an HD subscription, planning to replace an old Sky+ box with a shiny new HD box and replace a regular Sky box downstairs with the old Sky+ box, giving both our upstairs and downstairs TV the ability to pause and record programs. Sky seemed absolutely fine with all this, so far so good.

First screw up now. We should've received two new Sky cards, one for the new HD box and another for the old Sky+ box. We didn't. No problem the installers said, we'll just use the card from the regular old Sky box, put it in the HD box, call Sky so they can transfer the old card over, and we'd have full Sky HD in about four hours! We didn't. All we got were the free-to-air/view HD channels and the regular SD package channels, but none of the HD package channels, nor would the box operate as a Sky+ box, giving error messages telling us to upgrade our subscription whenever we tried to use such functions.

What follows now is a month and no less than five calls to Sky, where we were told (and I quote) getting the box actually working "could be a week, could be a month". Despite this, Sky wasted no time in debiting my account for the full amount, including the extra £10 for the HD channels I'm not getting. We would fight for a refund, except that we tried that once when Sky mistakenly debited us for an installation that never actually happened and only ended up wasting money on phone calls only for Sky to tell us they couldn't give us our money back but they could 'credit our account' for the amount, meaning they wouldn't charge us for our subscription for a while, but Sky simply don't do refunds (I phrase it as Sky getting confused, after all we give them money, how could it possibly work the other way around?).

As I type this, it has now been one month since I got Sky+ HD, and there is still no indication that Sky are actually going to activate the functions I'm paying them extra for. The lack of Sky+ is especially ridiculous as Sky actually changed their system so anyone with a Sky+ or Sky+ HD box (which I have) and a subscription to at least one channel package (we have four) automatically gets Sky+ without needing an additional subscription! So why do I still hit pause only to get:

Live Pause is not available
Call 08705 800800
to upgrade your Sky+ subscription

All Sky can tell us is that they're "having some problems" and will send an email to get some form filled out so they can actually provide us with the service as promised. We'd move television providers except that Sky has no competition here. Freeview isn't available due to the local transmitter not being upgraded and doesn't provide a fraction of the channels anyway. Cable is simply not available here in any way, shape, or form. So unlike with gas, electricity, broadband, or phone, there is no competition and we can't move. If this is somehow supposed to be better than the TV licence, I'm not seeing it.

Re:sheeple

[pisto_grih]

Get freesat.

Re:sheeple

[Big Hairy Ian]

If they are saying they don't do refunds write to companies house and ask them to intercede they can force a company to cease trading whilst their investigation is going on. Oh and this kind of thing is Companies House's job anyway.

Re:sheeple

[StoatBringer]

Sky customer services are shockingly incompetent. I've to deal with them plenty of times (due to the shoddy nature of the set-top boxes mainly) and it is hard to believe that they are simply useless and not actually malicious. I'd like to get a HD box, but I don't think I could face the weeks of soul-destroying hassle it would involve for them to get it installed and working correctly. The engineers they send out are generally great, but actually getting them to send the right engineer, with the right gear, to the right address, at the time they said they would is almost not worth the effort.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Any time someone says they "can't get anything except Sky" I sigh. How unobservant do you have to be to not notice that there's another satellite provider sat up there and it's free?

But I can guarantee that once you've disabused them of this notion, they'll say it's no good because they have to have all the Sky exclusive channels. I visualise them complaining that, sure, ASDA sells the same branded goods as their regular supermarket, but there's no competition because although ASDA is located adjacent to the same carpark as their regular store it doesn't have their regular store's own brand goods...

They're willing victims.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

When I'm dealing with a supplier I don't trust, I use either a credit card or direct debit. They both (under my country's legislation) allow the customer to cut the supplier out of the loop on refund decisions.

Of course you have to be sure you're right. You need to call the supplier, and make sure you've reached the point where they basically agree you were incorrectly charged, but they don't want to refund the money. They'll say it's not policy, or they don't have a supervisor who can authorise it right now, or a million Glen Garry Glen Ross bullshit lines. You thank them (after all the CS person is just doing their job) and hang up. Then call the bank and have the money refunded anyway.

If the supplier is sufficiently screwed up there's a good chance they won't even notice. A company that can't bill 33 Green Street for the water used at 33 Green Street, but insists on trying to bill for water from 24 Long Road, probably won't be able to tie up a bank charge reversal to the right customer account. So you may be able to receive a supply, get sent incorrect bills, and have them refunded indefinitely until the supplier goes bankrupt due to "Financial mismanagement".

Probably the CEO is too busy approving the new TV advert to look into the "boring IT problem" with it not being able to bill the correct people.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: What do you call the box attached to a satellite dish?

A: A council house (for those outside the UK a council house is subsidised housing, often inhabited by the terminally unemployed, etc.)

Re:sheeple

[iapetus]

That's a hideous analogy. There are some programs - and some types of coverage - that are exclusive to Sky, and you won't get on Freesat. If you want to watch particular TV programs then you're locked in to that channel or forced to obtain access to them through less-than-legal approaches, which believe it or not some people choose not to do. If you want to watch a lot of sporting events, you're tied in to Sky. Or perhaps you can tell me where I get my season-round live NFL coverage on Freesat?

Re:sheeple

[Idbar]

It seems contradictory to me: willfail and porn tags don't seem to go together! Meh, maybe it's just me.

Re:sheeple

[VShael]

Have you heard of BitTorrent? :)

Re:sheeple

[petes_PoV]

braindead section of the british public

Yawn, this trite and dismissive view is so 1980's.

The reason people in Britain have to spend hundreds of UKP every year - on top of the £150 - or whatever it is now, tax that the government demands, to finance the BBC is because the terrestrial stations churn out nothing but "braindead" reality shows, quizzes, soap-operas and consumer programmes. For anyone who wants an alternative to the lowest-common-denominator crap we're mugged, annually, to pay for you have to get satellite or cable. Even then it's full of american programmes 'cos the british can't make any original programming pay unless it's yet another remake of Robin (sodding) Hood, or cliches that feature footage of Tower Bridge every few seconds - for foreign audiences.

Further, the reason the independent channels are so terrible, is that they have to compete with the government financed BBC, who have a guaranteed income, no commercial imperatives and no advertisements. Even setting aside the problem that advertisement revenues have dropped through the floor in the recession, when your only competitor is effectively giving away their product, what alternatives are there. The BBC has moved into the "popular" market - eschewing it's obligations to provide alternative. It's merely chasing viewing figures. In any other country this would be considered an extremely anti-competitive situation.

The only reason Sky can afford to innovate liek this is because their subscription based model gives them a revenue stream that is not dependent on paid-for advertisements.

Re:sheeple

[teh kurisu]

If you're paying by direct debit, try talking to your bank about it. Under the direct debit agreement you're entitled to a full and immediate refund from the bank if a payment has been taken improperly. This means that you'll get your money back first, and questions will be asked later.

It's at the discretion of the bank of course, and if your contract with Sky doesn't actually guarantee you'll get anything for your money then you may struggle to persuade the bank, but it's always worth a shot.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop watching TV then. You are like a beaten wife going back for more. Pathetic.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

People who watch the BBC are just as much "sheeple" as those who watch Sky. One of the primary reasons that there is a large braindead section of the British pubic is television. The BBC leads the world as far as manipulating people through television is concerned, all television companies are propagandists/liars/misleaders/bullshiters. Get a clue.

Re:sheeple

[teh kurisu]

I have Freesat. I was in the same situation as the GP up until the switchover - I was on a relay that wasn't transmitting Freeview at all (and analogue reception was quite poor), and there was no cable provider in the area. The flat I was living in had a satellite dish attached by a previous occupant, and so I picked up a Freesat HD box as soon as they became available.

Now that the switchover has happened, I receive what my local MP is referring to as 'Freeview Lite' - I only receive the 'public service' channels provided by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (and Channel 5 as well I suspect, although the Freeview website is telling me otherwise).

The thing is, Freesat doesn't offer much more than that. The channels that I get on Freeview are also the only ones really worth watching on Freesat. Most other channels are garbage. I would only really recommend Freesat under the following circumstances:

• If you absolutely must have the one-and-a-half HD channels (BBC HD and the half-a-channel ITV HD).
• If it's your only digital TV option that doesn't require a subscription, and you can't wait for your switchover date.
• If you're a Scottish Gaelic speaker and want to watch BBC ALBA, which is only available via satellite.
• If you want to receive local programming from another part of the UK. A friend of mine in London is considering Freesat so that he can watch Scottish programming.
• If you live in the Republic of Ireland, where DTT isn't nearly as well developed (rebranded boxes are available under the name Sat4Free).

There are other options beside Sky and Virgin - Tiscali and BT IPTV services are available in some areas. I'm currently using Tiscali alongside Freesat, and it provides as good a range of channels as I want along with a lot of on-demand content. It's not the most reliable service in the world however, and I'm not sure I want to recommend them over Sky just yet.

Re:sheeple

[cheftw]

And what about all those ignorant bastards who read broadsheet newspapers?

If it weren't for The Sun's ability to "innovate liek" I'd be forced to give up on news and read /. all day.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus Tiscali are Satan's ISP. They are without a doubt the worst ISP I have ever had the misfortune to deal with. And from what I hear they are actually getting worse...

Re:sheeple

[thatjavaguy]

100% agree with this. You can't get HD without Sky+.

Do what I did - write to James Murdoch. That got things moving.

If that doesn't work - write to his Dad.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Large HD TV - £500
Sky+ £16 per month
Beer in the Fridge - £1.20 a bottle
Watching Onions and Anderson perform at Edgebaston this morning - Absolutely Priceless!!!

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference being that large portions of the population feel that sky is an absolutely essential part of their lives, TV in general for that matter, and while they object to £140/annum for the license fee they'd be very happy to plow several hundred a year into sky subscriptions and their daily tabloid newspapers, whether they can afford that or not. stupidity beyond the dreams of ocean finance!
Those who object to the license fee could go for that nice simple protest or canceling their payments and just not watching TV, but that's never going to happen, as those who are capable of such protest have already done it and the rest are simply bottom dwellers who couldn't go a single day without their drool inducing soaps.

The BBC a bloody good kick in the rear to make them wake up and realise that squandering public money on half-arsed tv on-demand systems, massively overpaid and obnoxious personalities, not to mention tying up all content on DVD and paid for UKTV/BBC Worldwide channels rather than bothering to repeat programmes free to air from time to time. We can only hope that the threat of top-slicing is enough to worry them into bucking their ideas up. Me, i'd be happy to pay the license fee for radio 4 alone, but then that's because i can't think for myself.

Re:sheeple

[teh kurisu]

...rather than bothering to repeat programmes free to air from time to time.

You are honestly the first person I have ever heard complain that the BBC doesn't repeat programmes enough. Most people make the opposite complaint.

Re:sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

I realise that most people make the opposite complaint, but honestly, i've never seen any of the stuff i'd like to watch but have missed getting repeated on BBC channels, it's all carted off to Watch, GOLD or, for the likes of QI and Top Gear, constantly, ad infinitum, Dave. I'll admit that Doctor who gets a sporadic reshowing from time to time on BBC3 but where's everything else? If they started offering archive stuff on iPlayer, the same way channel4 are supposedly doing with 4od, i'd be quite happy, as it stands i have to look for DVD rips on torrent sites.

Re:sheeple

[Hurricane78]

WTF? In Germany we have a simple principle: Someone not delivering what you have a contract on, is the same, so matter if that something is money, or anything else. So there is a law for when you can send reminders and what you can demand. And if they ignore it all, you can simply either hold back the money that you think they should not get because of their non-deliverance.
Or you can terminate the contract without previous notice, and without any strings attached.

And they can not do much against it. Just as you can not do much when you do not pay a service and they stop delivering it.

Is that so hard? Stop putting up with such a shit. Just stop paying and immediately send them a warning reminder, on the reasons. And that you will terminate the contract when they do not fix it in 14 days!

Repeating Fad

[Tablizer]

The 3D fad comes and goes and has multiple times since the 50's. Until it is both cheap and comfortable, it will not last.
       

Re:Repeating Fad

[dgatwood]

No, no, no. In the video space, porn makes or breaks new technology.... Until the porn girls look sufficiently attractive in 3D high definition, the medium won't go anywhere. Not making a value judgment here, just describing reality.

Re:Repeating Fad

[Culture20]

Get ready. Many HDTVs can already do stereoscopic, and the glasses are comfortable (unless you dislike the blink rate).

Re:Repeating Fad

[misexistentialist]

Was porn really responsible for Bluray? Porn is important, sometimes even critical, but not always. That said, porn will be the most common application for 3D once the technology is ready. Judging by the ever increasing population numbers, almost all women look good enough in 3 dimensions.

Re:Repeating Fad

[Zixaphir]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

The women already look sufficiently attractive in 3D High Definition. What we are waiting for now is for the porno studios to be able to afford said 3D technology. No visual media goes anywhere until porn can be easily made with said technology. With HD Video, the megapixel race had already made that cheap enough. Once the displays were out there and the format wars had begun, that's when the porno studios jumped in.

Re:Repeating Fad

[Anonymous Coward]

Was porn really responsible for Bluray?

Has Bluray actually succeeded yet?

Re:Repeating Fad

[Hognoxious]

Yes. They chose the name because it's for putting blumovies on.

Re:Repeating Fad

[Deltaspectre]

I think it's a doomed trend. On one side you have the classic colored glasses (I got a couple pairs of these when I bought Coraline 3D last week), which throw off all of the colors of the movie just for some 3d gimmickry. On the other side you have polarized glasses, which by definition cut the light you receive in half! On the gripping hand, these glasses with screens inside are bound to be expensive one person only experiences.

Please correct me if I got anything wrong.

Re:Repeating Fad

[dgatwood]

True enough, but with 3D, you have to factor in a lot of costs beyond the equipment cost itself. For example, you can get away with crappy sets if your camera always points in only a couple of directions and has no depth. That background showing a field behind the window suddenly looks like crap in 3D.

Re:Repeating Fad

[physburn]

Haven't to where funny glasses just to watch the programs doesn't sound comfortable to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if people don't get eye ache out of watching it.

---

British TV Feed @ Feed Distiller

I predict

[wizardforce]

that this will be just about the equivalent of the virtual boy for TV sets in more ways than one.

Re:I predict

[bertoelcon]

that this will be just about the equivalent of the virtual boy for TV sets in more ways than one.

Will it only show black and red as well?

Keep giving the people what they don't want

[ZackSchil]

HDTV gave people more detail (something they actually wanted) while at the same time freeing up a great deal of radio bandwidth in the switch to digital.

No one wants 3D TV, so why is it being developed? Isn't market testing supposed to weed out dumb ideas like this? Hell, 3D barely maintains its status as a novelty in movie theaters, and there it's backed by huge ad campaigns and popular content. It can't even gain traction in the technology-obsessed, immersion-seeking gamer community!

3D TV makes watching TV more complex and expensive without giving back much of value. The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses. Until the free-standing 3D projector is invented, television should remain a 2D affair.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Besides, here in the US, even with 1000+ channels of content (we're in a FiOS-heavy area), not a lot of it is really worth watching.

Improve the programming first, then we'll see about the gimmicks.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

3D TV is being developed to make you buy yet another Star Wars edition.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather have standard definition and 3d.
No contest. I dont watch tv to see the pimples on someones face. I watch it for entertainment.
Buy yourself a 3d kit for your computer and play a game with it, the effect is amazing.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, 3D film in its various forms has been a novelty pretty much from the time it was first developed with the red and blue cardboard-frame glasses. It's frankly quite mystifying why the modern media conglomerates are investing so much it in. Until the development of true three-dimensional holography, it has been and forever shall be a glorified carnival sideshow.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

10,000 channels, and only 150 of them have anything good on.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[rschwa]

Hell, 3D barely maintains its status as a novelty in movie theaters,

actually, 3D is one of the only reasons to bother going to the theater vs. watching it from the comfort of my living room for a tenth the price. Some of the new 3D movies aren't too bad.
 

3D TV makes watching TV more complex and expensive without giving back much of value. The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses. Until the free-standing 3D projector is invented, television should remain a 2D affair.

I agree with this.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[blackest_k]

Satellite TV is all about quantity not quality, there is no shortage of bandwidth available and even if there was the compression would just be increased a little more.

BskyB will almost certainly include 3D TV in their base HD Satellite package for "free" at least as an introductory offer. The content providers will probably getting very little for content initially, broadcasters are not exactly falling over themselves to broadcast 3D and what content there is will probably be repeated several times a day.

Most of Bskyb's content is SD and probably most subscribers only receive SD content.
It's pure marketing at work, HD really doesn't offer much over SD the content is generally available in SD and the vast majority of TV sets are still SD. 3D TV is something to impress your mates with- for about 5 minutes.

BskyB want more HD subscribers, the 3d fluff might well be a successful marketing ploy, if not the service will end. Having got you to invest in a HDTV and tied you into a 12 month contract, you are likely to continue with the HD service.

 

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[takev]

philips' 3D televisions (I think they are called WOW tv or something), is probably compatible with the broadcast.

http://www.business-sites.philips.com/shared/assets/3dsolutions/downloads/42Inch3dDisplayUserManual.pdf

The broadcast is probably done (last time I was at the international broadcasting conference) by adding a depth field to the standard 2D HD broadcast.

From what I understand, their TV creates 9 different stereoscopic views from the 2D+depth frames. Then using the old technology of vertical strip lenses they make those 9 views available at different viewing angles.

You don't need to wear any glasses to watch the TV. but there are view angles where it becomes a mess to watch (but that was a few years ago, so maybe they fixed it). Also like in the theater you need to keep your head vertical.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Mr. Tom Guycot]

Complicate with shutter glasses? No see, it will be easy, once you've bought enough pairs of glasses (only 59.99 act now!) for every possible amount of people that might want to sit around and casually watch tv, plus a few extra for all the ones that will get lost (only 59.99, act now!), then all you have to do is make sure every time someone wanders into the tv room to watch for a little bit they have the glasses handy. What could be easier!?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[takev]

Seems they closed shop according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D-plus-depth

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[searlea]

No one wants 3D TV, so why is it being developed?

No one wanted "User Operation Prohibited", but that sadly found its way onto most DVDs.

Isn't market testing supposed to weed out dumb ideas like this?

Market-testing sessions may not last long enough to distinguish novelty-factor from long-term benefits.

The television is too casual a medium to complicate with shutter glasses.

For soaps, sitcoms, news, games-shows and other attention-deficit programming I agree. For one-hour-per-episode big-budget series and movies - I think a lot of people will be happy to don the glasses with an "and now I shall concentrate on what I'm watching" mentality...

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[ax1m]

You don't need shutter glasses to watch a 3D TV - you can get screens using Arisawa's xPol technology that use circular polarised glasses, identical to the RealD cinema glasses. Hyundai, JVC and others are making these screens, and you can get an entry level one for less than $2000: http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/product.php?URL_=product_stereovis_arisawa&SubCatID_=3 I can vouch for the fact that Sky are working on some very interesting content - sports events, concerts etc. - specialist content for 3D. No-one is talking about wanting to watch soap operas or sit-coms. Personally I can't wait.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but they will make you want it, through advertising. Remember when people didn't want HDTV cause DVD was good enough?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[AmiMoJo]

For me it's not just having to wear special glasses that puts me off, it's that 3D can give me a headache preety easily if the director decides to do something stupid.

I watch TV to relax, anything which gives me eyestrain is not going to work.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[drsquare]

HDTV gave people more detail (something they actually wanted) while at the same time freeing up a great deal of radio bandwidth in the switch to digital.

HDTV doesn't free it bandwidth, it takes up several times more space than a normal channel. What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Sponge Bath]

For broadcast TV, ATSC and NTSC both are given 6MHz bandwidth to use. Using ATSC you can squeeze multiple SD programs into that 6MHz channel.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Zixaphir]

radio bandwidth

HDTV doesn't free it bandwidth, it takes up several times more space than a normal channel. What the fuck are you talking about?

Remember all those Reading Comprehension **tests** they used to give you in school that you always scored college level in?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[funkatron]

So what does this have to do with HD?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[bickle]

No one wants 3D TV, so why is it being developed?

Quoted from the Department of Homemade Facts?

I want 3D tv. Just like I wanted HDTV when it was in it's infancy. Seeing a football game in HD for the first time was an awesome experience. It allowed for a completely different view of the game, as you could now see the entire play develop. I can't wait to see one in 3D, and I imagine the difference will be huge.

This is just one example, I can imagine more programming that will look significantly better in 3DHD.

Bring it on. (And judging by the attendance at 3D movies, there are many more that agree with me.)

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[L0VECHILD]

The value of 3d is not yet known. 3d film in 2009 is a different technology than the 3d films of the past (think linearly polarized vs circularly polarized). It is a new medium and should be treated as such. When the first films were released to the public the were nothing more than a novelty. People could not fathom the possibilites. And surely there will be progress in the language of 3d film just as there have been progressions in film language such as innovative editing techniques. There is alot to be learned and experiemnt with this new 3d technology. Have you seen UP 3d? There are tons of people that would prefer watching it in 3d, as it is meant to be viewed, in the comfort of their own home. Sure $5000 bucks for the 3d tv alone is pretty steep, but what did HD tvs cost 5 years ago?

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Sponge Bath]

The assertion was that the new digital channels used more bandwidth than the old analog channels. That is not true, they both use 6MHz.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[funkatron]

You seem to be mixing up analog vs digital with SD vs HD. You correctly said that digital transmission allows several channels to be put into the same bandwidth as an analog channel because of the compression used. However, no matter what kind of transmission you use, a more detailed HD channel is going to use more bandwidth than an SD channel would use in the same transmission method.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[Sponge Bath]

I'm not mixing anything up. A digital ATSC channel even with HD programming (yes it is compressed) does *not* use more transmission bandwidth than an analog NTSC SD channel. They both are allotted 6MHz. Period. That is all I said.

"a more detailed HD channel is going to use more bandwidth than an SD channel would use in the same transmission method."

True, but that is not what is being discussed.

Re:Keep giving the people what they don't want

[mdielmann]

Cool. 3D is a dual-channel technology, just watch one channel.
Red-blue 3D was out when I was a kid. I saw maybe one. I don't really want to see them again.
I saw a 3D show at Disney World about 10 years ago, with the crappy shutter glasses. I had a headache in about 15 minutes, and it lasted for hours. And the story sucked.
I've seen 3 or 4 of the last 3D animations in the theatre. They're amazing. I'm just stunned. I've caught myself leaning over to get a better view of things around corners a couple times. It's good enough that I forget it's there. Granted, it's not going to help a sucky story, but neither will any other special effect, IMO. My kids have seen those, and they think it's nice, but not terribly special. It's all they know, they like it, and I can't imagine them getting bored with it until immersive 3D, a la holodecks, are invented.
The current generation of 3D isn't going away. I expect that in a few years, 3D tv's are going to be like flat panels were 5 years ago - if you have the money you'll get it, and all the neighbours' kids will want to come to your place for movie night.

unimpressed with 3D

[Excelcior]

Maybe I'm just remembering poorly, but modern 3D just doesn't seem to compare with the old red/blue 3D I grew up seeing in theme parks. The last 2 3D movies I went to were so disappointing that I swore off of them from here on out. Personally, I don't feel the whole 3D thing is worth spending money on. Now, if they were to improve it a bit, perhaps it would be more convincing... but when you have to focus hard to see the 3D, it's really not worth spending on.
Oh, I know it's an older technology, but am I the only one who was severely disappointed by last year's superbowl episode of Chuck in 3D? Why would you want to spend extra for that!?

~just my $.02

Re:unimpressed with 3D

[Jonah Hex]

Being old enough to have experienced red/blue 3D, I have to say I was very impressed with The Ant Bully in 3D at the Henry Ford Museum IMAX theater. Perhaps it's the IMAX that made the difference, as I have yet to watch one of the new 3D movies in a "normal" theater.

HEX

Re:unimpressed with 3D

[TheSync]

modern 3D just doesn't seem to compare with the old red/blue 3D I grew up seeing in theme parks.

Perhaps your interocular distance has increased since you were a child, but the left/right disparity of stereoscopic movies has remained the same ;)

let me suggest a biz name tele3d

[barwasp]

not that I own both tele3d.com and net domains :P

Re:let me suggest a biz name tele3d

[imakemusic]

that's not how you spell Telly

all I see is pain!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually rather annoyed at the whole 3d craze. My wife has a lazy eye, so the only experience I get to share with her at these 3d things is a headache. And I know she isn't the only one, which makes me wonder why there is such a big focus on all 3d all the time. [citation needed] but didn't spielberg say all his movies were going to be 3d from now on? Kind of sucks to be so completely cut out of mainstream entertainment.

Re:all I see is pain!

[FourthAge]

Maybe she needs some special "2D" glasses in which both of the eyes are "left". She wouldn't get the 3D effect, but at least things would look normal.

Re:all I see is pain!

[ZeroExistenZ]

I have a headache now! Without 3D things!

I was thinking the same thing; I have a lazy eye, and have an "overlapping image" because of a lazy eye when I force to focus with my lazy eye. My brain doesn't process the two input images as "one" as well, so I see two image where one is a bit blurry overlapping the world as I'm used seeing it, certainly with up-close 3D viewing.

It doesn't give me a headache, but takes alot of energy focussing and generally makes me feel the image is a bit "dark" and things become blurry if they end up too much to my left...

If we evolve to a world where 3D is very much integrated, I would end up being unable to properly make use of it and end up "disabled", where now my lazy eye isn't an issue in daily life. My lack of depthperception isn't disabling; I make use of depth-estimation... it works.. mostly... after a few tries.

whatcouldpossiblygoright

[red_blue_yellow]

'nuff said.

Hell, it even detracts from artistic integrity.

[plasmacutter]

imagine a cult classic like akira or green legend ran butchered by 3d conversion..

anime is by its nature a 2d medium, it's part of its artistic flavor... i dont WANT to see it in 3d.

Re:Hell, it even detracts from artistic integrity.

[Zixaphir]

Actually, I wouldn't mind a pop-up book version of animation.

Re:Hell, it even detracts from artistic integrity.

[bickle]

Sorry, but a blanket statement like it 'detracts from artistic integrity' is ludicrous. You sound like someone who would've fought the introduction of sound or color.

Re:Hell, it even detracts from artistic integrity.

[T Murphy]

If it makes their hair look even bigger I'm all for it... or their eyes, or a bit lower down...

They're doing it on purpose

[PCM2]

I swear; they're doing it on purpose. Modern 3D movies aren't impressive because they don't want them to be. I know, because I've seen a bunch of them.

The prevailing opinion in Hollywood seems to be that releasing movies in 3D is a good way to get asses back into theater seats -- so much so that they want to be able to release all of their movies in 3D if they can. In order to achieve that aim, they need to get rid of the stigma of 3D being a gimmick. So a lot of the modern 3D movies avoid having things pop out of the screen in obvious ways, choosing instead to shoot for a subtler effect. Disney's "Up," for instance, went for an effect where the scene seems to mostly recede away from the screen; nothing pops out at all.

Now, like you, I find this to be a big rip-off. I have good vision. I do not wear glasses. I do not want to have be forced to wear glasses to go to the movies if doing so is not going to add anything appreciably to the experience of watching the movie. I've seen "Coraline" in both 2D and 3D, and I'm telling you, you lose absolutely nothing by not seeing it in 3D. I'm sure the same is true of "Up."

But like I said, the problem is not the technology. Modern 3D is WAAAYYYYYY more impressive than the stuff they had in the old days. It really is. Don't believe me? You should have gone out of your way to see "My Bloody Valentine 3D" when it was in the theaters. This was a movie that absolutely reveled in the idea of 3D as a gimmick. It had pickaxes flying at you, body parts lopping off, eyeballs out, everything. If you like 80s slasher movies, this was a really awesome throwback -- and more importantly, it was 3D as all get-out. Clean, clear, rock-stable, eye-popping 3D.

Yay, I say. 3D is a gimmick. The studios should either treat it as the gimmick it is or else keep it out of our theaters. Unless you're going to give me a spectacle, I'm going to be perfectly happy to save my money and see movies in 2D for the foreseeable future.

Perfect Piracy, thank you Sky!

[the Haldanian]

And here I was thinking that 3D would be unpiratable, since the masses wouldn't have 3D TV's, and the cinemas would be safe and the movie industry would live happily ever after making 3D films, then selling the 2D version on globally released DVD (beating the pirates to market).

And then they go and gut the golden goose ...

Fix the existing HB boxes first

[thatjavaguy]

I think a lot of Sky subscribers would prefer them to fix the issues with existing HD boxes first

1. Freezing an HD picture can crash the box
2. Timing issues with cutoff of program ends
3. IR interference on some boxes.

and many many more

Reprocess Older Shows?

[Sponge Bath]

It would be great if they could alter some classic older shows for a 3D effect. Imagine the rabbit from The Holy Grail leaping out of the screen at you!

perfect use of 3d

[gintoki]

can i get porn channels in 3d? If not then sky 3d can suck it..... Actually hold on a second, do i really want a ginormous phallus sticking out of my tv? so no....i guess 3d porn is not that great an idea.

diminised?

[Hognoxious]

Do you mean that people are saying it's evil, or is it voluntarily subjecting itself to islamic law?

Re:diminised?

[CarpetShark]

I think he means that, when you're surrounded by screens, it's a bit brighter.

Cool now just sell 3d TVs

[JimboFBX]

Alright, now we just need 3d compatible TVs being sold. You know those 120 Hz "truemotion" TVs you see everywhere? They don't accept 120 Hz input, only 60Hz, so they don't support 3D shutter glasses. Flagrant false advertising if you ask me.

Re:Cool now just sell 3d TVs

[TheSync]

Alright, now we just need 3d compatible TVs being sold. You know those 120 Hz "truemotion" TVs you see everywhere? They don't accept 120 Hz input, only 60Hz, so they don't support 3D shutter glasses.

There is a mechanism called "quincunx" or "checkerboard" which you can think of as a single frame with the "black squares" for the left eye and the "white squares" the right eye. So input video comes in at a "normal" frame rate, but only half the pixels are sent to each eye during a normal frame period.

This came out of the DLP world, which naturally paints "two fields" per frame in a checkerboard pattern so they can use a half-resolution DLP chip, and has been adopted by LCD makers as well to solve the input frame rate problem over HDMI. Of course, it cuts your 3D resolution in half.

We do expect a future 120 Hz HDMI standard, but that is down the road.

Re:Cool now just sell 3d TVs

[JimboFBX]

That is just how to transmit 3d to a compatible TV over the air using the available bandwidth. I'm saying if you buy a 120 Hz that doesn't have a "3d ready" sticker on it right now, it wouldn't take 120 hz input from any device, even your PC. Likewise, it wouldn't support the over-the-air standard you just mentioned. Its false advertising. Its implied a 120 Hz TV should accept 120 Hz input, and naturally a PC monitor input should be able to accept that but it doesn't.

Am I the only person in the world 3D doesn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person in the world 3D doesn't work on?

Stupid squint and real glasses.