Home » News » Surround Sound System News » Sky 3D Launch Date Unveiled » Comments

Comments for Sky 3D Launch Date Unveiled

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Ala Miah

3:44 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ala Miah. Show Details Hide Details

It should have been called 2.5 3D and then I would of forgiven them for shoving this unconvincing technology down our throat. But since it's not, im not forgiving any of them!

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

4:07 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Ala - I like that! 2.5 3D :)

Thing is companies love big slogans which is why, in mobile broadband for example, LTE (technically 3.G) will likely be marketed as 4G despite 4G actually being a completely different (and wholly unfinished) standard.

Score:

Name withheld

Enigma

4:58 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Enigma. Show Details Hide Details

2.5 3D = 7.5D Woh! No wonder it's unconvincing! :-)

Well, what you expect from BSkyB?

Score:

Name withheld

Metalex

5:34 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Metalex. Show Details Hide Details

I think personal prejudices are beginning detract from the quality of this website. Yes, we know you think 3D is "really 2D surfaces presented at different depths", but why do you feel the need to say this in nearly every 3D related news item? I haven't seen any new iterations of 3D, so I'm far from a convert, and from what I've heard, I'm probably going to have a similar opinion to you, in that it's just a collection of cardboard cut-outs at different depths. However, I'm finding the repetition of opinion on certain subjects and companies very yawn worthy.

Score:

Name withheld

John McLean

6:06 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore John McLean. Show Details Hide Details

I don't know where the 'cardboard cutouts' thing comes from. It isn't 2d surfaces presented at different depths, it is stereoscopic 3D, i.e. two different images, one for each eye, filmed from different angles, which is principally how the brain reconstructs 3D images (yes, there are other factors at play, such as focal depth and parallax, but the main one is the stereoscopic effect - ask anyone who has lost an eye).

I realise that some people will never be happy until they have a 'true' 3D image like some kind of Star Trek holodeck, but THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIMES. Get over it. The concept of 3D TV that you can move around and view from different angles is totally impossible using conventional cameras and broadcast technology. You'd need to motion capture everything, broadcast it in the form of vertices and textures, and render it locally on your fantasy holo projector or VR headset or whatever, like a video game. Like James Cameron did with Avatar, except rendered in real time and with some kind of magic motion capture technology that works perfectly (again in real time for 'live' broadcasts) on ordinary images where people aren't in a purpose built soundstage wearing black spandex, covered in shiny stickers. Good luck with that.

Score:

Name withheld

Castalan

6:10 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Castalan. Show Details Hide Details

More and more unconvinced as to why I'm paying sky £59 a month, £708 a year - I have to earn over £1000 to pay for that. So after 14 years paying for the privilege of not watching a fraction of the channels - I've cancelled and am heading to FreesatHD - I'll pay for what i watch from now on and save a bundle. Clearly the 3D gimmick is another case of the emperors new clothes - much like when the mobile phone companies told us we'd all be making mobile video calls

Pass - I'll be happier WITH the money thanks sky

Score:

Name withheld

Suge

7:03 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Suge. Show Details Hide Details

I have to agree with Metalex on some points, the 3D bashing is becoming slightly childish and a headache, yes you have the right to your views as this is your website but remember it was made for the public like me to read and determine for ourselves what is good or bad, if this was a review I could understand the criticism. I have enjoyed certain 3D material but it is agreed impractical for home viewing. I look forward to see how it survives amongst money-tight consumers as well but please chill out with the constant criticism, it is very unbecoming.

Score:

Name withheld

Mike337

8:26 PM on 19 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Mike337. Show Details Hide Details

Two questions:

(1)

"it's really 2D surfaces presented at different depths"

So what would be "proper" 3D TV then? Some sort of holographic projection display or something??

----------------

(2)

"Sky 3D supports both ‘active’ and ‘passive’ 3D formats"

So which one is better??

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

6:46 AM on 20 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Metalex - 1. These are not 'personal prejudices' - they are my professional opinions having been witness to demonstrations of 3D from all the major TV manufacturers. Can you say the same? 2. Because not every person reads every article.

@John - 1. Because "stereoscopic 3D" looks like 2D surfaces presented at different depths! 2. I'll bet you it will. 3. And if this isn't 'true' 3D - let's not call it 3D then...

@Suge - 1. see all points above. 2. As we have SEEN 3D in action from Samsung, Pioneer, LG and Sony retail TVs in controlled environments who is in a better position to comment? There is absolutely nothing childish on a reviews site about the professionals who run it stating their opinion. Tell you what, shall we rename the site TrustedPublicViews and write nothing but product descriptions and everyone else can tell us how they think products and services are likely to be? Yep, that would be helpful.

@Mike337 - 1. yep. So let's not call this 3D. 2. Pros and cons: Passive lenses have horizontal polarization in one eye, vertical in the other. Active shows two different pictures simultaneously - one to each eye. Active glasses require power, passive don't which make active glasses heavier and more of a faff. Then again Active can have fractionally better image quality, but can also be harder on the eyes and tend to make viewers feel more nauseous.

My most recent experience of 3D: having a 20 minute clip restarted 10 minutes in while the well known manufacturer tried to put the 3D TV in question into 3D mode. It turned out the TV was already in 3D mode...

We'll always have opinions people, but they will be based on real world, hands-on experience.

Score:

Name withheld

Mike

10:37 AM on 20 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Mike. Show Details Hide Details

My initial thoughts are that 3D is just another gimmick for home tv and I'm with 'castalan' on his/her comments about paying daft subcription rates to Sky, when you've got a perfectly good alternative with FREESAT! Admittedly I've not tried on a pair of specs to actually sample the 3D effect ( or whatever effect is experienced through these glasses and may be totally pursuaded otherwise), but I'm perfectly happy with sticking with 2D tv. As I've said before, the only thing SKY has over FREESAT currently as far as I'm concerned is their higher volume of HD offerings, but again a premium must be paid for this. I certainly see no pleasure in being sat in front of a tv screen wearing a pair of glasses, so unsociable and probably uncomfortable!! When you think you can get a reasonably standard 4 feed satellite installation even with say for example the HUMAX 500 GB PVR, you're looking at about £530 max, compared with people paying £720 per annum for the top package on SKY, and then CONTINUING to pay them ( in some cases just to keep your equipment functioning the way it's supposed to, i.e. the recording function on SKY boxes), no way and no thanks! FREESAT is by far the better option for me!I just hope FREESAT don't introduce a 3D tv offering, unless you can view the real 3D effect through the naked eye! but I guess that won't be possible, at least for years to come, until someone comes up with the technology to achieve this.

Score:

Name withheld

Enigma

6:11 PM on 20 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Enigma. Show Details Hide Details

Try this: http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/incredible-water-illumination-show-in-japan

Steady on folks - @Metalex you seem to be taking this personally? Gordon has beatan me to it with his commenst above but he is doing nothing different from any professional Journalist. Nerdy dry reports would not make TR as popular as it is. Half the fun is reading Gordon's comments.

In any case we all have a fair opportunity to comment, including ones not positive ones about TR as proven here again.

@Mike if we want a good FREE alternative HD to Sky or VMedia anytime SOON then try writing to BBC Trustees and Mr Thomson, BBC Dir. Gen. (trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk); Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (bradshawb@parliament.uk & enquiries@culture.gov.uk); the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Members (cmscom@parliament.uk); Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury – Spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport (info@libdems.org.uk); and your MP (Find it here: http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm).

In fact I would suggest Gordon should seek to interview Mr Thompson, BBC Dir. Gen. and BBC's Head of HD; Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Putting to them the issues raised repeatedly here by TR readers. so that the message gets to the powers be.

But readers writing to the abovesaid will do even greater good. So please write in.

Score:

Name withheld

Kerwood

11:45 PM on 20 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Kerwood. Show Details Hide Details

I think that 3D technology is shallow (excuse the pun...)

No doubt millions of pounds will be spent on marketing operations to force the gimmick down our throats.

Let's hold our nerve.

I think that many technology companies think that as long as they spend enough cash to create a fashion/hype, they'll get away with too frequently shoddy under-achieving products that turn out to be quite distant from their initial claims.

How many times, so many amongst us have experienced the purchase of products on which we were promised further developments that would future-proof our investment, only to be left high and dry.

Those of us who have just recently adopted Widescreen HD and Bluray are unimpressed by this whirlwind of announcements and novelties.

My humble opinion is that this frenzy serves more crucially the merchants and their lobbyists than their customers.

Equally, it is unfair from some to expect that the media are here to think for us.

That responsibility is ours to keep.

Score:

Name withheld

algsuk

9:18 AM on 22 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore algsuk. Show Details Hide Details

So am I just going to need bog standard 3d glasses that i picked up from watching Avatar at the cinema?

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

5:10 PM on 22 March, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@algsuk - you wish! Glasses will be circa £100 per pair and as all manufacturers use their own variants on the two main types of 3D technology (Active and Passive) these glasses will only work with their own sets, ie: Samsung with Samsung, Sony with Sony...

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.