# After HD, here comes 3D TV



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sky-3dtv-will-be-launched-in-2010-621310

I've seen it in action, and it is impressive, but I think this may ba a step too far/too soon for most folks.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

But do you not need yet another new HD TV which is "3D Ready"?

And if we all do spend another 4 figure sum how much 3D content are we going to get?

Automan.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

I saw Ice Age 3 in 3D with my kid recently. I was quite impressed, but I can't imagine watching all my telly that way - they probably said that about colour didn't they  ?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

If it involved wearing special glasses, I don't see me doing it on a regular basis. Maybe if visiting a friend, but... Technology should be transparent for mass adoption.


----------



## steveroe (Oct 29, 2002)

kitschcamp said:


> If it involved wearing special glasses, I don't see me doing it on a regular basis. Maybe if visiting a friend, but...


A maxim for life.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

If it doesn't require wearing any special glasses I can see myself getting round to upgrading my old 4:3 2D television for one of these devices if and when such broadcasts come to FTA television and/or the Grand Prix season and Grand Slam tennis is broadcast in this format.

But can TCM tell us how the 3D sets handle the 2D broadcasts that will be with us for many more years to come on most of the other channels? Do they handle them just as well as a 2D 4:3 high end Plasma television?


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

> Together they create a 1920x1080 image that  in quality terms  *is a quarter as good as the Full HD 1080p *pictures found on a Blu-ray disc.


What am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Raisltin Majere said:


> What am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?


Raisltin,

Presumably this must be some kind of compromise representing a Mark 1 development stage for the 3D product and it must be more difficult to make a display that can do both 3D and have the same absolute picture resolution. One would expect the resolution of these 3D screens to increase as time goes by.

It also seems obvious that the main point of the 3D product is of course to allow Sky to charge you an even more extortionate subscription than they already do to those who are willing to pay to be ripped off for Sky HD.

Personally my interest in this product will only begin if 3D starts to be available on FTA television.

Although I was initially angry that I could no longer watch the cricket test matches (especially The Ashes) on FTA television (unless one wants to risk copyright theft charges and having one's broadband connection cut off if Peter Mandelson gets his way) I actually find that having to exclusively use Test Match Special to follow the game is almost like renewing an acquaintance with an old long lost friend and if anything Test Match Special is even more fun now than when I used to listen to it in school lunch breaks 30+ years ago. I'm also amazed that Blowers and CMJ are still going strong after all these years although Bill Frindell's humourless replacement cannot last and they must find someone better.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Raisltin Majere said:


> > Together they create a 1920x1080 image that - in quality terms - is a *quarter as good as the Full HD 1080p*
> 
> 
> What am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?


1/4 full HD is "normal" SD quality isn't it?

So it might have been better to say "3D will initially be available at SD resolutions, 3D HD comes later..."

New TV needed, AND needs special glasses... not going to take off anytime soon.

If there was demand, surely we'd have seen a 3d channel using the red/green method by now...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> New TV needed, AND needs special glasses... not going to take off anytime soon.
> 
> If there was demand, surely we'd have seen a 3d channel using the red/green method by now...


Sky knows that the completion of digital switchover is the last hurrah for increasing their customer numbers any further. After that they can only grow by increasing average revenue per customer. They can only do this by introducing new products and claiming they have major advantages that customers should pay them more for.

Yes we know that 3D viewing is of dubious benefit as the technology was invented over 50 years ago in the cinema but has never taken off due to all the disadvantages involved in 3D viewing. But that doesn't matter if Sky thinks it is something that will let them make more money. In my view PVRs and related technology are a major customer advance but widescreen tvs, HDTV and 3DTV are by and large all things Sky and the television manufacturers have pushed because they need them in order to justify people buying new tv equipment and new services to support it when their old equipment still works perfectly well.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

I saw 'Friday the 13th Part III' in 3D in the early 80's, and was amazed at the quality, and the effectiveness of the special effects; like when Jason(?) turned round and nearly poked my eye out with his broom handle.

And when the titles of a trailer zoomed out of the screen and stopped 6 inches in front of my face. When they then moved another 12 inches, people were screaming and falling over the back of their seats 

It used polarised glasses, but needed a special metallised screen that was capable of reflecting the polarisation accurately.

I saw a more recent example based upon 100&#37; CGI in an IMAX cinema, and that also used lightweight polarised glasses.

Having used shutter-based 3D with a PC, I find this to be harder to use long-term, because of the heavier weight of the glasses, and the smaller area covered by the more-expensive LCD panel; especially when on top of normal spectacles. I used wireless glasses to avoid dragging wires around, but this used infra-red for its shutter synchronisation, and that caused havoc with my video sender and the TiVo. 

I never really understood why they didn't continue with 3D films in the cinema, especially with their ability to improve upon the lesser experience of home theatre systems. Since most CGI is 3D at source, it would be relatively easy to re-render that for 3D viewing, in the same way as they re-rendered it for HD.

Personally, I would prefer (but maybe not afford) a home 3D system based upon polarised glasses and a projector, rather than a shutter-based solution.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> I saw 'Friday the 13th Part III' in 3D in the early 80's, and was amazed at the quality, and the effectiveness of the special effects; like when Jason(?) turned round and nearly poked my eye out with his broom handle.


It takes a brave man indeed to admit to enjoying a slasher horror flick like this one. And all the more so to admit to enjoying it even more in 3D.

I once accidentally watched one of the Nightmare on Elm Street series on Sky Movies during a free trial period of an analogue distributed cable version of Sky in a block of flats where I lived and had sleepless nights for several days afterwards. I don't mind Vincent Price or Hammer House of Horror stuff at all but the Friday The 13th and Freddie series of movies (not to mention the Hellraiser series) are of a quite different order of nastyness and if anything needs an R18 certification it is these movies rather than the relatively harmless stuff with an R18 certificate to be found in the average high street sex shop (assuming that is that there are any left nowadays given that most people tend to watch such stuff via the internet).


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

So who is going to buy a new 3DTV to watch the new Sky channel in April? Apart from 'automan' ? 

I can't see people going for the service unless the picture quality and colours appear identicle to those watching the regular version.

I have found previous 3D formats a waste of time and a downgrade in viewing quality.


First transmission is this weekend - but no tv's to watch it - just available in 9 pubs.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

ozsat said:


> First transmission is this weekend - but no tv's to watch it - just *available in 9 pubs*.




"Beer goggles" err specs will be needed 

Sky 3D will initially be available as a free add-on for those with Sky+HD boxes.
- which is great, but how muich is a £D TV (if you can buy one) ? £3000 ?

Reminds me of freeviewHD broadcasting long before HD set top boxes were available ....


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> Reminds me of freeviewHD broadcasting long before HD set top boxes were available ....


Surely the HD set top boxers were available to the testers of the experimental Freeview HD transmissions but not to any member of the general public who wanted one.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ozsat said:


> So who is going to buy a new 3DTV to watch the new Sky channel in April? Apart from 'automan' ?


I'm sure TCM2007 would have done it he hadn't managed to move himself to an address where no Sky signal can penetrate.

In fact surely 3D stuff must also already be available on Blu-Ray disc and/or by torrenting for television sets that support that facility? Or is Sky creating the market by causing the sets to be bought to watch its new channel and the 3D players and Blu-Ray 3D discs will follow later? I assume Sky will start charging extra for 3D once they have acquired enough free tester viewers to prove whether the service can work satisfactorily or not..............


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Until they have a 3D system that DOESNT involve the viewer wearing glasses I am not interested. For the last 10 years I have had to wear glasses all the time and the few times I have tried to view anything 3D it has been a right royal pain in the proverbial


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

katman said:


> Until they have a 3D system that DOESNT involve the viewer wearing glasses I am not interested. For the last 10 years I have had to wear glasses all the time and the few times I have tried to view anything 3D it has been a right royal pain in the proverbial


I agree. Although the pair that I was given for 3D at the iMax were much easier to wear than the cardboard ones they provided for the Channel 4 3D programmes.

Hopefully, somebody will invent the concept of flip-up clip-on 3D frames. Wearing two pairs of glasses is really annoying, especially when one of them is fixed-width.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

iankb said:


> Hopefully, somebody will invent the concept of flip-up clip-on 3D frames.


Or alternatively, have versions where the 3D glasses can hang from the top of your existing glasses. Otherwise, if they're designed to rest on your nose, they will rest much lower down than your main glasses.


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

ozsat said:


> So who is going to buy a new 3DTV to watch the new Sky channel in April? Apart from 'automan' ?


Not me, as there are numerous competing standards with no clear leader. It would be a bit like buying the "Philips 2000" of 3DTV systems.



ozsat said:


> I can't see people going for the service unless the picture quality and colours appear identicle to those watching the regular version.
> 
> I have found previous 3D formats a waste of time and a downgrade in viewing quality.


And you'll find Sky's is the same in that regard - it works by *halving the resolution* and transmitting the left eye+right eye pictures side by side. New software in the STB then separates them out for display. That's why they are able to do it on the existing SkyHD hardware. They demoed it on Working Lunch ages ago.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I'm sure TCM2007 would have done it he hadn't managed to move himself to an address where no Sky signal can penetrate.


No, not sold on 3D.



> In fact surely 3D stuff must also already be available on Blu-Ray disc and/or by torrenting for television sets that support that facility?


No, there is no available 3D content yet. We're not talking the old red-green stuff here. There no TV sets on sale yet either AFAIK.

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/the-best-3d-tvs-you-can-buy-this-year-666388



> Or is Sky creating the market by causing the sets to be bought to watch its new channel and the 3D players and Blu-Ray 3D discs will follow later?


Yep.



> I assume Sky will start charging extra for 3D once they have acquired enough free tester viewers to prove whether the service can work satisfactorily or not..............


Expect PPV sports events mainly.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

Seriously unexcited by 3D TV. As true 3D stereoscopic perception is limited to a few feet then "false" 3D added to things like football will always look weird to me. Plus adding in the glasses and I'm afraid I don't see a winner here - though I may eat me words in 5 years I somehow doubt it.
Got to hand it to the Sky PR machine, they've managed to get a reference to a trial running in 9 pubs into almost every news source I read.

I quite like taking my 6 year old to the cinema to watch kids films in 3D but I can't imagine sitting in the front room on a Saturday afternoon wearing wally googles to watch the match let alone going to the pub!


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

I can't see me ever watching 3D on a television for more than a few minutes at a time. Especially since I like to watch TV from more than 12 feet which probably distorts the effect, and I also need to wear normal glasses.

However, whilst the red-green glasses never really worked for me, I have seen a couple of polarised films at the cinema (one was an iMax) which were very effective.

I also used shutter glasses with my PC for gaming which worked well at times. The problem was that some programs (such as Microsoft Flight Simulator) were rendered in 3D, but with 2D overlays. Also the shutters were driven by infra-red which, when sent over a video sender, crippled the TiVo in my lounge.

Maybe if 3D TV's were as cheap as normal TV's, and I was ready to replace my existing setup, I might consider it. However, I think that I am more likely to consider a PC-based 3D setup using downloads than implement it on my main TV.

Whatever, I am very unlikely to ever go back to Sky.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

iankb said:


> I also used shutter glasses with my PC for gaming which worked well at times. The problem was that some programs (such as Microsoft Flight Simulator) were rendered in 3D, but with 2D overlays. Also the shutters were driven by infra-red which, when sent over a video sender, crippled the TiVo in my lounge.


The 2D overlay issue is one that 3D producers are thinking about quite carefully. Where do you put graphics in 3D space - like the match clock and scores? You can now animate graphics on and off in real 3D space if you want - giving a new set of tools for presentation. However you have to be careful that the 3D overlays don't "fight" the 3D background content.


----------



## mike0151 (Dec 13, 2001)

Call me a Luddite but I still watch my TiVo recordings in basic mode. I don't run out of disk space and the quality is good enough for me.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

mrtickle said:


> And you'll find Sky's is the same in that regard - it works by *halving the resolution* and transmitting the left eye+right eye pictures side by side. New software in the STB then separates them out for display. That's why they are able to do it on the existing SkyHD hardware. They demoed it on Working Lunch ages ago.


Yep - to ensure compatibility with existing boxes, Sky's distribution system will NOT be fully HD. They will be sending 2 eye views over a single 1080/50i video stream - so that existing boxes can cope with it. This means each eye gets a sub-HD quality view. However AIUI it is the display that does the separation - NOT the STB - as the STB can only output a single 1080/50i stream?

Last I heard they were using "side-by-side" as you mention - which sends 2 x 1920x1080/50i streams as 2 x 960x1080/50i streams with the left and right eye feeds horizontally squished by subsampling (halving their horizontal resolution). However the display has to do the unstitching - rather than the box AIUI. I don't think the Sky box outputs anything but the single 1080/50i stream with the two eye views still within it (not a 1080/100i stream for instance). Presumably all that Sky have had to do is re-write their EPG/OSD software so that it overlays on both left and right eye views (if they've bothered) ?

In fact for sport, where interlacing doesn't deliver full resolution on fast motion, you'll effectively end up with each eye getting a 960x540/50p feed (as 1080/50i degrades to 540/50p with fast motion)

The chequerboard system that is sometimes used for interconnections is less suitable for H264 compressed broadcast AIUI - the side-by-side compresses better?

Alternate field - where you send the top 1920x540 field of the left eye, and then the bottom 1920x540 field of the right eye - could also have been used - but the alternate motion it gives is better suited to 25p than 50i content AIUI.

Most mainstream (i.e. non-PC based) 3D displays etc. on sale currently will accept side-by-side, alternate field and chequerboard input methods, as well as alternate frame input where you double the frame rate and deliver full quality views at full frame rate for both eyes (which is what the 3D Blu-ray spec delivers - but only at 24/48p)

There are other systems around for interconnects as well - such as alternate pixel, and progressive alternate line, but again these don't compress as well.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

mike0151 said:


> Call me a Luddite but I still watch my TiVo recordings in basic mode. I don't run out of disk space and the quality is good enough for me.


OK. You're a Luddite.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

My first read of this thread 

I am in no rush to spend any money on 3D. When it works with no glasses or headaches maybe.

The new 1Tb Sky+ HD box however sounds interesting...
http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team...b-hard-drive-phases-out-standard-def-sky-29-0

Automan.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

Automan said:


> My first read of this thread
> 
> I am in no rush to spend any money on 3D. When it works with no glasses or headaches maybe.
> 
> ...


Yep - interesting, if true, that they're also making the Sky + HD 300GB box the standard Sky box. (It's free if you take up the £10/month HD pack, but you pay something for it if you go for the SD option?)

Quite a few of us have 1TB Sky+HD boxes already though. (Was dead easy to upgrade our box though transferring the recordings took a bit of time...)


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes, all new Sky installations are Sky HD now.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

TCM2007 said:


> Yes, all new Sky installations are Sky HD now.


So they all get the new crappy EPG which I hate.

I have been considering cancelling my Sky sub and spending the £600.00 a year on something else.

Automan.


----------



## cyril (Sep 5, 2001)

Sneals2000 said:


> Yep - interesting, if true, that they're also making the Sky + HD 300GB box the standard Sky box. (It's free if you take up the £10/month HD pack, but you pay something for it if you go for the SD option?)
> 
> Quite a few of us have 1TB Sky+HD boxes already though. (Was dead easy to upgrade our box though transferring the recordings took a bit of time...)


I'm hoping they remove the current 1TB limit in the SkyHD OS, so we can upgrade all our boxes to at least 32TB


----------



## Mib2347 (Jan 30, 2010)

cyril said:


> I'm hoping they remove the current 1TB limit in the SkyHD OS, so we can upgrade all our boxes to at least 32TB


Damn 32TB I bet you would struggle to fill that up


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Yes, all new Sky installations are Sky HD now.


Does that mean people can recieve the FTA HD transmissions or have $ky got some way of disabling that until they pay for an HD subscription ? (not that I have an HDTV yet LOL)


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

katman said:


> Does that mean people can recieve the FTA HD transmissions or have $ky got some way of disabling that until they pay for an HD subscription ? (not that I have an HDTV yet LOL)


I suspect all you will get is a banner asking you to call Sky to upgrade your sub.

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't know for sure, but you should be able to get the FTA stuff.

Checked; you can view the FTA channels no matter what, and record them if long as you have some kind of Sky sub.


----------



## cyril (Sep 5, 2001)

Mib2347 said:


> Damn 32TB I bet you would struggle to fill that up


I think I am at 16TB already, and deleted TONS of stuff so no problem filling 32 
I could fill a petabyte easily.

Only problems come at filling Exabytes of data.

However UltraHD 3D TV will make use of an Exabyte at around say 1TB per minute


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Yes, all new Sky installations are Sky HD now.


So their marketing people would seem to like to lead you to believe but then why at www.sky.com/quickbuy/build does it say in the small print:-



> *Standard Sky box:* Free for new and existing customers when taken with Multiroom and paying for set up. Limited to one free box per household (£49 if already taken and existing customer). Standard set-up is £60 for new and existing customers.


I really think an OFT investigation is needed in to Sky's current fee to make the recording features of Sky+ and SkyHD boxes work for non subscribers, especially on out of contract equipment. They really can't justify an old Tivo level £10 per month charge for the extra Metadata in 2009.

Still I have unused Pay Once Watch Forever Sky tv pack and it would certainly be tempting to see what box Sky would be inclined to install to fulfil that product if I went ahead and asked for an install.

Just checked though and they still supply "Standard" Sky boxes as secondary Sky boxes in MultiRoom installations.

With Digital switchover already happened in some parts of the UK and looming everywhere else I think Sky are going to have an awful lot of awkward questions to answer about deliberately disabling the recording facility for non subscribers on a Sky HD Freesat box when they are supposed to be the governments' FTA satellite equuipment installer for subsidised digital switchover satellite boxes in areas where no decent Freeview signal is available. Journalists ought to be able to have a field day with recording being free on a BBC/ITV Freesat box but not a non subscribed Sky Freesat box.


----------



## mrtickle (Aug 26, 2001)

Automan said:


> The new 1Tb Sky+ HD box however sounds interesting...
> http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team...b-hard-drive-phases-out-standard-def-sky-29-0
> 
> Automan.


What's the cost difference between that box and a normal SkyHD box upgraded with your own 1TB disc drive?

Note that they have boosted the amount of disc space locked away forever for use with "Anytime" as well.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I really think an OFT investigation is needed in to Sky's current fee to make the recording features of Sky+ and SkyHD boxes work for non subscribers ... Sky are going to have an awful lot of awkward questions to answer about deliberately disabling the recording facility for non subscriber ... Journalists ought to be able to have a field day with recording being free on a BBC/ITV Freesat box but not a non subscribed Sky Freesat box.


There's no mystery - they want you to subscribe, they don't want to subsidise a box when you have no intention of paying a subscription.

You want free recording, buy a FreeSat box. Simples.



> they are supposed to be the governments' FTA satellite equuipment installer for subsidised digital switchover satellite boxes


Really? The website lists FreeSat as well. And the scheme doesn't subsidise recording equipment.


----------

