Hello,

I use SKY+ HD.
I can't find any 3-D channels in TV-LISTING.

Do you know if their are some (remember some Sky 3-D at the time !).

Thank you.

E Dieppedalle

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:25:41 +0100, "EtienneD"
wrote:

Hello,

I use SKY+ HD.
I can't find any 3-D channels in TV-LISTING.

Do you know if their are some (remember some Sky 3-D at the time !).

Lyngsat shows no 3D channels at 28deg, see :-
http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html
http://www.lyngsat.com/3d/index.html

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:25:41 +0100, "EtienneD"
wrote:

I use SKY+ HD.
I can't find any 3-D channels in TV-LISTING.

Do you know if their are some (remember some Sky 3-D at the time !).

The Sky 3D channel is on channel 217. You should be able to see it in
"All Channels" in the TV Guide.

To be able to view it you need to be subscribed to the Sky World
package, have a 3D capable TV, and give Sky a call with your TV
Make/Model to confirm you have such a TV.

--
Vincent

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:19:48 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Vincent
wrote:
and give Sky a call with your TV
Make/Model to confirm you have such a TV.

If that's a restriction, that's a bit stupid of them. The version of 3D
broadcasting they've chosen works by HALVING the horizontal resolution,
then sending two squeezed images side by side. There's no harm that can be
caused to a normal TV by displaying those pictures.

Well it used to be... I'm only going from what I read when the channel
launched around a year ago. Maybe it's changed now.

It certainly doesn't do any harm if you don't have a 3D TV. It just
looks a bit weird, like really messed up interlacing.

I'm not sure if this was a point you were trying to make or not, but
halving the horizontal resolution for each doesn't actually make any
perceivable difference to the resolution, because both halves are
reassembled in your brain into one 3D image of full resolution. You're
still getting the full HD image. So I read on the Internet anyway (so
it must be true, right?).

--
Vincent

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:14:09 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

I was criticising their use of a Frame Compatible system which is
half-resolution. Particular irksome as the broadcasters have been skimping
on bandwidth, picture quality and resolution for years, with some SD
channels still broadcasting now at lower than VHS resolutions; no sooner
do some of the channels scrape up to 1080p broadcasts they halve it again
for 3D.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB_3D-TV#Frame_compatible)
It's half the resolution of the systems which use 2 full HD frames, 1 for
each eye such as that on Blu-Ray. Of course it makes a difference in your
brain, otherwise Blu-Ray would skimp on costs and halve the resolution as
well.

Yeah I understand how it works, but my point is... does it make a
difference in reality?

If you're watching a normal 2D HD broadcast at 1080 lines, you see
1080 lines with both eyes, so the end resolution your brain sees is
1080.

If you're watching a 3D HD broadcast at 1080 lines (540 for each eye)
one eye gets 540 lines, the other 540 lines, and they're combined by
your brain back into 1080 lines - in the same way as if you hold a
finger close to one of your eyes it appears see-through, because your
brain has combined both images.

So in both cases, you're perceiving 1080 lines worth of information.

--
Vincent

Don't forget the bogus "Anytime Plus", which is only available to Sky's
broadband user base. But they're not that clear about it of course.

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...

In , Vincent
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:25:41 +0100, "EtienneD"
wrote:

I use SKY+ HD.
I can't find any 3-D channels in TV-LISTING.

Do you know if their are some (remember some Sky 3-D at the time !).

The Sky 3D channel is on channel 217. You should be able to see it in
"All Channels" in the TV Guide.

To be able to view it you need to be subscribed to the Sky World
package,

It's worth pointing out that is Sky's very top most expensive package of
the lot. You have to subscribe to absolutely everything just to get one
channel, which is not available any other way.

I note that after being forced by OFCOM to split their non-premium channel
offering into equal packs in Sep 2005, after Sky's anti-competitive
packages were allowed to persist for 7 years, this has now come to an end
and Sky have quickly revered to only offering two packs, "Entertainment"
and "Entertainment Extra" with prices skewed accordingly. Way to go OFCOM!

have a 3D capable TV,

fair enough, obviously.

and give Sky a call with your TV
Make/Model to confirm you have such a TV.

If that's a restriction, that's a bit stupid of them. The version of 3D
broadcasting they've chosen works by HALVING the horizontal resolution,
then sending two squeezed images side by side. There's no harm that can be
caused to a normal TV by displaying those pictures.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:19:48 +0000, Mike Henry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In , Vincent
wrote:

have a 3D capable TV,

fair enough, obviously.

and give Sky a call with your TV
Make/Model to confirm you have such a TV.

If that's a restriction, that's a bit stupid of them. The version of 3D
broadcasting they've chosen works by HALVING the horizontal resolution,
then sending two squeezed images side by side. There's no harm that can be
caused to a normal TV by displaying those pictures.

The point is to stop clueless numpties subscribing to 3D without having a
3D-capable TV and then blaming Sky when it doesn't work for them.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:04:06 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Vincent
wrote:

Yeah I understand how it works, but my point is... does it make a
difference in reality?

Clearly it does, otherwise Blu-Ray would've skimped in the same way.

But you're comparing interlaced content to non-interlaced.

Blu Ray 1080p 2D gives both of your eyes (and hence your brain) the
same 1080 rows of pixels every 1/24th second.

Blu Ray 1080p 3D gives both of your eyes a different 1080 rows of
slightly different pixels every 1/24th second. You brain gets more
information than 2D 1080p (between equal and up to twice as much,
depending on the differences between the left and right frame). That's
good.

If, however, you were to apply Sky's method of 3D to a 1080p source,
you would give each eye 540 rows of pixels every 1/24th second, thus
halving the information, which is why they don't use this, because it
would be a noticeable drop in quality compared to the 1080p 3D system
they went with.

But, Sky is different because it uses interlacing (1080i)...

Sky 2D gives you 540 new lines of pixels in one frame, and 540 new
lines of pixels in the next, i.e. your brain gets 540 new lines of
pixels every 1/24th (or 1/25th?) of a second.

Sky 3D gives you 540 new lines of pixels in one eye in one frame, then
540 new lines of pixels in the next frame for your other eye, i.e.
your brain gets 540 new lines of pixels every 1/24th (or 1/25th?) of a
second, exactly the same as above.

So with Sky, there should be no loss of quality compared to their
normal 1080i 2D.

--
Vincent

On 14/11/11 00:10, Vincent wrote:

So with Sky, there should be no loss of quality compared to their
normal 1080i 2D.

Correct, but there is still loss of horizontal resolution!

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:40:10 +0000, funkyoldcortina
wrote:

Correct, but there is still loss of horizontal resolution!

Exactly the same horizontal resolution, just that the pixels are
directed towards individual left and right eyes now. Hence 3D.

--