[DarthFader]

HAve Virgin not learned from HDTV? In the begining they said viewers wanted on demand rather than channels only to back track. Now they are saying exactly the same thing with 3DTV, opting for on demand.

What do people think?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...blic-demo.html

[DieDieMyDarling]

They were totally wrong with HD, but I don't see how they could deal with this situation any different. They can't afford to take such big risks, and personally speaking, i can't see the lure of 3D TV. The idea does nothing for me.

[jenzie]

NOT 3d tech, just them promoting channel4's 3d week of programming!
it's STILL norman 3d, filmed with stereophonic cameras, and shown on normal 2d screens
I ASSUME (there, put my safety hat on folks )

REAL 3d would have to be filmed using a system of cameras that had DEPTH PERCEPTION, and the screen would be like a holographic picture, but with a lot more layers to it! and you wouldn't need to have the glasses either!!!

now then mr television set makers ..... that'll be 50 million pounds please

[Charnham]

yes I dont see 3D being a big hit, both HD & OD are important and even more important to a pay TV service, as Sky has proven people will pay for those things.

[DarthFader]

I can't see me upgrading to 3DTV any time soon having only just got HD, just wondered what others thought.

[callum9999]

Making a 3D channel isn't really that feasible though. Due to the lack of 3D content, on demand would probably be the best bet until sometime in the future.

I guess the 3D they are talking about is the same technology used for Chuck etc. (i.e. it works but isn't great) - in the near future 3D TV's will be available and a far better quality 3D experience will be here. On demand would be especially good for that as (presumably) take up of these expensive TVs will be slow for a while - like HD was.

[carl.waring]

Well Sky are on the 3D band-wagon too. Perhaps the OP might like to start a thread asking if they've got it wrong as well; just in the interest of balance, of course

[ariusuk]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

Well Sky are on the 3D band-wagon too. Perhaps the OP might like to start a thread asking if they've got it wrong as well; just in the interest of balance, of course

They are, but only in the very early stages of development, and admit to being behind schedule.

[Orthicon]

Originally Posted by ariusuk

They are, but only in the very early stages of development, and admit to being behind schedule.

And they have the wods of cash to pursue something that could be a great white elephant.

Having said that, Sony have developed a 3D camera that's the same size as a conventional camera. All that's needed now is a TV display that doesn't need glasses or requires the viewer to sit directly in front of it. (The holographic display has already been thought of - sorry, jenzie).

[wakey]

Originally Posted by DarthFader

HAve Virgin not learned from HDTV? In the begining they said viewers wanted on demand rather than channels only to back track. Now they are saying exactly the same thing with 3DTV, opting for on demand.

What do people think?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...blic-demo.html

You can perceive them as being 'wrong' about HDTV however they actually got it right. Sky after all made all these bold claims about HD only for most of its channels to be broadcasting upscaled content. They relied on the potential customers to be dumb enough to fall for their spiel (sadly they were) to make it viable for them.

Virgin knew they were unlikely to get many of the flagship HD channels that did shown a good amount of content (Sky Sports, Sky Movies as thats what Sky was selling their HD platform on and some of the other channels had elusivity deals for a period of time with sky) and they also knew that while still in the process of getting the older regions upto digital capabilities that space was limited so they took the senisble route (Even more sensible when you consider that the number of people who watch TV live is falling week by week, people prefer TV being on their schedule be it 30 minutes later or weeks and On Demand fits that perfectly. The only problem they had was they simply didn't sign enough On Demand HD deals and let Sky have it easy on thye marketing front, they needed to flood On Demand with them and then be aggressive on the marketing.

As for them backing down on HD channels., did they really? They always carried a HD channel so its not like they were against linear channels, its just the other HD linear channels they could have accessed offered very little value. The landscape however has started to shift, more people are aware of HDTV and more people are capable of receiving it and more importantly the HD channels are starting to reach a point where they have enough actual HD content each day that so it makes sense that they start to add a few more to compliment their On Demand offering. On Demand though should still be their primary focus for HD as its still a niche product, just as 3D will be for a long time so it also should be On Demand (But done right and marketed better)