[gamercraig]

I am with the 3D sceptics too, I find it is like watching flat images placed in front of one another to give the illusion of depth. Unless hologram broadcasting comes along 3D is never going to look right. I much a prefer a high quality HD image which then gives you depth going backwards and is natural.
As for f1 3d what are they thinking off? There's so many multiple angles shown, not static like a football match, it will be a nightmare
As for Sky f1 going behind the sports pay wall, anyone who didn't see that coming was a little naive.

[starsailor]

Originally Posted by gamercraig

As for Sky f1 going behind the sports pay wall, anyone who didn't see that coming was a little naive.

It was always going to happen. Just as the BBC getting out of f1 coverage completely is going to happen once their contract is up.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by F1Ken

Lot's of talk about sky pricing of late. I thought I would share with you my thought's on thinking about getting sky.

I like watching sport and sky show lot's of it. Over the last few days I have seriously been looking into getting sky (even after some of my rant's). But it is to much money.

We're on this planet once for a relatively short time. to save a couple of quid a day (about the same price as a Starbucks) to deny yourself the enjoyment of watching sports you want to, is bit of a shame.

Pub lunch cost us £30 on Monday. That's about half a full month's Sky HD sports/movies subscription. The lunch only lasted 90 minutes, compared to a fortnight of Sky. If I had to choose which one to drop, it would 100% be the lunch.

BTW Ken, great golf last night with the "Nike Brothers" both out in the first round of the WGC.

[jeffersbnl]

Originally Posted by derek500

As for Sky, I would say it;s been reasonably successful. It's only been available (up to the end of March that is) to those who pay top whack and I estimate that roughly 10% of those customers have activated it. 400,000 homes after two and bit years is not far off the growth of Sky HD (498,000 after 26 months).

So your definition of it being a success is based in your own estimation? Even if it was right how many people regularly watch it once the novelty factor has worn off?

And after 26 months how much HD content was there compared to 3D now?

[jeffersbnl]

Originally Posted by Jonpollak

Saw the 4k demo in Japan last October.It's amazing.
3-D gives me a headache.
Jp

Spot on Jp.

Saw NHKs demo of 'Super Hi-Vision' in 2009- left me gobsmacked at how good it was. Saw some of the Olympic footage they were doing in London- again incredible. Saw some 3D on the same (large) screen, interesting but still a novelty.

At the moment there's another big problem with 3D- the need for glasses. Example- my friend invited people round to watch a 3D event (can't remember which) but had to add that if enough people came they'd have to watch in 2D. That group vowing experience is great for big events (done it a number of times with F1) - with HD everyone there gets the benefit of the better picture. With 3D that's much more difficult, especially with viewing angles.

[R410]

Originally Posted by charliesays

I can never agree with the argument that Sky Sports is too expensive. A Premier League game is £40, a day at the test getting on for £100, rugby league £20......

For an extra £20 a month (barely 5 pints these days) I get access to all of these and infinitely more. Seems more than fair to me.

It may only be £20, but to some like me, you don't get a lot out of that £20, so it does become expensive for what it is.

You mention the Premier League and the Rugby League, alright if you have an interest in these, but I don't follow any other sport than F1.

Plus, £20 will get me 10 pints...

[jeffersbnl]

Originally Posted by derek500

Pub lunch cost us £30 on Monday. That's about half a full month's Sky HD sports/movies subscription. The lunch only lasted 90 minutes, compared to a fortnight of Sky. If I had to choose which one to drop, it would 100% be the lunch.

It's a rather OT argument but I feel that's a bit sad. Sky is good to have if you love sport but to choose it over going for a meal with friends / family with it socialising aspect, really? Even if its not for that long? Sport is great, sport on TV is very good but some things in life matter far more. I wouldn't want to miss family / friends when they're gone thinking I had to turn down time with them but at least I kept Sky Sports. Fortunately at the moment I don't have to make that choice. If I did I think I know what I'd do.

[thedoppelganger]

Originally Posted by starsailor

It was always going to happen. Just as the BBC getting out of f1 coverage completely is going to happen once their contract is up.

Yes I'm certain BBC will see out their current contract. Then we may see just the British and maybe a couple of other races live. Much like some other sports.
I'd thought Monaco would have been one that BBC would always do live. I like though that they've fired one back at Bernie's fees by taking it off Free To Air TV. Bet Bernie didn't expect that to happen his 'jewel'.

As regards Pub lunches vs Sky. Your Pub lunch was probably good value for what you got. And you socialised with friends rather than being a couch potato. Sky is way over-priced - hence their huge profits. So I don't see a fair comparison there.

[lettice]

Originally Posted by charliesays

For an extra £20 a month (barely 5 pints these days)

Where do you drink, 5* hotels, £20 would get you 9 or 10 pints down here.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by thedoppelganger

As regards Pub lunches vs Sky. Your Pub lunch was probably good value for what you got. And you socialised with friends rather than being a couch potato. Sky is way over-priced - hence their huge profits. So I don't see a fair comparison there.

Whitbread who own the pub are a PLC and make large profits, as do most other FTSE 100 companies. That's why they exist!!

[BenFranklin]

If you like 2-3 sports which Sky show, Sky Sports is amazing value. If you really are only interested in 1 sport, it becomes harder to justify.

[stevvy1986]

Must admit as far as 3D goes, only seen 3D films, no 3D sport, but I just find it.......pointless, and 9/10 it doesn't add anything for me. I certainly wouldn't be complaining if 3D failed again, because it's just........well, it's just bleh. It doesn't leave me sat there thinking "WOW".

[thedoppelganger]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

If you like 2-3 sports which Sky show, Sky Sports is amazing value. If you really are only interested in 1 sport, it becomes harder to justify.

I agree. I only really watch F1. Which takes us full circle back to what I've said before about NowTV. I'd pay £9.99 per month for just F1. I don't need anything else that Sky offer. I won't pay £30plus per month for 12 months just to get 10 live races that aren't on BBC.

[R410]

You will not believe the call I had from Virgin Media right now.
Trying to get me to stay with them, I mentioned the reason I am moving is because of having to take the full Sky Sports pack just for one channel, to which the guy relied with and I quote "The BBC are getting it back this year anyway".

I nearly laughed down the phone at him.

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by lettice

On 3D i have read recently that soon the BBC two year test of 3D comes to an end and they are moving on to the next 4k/8k type broadcast technologies
As for sky, I'm sure they are just doing a bit for F1 to justify their investment of 3d cameras and staff etc. to their shareholders. It seems to have ended everywhere else.
Ive watched a bit of Sport in 3d in pubs, clubs and at a few houses and thought 'oh is that it'
Having seen 3d come and go a number of times over my 50 years on earth, I have to laugh at it and think 'seen it all before and really whats the point'.
Hoping it will end soon, so the investment can go on something else.

If sky want to continue with 3D then the best of luck to them.

With DQF, for the BBC to continue, would be a folly.

I know the consumer electronics industry need new gimmicks to keep the industry running but it's not for me.

[JSemple3]

Originally Posted by R410

You will not believe the call I had from Virgin Media right now.
Trying to get me to stay with them, I mentioned the reason I am moving is because of having to take the full Sky Sports pack just for one channel, to which the guy relied with and I quote "The BBC are getting it back this year anyway".

I nearly laughed down the phone at him.

Thank god I didn't have anything in my mouth I would have spat it all out! Talk about last ditch effort to make you stay.......................

Anybody know where Georgie Thompson is? She not doing the F1 show again this week

[Elissa Richards]

Originally Posted by thedoppelganger

I'd thought Monaco would have been one that BBC would always do live. I like though that they've fired one back at Bernie's fees by taking it off Free To Air TV. Bet Bernie didn't expect that to happen his 'jewel'.

I suspect they possibly dropped Monaco because it's usually mind numblingly boring and processional. The BBC took a lot of stick via online comments last year for picking Monaco over races such as Canada. I'd be more inclined to think they're trying to maximise their customer satisfaction, irking Bernie would just be an added bonus

I thought this summed up Monaco quite well:

http://img.uthinkido.com.s3-external...e181cbf8b8.jpg

Changing subject: Looking through the events calendar there's not a lot on this weekend except the WRC from Portugal and the Daytona 500. I'm not a fan of Nascar but can appreciate the 'spectacle' so will probably tune in for the start and end (the other 400 odd laps are usually dead weight!). Probably gonna hit some endurance racing online to get me racing fix

[andy-i]

Deleted

[R410]

Originally Posted by JSemple3

Thank god I didn't have anything in my mouth I would have spat it all out! Talk about last ditch effort to make you stay.......................

Anybody know where Georgie Thompson is? She not doing the F1 show again this week

This is after telling him that I am definitely joining, and that nothing he could say would change my mind at this point.

On GT, it looks like she has left Sky Sports F1. She is not included on the 'Meet the Team' page on the Sky Sports F1 website anymore, and her twitter account has been inactive since January 31st.

[R410]

Originally Posted by Elissa Richards

Changing subject: Looking through the events calendar there's not a lot on this weekend except the WRC from Portugal and the Daytona 500. I'm not a fan of Nascar but can appreciate the 'spectacle' so will probably tune in for the start and end (the other 400 odd laps are usually dead weight!). Probably gonna hit some endurance racing online to get me racing fix

WRC again!
My videos folder is filling up with downloaded programmes, I better get watching them or I will be there a week watching them all.

We are only two rallies into the season and I already have watched more WRC this year than I have done in the past few years.

[JSemple3]

Originally Posted by R410

This is after telling him that I am definitely joining, and that nothing he could say would change my mind at this point.

On GT, it looks like she has left Sky Sports F1. She is not included on the 'Meet the Team' page on the Sky Sports F1 website anymore, and her twitter account has been inactive since January 31st.

Think you may be right...............

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view...la-1-coverage/

Something seems quite strange

[F1Ken]

Originally Posted by charliesays

I can never agree with the argument that Sky Sports is too expensive. A Premier League game is £40, a day at the test getting on for £100, rugby league £20......

For an extra £20 a month (barely 5 pints these days) I get access to all of these and infinitely more. Seems more than fair to me.

Well that's because you have got it. It seems to be very hard for people to realise how have how expensive it actually is or seems to non customers.

I had SS1 and 2 for a short while but because I've never had the full thing and really got into it I don't know what it's and don't have the real craving for it. It would be nice but just because something is nice doesn't mean I should get it.

I'd rather take my kids on one last big family holiday. Something we would remember for the rest of our lives. It's fascinating how different people chose to spend there money. Anyway I don't really like sitting around I'm always out and about so I don't think I would ever use the service enough to get good value for money.

Also spending the money on a night out down the local is great fun. and you get sky on the TV there! That's value for money. In my opinion. Few drinks, lots of laughs, game of darts, couple of frames of snooker. No money left, stumble home, get chucked out by wife. The end.

Ken

[Jonpollak]

Originally Posted by lettice

Where do you drink, 5* hotels

Yep..it's one of the downsides of my chosen profession.
Would you and the other cheap drinking poster please list where in gods name these '£20 gets ya 10 pints' pubs are???? ...Please !!!

Jp

[R410]

Originally Posted by Jonpollak

Yep..it's one of the downsides of my chosen profession.
Would you and the other cheap drinking poster please list where in gods name these '£20 gets ya 10 pints' pubs are???? ...Please !!!

Jp

My local Won't be local to you though Jon.

[F1Ken]

Originally Posted by derek500

We're on this planet once for a relatively short time. to save a couple of quid a day (about the same price as a Starbucks) to deny yourself the enjoyment of watching sports you want to, is bit of a shame.

Pub lunch cost us £30 on Monday. That's about half a full month's Sky HD sports/movies subscription. The lunch only lasted 90 minutes, compared to a fortnight of Sky. If I had to choose which one to drop, it would 100% be the lunch.

BTW Ken, great golf last night with the "Nike Brothers" both out in the first round of the WGC.

Slightly longer hopefully, if I'm not sitting around all day with tons of sport to watch on sky!

Ken