3D Football coverage - not quite green and red glasses

High definition was given the big build up and now it's pretty much everywhere. So much so Sky now say, "It's live on Sky Sports 1 and also available in standard definition!" but HD can't be flavour of the month forever, the next thing is 3D, and I've found that far more impressive. However it would be a long time before I bought it.

So far I've seen two football matches in 3D, after the Mason's Arms in Falmouth brought it out. It's fair to say it's a far cry from green and red glasses.

I have to say I liked it, especially the second game I watched, which was the Manchester derby - although I did not like the result.
The reason that game looked better than the other was the setting, for some reason the City of Manchester stadium appealed to the 3D concept more than White Hart Lane (the other game was Tottenham vs Arsenal), with the blue confetti, green and gold scarves and something as simple as the layout of the stands.

Certain angles look really good, for example crowd shots and those when the manager is on the touchline spouting instructions. But to be honest, your general view above the halfway line does not make a real difference. In fact, the big winner for 3D in that view is the camera's position.
The coverage is completely different in 3D. They use different shots, have different commentators (Sky use the kind you would normally have in a League 1 match for the 3D while Tyler and Gray are stuck on "standard definition") but most of all the cameras are positioned much closer to the action which leaves the biggest sense that you are at the game above anything else.
In the Mason's Arms they have a smaller TV showing the game in "standard definition" and when comparing the two it does show the difference. The halfway line view in 3D does not have anything jumping out at you, but it makes the standard view look like it's shot from a Betfair blimp (other bookmaker's blimps are available).
Incidentally, without the 3D glasses on, the TV screen looks like how a short sighted person would see any screen without their glasses on - fuzzy.

Before the matches the pub showed clips of other sports shot in 3D and it proved that football is not the big winner in this new concept. Slow-playing sports like golf look particularly good, because they show off the obstacles in the player's way and bring the golfer in front of the crowd and out of the screen. Boxing looks good because there are only two people for the cameras to concentrate on. The big winner for me is tennis, I actually dodged out of the way when I thought a ball was coming towards me. I would love to see a bit of Wimbledon in 3D.

The landlord in the Mason's Arms told me that Sky are sending some of their 3D cameras to South Africa for the World Cup and they have done a deal with the BBC to broadcast a few games. He thought it was a good money spinner to bring people down for games that would not necessarily be affecting England. I think he's right and I'll report back via this blog to show just how many punters he gets in for the 3D matches.

TVs are starting to be sold for home use now. But it will be a long time before I would consider getting one. Firstly because of the price (about £2000 a pop), secondly because of the lack of 3D content available to make it worth it and finally because at the moment I like the novelty of wearing 3D glasses in the pub and looking at my mates after seeing a certain camera angle and simultaneously nodding in satisfaction.

Leave your comments on your 3D experiences, what do you think?

JT