Freeview HD boxes in the shops from next week
Joseph
David
"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
> In Argos next week
>
> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
Price too high for Joe Public.
Regards
David
Mike
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
airsmoothed
> They have to be kidding. Who would pay that for a crippled system?
> Brian
>
> --
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
>
> > In Argos next week
>
> >http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
At Argos prices you can get a Freesat HD box and dish install for
slightly less than that!
Adrian
Nonsense! They'll sell easily.
--
Adrian
Alan
<david...@tesco.net> wrote
The HD Satellite boxes for Freesat sold in the hundreds of thousands at
�150+ for a system that has only one regular part time HD channel.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
tim....
"Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uo7EI1Bd...@amac.f2s.com...
> In message <hk73g8$9ro$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, David
> <david...@tesco.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
>>> In Argos next week
>>>
>>> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
>>
>>Price too high for Joe Public.
>
> The HD Satellite boxes for Freesat sold in the hundreds of thousands at
> �150+ for a system that has only one regular part time HD channel.
But was there an SD Freesat box at 19.99 to buy instead?
tim
JohnT
Argos have one for �29.99.
--
JohnT
Lez Pawl
"airsmoothed" <airsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:782b50f2-c3f4-4ab2...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
That's assuming a dish can be fitted. In my daughters case the landlord does
not permit dishes on the property so this is the only option. This said she
will wait for one that has a HDD recorder as well.
Brian Gaff
the investment as fast as possible. However with even the most ignorant
person out there having heard of the balls up of hd terrestrial by the bbc,
courtesy of the bbc knockers, I just don't see it going anywhere unless its
sorted out properly.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Lez Pawl" <One...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gPKdnfVKFKafJfrW...@bt.com...
airsmoothed
> "airsmoothed" <airsmoot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well yes, I appreciate not everyone has the choice, but for folks who
have then I'm struggling to see why they'd buy a Freeview HD setup
when there's potential, at least, for far more HD choice on the
Freesat platform and the cost will be about the same. I can see why
they're playing the 'early adopters will pay more' card, but that's a
dangerous game when there is a cheaper alternative already available
for many people.
Brian Mc
: Well yes, I appreciate not everyone has the choice, but for folks who
: have then I'm struggling to see why they'd buy a Freeview HD setup
: when there's potential, at least, for far more HD choice on the
: Freesat platform and the cost will be about the same.
While your THEORY may be sound in PRACTICE Freesat is not working out well -
for the following reasons:-
1) Lack of space on the only tightly beamed satellite (Astra 2D)
2) ITV want regional adverts on ITV1HD. This is easy on DTT but impossible
(see 1) on DSAT.
3) C4HD is likely to remain FTV on Sky receivers only for quite some time.
Given these constratins I think that buying a FreeviewHD STB (when they
become cheaper) may very well be the best thing to do!
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> airsmoothed <airsmoot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Well yes, I appreciate not everyone has the choice, but for folks who
> : have then I'm struggling to see why they'd buy a Freeview HD setup
> : when there's potential, at least, for far more HD choice on the
> : Freesat platform and the cost will be about the same.
>
> While your THEORY may be sound in PRACTICE Freesat is not working out well -
> for the following reasons:-
>
> 1) Lack of space on the only tightly beamed satellite (Astra 2D)
I hear the BBC have a spare slot following some "encoder
improvements" ;-). Quite a few slots if they switch that transponder
to DVB-S2. There's obviously a plan they haven't told us about.
> 2) ITV want regional adverts on ITV1HD. This is easy on DTT but impossible
> (see 1) on DSAT.
Serious problem if they want the adverts in HD. Quite easy to jump
back to the SD feed to maintain regional adverts - or just accept that
ITV1HD on Freesat is "different" for a while. Just like five.
> 3) C4HD is likely to remain FTV on Sky receivers only for quite some time.
>
> Given these constratins I think that buying a FreeviewHD STB (when they
> become cheaper) may very well be the best thing to do!
Swings and Roundabouts. We have Freesat because we can't get Freeview
at all here.
When it finally arrives, like everyone else on a relay, it'll be
"halfview". So it might well give more HD, but far less SD. If DVB-T2
ever spreads to more than one mux, it'll be interesting to see what's
left on relay TXs.
Do to the strange situation on Freesat (partly down to rights issues)
it seems Freeview HD may be the future - albeit a kind of "half HD"
future. Though Freesat could (and maybe will) jump level or ahead
tomorrow with a minor reshuffle.
Wonder if/when/how they'll fit 3-D in? Or, for that matter, the many
Olympic 2012 HD feeds that the BBC owns the rights to, but doesn't
have the bandwidth to broadcast?
Cheers,
David.
Brian Mc
: > 2) ITV want regional adverts on ITV1HD. This is easy on DTT but impossible
: > � �(see 1) on DSAT.
: Serious problem if they want the adverts in HD. Quite easy to jump
: back to the SD feed to maintain regional adverts - or just accept that
: ITV1HD on Freesat is "different" for a while. Just like five.
ITV have experimented with switching to SD for adverts on Freesat - that was
their original plan! Given the fact that all TVs take time (and flicker)
when changing from 1080i to 576i it was abandoned as not being viable!
ITV1HD will be different for a while (as they are not immediately able to do
regional advert insertion) - but they do plan to do this on FreeviewHD
at some time.
Richard Tobin
Brian Mc <b...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote:
>ITV have experimented with switching to SD for adverts on Freesat - that was
>their original plan! Given the fact that all TVs take time (and flicker)
>when changing from 1080i to 576i it was abandoned as not being viable!
That would have been very convenient - it would be reasonably easy
to automatically remove advertisements from recordings!
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Light of Aria
"Brian Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TIS9n.34517$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> The first adopters always pay over the odds because they have to make good
> the investment as fast as possible. However with even the most ignorant
> person out there having heard of the balls up of hd terrestrial by the
> bbc, courtesy of the bbc knockers,
"bbc knockers"
What an unfortunate image you've just put in my mind?
Paul Ratcliffe
<light...@2009.no.valid.domain.com> wrote:
> "bbc knockers"
>
> What an unfortunate image you've just put in my mind?
Simon Groom?
Ivan
"Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uo7EI1Bd...@amac.f2s.com...
> In message <hk73g8$9ro$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, David
> <david...@tesco.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
>>> In Argos next week
>>>
>>> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
>>
>>Price too high for Joe Public.
>
> The HD Satellite boxes for Freesat sold in the hundreds of thousands at
> �150+ for a system that has only one regular part time HD channel.
>
>
The cost of early receivers certainly didn't stop Freeview taking off, back
in 2002/3 I knew people who could sell almost as many of these as they could
get.
<http://www.intempo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stb.htm/>
R. Mark Clayton
Wait for the market to settle down.
Freesat HD OTOH came with nil premium on some TV's.
Ian
<ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> writes
The wording on the bottom right is quite amusing.
How would the customer know if the seller's aerial needs upgrading?
--
Ian
Martin
"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
tim....
"Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yYlan.35342$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think that 5
channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid for?
tim
>
Norman Wells
> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
>
> All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think
> that 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150
> quid for?
No, you're approaching this all wrong. If you're an ad man you have to
salami slice it down into smaller bits. So, let's take an expected box life
of 5 or 6 years, oh, call it 2000 days, by 5 channels - that's 10000 channel
days.
So, it's "HD for just 1.5p a day!".
Ivan
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7svku5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:yYlan.35342$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>> "Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uo7EI1Bd...@amac.f2s.com...
>>> In message <hk73g8$9ro$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, David
>>> <david...@tesco.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...
>>>>> In Argos next week
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
>>>>
>>>>Price too high for Joe Public.
>>>
>>> The HD Satellite boxes for Freesat sold in the hundreds of thousands at
>>> �150+ for a system that has only one regular part time HD channel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The cost of early receivers certainly didn't stop Freeview taking off,
>> back in 2002/3 I knew people who could sell almost as many of these as
>> they could get.
>> <http://www.intempo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stb.htm/>
>
> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
>
> All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think that
> 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid for?
>
>
However it doesn't detract from the fact that Freeview boxes which a mere
seven or eight years ago were selling for as much as �130, can now be
purchased for under �20.00.
I would suspect that there are also quite a number of hard core sports fans
who will initially go for it, especially in World Cup year, which must
inevitably help drive down prices, plus there will be the benefits of
economies of scale, as other countries are also adopting the DVB T2 system,
give it another three or four years (allowing for the fact that the UK/World
economy doesn't disappear into the abyss) and I guess that even cheap
supermarket tellys will have HD included as standard.
>
>
>
>
David
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7svku5...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
>
> All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think that
> 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid for?
>
Are you sure there will be 5 ???
Some how I doubt it. Only think it will be the BBC HD one.
Regards
David
Mike
> "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
from http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD
"BBC, ITV and Channel 4 HD channels will be available along with S4C
HD in Wales bringing your favourite soaps and dramas, documentaries
and even the 2010 World Cup in full HD glory. Five HD aims to launch
on Freeview HD in late 2010."
Gary
"Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p0yan.35553$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
If you compare this to the cost of Freesat HD without a dish the cost is
only a bit higher and there is only 1 HD channel on Freesat at the moment.
if you need to go out and purchase a Freesat HD box and have a dish fitted
the cost and 'mucking about' is quite off putting.
Go to Argus buy a Freeview box and get HD in a few mins just by plugging it
in. Magic.
cost of Freesat HD box �67-149
cost of install. �80
Wait for install around 2 days
Best case �147 worst case �230
cost of Freeview HD 149-179 plug in and go.
the costs are not the big difference you suggest.
i have just looked at the web pages and Freeview say 5 HD channels in 2010
Freesat is only saying bbc and itv no indication as to any expansion.
Gary
>>
Java Jive
that well first time, hopefully increasingly so as time goes on,
especially if the user already has had an aerial refit for DSO, but
I'll believe it's actually as simple as that when I see it.
My guess is that initially there will be lots of problems, from
uncertainty as to whether HD is yet available in a given area, to STBs
freezing and locking up, just like the early SD one did.
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:13:02 -0000, "Gary" <g.goo...@dottesco.net>
wrote:
>
> Go to Argus buy a Freeview box and get HD in a few mins just by plugging it
> in. Magic.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Richard Tobin
Ivan <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I would suspect that there are also quite a number of hard core sports fans
>who will initially go for it, especially in World Cup year
When is the world cup? Presumably prices will drop immediately
after it.
Richard Tobin
<brian...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>How can they cram in 5 HD channels that will only properly accommodate 4 SD
>channels?
DVB-T2 gives a higher bit rate than DVB-T, and uses MPEG-4 instead of
MPEG-2 giving better compression.
Of course, that doesn't mean it won't be rubbish.
David
"Mike" <mike...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8dfe348f-69bb-4869...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 11:
>
> "BBC, ITV and Channel 4 HD channels will be available along with S4C
> HD in Wales bringing your favourite soaps and dramas, documentaries
> and even the 2010 World Cup in full HD glory. Five HD aims to launch
> on Freeview HD in late 2010."
>
That will kill Freesat off then.
I asked them if they are to add those others and they haven't a clue.
Regards
David
David
"Gary" <g.goo...@dottesco.net> wrote in message
news:hRyan.294409$Cn1.2...@newsfe25.ams2...
>
>
> If you compare this to the cost of Freesat HD without a dish the cost is
> only a bit higher and there is only 1 HD channel on Freesat at the moment.
> if you need to go out and purchase a Freesat HD box and have a dish fitted
> the cost and 'mucking about' is quite off putting.
>
> Go to Argus buy a Freeview box and get HD in a few mins just by plugging
> it in. Magic.
>
> cost of Freesat HD box �67-149
> cost of install. �80
> Wait for install around 2 days
>
> Best case �147 worst case �230
> cost of Freeview HD 149-179 plug in and go.
>
> the costs are not the big difference you suggest.
> i have just looked at the web pages and Freeview say 5 HD channels in 2010
> Freesat is only saying bbc and itv no indication as to any expansion.
>
Freesat has 2 HD channels, BBC HD and ITV1.
For HD on Freeview I believe it is unknown how many channels in HD they are
starting with..
You forgot the likely upgrade of the terrestrial aerial that many well
require. I understand the commencing transmissions are very low powered
even less than Freeview SD and limited direction only towards the larger
population.
EG. mine from Emley Moor will point towards Leeds and Bradford.
Regards
David
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>In article <p0yan.35553$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>Ivan <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I would suspect that there are also quite a number of hard core sports fans
>>who will initially go for it, especially in World Cup year
>
>When is the world cup? Presumably prices will drop immediately
>after it.
>
People will have time to get HD-equipped for the Olympics.
But.... then....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7012205.ece
Scientists warned yesterday that a peak in solar activity is due to
occur in 2012, risking the disruption of television and internet
networks during the London Olympic Games.
“The Olympics could be bang in the middle of a solar maximum,” said
Richard Harrison, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Oxfordshire, speaking before the launch this week of Nasa’s Solar
Dynamics Observatory.
It has long been known that surges in solar activity can cause
disruption in satellite and terrestrial communications systems, but,
until now, it has been almost impossible to predict solar storms in
advance.
....
By turning off sensitive electronic circuits before a storm, damage
to satellite transmitters, and the resulting disruption, could be
minimised.
The Nasa probe, which is scheduled for launch from Cape Canaveral on
Saturday, will spend five years in orbit around the Earth,
investigating the causes of extreme activity, such as sun spots,
solar winds and violent eruptions from the Sun’s atmosphere known as
coronal mass ejections. “Such events can expose astronauts to deadly
particle doses, can disable satellites, cause power grid failures on
Earth and disrupt communications,” Professor Harrison said.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Ivan
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:k8olm55gc7h6o5got...@4ax.com...
My little Internet radio is a godsend, simply because it enables me to get
away from the football obsessed UK radio speech stations and listen to some
of the American ones where they have quite some lengthy discussions on such
topics, last weekend I listened to a program hosted by 'Art Bell' who was
discussing this very subject, along with other topics of scientific
interest, for several hours with professor Michio Kaku (often seen on BBC's
Horizon) it basically boiled down to the fact that if we ever experience
anything like the huge solar flare of 1859, then we will certainly see a
drastic 'thinning out' of populations in advanced Western countries.
J G Miller
> For HD on Freeview I believe it is unknown how many channels in HD they
> are starting with..
Unknown by whom? Unknown by Freeview marketing? Unknown by OfCon?
Or unknown by the members of the general public including yourself or
cannot be bothered to do a simple web search?
There are three stations in HD on the DVB-t2 multiplex in glorious
MPEG-4 encoding -- BBC HD, ITV HD, and C4 HD, currently broadcast
from the Crystal Palace transmitter in the London Borough of Bromley,
and from the Winter Hill transmitter in the Borough of Chorley.
In DSO areas and from certain other main sites, the Freeview HD service
is planned to commence in March 2010. These transmitters will carry
BBC HD, ITV HD, and S4C HD from Cymraeg and Storeton transmitters, and
C4 HD from others and Storeton.
Five HD is expected to launch on this platform in late 2010.
For futher details please see --
J G Miller
> How can they cram in 5 HD channels that will only properly accommodate 4
> SD channels?
I thought that with QAM-64 on an 8 MHz UHF channel, top picture quality
with a maximum of *5* SD video streams was feasible?
Remove all the +1 stations, shopping, and phone prostitution stations,
and you would just about be able to fill the 25 slots (5 QAM-64
multiplexes that is) with content.
David
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message news:126529...@vo.lu...
Yes, I have looked and got this,
"BBC, ITV and Channel 4 HD channels will be available along with S4C HD in
Wales bringing your favorite soaps and dramas, documentaries and even the
2010 World Cup in full HD glory. Five HD aims to launch on Freeview HD in
late 2010. "
You have worded it slightly different and explained that ITV will be like
Freesat BBC HD in that a special ITV HD channel is created and not a press
Red button for next ITV1 programmed as done on Freesat.
Information given direct to me was that the BBC HD starts in a couple of
weeks from Emley Moor but very low power and very directional towards
Leeds/Bradford, Huddersfied near to transmitter will not be able to receive
it.
For the general Joe Public I doubt he as a clue about all this. Many of
them think their HD Ready TV is already getting HD now.
The situation is not help by Freeview, Freesat, Cable and Sky not each of
them doing all the "popular traditional 5"
Regards
David
J G Miller
> last weekend I listened to a program hosted by 'Art Bell'
You should also check out NPR's Science Friday, carried by many NPR
member stations and on NPR Worldwide (broadcast to Europe from Eutelsat
Hot Bird 8 at 13.0° East on 10,723 GHz horizontal polarization, symbol
rate 29900, FEC 3/4)
<http://www.sciencefriday.COM/>
This week's (Friday, February 5th, 2010) topics are for hour one,
"Science and the Budget", and for hour two "Manufacturing Depression".
Brian Mc
: You have worded it slightly different and explained that ITV will be like
: Red button for next ITV1 programmed as done on Freesat.
This is not quite correct! Freeview ITV1HD will be a simulcast of ITV1 with
either the (presently very few) HD programmes OR just an upscaled SD image.
You are correct that it will not use the red button
C4HD is, I gather, not being transmitted yet (until April???)
wrights...@f2s.com
> "Gary" <g.goodri...@dottesco.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hRyan.294409$Cn1.2...@newsfe25.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you compare this to the cost of Freesat HD without a dish the cost is
> > only a bit higher and there is only 1 HD channel on Freesat at the moment.
> > if you need to go out and purchase a Freesat HD box and have a dish fitted
> > the cost and 'mucking about' is quite off putting.
>
> > Go to Argus buy a Freeview box and get HD in a few mins just by plugging
> > it in. Magic.
>
> > cost of install. £80
> > Wait for install around 2 days
>
> > cost of Freeview HD 149-179 plug in and go.
>
> > the costs are not the big difference you suggest.
> > i have just looked at the web pages and Freeview say 5 HD channels in 2010
> > Freesat is only saying bbc and itv no indication as to any expansion.
>
> Freesat has 2 HD channels, BBC HD and ITV1.
>
> For HD on Freeview I believe it is unknown how many channels in HD they are
> starting with..
> You forgot the likely upgrade of the terrestrial aerial that many well
> require. I understand the commencing transmissions are very low powered
> even less than Freeview SD and limited direction only towards the larger
> population.
> EG. mine from Emley Moor will point towards Leeds and Bradford.
> Regards
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, that idea has been abandoned at the last minute. The transmissions
will cover areas to the south.
Bill
wrights...@f2s.com
I just tried that for a site that can only receive the BBC mux from
Belmont, and that only very unreliably. The checker said Good News!
You can get every channel!
Bill
tony sayer
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> scribeth thus
Yes.. Anyone remember any of these taking out TV networks in the UK at
all?....
--
Tony Sayer
J G Miller
> Freeview ITV1HD will be a simulcast of ITV1 with either the (presently
> very few) HD programmes OR *just* an upscaled SD image.
Indeed -- the advertisers need to hurry up and get on board and
start making the commercials in HD, otherwise ITV HD service
will just not be worth watching.
After all, the ITV programs, even those in HD, are rarely worth
watching ;)
kim
> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
> All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think that
> 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid for?
A year ago I would have happily paid �150 for 5 decent SD channels! :o)
(kim)
Roger
wrote:
>10,723 GHz
This is a UK group so what you have typed is read as
ten thousand, seven hundred and twenty-three gigahertz.
Maybe you meant to type either 10,723 MHz or 10.723 GHz.
--
Roger
Java Jive
"For more information on how Freeview HD rolls out to the whole of the
UK, view our map". The screen went dark and nothing happened. Is
this because I don't have Flash installed (there wasn't the usual
message), or intended as a demonstration of what Freeview HD will
actually look like?
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:09:08 +0100, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:
>
> For futher details please see --
>
> <http://www.freeview.co.UK/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD>
Brian Mc
: In Argos next week
: http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
But apparently CONTRADICTED by
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/vestel-receives-first-freeview-hd-certification
which claims that this Vestel unit is the first STB certified - therefore the
Humax cannot have been yet???????
David
"Brian Mc" <b...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hkf6me$s9o$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
Is Vestel going to be its brand name?
Or one or more of the cheap household names to be used?
Regards
David
Peter Duncanson
No. I don't.
There is a list of effects on comms and electricity distribution here:
http://www.solarstorms.org/Scommun.html
tony sayer
any substantial outages like Corrie disappearing from the sats, or the
phones going off, power cuts etc...
--
Tony Sayer
J G Miller
> Is this because I don't have Flash installed
The source code for that page does indeed include
such content eg
Shadowbox.init({
players:["iframe","swf"]
});
Peter Duncanson
>In article <am8mm5to5sfond6e0...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> scribeth thus
[solar flares, etc]
>>There is a list of effects on comms and electricity distribution here:
>>http://www.solarstorms.org/Scommun.html
>>
>>
>Interesting .. but I meant the UK. I can't for the life of me remember
>any substantial outages like Corrie disappearing from the sats, or the
>phones going off, power cuts etc...
Me neither.
If anything did happen the effects must have been limited in effect and
brief.
With changes in technology some vulnerabilities may no longer exist but
new ones may have been introduced - not necessarily in obvious places.
Paul Ratcliffe
>> > All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think
>> > that 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid
>> > for?
>>
>> Are you sure there will be 5 ???
>>
>> Some how I doubt it. Only think it will be the BBC HD one.
>
> How can they cram in 5 HD channels that will only properly accommodate 4 SD
> channels? Crap quality less than proper HD together with time share I
> guess. BBC HD on freesat is now a travesty of what it was at teh higher bit
> rate.
From what I can remember, there is a payload of 40Mbps on a DVB-T2 8MHz
channel using 256 QAM rotated constellation, with an option to reduce to
36Mbps depending on how well the coverage works out.
I think the plan is for 4 services at either 10 or 9Mbps each.
Funny that the DSat BBC-HD channel has been reduced to 9Mbps isn't it?
tim....
"Norman Wells" <cut-me-o...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:Zgxan.170$EP5...@newsfe01.ams2...
> tim.... wrote:
>
>> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
>>
>> that 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150
>> quid for?
>
but I'm not an ad man
I'm discussing it on a bulletin board and as such I'm entitled to my
opinion, not to be forced to follow the sheep
tim
tim....
"Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p0yan.35553$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
> "tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7svku5...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:yYlan.35342$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:uo7EI1Bd...@amac.f2s.com...
>>>> In message <hk73g8$9ro$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, David
>>>> <david...@tesco.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Joseph" <Jos...@anon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:kq1em55kvjsjvrnb6...@4ax.com...>>>>>Price too high for Joe Public.
>>>>
>>>> The HD Satellite boxes for Freesat sold in the hundreds of thousands at
>>>> �150+ for a system that has only one regular part time HD channel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The cost of early receivers certainly didn't stop Freeview taking off,
>>> back in 2002/3 I knew people who could sell almost as many of these as
>>> they could get.
>>> <http://www.intempo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stb.htm/>
>>
>> But freeview offered something worth the cost, 50 extra channels.
>>
>> All HD gives is 5 current channels in HD. How many people will think
>> that 5 channels of HD is worth having at all, let along paying 150 quid
>> for?
>>
>>
>
> seven or eight years ago were selling for as much as �130, can now be
> purchased for under �20.00.
> I would suspect that there are also quite a number of hard core sports
> must
As I've discussed elsewhere -
The hardcore footie fan will already have HD, via his Sky box.
Expecting the World Cup to sell terrestrial HD is pissing in the wind IMHO
tim
tim....
"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hkeik7$189h$1...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <p0yan.35553$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> Ivan <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I would suspect that there are also quite a number of hard core sports
>>fans
>
> When is the world cup? Presumably prices will drop immediately
> after it.
June.
Probably not, 50% of the country still wont have the possibility of HD then
tim
J G Miller
> With changes in technology some vulnerabilities may no longer exist but
> new ones may have been introduced - not necessarily in obvious places.
New ones have indeed been introduced.
For example, if I followed this correctly, Multiplex A and (COM-1 SDN?)
going off air for several hours on the evening of Wednesday, January
27th, 2010, because Eutelsat W2 went wobbly.
From <http://www.eutelsat.COM/news/press-releases.html>
QUOTE
EUTELSAT STATEMENT ON W2 SATELLITE
Paris, 28 January 2010
Paris, 28 January 2010 Eutelsat Communications (Euronext Paris: ETL)
confirms that a technical anomaly occurred in the evening of January 27
on the W2 satellite located at 16° East. This incident is under full
investigation by Eutelsat in collaboration with the satellite's
manufacturer, Thales Alenia Space.
UNQUOTE
J G Miller
> Probably not, 50% of the country still wont have the possibility of HD
> then
50% of the geographic coverage, or 50% of the televisual viewing
population.
I would venture to suggest that 50% of the televisual viewing population
will probably be within the service area of PSB-2 or the temporary
multiplexes from non-DSO transmitters.
Mark Carver
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:57:59 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> With changes in technology some vulnerabilities may no longer exist but
>> new ones may have been introduced - not necessarily in obvious places.
>
> New ones have indeed been introduced.
>
> For example, if I followed this correctly, Multiplex A and (COM-1 SDN?)
> going off air for several hours on the evening of Wednesday, January
> 27th, 2010, because Eutelsat W2 went wobbly.
>
> From <http://www.eutelsat.COM/news/press-releases.html>
Only Mux A went down, COM 1/SDN (Mux A in post DSO areas) is distributed to
DSO'd transmitters by fibre.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
J G Miller
> Funny that the DSat BBC-HD channel has been reduced to 9Mbps isn't it?
Not really -- the BBC likes to maintain a policy of "platform neutrality",
so the picture quality needs to be equally bad on satellite as well as
terrestrial.
And to start with, 1440 is not even the correct HD horizontal width of
resolution.
Gary
"David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:hkemal$kmv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Gary" <g.goo...@dottesco.net> wrote in message
> news:hRyan.294409$Cn1.2...@newsfe25.ams2...
>>
>
>>
>> If you compare this to the cost of Freesat HD without a dish the cost is
>> only a bit higher and there is only 1 HD channel on Freesat at the
>> moment.
>> if you need to go out and purchase a Freesat HD box and have a dish
>> fitted the cost and 'mucking about' is quite off putting.
>>
>> Go to Argus buy a Freeview box and get HD in a few mins just by plugging
>> it in. Magic.
>>
>> cost of Freesat HD box �67-149
>> cost of install. �80
>> Wait for install around 2 days
>>
>> Best case �147 worst case �230
>> cost of Freeview HD 149-179 plug in and go.
>>
>> the costs are not the big difference you suggest.
>> i have just looked at the web pages and Freeview say 5 HD channels in
>> 2010
>> Freesat is only saying bbc and itv no indication as to any expansion.
>>
>
> Freesat has 2 HD channels, BBC HD and ITV1.
>
> For HD on Freeview I believe it is unknown how many channels in HD they
> are starting with..
> You forgot the likely upgrade of the terrestrial aerial that many well
> require. I understand the commencing transmissions are very low powered
> even less than Freeview SD and limited direction only towards the larger
> population.
> EG. mine from Emley Moor will point towards Leeds and Bradford.
> Regards
> David
firstly if you look at the Freeview site you will see the info you don't
believe. That is what I did before writing the reply.
secondly why are you pointing out that some people will need aerial
improvements. If you are in a service area and the signal is adequate then
there is no problem if not then yes get the aerial sorted and it will be ok.
if you cannot receive it i would suggest you don't use it. but the point
was the price. the PRICE . As you can see that is not changed by you being
funny about the aerial. if a person gets good Freeview in a service area
that has HD then the price of going to 5 HD channels is less than going for
Freesat and getting 1+itvHD as i said.
BUT if you cannot get Freeview HD in your area than you are right it is not
a working proposition. ANYBODY if you can't get it don't try. PLEASE don't
try because this group will slate you for it . oh in pity's sake don't try.
omg. what ever next
Gary
Mark Carver
No, it's a correct and valid mode for HD, simply not 'top draw' (much like the
Beeb generally in so many areas these days)
Ian
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes
>I followed this link, and clicked where the page says ...
>"For more information on how Freeview HD rolls out to the whole of the
>UK, view our map". The screen went dark and nothing happened. Is
>this because I don't have Flash installed (there wasn't the usual
>message), or intended as a demonstration of what Freeview HD will
>actually look like?
>
>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:09:08 +0100, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>wrote:
>>
>> For futher details please see --
>>
>> <http://www.freeview.co.UK/freeview/Services/Freeview-HD>
It does require Flash.
--
Ian
Ian
<mark....@invalid.invalid> writes
>J G Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:56:21 +0000, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>
>>> Funny that the DSat BBC-HD channel has been reduced to 9Mbps isn't
>>>it?
>> Not really -- the BBC likes to maintain a policy of "platform
>>neutrality",
>> so the picture quality needs to be equally bad on satellite as well as
>> terrestrial.
>> And to start with, 1440 is not even the correct HD horizontal width
>>of resolution.
>
>No, it's a correct and valid mode for HD, simply not 'top draw' (much
>like the Beeb generally in so many areas these days)
>
>
--
Ian
Alan
<david...@tesco.net> wrote
>Freesat has 2 HD channels, BBC HD and ITV1.
Well it's 10:38 in the morning.
Where is ITV HD?
Where is there anything other than an advertising loop on BBC1 HD?
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Mark Carver
> In message <7t1vfn...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
> <mark....@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> And to start with, 1440 is not even the correct HD horizontal width
>>> of resolution.
>>
>> No, it's a correct and valid mode for HD, simply not 'top draw' (much
>> like the Beeb generally in so many areas these days)
>>
>>
> I take you mean "top drawer"?
Yes, but I'm saving on bandwidth to
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> if you cannot receive it i would suggest you don't use it. but the point
> was the price. the PRICE . As you can see that is not changed by you being
> funny about the aerial. if a person gets good Freeview in a service area
> that has HD then the price of going to 5 HD channels is less than going for
> Freesat and getting 1+itvHD as i said.
Don't be simple - you were comparing price - if you need an aerial
upgrade, this adds to the price. There's a "best case / worst case"
for Freeview HD just like Freesat HD.
Plus you keep saying 5 HD channels - it appears one of us can't count.
The optimistic total (i.e. if five keep their promise) is _FOUR_ -
unless you count _BOTH_ CH4 and S4C, which seems silly, for obvious
reasons.
The differences are:
Freeview HD should soon have CH4 HD, which Freesat does not have.
Freeview HD should eventually have five HD, which Freesat does not
have.
That's the difference - 2 vs 4 - assuming these channels don't come to
Freesat.
People say "there's no capacity at 2D for Freesat" - yet the BBC have
been doing exactly that - clearing capacity. Mayby they know something
that we don't?
Academic to me - our relay doesn't switch until 2011, and then we'll
get three muxes. Big deal. Anyone who can wait _that_ long before
getting widescreen, more than 4 channels, and HD probably isn't that
interested in TV anyway!
Cheers,
David.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> "Mike" <mikere...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8dfe348f-69bb-4869...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 4, 11:
>
> > "BBC, ITV and Channel 4 HD channels will be available along with S4C
> > HD in Wales bringing your favourite soaps and dramas, documentaries
> > and even the 2010 World Cup in full HD glory. Five HD aims to launch
> > on Freeview HD in late 2010."
>
> That will kill Freesat off then.
Switch over might. Plenty of use for it before then.
Plenty of use after, if you want 6 sports multiscreens rather than 1,
and if you are served by a relay RX (which will never carry all the SD
ITV and channel 4 offshoots).
I just wish they'd pick one service, make it available to everyone,
and put all the FTA content on in decent quality. We've been playing
at this for a decade in the UK, and still lots of people can't receive
Freeview at all, many will never receive the full Freeview service,
and Freesat arrived late with little commitment. Then there's the
quality...!
Cheers,
David.
tim....
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message news:126532...@vo.lu...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:42:14 +0000, tim.... wrote:
>
>> Probably not, 50% of the country still wont have the possibility of HD
>> then
>
> 50% of the geographic coverage, or 50% of the televisual viewing
> population.
No idea.
If you read the press release it said that they expect to have 50% HD
coverage in time for the start of the World Cup.
Much of the rest has to wait until DSO for their area until they get (2012
for me! Not that I would even spend 30 quid on it).
tim
Dave W
> In Argos next week
>
> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051649
Notice the word "upscales"? Surely this means it converts ordinary SD
to drive your HD telly?
Dave W
reslfj
>
What do you know ?
You can't even count to 3 HD channels now
and 4 by year-end.
Lars :)
PS! You may keep your money as you like.
But a lot of us - do not care much for
such small amounts.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
It receives both SD and HD channels. It upscales the SD channels.
John Morley
"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7t1vfn...@mid.individual.net...
>J G Miller wrote:
>>
>> And to start with, 1440 is not even the correct HD horizontal width of
>> resolution.
>
> No, it's a correct and valid mode for HD, simply not 'top draw' (much like
> the Beeb generally in so many areas these days)
There aren't many recording formats that record the full 1920 horizontal
pixels so horizontal resolution is often lost long before transmission
anyway. In my experience HDCAM is the most used broadcast HD tape format and
it down-samples each line to 1440 pixels and further reduces the chrominance
sampling to 3:1:1. Running costs are comparable with standard definition
Digital Betacam, which is probably why it's chosen: there's an expectation
to work in HD put there's no extra money to do so. The "top drawer" tape
format from Sony is HDCAM SR but it's much more expensive and, sadly, only
tends to be used because of its audio capability (12 discrete tracks, as
opposed to HDCAM's four).
Mark Carver
Fully agree and acknowledge, but there's nothing to stop 1920 being used for
live broadcasts ? AIUI Sky Sports HD do ?
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> "Mark Carver" <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Check BBC HD's technical requirements - from November 2008 they have
_only_ accepted HDCAM SR. 1440-pixel HDCAM isn't allowed any more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/hd_summary_delivery_formats_v1_09.pdf
Ironic, given that they seem to have no intention of using all those
pixels!
For now, they're happy if the camera itself filters to 1440 pixels. In
a few specific cases (i.e. where nothing better is/was available for
slo-mo work) they're happy with 720-line cameras.
Cheers,
David.
John Morley
news:57eb9334-da25-40bd...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Check BBC HD's technical requirements - from November 2008 they have
> _only_ accepted HDCAM SR. 1440-pixel HDCAM isn't allowed any more.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/hd_summary_delivery_formats_v1_09.pdf
>
> Ironic, given that they seem to have no intention of using all those
> pixels!
>
> For now, they're happy if the camera itself filters to 1440 pixels. In
> a few specific cases (i.e. where nothing better is/was available for
> slo-mo work) they're happy with 720-line cameras.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
I'm afraid that's very misleading and not really representative of what
actually happens. HDCAM SR is a wonderful format (I used an SRW-5800 in dual
input mode this weekend, recording two 1080i/25 video sources at the same
time) but it's considered too expensive for general use. If an HDCAM SR tape
is delivered to RED BEE for transmission you can rest assured that it is
highly unlikely that the format was used for acquisition or during editing.
There's a whole plethora of cheaper and lower quality alternatives that are
used in preference, including (in increasing order of bit-rate) HDV, XDCAM
HD420, XDCAM EX, XDCAM HD422, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM, HD-D5. Apart from that, it
will have been edited using either the Avid DNxHD or the Apple ProRes codec
and if it's an OB (live or turned round/edited on site) it will have been
linked from the site at a low bit-rate. All the aforementioned codecs run at
significantly less than the ~440 Mb/s that HDCAM SR uses and most of them
either down-sample, use only 8-bit samples (compared with the 10-bit
resolution of the HDSDI signal), or reduce the chrominance resolution, or
some combination of these. If you're making a live programme in a studio you
might stand a better chance of at least starting with a higher bit-rate but
any inserts played from tape or, as is more likely these days, from a
server, will be much more highly compressed.
John Morley
>
> Fully agree and acknowledge, but there's nothing to stop 1920 being used
> for live broadcasts ? AIUI Sky Sports HD do ?
I haven't done much for Sky recently but when I did the posterity recordings
were done on HDCAM, with a single copy of the mixer output on HDCAM SR so as
to be able to record the discrete surround audio tracks without having to
resort to the PITA that is Dolby E.
The favourite tool of the VT department on an OB is the LSM server, made by
EVS. By default it down-samples to 960 pixels per line and runs a JFIF
(sometimes referred to as M-JPEG) intra-field codec at 100 Mb/s in 1080i/25
mode. Few operators see fit to change these parameters for fear of running
out of network bandwidth when using multiple LSMs. I'm pretty much a lone
voice there, I'm afraid. These devices are used for slow motion replays, for
playing in inserts and for building playlists of highlights and analysis.
Most sport OBs have a radio camera or two, using a high degree of
compression and there's also the problem of linking the output back to
London and that's done at typically less than 50 Mb/s, which involves
discarding an awful lot of data. No, I think it highly unlikely that the
full horizontal resolution makes it all the way back to the viewer.
The situation is likely to be different in a studio but there don't seem to
be that many live programmes made in studios these days.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:57eb9334-da25-40bd...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Check BBC HD's technical requirements - from November 2008 they have
> > _only_ accepted HDCAM SR. 1440-pixel HDCAM isn't allowed any more.
>
Well, yes, but they list the limits for those too - anything below a
certain bitrate is counted as SD, not HD.
Point taken that none of it (except a direct live studio feed) matches
HDCAM SR. But OTOH, it's not all 1440 pixel either.
I understand the problems of transcoding, but when the final bitrate
is 9Mbps, there must come a point where throwing more bits at it
upstream is invisible to the viewer. Whereas, assuming the camera
actually captures it and nothing in between remove it, 1920 vs 1440
can be [i]just[/i] visible.
(These are arguments from theory - I don't see many pictures where it
would make a difference).
Cheers,
David.
John Morley
news:fe9d622a-783d-4498...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well, yes, but they list the limits for those too - anything below a
> certain bitrate is counted as SD, not HD.
>
> Point taken that none of it (except a direct live studio feed) matches
> HDCAM SR. But OTOH, it's not all 1440 pixel either.
>
> I understand the problems of transcoding, but when the final bitrate
> is 9Mbps, there must come a point where throwing more bits at it
> upstream is invisible to the viewer. Whereas, assuming the camera
> actually captures it and nothing in between remove it, 1920 vs 1440
> can be [i]just[/i] visible.
>
> (These are arguments from theory - I don't see many pictures where it
> would make a difference).
>
> Cheers,
> David.
You can argue theory until the cows come home, as many people do in this
newsgroup. I'm just telling you what happens in practice. Down-sampling from
1920 pixels to 1440 gives an instant saving of 25% - a substantial and very
useful amount. Reducing the sample size from 10 bits to 8 bits gives an
instant saving of 20%. Both techniques are used extensively. You say that
"1920 vs 1440 can be *just* visible", which can be turned round to read
"1920 vs 1440 is *almost* invisible" - that makes a compelling excuse in a
bit-rate starved world.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
I wasn't arguing against anything you said about the real world.
Also, not sure _anyone_ is attempting to broadcast video at 10-
bits ;).
Cheers,
David.
John Morley
news:9b31c216-0132-471e...@19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wasn't arguing against anything you said about the real world.
>
> Also, not sure _anyone_ is attempting to broadcast video at 10-
> bits ;).
>
> Cheers,
> David.
It mostly isn't even originated or archived at 10-bit resolution.
Mark Carver
> You can argue theory until the cows come home, as many people do in this
> newsgroup. I'm just telling you what happens in practice. Down-sampling from
> 1920 pixels to 1440 gives an instant saving of 25% - a substantial and very
> useful amount. Reducing the sample size from 10 bits to 8 bits gives an
> instant saving of 20%. Both techniques are used extensively. You say that
> "1920 vs 1440 can be *just* visible", which can be turned round to read
> "1920 vs 1440 is *almost* invisible" - that makes a compelling excuse in a
> bit-rate starved world.
It does, but then I'll turn the question round again, why do some broadcasters
bother to transmit at 1920 x 1080 ? Back to the Beeb, their top rated weekend
show Strictly Come Dancing, which admittedly contains lots of horrible
processed SD and HD video loaded up on onto EVS, is still a live programme,
with substantial live content, using 1920 x 1080 cameras and vision mixer.
It's a beancounters world now, even on services that should be the pinnacle of
technical excellence :-(
John Morley
>
> It does, but then I'll turn the question round again, why do some
> broadcasters bother to transmit at 1920 x 1080 ?
Well, one possible answer is that they could be wasting bits on that extra
horizontal resolution that might be better used to encode, say, motion
vectors more accurately. I don't think it's so much a question of being
bothered as deciding on a particular balance of trade-offs. Someone else
faced with the same limitations would undoubtedly choose a different balance
and no doubt cause offense to a different group of people. I don't see the
point in trying to code up fine detail if there's insufficient bit-rate to
represent it and the consequent coefficient decimation results in
blockiness.
As an example of how it's possible to arrive at a number of different
solutions to a problem, having thought long and hard about high definition
television I would suggest that 1280 x 720 lines, progressively scanned at
50 Hz might well give a subjectively higher quality user experience, given
the bandwidth available, than 1920 x 1080 lines, interlace scanned at 25 Hz
for the following reasons:
1. The 50 Hz frame rate would handle motion noticeably better than 25 Hz
interlaced.
2. 720 progressively scanned lines give a similar apparent vertical
resolution to 1080 interlaced lines when the subject is moving. Admittedly,
for a still picture 1080 lines give more vertical resolution than 720 but an
important feature of television pictures is the fact that they move!
Interlace is just another example of a trade-off, a compromise between
vertical resolution and the ability to portray motion.
3. The horizontal resolution is worth considering though: a 1080-line
picture with 1920 horizontal pixels has an advantage over a 720-line picture
with 1280 horizontal pixels but that advantage is considerably reduced if
the former is reduced to 1440 horizontal pixels.
4. Uncompressed 720p/50 has similar bit-rate requirements to 1080i/25 (both
having to deal with ~50 Mpixel/s) but for comparable content the former
compresses more easily than the latter so you should expect fewer
compression artefacts.
5. Modern display devices are better suited to progressively scanned
material. 1080i/25 has its uses as an interim standard that promises
compatibility with 1080p/50 in the future but if we can't do the former to
everyone's satisfaction what chance is there of achieving the latter?
Roderick Stewart
> > It does, but then I'll turn the question round again, why do some
> > broadcasters bother to transmit at 1920 x 1080 ?
>
> Well, one possible answer is that they could be wasting bits on that extra
> horizontal resolution that might be better used to encode, say, motion
> vectors more accurately.
I wonder how well the accountants who make the decisions nowadays would
understand the encoding of motion vectors?
Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> "Mark Carver" <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:7te3vm...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > It does, but then I'll turn the question round again, why do some
> > broadcasters bother to transmit at 1920 x 1080 ?
>
> Well, one possible answer is that they could be wasting bits on that extra
> horizontal resolution that might be better used to encode, say, motion
> vectors more accurately. I don't think it's so much a question of being
> bothered as deciding on a particular balance of trade-offs.
You mean like cutting the bitrate from 20Mbps to 16Mbps to 9Mbps
because "the encoder improved" - rather than keeping the same bitrate
but increasing the horizontal pixel-count from 1440 to 1920 because
"the encoder improved"? ;-)
Cheers,
David.