When will we (if ever) be getting BBC News HD????

pinkteddyx64pinkteddyx64 Posts: 2,467
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I know this might have been mentioned before, but who here think (if ever) the BBC will relocate the news to new HD compatible studios and launch an HD version of BBC News? Now I know you might be thinking what benefit there would be in that, but I can think of 2 reasons: 1. Sky already have an HD version of their news channel. 2. The on screen graphics such as the scrolling headline bar at the bottom would look more clearer.

Also, even if C5 take the last Freeview HD slot, room could be made bon the terrestrial network by getting rid of some of these repeats channels like Dave, and not launching Challenge etc.

So who here thinks an HD version of BBC News would be viable and could launch within the next few years?

Comments

  • chemical2009bchemical2009b Posts: 5,250
    Forum Member
    It probably won't launch until at least the Broadcasting House move.
  • lbearlbear Posts: 1,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The main news on BBC1 will be in HD after the move if the plans go ahead.

    Your suggestion about the terrestrial slot would not be possible because it would mean the mux would have to change from DVB-T to DVB-T2.

    If, however, a second T2 mux became available after DSO following the auction next year of the 600MHz band, the commercial services could move to that and the existing one revert to use by the BBC. That would allow all the entertainment and children's channels to have HD slots and leave one open for BBC News.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,687
    Forum Member
    Who cares, really? They probably will, but what a waste of money!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well I'm sure the 'going live' pics of reporters outside empty court rooms, hours before the dreaded suspect turns up, or mobile phone relays from reporters in Afghanistan, will look superb in HD.
  • thedarklordthedarklord Posts: 2,162
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd be up for BBC News HD but I know some people will be asking if there's any point. Also I think it costs quite a bit of money to launch a HD channel?
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Who cares, really? They probably will, but what a waste of money!

    True, Sky News HD was 'different'when it first started, but now I really can't see the point, bad news is bad news beit SD or HD, I find myself just hitting 501 now, and don't bother with 517!

    as for Sky Sports HD they could switch that off overnight and I would not miss it (many might tho :) )
  • FloydoidFloydoid Posts: 377
    Forum Member
    getting rid of some of these repeats channels like Dave

    Dave is actually one of the better channels on Freeview.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 207
    Forum Member
    Maybe when Sky brings out Sky News 3D. Come on, must be on the cards somewhere along the line in the future. XD
  • Aaron_ScotlandAaron_Scotland Posts: 8,487
    Forum Member
    skipai wrote: »
    Maybe when Sky brings out Sky News 3D. Come on, must be on the cards somewhere along the line in the future. XD

    Heh, Not unless 3D camera rigs become easier to use. Otherwise it isn't worth the cost. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 402
    Forum Member
    HD isn't really needed for news. Widescreen was a bigger step forward because people were switching to widescreen TVs and it would have looked old fashioned if they didn't change.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,832
    Forum Member
    foxla wrote: »
    True, Sky News HD was 'different'when it first started, but now I really can't see the point, bad news is bad news beit SD or HD, I find myself just hitting 501 now, and don't bother with 517!

    as for Sky Sports HD they could switch that off overnight and I would not miss it (many might tho :) )

    Me too. News is news, I don't watch it for the picture quality...
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    foxla wrote: »
    True, Sky News HD was 'different'when it first started, but now I really can't see the point, bad news is bad news beit SD or HD, I find myself just hitting 501 now, and don't bother with 517!

    From February will you hit 517 so you can watch in SD?

    It's not just the pictures though, the smaller and additional graphics are worth it.
  • pakokelso93pakokelso93 Posts: 11,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    From February will you hit 517 so you can watch in SD?

    It's not just the pictures though, the smaller and additional graphics are worth it.

    Sky news isn't worth it, full stop.... in a lot of people's opinion!! :p
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 181
    Forum Member
    skipai wrote: »
    Maybe when Sky brings out Sky News 3D. Come on, must be on the cards somewhere along the line in the future. XD

    See the dead bodies coming toward you in 3D :D
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    From February will you hit 517 so you can watch in SD?

    It's not just the pictures though, the smaller and additional graphics are worth it.

    No, no doubt it will be the HD version, but not bothered either way, as i say News is News, it's not as if you sit down and watch it all day, dip in, dip out, in some respects the additional graphics are a distraction.
    I'm sure the HD channel used could have been put to better use and SSN HD
  • jeffersbnljeffersbnl Posts: 4,721
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MalUK wrote: »
    HD isn't really needed for news. Widescreen was a bigger step forward because people were switching to widescreen TVs and it would have looked old fashioned if they didn't change.
    Its exactly the same for HD. Its becoming the standard. Far more so than SD widescreen ever did (looking at a worldwide perspective).
  • ShaunIOWShaunIOW Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BBC News in HD seems pretty pointless to me, I never bother with Sky News HD but Sky Sports News is no better in HD than it was in SD.
  • davies88davies88 Posts: 1,969
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    foxla wrote: »
    True, Sky News HD was 'different'when it first started, but now I really can't see the point, bad news is bad news beit SD or HD, I find myself just hitting 501 now, and don't bother with 517!

    as for Sky Sports HD they could switch that off overnight and I would not miss it (many might tho :) )

    So you enter a 3 digit number either way, and you would rather choose 501, because you can't be bothered to enter 517 for a HD version you have access for?

    To me, its not just about better picture, but smaller graphics and more information.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 402
    Forum Member
    jeffersbnl wrote: »
    Its exactly the same for HD. Its becoming the standard. Far more so than SD widescreen ever did (looking at a worldwide perspective).
    They could always switch to HD, but continue to broadcast in SD until it's justified for the likes of Freeview. Just seems like a waste dedicating a Freeview HD channel to news.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    once HD cameras are common place, there is no reason not to film the news in HD, but right now I see no reason to go any specail effort.
  • DejaVoodooDejaVoodoo Posts: 5,764
    Forum Member
    Hopefully when the BBC News channel goes HD, they will update the graphics package and use the whole screen and not just go 4:3 safe mode.
  • abbabb Posts: 498
    Forum Member
    Mr-Stabby wrote: »
    See the dead bodies coming toward you in 3D :D
    could be worse how about kay burley in 3d ? Yes perish the thought.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,687
    Forum Member
    DejaVoodoo wrote: »
    Hopefully when the BBC News channel goes HD, they will update the graphics package and use the whole screen and not just go 4:3 safe mode.
    Now that's a POV I can agree with :)
Sign In or Register to comment.