If so why didn't they mention that on the press release? If they are launching on Freeview it would seem a bit odd not to launch on Freesat as well.
I agree.
But why then say "waiting to be allocated bandwidth and also until after the retuning after the final UK area goes digital."
What relevance is the final UK DSO to whether or not they can be on freesat? and Bandwidth is just a case of paying for some on satellite.
It doesn't make sense, so until it does, to me it's just unfounded rumour because they have not given comprehensible FACTS.
I do HOPE they come to freesat, but I won't hold my breath.
IF as I suspect (fear?) they are taking about time sharing more 4 HD and film 4 HD on the 5th freeview HD slot, then expect them to have different LCN's (like the BBC's time shared BBC3 / CBBC etc) and expect freeview to start claiming "6 HD channels"
Someone's mentioned the worse possibilty. to launch both FTA time shared on freeview, and to launch as PAY channels on sky. (As Yesterday etc do)
How could they do that on Freeview? - both channels are on air at the same time. If they time shared on Freeview then they wouldn't be Film4 and More4.
However, the massive costs of Freeview make it unlikely that it's an option.
I seriously doubt that will ever happen - why would VM, who are already losing money, deliberately increase their losses?
Virgin Media is in profit, a very modest one though!;) Like Sky, it prices its products to get the maximum profit. But neither wants to offer and price in exactly the same way or the two become easy to compare and then get treaten as a commodity and driven down in price. VM's decision on an HD subscription is a marketing, not cost-of-infrastructure, decision.
VM will either keep only a limited range of HD channels, or introduce an HD subscription (possibly in another guise - such as increasing all subscriptions to cover extra HD channels).
Unfortunately VM are stuck between a rock and a hard place, their far higher infrastructure costs mean that Sky can operate at a profit where as VM at a similar subscription rate run at a loss.
It's difficult to know what VM can do?, the whole idea of cable TV was badly flawed - but of course VM didn't actually create it, they just took over the already failing companies.
VM doesn't have far higher infrastructure costs, but it does have to pay interest on its debts so has highr costs. It's this that means Sky is a massive cash-generator and VM is not.
I don't think the idea of cable tv is flawed technically, especially not on running costs and given the development of the internet the infrastructure can be used for this too at very little addittional cost. But I do think the way the UK government licensed it meant it was flawed - having to lay cables underground, having lots of small franchises without economies of scale, and not allowing incumbents Rediffusion to provide services automatically all added hugely to the costs and consumer confusion whilst Sky with a uniform offering across the country was able to mop up the pay-tv market.
Going forwards, having one connection and provider for broadband and tv will be a far cheaper solution than having millions of satellite dishes and expensive ongoing satellite launches. Sky knows that and is taking a proactive multi-platform approach.
Virgin Media is in profit, a very modest one though!;)
You mean they posted a modest profit ONE year, as a result of restructuring somewhat, and because it included the money they got from selling their TV channels to Sky.
VM doesn't have far higher infrastructure costs
I don't quite know how you come to that conclusion?, the infrastructure costs of cabling are absolutely massive - greatly more so than even terrestrial broadcasting. Whereas satellite is extremely cheap in comparison.
The ongoing running costs of cable are huge as well - maintenance and repair is incredibly expensive - I've maintained two small cable systems, it's an expensive nightmare (we were VERY pleased to close and strip them out).
I fully agree that the entire cable franchise thing was badly handled - and I was amazed at the time that companies were falling over each other to bid for them (at least in large towns and cities). I said back then it wouldn't work, and it didn't - with none able to run at a profit.
Any one else noticed since this Film 4 HD was announced for sky they stopped showing the afternoon film on Channel 4 HD (obviously SD as well). I used to record those films in HD, some were quite good. Now I struggle to find any film in HD on channel 4.
Any one else noticed since this Film 4 HD was announced for sky they stopped showing the afternoon film on Channel 4 HD (obviously SD as well). I used to record those films in HD, some were quite good. Now I struggle to find any film in HD on channel 4.
I think this is a seasonal thing, the classic afternoon films are back on now, some in HD:
Miracle on 34th Street (1947) HD Wednesday 12:45 - 14:40
7th Cavalry (1956) HD Thursday 13:05 - 14:40
I Was Monty's Double (1958) Friday 12:40 - 14:40
An American Guerrilla in the Philippines (1950) Monday 12:35 - 14:40
The Thirty-Nine Steps (1959) Tuesday 12:50 - 14:40
Passport to Pimlico (1949) Wednesday 13:00 - 14:40
Lover Come Back (1961) Thursday 12:35 - 14:40
The Gunfighter (1950) Friday 13:05 - 14:40
I had noticed they were back & have recorded a couple, but in the 2 or more years I had my Freesat Blueray recorder I don't remember the films being off for such a long length before.
Has they were filmed 24fps,how can HD improve them,I only ask out of interest.
Most film has been recorded in 24fps for yonks, film also has a much greater native resolution than 1080p HD, up to 20 Megapixels+ depending on the quality & condition of the film, compared to the 2 Megapixels 1080p HD gives.
Has they were filmed 24fps,how can HD improve them,I only ask out of interest.
Being HD it will show a lot of detail in the picture, running at 25p there will be a noticeable difference in sound pitch and speed but we're mostly used to that now.
Being HD it will show a lot of detail in the picture, running at 25p there will be a noticeable difference in sound pitch and speed but we're mostly used to that now.
I wondered about sound, 24 fps chosen in place of silent 18fps to stop a lot of wow & flutter on optical tracks, I wonder do the
remastered films on FTA TV now have magnetic tracks etc.
I note films at the local Rank now in 48FPS.
Though some films are shown in HD as 4.3. format,I agree more lines,more resolution.
Most film has been recorded in 24fps for yonks, film also has a much greater native resolution than 1080p HD, up to 20 Megapixels+ depending on the quality & condition of the film, compared to the 2 Megapixels 1080p HD gives.
On HD PQ, I've noticed that on a lot of OB shots & BBC documentaries the cameras being used have 720P labels on them. Does this mean that HD isn't being fully optimized with 1080i broadcast output - is the picture being upscaled from 720P to 1080i? Should we also expect a major fire sale of cameras etc. with the advent of 4k if it's to become the new broadcast standard for HD?
Being HD it will show a lot of detail in the picture, running at 25p there will be a noticeable difference in sound pitch and speed but we're mostly used to that now.
Pitch usually doesn't change because these days we can digitally alter the speed of the audio track without affecting pitch. You can do this using any basic audio editor.
Older transfers may have a pitch change but this is usually really obvious if you know what the actors really sound like. A good example is Friends - the versions shown on Channel 4 (and its sister channels) for years and years were all pitch-shifted. If you watch the new HD transfers or the original US versions, the older UK versions sound chipmunk-like in comparison.
On HD PQ, I've noticed that on a lot of OB shots & BBC documentaries the cameras being used have 720P labels on them. Does this mean that HD isn't being fully optimized with 1080i broadcast output - is the picture being upscaled from 720P to 1080i? Should we also expect a major fire sale of cameras etc. with the advent of 4k if it's to become the new broadcast standard for HD?
Everything has probably been 1080i for years now. In the very early days some stuff would've been converted from 720p.
On HD PQ, I've noticed that on a lot of OB shots & BBC documentaries the cameras being used have 720P labels on them. Does this mean that HD isn't being fully optimized with 1080i broadcast output - is the picture being upscaled from 720P to 1080i? Should we also expect a major fire sale of cameras etc. with the advent of 4k if it's to become the new broadcast standard for HD?
In the days when the BBC had a list of Approved Cameras they were almost all 1080i
except the Panasonic Varicam which was very very widely used for Natural History Shooting - for good reasons.
So really only Nat Hist was being acquired in 720P which has the same vertical resolution at 1080i
But now days everything has at least 1080 line sensors ....
the BBC requirements are now in EBU R118 .....
But although greater than HDsensors are currently being use for acquisition -
some cinematic 4K's (whatever that is!!!!) some UHD1 but a lot in between with single sensor debayering
It is unlikely that UHD1 will become a broadcast format as it is does not offer the improvement over HD ,
whilst UHD2 does - but a new format is quite a few years off..(and needd to be at a higher frame rate) ....
as we/ the world need to go HD emission ...
Older transfers may have a pitch change but this is usually really obvious if you know what the actors really sound like. A good example is Friends - the versions shown on Channel 4 (and its sister channels) for years and years were all pitch-shifted.
Being HD it will show a lot of detail in the picture, running at 25p there will be a noticeable difference in sound pitch and speed but we're mostly used to that now.
Few pages here about the supposed megapixel resolution of film, although the last probably accurately states you can't really exactly compare the two as film has chemical 'blobs' not pixels:
Comments
Maybe they will go FTA if they get the 5th DTT slot, otherwise delay the FTA plan on satellite and get a bit of money off Sky.
The problem with that reply from C4 is its so vague it could mean anything.
I agree.
But why then say "waiting to be allocated bandwidth and also until after the retuning after the final UK area goes digital."
What relevance is the final UK DSO to whether or not they can be on freesat? and Bandwidth is just a case of paying for some on satellite.
It doesn't make sense, so until it does, to me it's just unfounded rumour because they have not given comprehensible FACTS.
I do HOPE they come to freesat, but I won't hold my breath.
IF as I suspect (fear?) they are taking about time sharing more 4 HD and film 4 HD on the 5th freeview HD slot, then expect them to have different LCN's (like the BBC's time shared BBC3 / CBBC etc) and expect freeview to start claiming "6 HD channels"
Precisely. It makes it sound as if the ARE talking about freeview rather than freesat
Seems to have done the opposite! :eek:
Someone's mentioned the worse possibilty. to launch both FTA time shared on freeview, and to launch as PAY channels on sky. (As Yesterday etc do)
How could they do that on Freeview? - both channels are on air at the same time. If they time shared on Freeview then they wouldn't be Film4 and More4.
However, the massive costs of Freeview make it unlikely that it's an option.
That would be a shame, as for me E4 is the least watched of the 4 channels.
I don't think the idea of cable tv is flawed technically, especially not on running costs and given the development of the internet the infrastructure can be used for this too at very little addittional cost. But I do think the way the UK government licensed it meant it was flawed - having to lay cables underground, having lots of small franchises without economies of scale, and not allowing incumbents Rediffusion to provide services automatically all added hugely to the costs and consumer confusion whilst Sky with a uniform offering across the country was able to mop up the pay-tv market.
Going forwards, having one connection and provider for broadband and tv will be a far cheaper solution than having millions of satellite dishes and expensive ongoing satellite launches. Sky knows that and is taking a proactive multi-platform approach.
You mean they posted a modest profit ONE year, as a result of restructuring somewhat, and because it included the money they got from selling their TV channels to Sky.
I don't quite know how you come to that conclusion?, the infrastructure costs of cabling are absolutely massive - greatly more so than even terrestrial broadcasting. Whereas satellite is extremely cheap in comparison.
The ongoing running costs of cable are huge as well - maintenance and repair is incredibly expensive - I've maintained two small cable systems, it's an expensive nightmare (we were VERY pleased to close and strip them out).
I fully agree that the entire cable franchise thing was badly handled - and I was amazed at the time that companies were falling over each other to bid for them (at least in large towns and cities). I said back then it wouldn't work, and it didn't - with none able to run at a profit.
Dragoon Wells Massacre (1957) Tuesday 12:55 - 14:40
Miracle on 34th Street (1947) HD Wednesday 12:45 - 14:40
7th Cavalry (1956) HD Thursday 13:05 - 14:40
I Was Monty's Double (1958) Friday 12:40 - 14:40
An American Guerrilla in the Philippines (1950) Monday 12:35 - 14:40
The Thirty-Nine Steps (1959) Tuesday 12:50 - 14:40
Passport to Pimlico (1949) Wednesday 13:00 - 14:40
Lover Come Back (1961) Thursday 12:35 - 14:40
The Gunfighter (1950) Friday 13:05 - 14:40
I had noticed they were back & have recorded a couple, but in the 2 or more years I had my Freesat Blueray recorder I don't remember the films being off for such a long length before.
Has they were filmed 24fps,how can HD improve them,I only ask out of interest.
Same way as 1080p24 on blu-ray looks better than DVD.
I wondered about sound, 24 fps chosen in place of silent 18fps to stop a lot of wow & flutter on optical tracks, I wonder do the
remastered films on FTA TV now have magnetic tracks etc.
I note films at the local Rank now in 48FPS.
Though some films are shown in HD as 4.3. format,I agree more lines,more resolution.
Yes 24fps started 80 years ago or longer
Older transfers may have a pitch change but this is usually really obvious if you know what the actors really sound like. A good example is Friends - the versions shown on Channel 4 (and its sister channels) for years and years were all pitch-shifted. If you watch the new HD transfers or the original US versions, the older UK versions sound chipmunk-like in comparison.
Everything has probably been 1080i for years now. In the very early days some stuff would've been converted from 720p.
In the days when the BBC had a list of Approved Cameras they were almost all 1080i
except the Panasonic Varicam which was very very widely used for Natural History Shooting - for good reasons.
So really only Nat Hist was being acquired in 720P which has the same vertical resolution at 1080i
But now days everything has at least 1080 line sensors ....
the BBC requirements are now in EBU R118 .....
But although greater than HDsensors are currently being use for acquisition -
some cinematic 4K's (whatever that is!!!!) some UHD1 but a lot in between with single sensor debayering
It is unlikely that UHD1 will become a broadcast format as it is does not offer the improvement over HD ,
whilst UHD2 does - but a new format is quite a few years off..(and needd to be at a higher frame rate) ....
as we/ the world need to go HD emission ...
Few pages here about the supposed megapixel resolution of film, although the last probably accurately states you can't really exactly compare the two as film has chemical 'blobs' not pixels:
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html (amazing high res panoramas on this site)
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1470/what-is-the-maximum-resolution-of-photographic-film-in-pixels