BBC to launch five new HD channels on Freeview

1457910

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Top Up TV might live on if they get awarded a multiplex and launch some pay channels
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Homers wrote: »
    Top Up TV might live on if they get awarded a multiplex and launch some pay channels

    Ummm... and where is this multiplex coming from?
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Homers wrote: »
    Top Up TV might live on if they get awarded a multiplex and launch some pay channels

    dont they do IPTV now anyways?
  • a516a516 Posts: 5,241
    Forum Member
    lotrjw wrote: »
    dont they do IPTV now anyways?
    No. Just "linear" transmissions via the SDN digital multiplex.
  • a516a516 Posts: 5,241
    Forum Member
    We still had to fight to get BBC Parliament full screen on freeview, It does seem to be the forgotten channel.
    The MPs can go and club together and buy some new HD equipment with their pay rise... :p Or put it on expenses...
    Political coverage, including PMQ's will be available on the other BBC HD channels.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    a516 wrote: »
    The MPs can go and club together and buy some new HD equipment with their pay rise... :p Or put it on expenses...
    Political coverage, including PMQ's will be available on the other BBC HD channels.

    lol making the MPs pay to upgrade Parliament to HD I like it:D
    we will still need the rest of the transmisson chain for the channel to be HD so that it can be a fully HD channel though, can we get them to pay for that too?
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lotrjw wrote: »
    lol making the MPs pay to upgrade Parliament to HD I like it:D

    That'll be the day. They probably won't want HD, there's too much risk of viewers being able to read confidential documents. Their expense claim forms, for example. ;)
  • lbearlbear Posts: 1,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moving BBC Parliament to HD would be more expensive than simply replacing the cameras in the Commons. There are also fixed cameras in the Lords and various committee rooms plus Westminster Hall plus the necessary upgrades of cabling and control rooms.

    I agree there would be some justification in upgrading just the Commons as this tends to be the chamber which is most often seen on the News.

    As far as BBC Parliament is concerned, this is a sort of electronic version of Hansard and really need not be in HD. Others have pointed out the lower than normal SD bit rate. In fact that is no problem in producing a surprisingly good signal partly because of the very static nature of the shots.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lbear wrote: »
    Moving BBC Parliament to HD would be more expensive than simply replacing the cameras in the Commons. There are also fixed cameras in the Lords and various committee rooms plus Westminster Hall plus the necessary upgrades of cabling and control rooms.

    I agree there would be some justification in upgrading just the Commons as this tends to be the chamber which is most often seen on the News.

    As far as BBC Parliament is concerned, this is a sort of electronic version of Hansard and really need not be in HD. Others have pointed out the lower than normal SD bit rate. In fact that is no problem in producing a surprisingly good signal partly because of the very static nature of the shots.

    The BBC always manage to do a HD feed for things like the opening of parliament, I suppose thats done by an OB team for BBC 1/News? but my point is its done when it matters. Also upgrading the commons would be good for things like PMQs not the whole channel yet, just so the feed to other channels (BBC News and BBC1&2) can originate in HD! Important for News as people want it in HD these days!
  • lbearlbear Posts: 1,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lotrjw wrote: »
    The BBC always manage to do a HD feed for things like the opening of parliament, I suppose thats done by an OB team for BBC 1/News? but my point is its done when it matters. Also upgrading the commons would be good for things like PMQs not the whole channel yet, just so the feed to other channels (BBC News and BBC1&2) can originate in HD! Important for News as people want it in HD these days!

    Yep the State Opening is a OB. I am always amused by this rather dubious claim that people want news in HD. It's fair enough for the main studios but consider how much of the news is actually in a quality very much below even SD quality using either phone footage or interviews using Skype and dodgy connections. People watch the news for news, not beautifully shot speeches to camera that's virtually all you get if you wait for the reporter plus HD uplink truck to arrive.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lbear wrote: »
    Yep the State Opening is a OB. I am always amused by this rather dubious claim that people want news in HD. It's fair enough for the main studios but consider how much of the news is actually in a quality very much below even SD quality using either phone footage or interviews using Skype and dodgy connections. People watch the news for news, not beautifully shot speeches to camera that's virtually all you get if you wait for the reporter plus HD uplink truck to arrive.

    its the way of things though and the BBC are making a good effort (albeit slowly due to money), to upgrade their 'in the field' reporter teams to HD for national news, so one day anything originating by the BBC will be in HD and only video they have 'aquired' from somewhere else (such as a moblie phone (although a few are capable of at least 720p HD now) or another countries broadcaster), may not be HD then!
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The BBC Standard issue http://jvcpro.eu/press/1138/bbc-purchase-of-jvc-professional-gy-hm650-camcorder/ can send the file over the internet - so that recorded pieces can be HD from the field.
    Likewise HEVC will enable HD over smaller IP connections... including (V)Sat ...

    And there is good point being made that news in HD is more appealing for the viewer - and gives authority to the interviewer/ reporter.

    But if all you have for a breaking news item is a phone - well that will (and Must ) be Used.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The BBC Standard issue http://jvcpro.eu/press/1138/bbc-purchase-of-jvc-professional-gy-hm650-camcorder/ can send the file over the internet - so that recorded pieces can be HD from the field.
    Likewise HEVC will enable HD over smaller IP connections... including (V)Sat ...

    And there is good point being made that news in HD is more appealing for the viewer - and gives authority to the interviewer/ reporter.

    But if all you have for a breaking news item is a phone - well that will (and Must ) be Used.

    Well there will soon be a time when a good number of moblies will be 1080i HD capable, so im sure even that wont be so much of an issue. Granted a 1080i camera on a phone will never be as good qually as a 1080i broadcast quallity camera, but it will give the impession of being better than SD at least!
  • BangersBangers Posts: 3,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are recurring comments from some forum members on here that ask 'why would we want the news to be HD'.

    Well my reply to them is - why wouldn't you want anything on TV to not be HD? Just like we expect all channels to be widescreen these days, in the future I think we'll expect channels to be HD by default.

    I can remember when BBC News 24 (as it was) went widescreen on digital television, for years it was just studio shots that were widescreen, with outside material in 4:3 (or stretched to 14:9). But now we take widescreen news for granted.

    As lotrjw says, many mobile phones on sale are already capable of filming in HD.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And news programmes are not simply about news footage - they include graphics, maps, printed extracts, studio reports ........ not to mention the presenters themselves.

    All of which contributes towards the overall news presentation.
  • MeMeMeIMeMeMeI Posts: 990
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bangers wrote: »
    There are recurring comments from some forum members on here that ask 'why would we want the news to be HD'.

    Well my reply to them is - why wouldn't you want anything on TV to not be HD? Just like we expect all channels to be widescreen these days, in the future I think we'll expect channels to be HD by default.

    I can remember when BBC News 24 (as it was) went widescreen on digital television, for years it was just studio shots that were widescreen, with outside material in 4:3 (or stretched to 14:9). But now we take widescreen news for granted.

    As lotrjw says, many mobile phones on sale are already capable of filming in HD.

    Having the numpties in the houses of parliament in HD will add nothing to the quality of the show.

    Garbage in Garbage out springs to mind, all it will do is increase the costs of coverage for the event.

    I for one would rather the extra costs went on quality factual programmes rather than PR exercises.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MeMeMeI wrote: »
    Having the numpties in the houses of parliament in HD will add nothing to the quality of the show.

    Garbage in Garbage out springs to mind, all it will do is increase the costs of coverage for the event.

    I for one would rather the extra costs went on quality factual programmes rather than PR exercises.

    if the camera heads were changed though we would at least get a better quallity SD image as it would be a downscale to 704*576 not 352*576 scaled up to 704*576 as we most likely get now! the rest of the chain can be done later when its cheaper to do so!
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Much depends upon who is providing the coverage and whether they deem it worthwhile to do so - if I am correct and it is indeed Millbank Studios (ITV) then they might see no commercial reason to do so.
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    And news programmes are not simply about news footage - they include graphics, maps, printed extracts, studio reports ........ not to mention the presenters themselves.

    All of which contributes towards the overall news presentation.

    All very true but BBC News is very dull at the best of times. I'd rather have Sky News in HD on Freeview.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    All very true but BBC News is very dull at the best of times. I'd rather have Sky News in HD on Freeview.
    Each to his own of course (I'm not entering into a BBC News Channel v. Sky News argument though - too tiresome).
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    None of the new channels announced so far would persuade me to rush out and buy a Freeview HD tuner or recorder. I stopped watching BBC3 when they cancelled Ideal and 2 Pints of Lager. The few BBC4 programmes I watch consist almost entirely of archive recordings. I don't have any use for the children's channels and consider BBC to be the dullest of the four news channels available on Freeview.

    And yet in spite of the large number of channels at their disposal I'm often forced to catch up with BBC programmes I've missed on the grossly inferior iPlayer, or download them illegally if I want to view them in HD.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,775
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    And yet in spite of the large number of channels at their disposal I'm often forced to catch up with BBC programmes I've missed on the grossly inferior iPlayer, or download them illegally if I want to view them in HD.

    Well it's your fault you are missing these programmes since by your own admission you won't buy a Freeview HD recorder.
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    OwenSmith wrote: »
    Well it's your fault you are missing these programmes since by your own admission you won't buy a Freeview HD recorder.

    They're considerably more expensive than SD recorders at present. I also suffer from dementia so would probably forget to set the timer on the recorder anyway.

    I don't have that problem with Channel 4. If I miss the first showing I can often watch it later on +1 and if I miss that can often watch it on More4 and if I forget that can watch it on 4seven, although not in HD of course.

    My old DVD recorder just died so I am seriously considering purchasing a Freeview HD recorder but none of the channels announced so far have swung it for me.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,775
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    They're considerably more expensive than SD recorders at present. I also suffer from dementia so would probably forget to set the timer on the recorder anyway.

    I don't have that problem with Channel 4. If I miss the first showing I can often watch it later on +1 and if I miss that can often watch it on More4 and if I forget that can watch it on 4seven, although not in HD of course.

    You complain about HD recorder prices and iPlayer low quality and yet your solution on non BBC channels is to watch what you missed on non HD channels. Some of these channels have significantly poorer picture quality than BBC SD channels. Wouldn't iPlayer give as good a result?

    I don't want the BBC to follow suit. +1 channels are a waste of precious bandwidth (record it or use iPlayer) and I don't want endless repeats like More4 and 4seven.

    Also if your dementia is bad enough that you forget to set the timer on the recorder, won't you also forget that you didn't watch the programme anyway and forget that you ever wanted to watch it? (Not trying to belittle your condition, old lady near my parents has severe dementia and it is terrible for all concerned.)
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    OwenSmith wrote: »
    You complain about HD recorder prices and iPlayer low quality and yet your solution on non BBC channels is to watch what you missed on non HD channels. Some of these channels have significantly poorer picture quality than BBC SD channels. Wouldn't iPlayer give as good a result?

    No, I find watching more than a few minutes of a programme on iPlayer intolerable. (My connection is quite good at 10Mb/s as well). Also I can watch Channel 4 repeats on my main TV in the living room whereas iPlayer is restricted to a PC monitor in a back bedroom.
    OwenSmith wrote: »
    Also if your dementia is bad enough that you forget to set the timer on the recorder, won't you also forget that you didn't watch the programme anyway and forget that you ever wanted to watch it?

    No, what often happens is I'm alerted to having missed a programme by an email forum update or by a news headline on Digital Spy.
Sign In or Register to comment.