It is not a service ... And I cannot see much different happening for the experiment.
If it does become a service I think the MIA will be passed ... But the PVT may be a lot more difficult .
Particularly as the other PSB do not see it as a way forwards
... And he BBC is unlikely to make up its mind....
Oversampled acquisition of HD is more likely to last us until UHD2....
The more crap like that the BeeB does, the happier I am that I now don't pay them a penny.
BBC HD was a ok channel, it was another channel that showed something different, but once it becomes BBC2 Hd, it will just be another run of the mill BBc channel just in higher quality.
Giving up tv licence 12 months ago was one of the better things i did. i should never have started paying it again when I gave it up the last time.
It is not a service ... And I cannot see much different happening for the experiment.
If it does become a service I think the MIA will be passed ... But the PVT may be a lot more difficult .
Particularly as the other PSB do not see it as a way forwards
... And he BBC is unlikely to make up its mind....
Oversampled acquisition of HD is more likely to last us until UHD2....
The first two are stages that the BBC Executive have to get through, to get a new BBC-branded, licence-fee-funded service launched.
MIA is Market Impact Assessment, and it's done by Ofcom. The PVT is a Public Value Test, done by the BBC Trust. The first is whether the BBC launching this service will have an adverse impact on the commercial competition. The second is whether it's a valuable use of the Licence Fee.
No to both from me. 3D is a fad and it's starting to die in the cinema again.
UHD2 is presumably some higher resolution than HD, probably 4K (3840x2160). Since HD is - in my opinion - already a waste of money at typical household screen sizes and viewing distances, again, higher resolutions are a ridiculous waste of money. You might expect a new compression method to eventually deliver the same quality in half the bitrate for the same screen size (if we're lucky and the historical trend continues). However, UHD requires 4x as many pixels, so overall it will take twice the space of an HD channel. We don't have the capacity.
UHD2 is presumably some higher resolution than HD, probably 4K (3840x2160). Since HD is - in my opinion - already a waste of money at typical household screen sizes and viewing distances, again, higher resolutions are a ridiculous waste of money. You might expect a new compression method to eventually deliver the same quality in half the bitrate for the same screen size (if we're lucky and the historical trend continues). However, UHD requires 4x as many pixels, so overall it will take twice the space of an HD channel. We don't have the capacity.
Don't we? I wouldn't expect any such future broadcasts from terrestrial transmitters or satellites, but this is where Superfast Broadband with multicast comes into its own.
Don't we? I wouldn't expect any such future broadcasts from terrestrial transmitters or satellites, but this is where Superfast Broadband with multicast comes into its own.
Flippin 'eck, your switched on. And of course, your talking about future HD services from YouView (but not the first HD offerings). And anyone else who wishes to provide such services too, of course.
native 4K is not much better than oversampled HD....
You cynic!
Given that broadcast HD is 1080i50 4:2:0 chroma at @~10Mbps, I can't agree. Pristine 1920x1080p50 would be another matter, but we don't have that. In any case, it comes down to screen size and viewing distance (and, hopefully, frame rates).
Since HD is - in my opinion - already a waste of money at typical household screen sizes and viewing distances, again, higher resolutions are a ridiculous waste of money. .
I have to disagree with that statement.
Wildlife shows, movies and Drama come alive with HD - indeed on my 42in TV I wouldn't watch a wildlife programme in SD.
Moreover - I'm concerned that HD should actually be shown at a higher bit-rate as it is currently done as I feel the bit-rate limit of Freeview inpacts on the quality that FreeSat could be aired at (because of platform neutrality)
As I type, I am watching BBC One HD on a 22in TV (1920x1080) and the quality of HD is discernible at that screen size.
its says "The 3D special will be broadcast using some of the BBC's HD capacity." So the question is this...
The bit about it being shown 'using some of BBC HD's capacity' seems to be an invention of Digital Spy. Other sources say it will be shown on one of the BBC HD channels. I guess that whoever wrote the DS article rephrased it and for the meaning wrong.
Given that broadcast HD is 1080i50 4:2:0 chroma at @~10Mbps, I can't agree. Pristine 1920x1080p50 would be another matter, but we don't have that. In any case, it comes down to screen size and viewing distance (and, hopefully, frame rates).
you optimist!
Who's to say 4k (and future HD) wont be broadcast @ ~5Mb/s
What is needed is a step change link HD was over SD - and that is probably UHD2 and (ideally) 300Hz....
UHD1 is NOT a great improvement as and end to end systems -
but obviously oversampling at capture for HD (as HD is for SD now) is a good thing - and also some up scaling at the home can be useful .....
But for a new end to end system it will need to be lots more lines lot more Frames/sec.
and may the the compression after HEVC/H.265.
The bit about it being shown 'using some of BBC HD's capacity' seems to be an invention of Digital Spy. Other sources say it will be shown on one of the BBC HD channels. I guess that whoever wrote the DS article rephrased it and for the meaning wrong.
The DS quote: The 3D special will be broadcast using some of the BBC's HD capacity.
The Doctor Who article does not make it clear what will be used - it is rather vague.
If as we expect BBC2 goes HD in April, then that is how that stream will stay - as BBC2 all the time.
That being the case, the BBC would not be able to use this capacity for Doctor Who 3D - they would have to put another channel up.
Given the BBC are using 8PSK, there are already 3 channels on 10.847 V - BBC1, BBC1 NI and BBC HD.
11.022 H has BBC1 Scotland and BBC1 Wales only.
So at least one more channel can be put on 11.022 H I find this article referred to in previous post only tells half the story and raises more questions than answers.
Of course, there is also this summer's Wimbledon final to contend with.
When I spoke to the BBC yesterday they said this Doctor Who 3D programme would be "on BBC HD" - but as that will not exist - we still don't know.
There is room for at least 4 channels on each mux using 8PSK. The BBC ought to use it given they have rented the transponder as a whole as far as I know, not part of it.
The Doctor Who article does not make it clear what will be used - it is rather vague.
If as we expect BBC2 goes HD in April, then that is how that stream will stay - as BBC2 all the time.
That being the case, the BBC would not be able to use this capacity for Doctor Who 3D - they would have to put another channel up.
They could simply schedule the DW 50th Anniversary 3D programme on BBC Two HD, leaving BBC Two SD schedule as it is. No big deal really.
Given the BBC are using 8PSK, there are already 3 channels on 10.847 V - BBC1, BBC1 NI and BBC HD.
11.022 H has BBC1 Scotland and BBC1 Wales only.
So at least one more channel can be put on 11.022 H I find this article referred to in previous post only tells half the story and raises more questions than answers.
They could simply schedule the DW 50th Anniversary 3D programme on BBC Two HD, leaving BBC Two SD schedule as it is. No big deal really.
And DTT?
How come you all forget that there is a spare channel on the BBC B mux? This was initially reserved for Five HD but they have given up their chance for the second time
BBC had put it out for bids for use but used it last year for the special HD red button service during the Olympics.
Comments
If it does become a service I think the MIA will be passed ... But the PVT may be a lot more difficult .
Particularly as the other PSB do not see it as a way forwards
... And he BBC is unlikely to make up its mind....
Oversampled acquisition of HD is more likely to last us until UHD2....
I was wondering that too. I don't know if they would or could offer it as an alternative on the red button?
The more crap like that the BeeB does, the happier I am that I now don't pay them a penny.
BBC HD was a ok channel, it was another channel that showed something different, but once it becomes BBC2 Hd, it will just be another run of the mill BBc channel just in higher quality.
Giving up tv licence 12 months ago was one of the better things i did. i should never have started paying it again when I gave it up the last time.
I got to keep you informed
MIA? PVT? UHD2?
The first two are stages that the BBC Executive have to get through, to get a new BBC-branded, licence-fee-funded service launched.
MIA is Market Impact Assessment, and it's done by Ofcom. The PVT is a Public Value Test, done by the BBC Trust. The first is whether the BBC launching this service will have an adverse impact on the commercial competition. The second is whether it's a valuable use of the Licence Fee.
No to both from me. 3D is a fad and it's starting to die in the cinema again.
UHD2 is presumably some higher resolution than HD, probably 4K (3840x2160). Since HD is - in my opinion - already a waste of money at typical household screen sizes and viewing distances, again, higher resolutions are a ridiculous waste of money. You might expect a new compression method to eventually deliver the same quality in half the bitrate for the same screen size (if we're lucky and the historical trend continues). However, UHD requires 4x as many pixels, so overall it will take twice the space of an HD channel. We don't have the capacity.
this is a noticeable difference to HD ..... and may be a WORLD standard in say 15-20 years time.....
UHD1 (4k) is being used for Acquisition and may be for display - but native 4K is not much better than oversampled HD....
Don't we? I wouldn't expect any such future broadcasts from terrestrial transmitters or satellites, but this is where Superfast Broadband with multicast comes into its own.
Flippin 'eck, your switched on. And of course, your talking about future HD services from YouView (but not the first HD offerings). And anyone else who wishes to provide such services too, of course.
Given that broadcast HD is 1080i50 4:2:0 chroma at @~10Mbps, I can't agree. Pristine 1920x1080p50 would be another matter, but we don't have that. In any case, it comes down to screen size and viewing distance (and, hopefully, frame rates).
We already have had it confirmed that that BBC HD will become BBC2HD before Easter, but in this article
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a458074/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-special-to-be-filmed-in-3d.html
its says "The 3D special will be broadcast using some of the BBC's HD capacity." So the question is this...
I have to disagree with that statement.
Wildlife shows, movies and Drama come alive with HD - indeed on my 42in TV I wouldn't watch a wildlife programme in SD.
Moreover - I'm concerned that HD should actually be shown at a higher bit-rate as it is currently done as I feel the bit-rate limit of Freeview inpacts on the quality that FreeSat could be aired at (because of platform neutrality)
As I type, I am watching BBC One HD on a 22in TV (1920x1080) and the quality of HD is discernible at that screen size.
Regards, daveac
The bit about it being shown 'using some of BBC HD's capacity' seems to be an invention of Digital Spy. Other sources say it will be shown on one of the BBC HD channels. I guess that whoever wrote the DS article rephrased it and for the meaning wrong.
Who's to say 4k (and future HD) wont be broadcast @ ~5Mb/s
UHD1 is NOT a great improvement as and end to end systems -
but obviously oversampling at capture for HD (as HD is for SD now) is a good thing - and also some up scaling at the home can be useful .....
But for a new end to end system it will need to be lots more lines lot more Frames/sec.
and may the the compression after HEVC/H.265.
The DS quote:
The 3D special will be broadcast using some of the BBC's HD capacity.
The BBC Press Office quote:
To be broadcast using some of the BBC’s HD capacity,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/ben-stephenson-bbcdrama.html
Your quote:
The bit about it being shown 'using some of BBC HD's capacity'
Spot the difference
Ha, first sentence:-
“Drama and the BBC are inseparable –
So True, on so many levels !!
If as we expect BBC2 goes HD in April, then that is how that stream will stay - as BBC2 all the time.
That being the case, the BBC would not be able to use this capacity for Doctor Who 3D - they would have to put another channel up.
Given the BBC are using 8PSK, there are already 3 channels on 10.847 V - BBC1, BBC1 NI and BBC HD.
11.022 H has BBC1 Scotland and BBC1 Wales only.
So at least one more channel can be put on 11.022 H I find this article referred to in previous post only tells half the story and raises more questions than answers.
Of course, there is also this summer's Wimbledon final to contend with.
When I spoke to the BBC yesterday they said this Doctor Who 3D programme would be "on BBC HD" - but as that will not exist - we still don't know.
There is room for at least 4 channels on each mux using 8PSK. The BBC ought to use it given they have rented the transponder as a whole as far as I know, not part of it.
This is the terrestrial forrum not the Satelitte Freesat forum.
Lars
And DTT?
How come you all forget that there is a spare channel on the BBC B mux? This was initially reserved for Five HD but they have given up their chance for the second time
BBC had put it out for bids for use but used it last year for the special HD red button service during the Olympics.
On Wednesday night, only 7.1% of its viewers watched BBC2's Brain Doctors in HD. Only 1.5% for Newsnight.
So for one hour, it's no big deal.