How about HD Golf? Tiny white ball flying over a backdrop of long grass blowing in the wind, where just about every pixel in frame is changing? I suspect there are worse Sport challenges for HD compression than football, eg swimming - any static pixels on a swimming pool CU during a race?
Sorry - tea trolley beckons
Isn't it for that very reason that variable bit-rate and stat-muxing is used (dependant upon platform)?
With a 50 inch tv the different between me watching stuff on BBC 1 and a HD channel is night and day, I don't understand how you can say the difference is minimal..
A double digit percentage of the population have eye site so bad that they cant tell the difference between SD and HD.
A double digit percentage of the population have eye site so bad that they cant tell the difference between SD and HD.
OK, even allowing for no source for that, and allowing for those who additionally don't bother to have the TV settings changed from the default values, does that really mean that a move to HD is worthless, or that those who don't fall into that category should be denied access?
I'm not a big expert but I do have an HD ready TV. I do find that my DVDs do have a better quality picture if I play them through my PS3/HDMI set up rather than a DVD player/SCART combination.
The thing is though I can get DVDs for a fiver and don't see how a BluRay is going to make the film any better. How often do you watch extra or listen to commentaries.
I'm not a big expert but I do have an HD ready TV. I do find that my DVDs do have a better quality picture if I play them through my PS3/HDMI set up rather than a DVD player/SCART combination.
The thing is though I can get DVDs for a fiver and don't see how a BluRay is going to make the film any better. How often do you watch extra or listen to commentaries.
Maybe you should get hold of a well-mastered blu-ray and watch the film to see the improvement in PQ? Commentaries & special features are not the main reason for buying blu-ray over dvd.
You should have been around in the 1960's, when just about every programme from America used to exclaim loudly "In Color" when all we in this country could get was glorious black and white.
At least nowadays, if you've got the money you can get what's advertised. Back then, we couldn't!
"A double digit percentage of the population have eye site so bad that they cant tell the difference between SD and HD."
10% or 99%? Source please. And so?
It's easy - every single one of them is a Currys salesdrone - just look at the way their TVs are set up, with letterboxed images stretched across widescreen TVs.
There really is something wrong with those people. They have as much interest and care in their job as I did when I was cooking at Little Chef, 15 years ago, around about the same time a lot of people in the North West suddenly became mysteriously ill
Maybe you should get hold of a well-mastered blu-ray and watch the film to see the improvement in PQ? Commentaries & special features are not the main reason for buying blu-ray over dvd.
I'll throw in a mention for the dead, but not forgotten, HD-DVD. If you have an Xbox 360, get a cheap drive and the discs start from 99p on Amazon, mostly from third party sellers but the discs are often brand new. Blade Runner: Final Cut is incredible!
I'll throw in a mention for the dead, but not forgotten, HD-DVD. If you have an Xbox 360, get a cheap drive and the discs start from 99p on Amazon, mostly from third party sellers but the discs are often brand new. Blade Runner: Final Cut is incredible!
Agreed, when Blu-Ray won the Hi-Def DVD war, the prices of HD-DVD content went down through the floor and I was able to purchase a lot of great HD content at great prices.
Shame the format died because it was better than Blu-Ray in many areas IMO, but that's probably another discussion for another thread.
Isn't it for that very reason that variable bit-rate and stat-muxing is used (dependant upon platform)?
I have no idea, and have never even heard of stat-muxing? I provide source pictures. Usually 1920 x 1080i 1.5GB HD SDI stream. How they are dealt with, or compressed, down the line, is not my concern.
My point still stands. A golf ball is far more challenging than a football pitch. For the TX compression people down the chain.
I have no idea, and have never even heard of stat-muxing? I provide source pictures. Usually 1920 x 1080i 1.5GB HD SDI stream. How they are dealt with, or compressed, down the line, is not my concern.
I can appreciate that it is of no concern to you (being at the sharp end of the broadcast chain), but I gather that is how the limited mux bandwidth is shared out between channels when broadcast over DTT, sharing that depends upon the type of picture being transmitted (for example, quick-moving sport shots will be allocated more bandwidth than less busy shots that other programmes might have at that time).
. So it is of interest to those who complain about the end result on their TV screens, regardless as to the care taken at the live end, or the camera/production technology used at any particular outside broadcast.
Do you work in TV?
No. Do I need to? Indeed, why do I need to, when there are a number of posters in the Freeview forum who seem quite knowledgeable regarding DTT.transmissions (which is what I was referring to in my original post, sorry if I did not make that clear).
OK, even allowing for no source for that, and allowing for those who additionally don't bother to have the TV settings changed from the default values, does that really mean that a move to HD is worthless, or that those who don't fall into that category should be denied access?
Those were going to be my two major points. The majority of people who I know who cant tell the difference have very poor eyesight.
The majority of people don't have a clue how to setup a TV, Sky Sports News HD has proved this!
For me the difference between Sky HD Picture Quality and Sound V SD is night and day.
The problem with BBCHD is that it is on four different platforms and has a different channel number on each.
Would make continuity announcement a little longer.
But most people would only view it on one platform so don't need telling umpteen times.
The bloke in charge of DOGs at the BBC tried to use the 'different platform' thing as a reason for using DOGs, despite the fact you won't see the DOG until you *get* to the channel.
You have a small TV, the bigger the TV, the bigger the difference is and the worse SD looks.
Small TV! Whatever happened to the TV being in the corner of the room unobtrusive, it seems TV's are taking over the living room, so a bigger Tv makes SD look poor, thus you have to go to HD to get a good picture it seems.
TV compnaies and Manufacturers have got it made it seems! if you buy into their 'scheme':)
Analogue on my old 28" CRT was far superior to anything I get now on SD through Freeview or Sky. And that's on a £1800 plasma Pioneer. If it wasn't for techology supposedly evolving ie electronics manufacturers making new inferior tech to sell to the gullible public, CRT would be seen as far superior to plasma and LCD. We don't need TVs bigger than 32" in our homes, and CRT technology could cope with that screen size.
Digital TV is a big money making con. It's inferior in all respects, and the public have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Digital = Kings new Clothes, also decimalisation in 1971 also springs to mind, another price rise 'con' !
Comments
GET HD, GET HD!!...
They would sell loads of it then
A double digit percentage of the population have eye site so bad that they cant tell the difference between SD and HD.
10% or 99%? Source please. And so?
The thing is though I can get DVDs for a fiver and don't see how a BluRay is going to make the film any better. How often do you watch extra or listen to commentaries.
At least nowadays, if you've got the money you can get what's advertised. Back then, we couldn't!
It's easy - every single one of them is a Currys salesdrone - just look at the way their TVs are set up, with letterboxed images stretched across widescreen TVs.
There really is something wrong with those people. They have as much interest and care in their job as I did when I was cooking at Little Chef, 15 years ago, around about the same time a lot of people in the North West suddenly became mysteriously ill
I'll throw in a mention for the dead, but not forgotten, HD-DVD. If you have an Xbox 360, get a cheap drive and the discs start from 99p on Amazon, mostly from third party sellers but the discs are often brand new. Blade Runner: Final Cut is incredible!
Agreed, when Blu-Ray won the Hi-Def DVD war, the prices of HD-DVD content went down through the floor and I was able to purchase a lot of great HD content at great prices.
Shame the format died because it was better than Blu-Ray in many areas IMO, but that's probably another discussion for another thread.
If they launch Sky2 I bet it's no longer 107 it's 200+.
Plus all the 3D adverts. Yes HD is good. 3D is crap nobody wants it.
Sky are obsessed. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, with way down the EPG slots for HD, viewers need to be told where to find the HD channels.
Take The One Show as an example, the BBC never mention channel numbers and rarely mention when their programmes are available in HD.
Hence, The One Show's poor HD viewing figures - 4.66m SD, 31,000 HD.
Says it all really.
The problem with BBCHD is that it is on four different platforms and has a different channel number on each.
Would make continuity announcement a little longer.
I have no idea, and have never even heard of stat-muxing? I provide source pictures. Usually 1920 x 1080i 1.5GB HD SDI stream. How they are dealt with, or compressed, down the line, is not my concern.
My point still stands. A golf ball is far more challenging than a football pitch. For the TX compression people down the chain.
Do you work in TV?
. So it is of interest to those who complain about the end result on their TV screens, regardless as to the care taken at the live end, or the camera/production technology used at any particular outside broadcast.
No. Do I need to? Indeed, why do I need to, when there are a number of posters in the Freeview forum who seem quite knowledgeable regarding DTT.transmissions (which is what I was referring to in my original post, sorry if I did not make that clear).
Those were going to be my two major points. The majority of people who I know who cant tell the difference have very poor eyesight.
The majority of people don't have a clue how to setup a TV, Sky Sports News HD has proved this!
For me the difference between Sky HD Picture Quality and Sound V SD is night and day.
But most people would only view it on one platform so don't need telling umpteen times.
The bloke in charge of DOGs at the BBC tried to use the 'different platform' thing as a reason for using DOGs, despite the fact you won't see the DOG until you *get* to the channel.
(video contains swearing - by me)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcc1tr_points-of-view-the-truth-about-dogs_webcam
Hence, The One Show's poor HD viewing figures - 4.66m SD, 31,000 HD.
Says it all really.[/QUOTE]
No, it says very little - the target audience for The One Show is not the main profile of HD viewers. Stats - don't you just love 'em?
Small TV! Whatever happened to the TV being in the corner of the room unobtrusive, it seems TV's are taking over the living room, so a bigger Tv makes SD look poor, thus you have to go to HD to get a good picture it seems.
TV compnaies and Manufacturers have got it made it seems! if you buy into their 'scheme':)
Digital = Kings new Clothes, also decimalisation in 1971 also springs to mind, another price rise 'con' !