Televisions have moved from being consumer durables into almost the realm of supermarket impulse buys, with a much higher replacement rate than hitherto.
I don't see the replacement rate being sustained. When technologies change substantially, you tend to see quite sharp cut-overs from the old technology to the new, followed by a much slower rate of replacement once the majority of people have changed over. The major changes over the last 10 years were analogue to integrated digital tuners, and CRT to flat-panel technology. Those replacements are mostly done. I don't see HD actually being that compelling for most people to replace their SD flat panels with HD flat panels, or add an HD tuner to their HD-Ready TV.
The rationale for compressing the UHF broadcast bands into the minimum sustainable appears to have been accepted by all player, even broadcasters (Notwithstanding the BBC and Arquiva's recent sound-off over OfComs sell-out to the white-space lobby).
Not at all. The broadcasters have made it plain throughout the 600 MHz auction process, and Ofcom's UHF Strategy consultation, that they believe that there is NO case for flogging off 700 MHz. Using 600 MHz to push DVB-T2/HD is to have more options in case Ofcom do decide to screw the broadcasters. However, it also puts Ofcom in a more difficult position come 2018: it may be harder to drop these services once the public has got used to them.
For me, this goes back to the technology replacement theme: 3G was underutilised for nearly 10 years, as the only access to the web from your phone was either to WAP sites (rare and mostly unusable) or to hard-to-use desktop websites. The iPhone made desktop websites usable on your phone, through pinch-to-zoom and swipe-to-scroll, and built up a big enough installed base that web sites started creating usable mobile versions designed for the iPhone. Therefore the network usage on each device shot up as someone traded in their old feature phone for a new iPhone-pattern smartphone. However, once they have adopted a smartphone, their usage hits a plateau - there just aren't that many users who regularly require a 2Mb/s or greater link, even if their network provides one.
I don't see watching TV on a phone or a tablet replacing watching TV on a big screen, for the most part. Most data caps are too low to handle the average radio listener's usage at even low rates. Even those who do watch TV on a phone or tablet, usually do so over Wi-Fi, not their mobile data network.
RF sensitivity, the a ability to discriminate symbols and processing power power to resolve error (ARM powered!) are all improving, very significantly. This mitigates against the out-of-group issue, giving service planners more realistic flexibility.
General acceptance that SFNs (single frequency networks) are no longer taboo, and bingo...... a migration strategy.
A proper SFN requires very careful transmitter placement and design to avoid self-interference. Just look at the problems the BBC are having in increasing their DAB network from 90% to 97% population coverage.
In order to run a nationwide SFN, DVB-T2 is mandatory, with a very long guard interval. (DVB-T's maximum guard interval isn't long enough.) For the originally-proposed layer 9, an SFN on UHF channel 36, the selected mode would give 35.8 Mbit/s capacity rather than the 40.8 Mbit/s mode currently used. It was predicted to deliver about 91% population coverage from 78 sites (the 80 that carry the COM4,5,6 multiplexes, minus Brougher Mountain and Limavady in Northern Ireland, presumably because C36 couldn't be cleared), using a 'realistic' aerial model.
The 'taboo' to be broken is that a very large proportion of the population will have to replace their aerial. The frequencies used for digital switchover were deliberately selected so that as few communal systems as possible would need to be retuned, and as few aerials would need to be changed, to get all services if possible and at least the PSBs if not. Very few transmitters changed aerial group at switchover, and it was nearly all confined to small relays, not main stations. If the 700 MHz band is lost to TV broadcasts, every single household with a Group C/D aerial will have to replace it (it'll be no use for the frequency range that will remain), and there are likely to be knock-on changes meaning that some Group A and Group B aerials will also have to be replaced. Indeed, many widebands may need to be replaced too: they're pretty useless at the bottom of the frequency range.
As Alix Pryde has explained already in her post, some viewers prefer to record in SD as it takes up less space on their Video Recorder.
Unless something amazing happens to the finances of the nation, I can see no way of re-booting the Digital Switchover Help Scheme to replace the elgible groups' DVB-T only receivers replaced with DVB-T2 ones.
If you spend some time with those on a tighter disposable income than you are used to and who watch on a screen size less than 26" and you realise that HD is not as important to more people than is given credit for here.
They'll have no choice as more multiplexes move to DVB-T2. And the boxes do not cost what they once did.
So no, quite simply. And believe me when i say i know what its like to be on little income. So lets not go there eh!
And seriously! You think its worth the HUGE money it would cost to continue SD output JUST because someone wants to record in SD to save HDD space...!!
And seriously! You think its worth the HUGE money it would cost to continue SD output JUST because someone wants to record in SD to save HDD space...!!
And in order to record in HD, you would need a HD PVR, and such PVRs have much larger disc capacities by default. So the issue of recording simply goes away.
And anyone who retains a VCR would have to record via scart, which would give a downscaled signal anyway wouldn't it?
And in order to record in HD, you would need a HD PVR, and such PVRs have much larger disc capacities by default. So the issue of recording simply goes away.
I've had PVRs since 2001, I'm sure there's some law that applies, because mine have always been, and still are, about 97% full regardless. Makes no difference whether you record SD or HD, have a 500 MB disk, or 1TB, you'll always find yourself deleting an unwatched recording, to make space for a new one
They'll have no choice as more multiplexes move to DVB-T2. And the boxes do not cost what they once did.
So no, quite simply. And believe me when i say i know what its like to be on little income. So lets not go there eh!
And seriously! You think its worth the HUGE money it would cost to continue SD output JUST because someone wants to record in SD to save HDD space...!!
The other way round: I absolutely seriously do not find a compelling case of upgradeing an SD Digital Converter Box to an HD Covenverter Box for any consumer of broadcast television outside the range of Northern Ireland or Eire transmitters with a screen size of 26" or less.
NI and the Republic of Ireland are a different case because of the Agreements in the islend.
And any such new Box would need to be availbale with an RF Modulator and a SCART out to cover older TVs anyway.
The other way round: i do not see the advantage of an HD Switchover for any consumer with a screen size of 26" or less
As long as the screen has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080, then
you will see a noticeable improvement of HD over SD regardless of screen size. Professional quality control monitors that are used in broadcasting are typically 17-20 inches, that's fine because the operator is sat the same distance away as you are from your PC screen.
It's a myth that you can't see the higher resolution provided by HD on small screens.
If you don't believe me, reduce the output from your PC's video card to VGA
And finally, HD transmissions have far fewer compression artefacts than SD, so you're always better off using HD, even if you're feeding an SD screen
I've had PVRs since 2001, I'm sure there's some law that applies, because mine have always been, and still are, about 97% full regardless. Makes no difference whether you record SD or HD, have a 500 MB disk, or 1TB, you'll always find yourself deleting an unwatched recording, to make space for a new one
Too true.. and as you get older and older there's comes a point when you realise you're not going to live long enough to get around to watching everything you've recorded.
Too true.. and as you get older and older there's comes a point when you realise you're not going to live long enough to get around to watching everything you've recorded.
As long as the screen has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080, then
you will see a noticeable improvement of HD over SD regardless of screen size. Professional quality control monitors that are used in broadcasting are typically 17-20 inches, that's fine because the operator is sat the same distance away as you are from your PC screen.
It's a myth that you can't see the higher resolution provided by HD on small screens.
If you don't believe me, reduce the output from your PC's video card to VGA
And finally, HD transmissions have far fewer compression artefacts than SD, so you're always better off using HD, even if you're feeding an SD screen
Indeed, very true.
If you have a box that can output analogue PAL, the HD broadcasts look (much) better than the SD equivalent. Infact, HD reproduced over PAL into a 4:3 CRT rather looks like analogue TV used to look like 30 years ago! (OK olde farts' rant /OFF).
Almost anything that is *NOT* HD will look better in HD if reproduced from an uncompressed source. This includes, broadcast quality analogue VT, 16mm films and of course SD-SDI source content.
I've had PVRs since 2001, I'm sure there's some law that applies, because mine have always been, and still are, about 97% full regardless. Makes no difference whether you record SD or HD, have a 500 MB disk, or 1TB, you'll always find yourself deleting an unwatched recording, to make space for a new one
My old Tivo never went over 60% and my current Sky+ hasn't even hit 10% full yet and its got quite a few movies recorded in HD.
Not sure if this has already been covered, but does anyone know why BBC3 HD & BBC4 HD don't broadcast a DD5.1 signal? It renders watching films on there completely pointless if the only time we're going to get a proper showing is on BBC1 or 2.
Not sure if this has already been covered, but does anyone know why BBC3 HD & BBC4 HD don't broadcast a DD5.1 signal? It renders watching films on there completely pointless if the only time we're going to get a proper showing is on BBC1 or 2.
My PVR sometimes goes 100% and I lose stuff as I record some things and never get round to watching them. My own fault.
Completely pointless?
Well, me and the missus watched an HD film on BBC 3 HD in bed last night, no surround sounds there, so not completely pointless at all.
Not sure if this has already been covered, but does anyone know why BBC3 HD & BBC4 HD don't broadcast a DD5.1 signal? It renders watching films on there completely pointless if the only time we're going to get a proper showing is on BBC1 or 2.
I cannot answer for BBC Four HD, but the recent reruns of Doctor Who on BBC Three HD have indeed been 5.1, I would therefore imagine that BBC four HD would be the same. Films of course might be different depending upon what print they have.
Yes, good informative stuff, and she's very responsive to viewer comments. (Unlike on some other BBC blogs, though on reflection they tend to be the ones from programme makers rather than the tech staff.) A model for the BBC of how to 'do' interactive!
I think the BBC THREE SD DOG has been toned down a wee bit.
Some letters were missing on my 4:3 Letterbox = 14:9 Widesceen view of a piece on a BBC News programme the other day, et cetera / und so weiter / and so on so you may have had your other wish granted.
I think the BBC THREE SD DOG has been toned down a wee bit.
Some letters were missing on my 4:3 Letterbox = 14:9 Widesceen view of a piece on a BBC News programme the other day, et cetera / und so weiter / and so on so you may have had your other wish granted.
I'm not intentionally doing that, DVDFever: it's simply how the TVOnics DTR HV-250 relays the picture via the SCART into my Toshiba 2512 DB CRT on the 4:3 Letterbox setting on 16:9 programming. 4:3 (for instance, True Entertainment Channel and Archive on BBC Two SD and BBC Four SD) content, is in Fullscreen.
I'm not intentionally doing that, DVDFever: it's simply how the TVOnics DTR HV-250 relays the picture via the SCART into my Toshiba 2512 DB CRT on the 4:3 Letterbox setting on 16:9 programming. 4:3 (for instance, True Entertainment Channel and Archive on BBC Two SD and BBC Four SD) content, is in Fullscreen.
Comments
I don't see the replacement rate being sustained. When technologies change substantially, you tend to see quite sharp cut-overs from the old technology to the new, followed by a much slower rate of replacement once the majority of people have changed over. The major changes over the last 10 years were analogue to integrated digital tuners, and CRT to flat-panel technology. Those replacements are mostly done. I don't see HD actually being that compelling for most people to replace their SD flat panels with HD flat panels, or add an HD tuner to their HD-Ready TV.
Not at all. The broadcasters have made it plain throughout the 600 MHz auction process, and Ofcom's UHF Strategy consultation, that they believe that there is NO case for flogging off 700 MHz. Using 600 MHz to push DVB-T2/HD is to have more options in case Ofcom do decide to screw the broadcasters. However, it also puts Ofcom in a more difficult position come 2018: it may be harder to drop these services once the public has got used to them.
For me, this goes back to the technology replacement theme: 3G was underutilised for nearly 10 years, as the only access to the web from your phone was either to WAP sites (rare and mostly unusable) or to hard-to-use desktop websites. The iPhone made desktop websites usable on your phone, through pinch-to-zoom and swipe-to-scroll, and built up a big enough installed base that web sites started creating usable mobile versions designed for the iPhone. Therefore the network usage on each device shot up as someone traded in their old feature phone for a new iPhone-pattern smartphone. However, once they have adopted a smartphone, their usage hits a plateau - there just aren't that many users who regularly require a 2Mb/s or greater link, even if their network provides one.
I don't see watching TV on a phone or a tablet replacing watching TV on a big screen, for the most part. Most data caps are too low to handle the average radio listener's usage at even low rates. Even those who do watch TV on a phone or tablet, usually do so over Wi-Fi, not their mobile data network.
Grouped TV aerials frequently end up attenuating signals outside their designed band. See 'Justin Aerial's test results: http://www.aerialsandtv.co.uk/aerialtestsfullresults.html
A proper SFN requires very careful transmitter placement and design to avoid self-interference. Just look at the problems the BBC are having in increasing their DAB network from 90% to 97% population coverage.
In order to run a nationwide SFN, DVB-T2 is mandatory, with a very long guard interval. (DVB-T's maximum guard interval isn't long enough.) For the originally-proposed layer 9, an SFN on UHF channel 36, the selected mode would give 35.8 Mbit/s capacity rather than the 40.8 Mbit/s mode currently used. It was predicted to deliver about 91% population coverage from 78 sites (the 80 that carry the COM4,5,6 multiplexes, minus Brougher Mountain and Limavady in Northern Ireland, presumably because C36 couldn't be cleared), using a 'realistic' aerial model.
The 'taboo' to be broken is that a very large proportion of the population will have to replace their aerial. The frequencies used for digital switchover were deliberately selected so that as few communal systems as possible would need to be retuned, and as few aerials would need to be changed, to get all services if possible and at least the PSBs if not. Very few transmitters changed aerial group at switchover, and it was nearly all confined to small relays, not main stations. If the 700 MHz band is lost to TV broadcasts, every single household with a Group C/D aerial will have to replace it (it'll be no use for the frequency range that will remain), and there are likely to be knock-on changes meaning that some Group A and Group B aerials will also have to be replaced. Indeed, many widebands may need to be replaced too: they're pretty useless at the bottom of the frequency range.
They'll have no choice as more multiplexes move to DVB-T2. And the boxes do not cost what they once did.
So no, quite simply. And believe me when i say i know what its like to be on little income. So lets not go there eh!
And seriously! You think its worth the HUGE money it would cost to continue SD output JUST because someone wants to record in SD to save HDD space...!!
And in order to record in HD, you would need a HD PVR, and such PVRs have much larger disc capacities by default. So the issue of recording simply goes away.
And anyone who retains a VCR would have to record via scart, which would give a downscaled signal anyway wouldn't it?
I've had PVRs since 2001, I'm sure there's some law that applies, because mine have always been, and still are, about 97% full regardless. Makes no difference whether you record SD or HD, have a 500 MB disk, or 1TB, you'll always find yourself deleting an unwatched recording, to make space for a new one
The other way round: I absolutely seriously do not find a compelling case of upgradeing an SD Digital Converter Box to an HD Covenverter Box for any consumer of broadcast television outside the range of Northern Ireland or Eire transmitters with a screen size of 26" or less.
NI and the Republic of Ireland are a different case because of the Agreements in the islend.
And any such new Box would need to be availbale with an RF Modulator and a SCART out to cover older TVs anyway.
As long as the screen has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080, then
you will see a noticeable improvement of HD over SD regardless of screen size. Professional quality control monitors that are used in broadcasting are typically 17-20 inches, that's fine because the operator is sat the same distance away as you are from your PC screen.
It's a myth that you can't see the higher resolution provided by HD on small screens.
If you don't believe me, reduce the output from your PC's video card to VGA
And finally, HD transmissions have far fewer compression artefacts than SD, so you're always better off using HD, even if you're feeding an SD screen
Too true.. and as you get older and older there's comes a point when you realise you're not going to live long enough to get around to watching everything you've recorded.
Indeed, very true.
If you have a box that can output analogue PAL, the HD broadcasts look (much) better than the SD equivalent. Infact, HD reproduced over PAL into a 4:3 CRT rather looks like analogue TV used to look like 30 years ago! (OK olde farts' rant /OFF).
Almost anything that is *NOT* HD will look better in HD if reproduced from an uncompressed source. This includes, broadcast quality analogue VT, 16mm films and of course SD-SDI source content.
My old Tivo never went over 60% and my current Sky+ hasn't even hit 10% full yet and its got quite a few movies recorded in HD.
My PVR sometimes goes 100% and I lose stuff as I record some things and never get round to watching them. My own fault.
Completely pointless?
Well, me and the missus watched an HD film on BBC 3 HD in bed last night, no surround sounds there, so not completely pointless at all.
I cannot answer for BBC Four HD, but the recent reruns of Doctor Who on BBC Three HD have indeed been 5.1, I would therefore imagine that BBC four HD would be the same. Films of course might be different depending upon what print they have.
Yes, good informative stuff, and she's very responsive to viewer comments. (Unlike on some other BBC blogs, though on reflection they tend to be the ones from programme makers rather than the tech staff.) A model for the BBC of how to 'do' interactive!
yes like BBC 3 D.O.G. and 4:3 safe graphics ect!
I think the BBC THREE SD DOG has been toned down a wee bit.
Some letters were missing on my 4:3 Letterbox = 14:9 Widesceen view of a piece on a BBC News programme the other day, et cetera / und so weiter / and so on so you may have had your other wish granted.
Why were you cropping the image?
I didn't get where the 14:9 comes into it?
The AFDs will get the box to produce a 14:9 letterbox image, if the native 16:9 broadcast has been flagged as '14:9 safe'