We now know the BBC has come up with a new HD channel to cover the space given to them, by Ofcom because FIVE HD would not be ready in time and they did not wish to have the space.

So all platforms are to get BBC One HD this year, but that does put a big question out that is ......

Which region of BBC One HD do we get or has the BBC found space for a number HD channels to cover the UK regions ????

I know ITV 1 HD had trouble with the regions and has not finished the work on giving all the UK it's own area news in HD.

Also with freeSat were on the EPG will it be placed as the EPG was never worked out right for new HD to come along with SD channels.

Any news to when it will come this year ?

Coming later in the Autumn and it will be the London version we get.

freesat is excellent, we have itv1hd, bbc1hd coming later, I hope channel4 comes soon

if viewers want more hd, get skyhd

hd is hype like the y2k enigma in the 1990s

Why? ITV HD as a few varients, even though they show them in the wrong areas IE Wales gets Midlands.

And will it be a simulcast with SD, If so showing the London edn in Wales/NI & Scotland at local Newsbreak time is asking for problems.

I am all for innovation, so we will have to see.

In terms of picture quality I tend to agree. Although a HD picture is better, it's not the huge improvement the advertisisements would like people to believe.

However the real improvement, for me at least, is in the sound quality, something that is never mentioned.

Watching something like Later... With Jools Holland with 5.1 surround sound should be one of the real selling points to me.

HDTV is a huge improvement in picture quality over SD if you don't recognise that then you either sit too far from your TV &/or your TV screen is too small.

I agree with you 100% Nigel.However I noticed in Argos recently that the Freesat/Sky promo they show on their instore TV display now clearly states HD upto 4 times better picture than SD.whereas it always used to be advertised as upto 5 times.
Maybe this is a way round the outcry created when the BBC reduced the bitrate a year or so ago on its HD broadcasts.

If you are lucky it won't be DD2.0 flagged as DD5.1 like so much BBC HD output seems to be.

I have a 50" plasma screen and I sit the correct distance from it, but thank you for your concern.

However with the upscaling from my amp there isn't a "huge" improvement from SD over HD.

Even if I bypass the amp, my TV also upscales so, again, there isn't that much of a difference.


Even DD 2.0 is better than the SD sound output, but I believe Later... is broadcast with full DD 5.1.

Not when it is flagged as DD5.1 it isn't. And even if it isn't the difference is marginal.

Were is the space another HD coming from?
And if the space was there, then could we have Ch4HD or E4 HD or FIVE HD ?
Or is the BBC going cut the bit rate again to push bbc one HD into space ?

if freeview can have four with 5 later then were are our 4 or five with our public TV system back up freesat ?

So you need a big council house telly that dominates your livingroom and then sit with your nose pressed up to it (something I am always telling my kids off for) before you can see any real difference. Nice!

I've never noticed anything flagged as DD 5.1 when it is only broadcast in DD 2.0, to be honest.

Certainly for my system, where I use an AV system for sound, DD 2.0 is much better than SD sound.

Not really, an old CRT dominates a room as it has to stick out 2 or 3 feet from a wall., an LCD can be as intrusive as a painting if you want.

As for sitting close to the TV, it causes eye strain with a CRT but doesnt with an LCD, another advantage. They can sit 2 feet away from the LCD if they want.

It happens quite often and is so noticeable ..


... that I wonder about this.

What do you wonder?

On my AV amp, a Denon AVR-3310, I would say virtually everything I watch on BBC HD, with the odd exception like Later... shows a source of DD 2.0

Therefore if you can provide specific instances of such programmes I am happy to see if my system shows it is receiving a flagged DD 5.1 input source for a programme actually broadcast in 2.0.

I think it's more to do with BBC HD and southern ITV HD using 1440 x 1080 not 1920 x 1080.

That's roughly a 2 x resolution improvement or 4x if you multiply height by width (as the PR spinners like to do).

I think the last episode of The Deep was 2 channel in a 5.1 carrier.
Something else was too (I think it was Coast), so I reverted to the analogue outs to get something from my centre speaker (using Neo6).

And it is definitely more "muffled" when using the normal MPEG2 (over digital or analogue) - I suggest comparing any of the Proms - they are much clearer on HD.

That's the point I was making. I would need to check but from memory I seem to recall my Denon amp showed The Deep as a DD 2.0 source from my Foxsat, not DD 5.1.


I agree. With my system DD 2.0 does sound better than MPEG2.

The sound is not mpeg2 it's mpeg1 layer 2 (MP2) which the box outputs as lpcm.. mpeg2 is the compression system used for SD broadcast and dvd's.

I've been finding the same problem with DD5.1 on BBC HD - no sound from the centre speaker. With Dolby 2.0 surround on HD channels my amp uses all speakers so the voices come out of the centre speaker which makes following the programme easier. On Waterloo Road (a family favourite !) there is the option to change to DD2.0 but it's audio described i.e. a running commentary. SO HD is a better picture but the sound is less clear.

Paul

...just found another thread started 2 years ago discussing the same problem, which is caused by the BBC broadcasting DD2.0 in DD5.1 format. This results in the surround amp giving just 2-speaker stereo sound, even though it should be Dolby prologic out of 5 speakers. Can't believe this hasn't been fixed !

I wonder who has the authority to tell me how big a TV I should have and/or how far I should sit from it.

I think that there is a recommendation which is a multiple of the diagonal size of the screen which is about half that at HD compared to SD viewing.
I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm sure someone does.
All great, but, in reality, who actually moves twice as close to the screen to watch an HD broadcast?
By the way, I have recently really been to Specsavers, changing my prescription made HD look much better and poor quality low bitrate 544 x 576 SD broadcasts look really ropey, although BBC1 at 720 x 576 is still very acceptable.
Using my old prescription, HD still looks really sharp but SD looks acceptable on most channels.
All joking aside, it just proves how subjective viewing is, and how peoples eyesight can make a difference to their perception of the picture.

Please don't get me wrong - I have mono hearing - but the deep - TV at it's best.