[stvn758]

Was just wondering if it is only stuff recorded on Hi Def cameras - what happens to everything recorded before it's arrival. What resolution is broadcast material originally recorded in - can't all the other channels just up their bitrate? The channel lineup SKY has announced is pretty slim.

I had a Phillips DVDR80 and when you record it shows the actual quality of the mode your recording in. EP = crap etc, one hour HQ mode I recall gave some realy great pictures. What was going on there.

[camaj]

Originally Posted by stvn758

Was just wondering if it is only stuff recorded on Hi Def cameras.
What resolution is broadcast material originally recorded in - can't all the other channels just up their bitrate?
The channel lineup SKY has announced is pretty slim.

I had a Phillips DVDR80I recall gave some realy great pictures. What was going on there.

Lot of questions!

1)HD is the resolution of the image. To get the full effect, programs need to be recorded on HD cameras or better. Anything worse gets converted to HD (called upscaling) but it won't look as good as something recorded in HD or recorded on something better like 35mm or 70mm film which is then downscaled to HD quality

2) Most stuff you see on TV is PAL, which has around 576 lines. The more lines the better the image. HD has 720 or even 1080 lines and unlike PAL these are progressive images some mostly (the whole picture is updated once per frame rather than half the picture)

Upping bitrate will improve quality but there's only so much you can do by increasing the bitrate, you'll still have 576 lines

3) Sky line up is pretty thin but that's because there isn't much HD material around at the moment and as more programes are recorded in HD more channels will launch. That said if you look at the current number of channels most of it is filler anyway. There are 8 or so movie channels when we really only need 1

4)I'm sure the DVD recorder gave great pictures but probably the same or a minute part worse than how TV normally looks.

[bayards]

Compared to other Euro HD launches - Sky's offering is pretty fat!

Premiere (Germany) 3 channels (1 x film, 1 x docu and 1 sport)
Canal + Scandinavia (C+ More 1 channel)
TPS France ( possibly 3 channels)

H

[maccy]

Which begs the question why hasn't OFCOM imposed programming quotas on UK broadcasters to kickstart HD ?

It seems to have had the desired effect in the US and OZ.

Annoyed that we are so far behind with HD

[Mark200]

I don't think we're behind really.

Look what BSkyB did with launching Sky Digital. Although being relatively late to digital TV technology, the service was really compelling and saw massive growth.
I expect the same thing with HDTV. The launch may be later than many of us would like, but I'm sure it will be done in such a way to drive significant growth. Look at how Sky will tie various TV manufacturers (e.g. Sony) to promote it.

I'm confidence that the UK will have the best HDTV service in the world, and will be the envy of many.

I just wish I could have it now as an early Christmas present!

[zebedee0021]

Digital TV is pushing the HI Def because it can handle the bandwidth needed for the service, that old analog can't handle it, i think TV companys are thinking if we have then we will use to

[sanderton]

Originally Posted by maccy

Which begs the question why hasn't OFCOM imposed programming quotas on UK broadcasters to kickstart HD ?

Why should OfCom care?

[maccy]

Originally Posted by sanderton

Why should OfCom care?

I imagine the more they encourage viewers to switch to Digital and Hi Def, the quicker they can sell off those analogue frequencies.

And for the same reason the FCC cared in the USA, and whoever the equivalent of the FCC in Australia is.

I think we are quite far behind, OK Sky Digital was worth waiting for, but HDTV has been available in the US since 1998, round about the same time Sky Digital was launched!

[sanderton]

I don't think HD is a factor in digital switchover. I find it hard to imaging that anyone buying into HD will not already be digital.

[maccy]

Originally Posted by sanderton

I don't think HD is a factor in digital switchover. I find it hard to imaging that anyone buying into HD will not already be digital.

Curious then that many recently produced plasmas and LCDs still have analogue tuners built-in.....

[sanderton]

Not really; if you're already digital you won't use the TVs tuner be it analogue or digital!

[maccy]

Originally Posted by sanderton

Not really; if you're already digital you won't use the TVs tuner be it analogue or digital!

Well some might....I have a ROI Sky sub, so I'd use the DTT tuner in my LCD to watch UK stations. Anyway, that's a side issue....

http://www.answers.com/topic/high-definition-television

Goes a little way to answering my original query. It seems a shame though - we were one of the first countries to go DTT, and yet we are years behind the rest of the world with HD.

[T183]

Originally Posted by maccy

Well some might....I have a ROI Sky sub, so I'd use the DTT tuner in my LCD to watch UK stations. Anyway, that's a side issue....

http://www.answers.com/topic/high-definition-television

Goes a little way to answering my original query. It seems a shame though - we were one of the first countries to go DTT, and yet we are years behind the rest of the world with HD.

The UK chose a more channels is better approach where the few that broadcast HD chose quality of quantity.

[sanderton]

Originally Posted by maccy

we were one of the first countries to go DTT, and yet we are years behind the rest of the world with HD.

We are not significantly behind Germany, France, Italy, etc etc.

And while the US Japan and Aus have had HD for a bit, our H.264 version should be better. And until this year hardly anyone could have afforded the sets anyway...

[technologist]

Japan has HDTV in analogue - it is now going digital

USA had a problem - the frequency was licensed to a station - so how were you going to use all 20 Mbit/sec or so for one channel - one way is to launch HD - but it is only now that reasonable ammounts of programming are HD. - and many only have SD(480i) displays

Australia was paranoid about having more channels and thus like USA went for HD to fill up the space. - but you had to transmit analogue SD and HD ... a triple casting propsotion!

Both USA and Australia in there own ways are now getting a very few extra SD channels on each DTT frequency than they had prevouisly - but nothing like what we have in Europe/UK.

With H264 / MPEG 4 pt10 - which gives say 3 HD cahnnels per DTT mux we are in a much better position.

ALso bear in mind that it is over 15 years ago that the first HD electronic programmes were made - and this was in Europe. As it could not be made to work in the analogue domain the labs all looked at "things digital" and this is how MPEG(2) and then DVB was started.

It is this work that gives the BBC ( All production HD by 2010) and HD Thames the PRODUCTION experience of good HD.
The BBC as a net exporter of programmes has to make as much as possible in HD if its is going to get lots of £££. . and it is not that much more ( and compared to film less) to shoot HD.

[T183]

Originally Posted by sanderton

We are not significantly behind Germany, France, Italy, etc etc.

And while the US Japan and Aus have had HD for a bit, our H.264 version should be better. And until this year hardly anyone could have afforded the sets anyway...

There should be no difference in quality. H.264 simply allows for more compression which would reasonably go to adding more channels. In other words, once something looks pleasing to the eye there is no need for broadcasters to try and increase the quality if it isn't likely to be seen. Better to use the better compression for more channels. Non terrestrial services in America are also transitioning to H.264.

HD displays and TVs have been affordable in America and Japan for years now.

HD in Australia is struggling, with fairly limited content and poor quality. 576P is actually considered HD in Australia.

[T183]

Originally Posted by technologist

Japan has HDTV in analogue - it is now going digital

USA had a problem - the frequency was licensed to a station - so how were you going to use all 20 Mbit/sec or so for one channel - one way is to launch HD - but it is only now that reasonable ammounts of programming are HD. - and many only have SD(480i) displays

Australia was paranoid about having more channels and thus like USA went for HD to fill up the space. - but you had to transmit analogue SD and HD ... a triple casting propsotion!

Both USA and Australia in there own ways are now getting a very few extra SD channels on each DTT frequency than they had prevouisly - but nothing like what we have in Europe/UK.

With H264 / MPEG 4 pt10 - which gives say 3 HD cahnnels per DTT mux we are in a much better position.

ALso bear in mind that it is over 15 years ago that the first HD electronic programmes were made - and this was in Europe. As it could not be made to work in the analogue domain the labs all looked at "things digital" and this is how MPEG(2) and then DVB was started.

It is this work that gives the BBC ( All production HD by 2010) and HD Thames the PRODUCTION experience of good HD.
The BBC as a net exporter of programmes has to make as much as possible in HD if its is going to get lots of £££. . and it is not that much more ( and compared to film less) to shoot HD.

I know you are trying to pump up European HD efforts but much of your information is incorrect.

Japan, if I am not mistaken, and the only thing I am not sure about, transitioned to digital HD in 2000 or 2001.

There has been plenty of HD programming available in America for a number of years. Most prime time shows are shown in HD and that has been the case for quite some time now. There are literally hundreds of shows, movies, and sports shown every day.

I also stated in another post that their non-terrestrial service providers are transitioning to mpeg4/H264.

While there are SD flat panels still for sale they are are certainly not the majority of what has been sold in the biggest periods of their flat panel sales and purchases. Suffice to say that the majority of flat panel consumers will have bought an HD display and not an SD one.

[sanderton]

Originally Posted by T183

There should be no difference in quality. H.264 simply allows for more compression which would reasonably go to adding more channels.

MPEG-4s algorithms supposedly reduce visible artifacting as well as compressing more efficiently.

[T183]

Originally Posted by sanderton

MPEG-4s algorithms supposedly reduce visible artifacting as well as compressing more efficiently.

Any compression method that is more efficient than the previous method will reduce visible artifacting.

[sanderton]

Originally Posted by T183

Japan, if I am not mistaken, and the only thing I am not sure about, transitioned to digital HD in 2000 or 2001.

2000 for satellite, 2003 for terrestrial - those are dates for the START of broadcasting. All is MPEG-2.

While there are SD flat panels still for sale they are are certainly not the majority of what has been sold in the biggest periods of their flat panel sales and purchases. Suffice to say that the majority of flat panel consumers will have bought an HD display and not an SD one.

A quick glance through my local Comet shows around half of the large flat panels TVs are HD and the rest SD. the cheaper ones (presumably the bigger volume) are mostly SD. (The panels themselves are often 768 lines, but they only have SD inputs)

[T183]

Originally Posted by sanderton

2000 for satellite, 2003 for terrestrial - those are dates for the START of broadcasting. All is MPEG-2.



A quick glance through my local Comet shows around half of the large flat panels TVs are HD and the rest SD. the cheaper ones (presumably the bigger volume) are mostly SD. (The panels themselves are often 768 lines, but they only have SD inputs)

Thank you, I was fairly sure I was correct on the Japan quyestion.

The part of the type of flat panels being sold had to do with what is sold in America, not what is being sold in the UK.