Extra Channel for Freeview
 

"http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=countries&subclass=193&id=592"

Sorry if this has already been posted but I could not find it.

Crown Castle have said that moves in multiplexing technology mean that
it is possible to fit in an extra channel onto Freeview. This seems a
little odd to me, because Crown Castle has more than one MUX and
therefore if you can get an extra channel onto one MUX why can't you
get it onto any other?

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

I just hope it is something decent rather than another TUTV or
shopping channel.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:10:50 +0000, Ed wrote:

Sorry if this has already been posted but I could not find it.

See the thread "Crown Castle makes Freeview channel available"
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

Since the launch of digital TV the algorithms and techniques for encoding
have improved and statistical multiplexing is more common.

Does this mean we can have ANOTHER shopping channel?

In article ,
says...
"http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=countries&subclass=193&id=592"

Sorry if this has already been posted but I could not find it.

Crown Castle have said that moves in multiplexing technology mean that
it is possible to fit in an extra channel onto Freeview. This seems a
little odd to me, because Crown Castle has more than one MUX and
therefore if you can get an extra channel onto one MUX why can't you
get it onto any other?

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

You got it right there, this is going to bring the quality down again.



I just hope it is something decent rather than another TUTV or
shopping channel.


TBH, I do not care any more, the whole of Freeview can fail.

In article , says...

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

Since the launch of digital TV the algorithms and techniques for encoding
have improved and statistical multiplexing is more common.



But the picture quality have got worse, the more they fit in, the worse
it gets.

"ad" wrote in message
k...
In article , says...

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

Since the launch of digital TV the algorithms and techniques for encoding
have improved and statistical multiplexing is more common.



But the picture quality have got worse, the more they fit in, the worse
it gets.

I didn't say it hadn't, you can still have too many channels in a mux, but
improvements have been made with the latest equipments over the last few
years.

TBH, I do not care any more, the whole of Freeview can fail.

Freeview in particular or DTT in general?

If DTT ‘fails’ what will we mean by the word ‘television’
after analogue closedown?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"dylan" wrote in message
...

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

Since the launch of digital TV the algorithms and techniques for encoding have
improved and statistical multiplexing is more common.

I thought the CrownCastle muxes were stat-muxed from the start?

A great deal of efficiencies have been squeezed out of MPEG2 over the years,
however things hit a ceiling with encoders some time ago, before Freeview
launched even. A lot of improvement came from having a clean digital component
as a source and ridding multigenerational PAL links and sources from the chain,
but this is a one off improvement once you've upgraded playout kit and
reequipped studios with SDI kit and crews with digits.

Now we're very much into the realm of diminishing returns, it's now all about
pre-filtering, making the image very soft and reducing vertical resolution and
hoping there are no real decent channels about that shows your content up, ITV
are very much on the forefront of this, I suppose they grew envious of TopTV's
parsimonious style.

Quality is often relative and even the technical qualities of 'five' has
succumbed to the vagaries of commercial pressure.

Looking back you may remember BBC Knowledge/Four had to be on SDN because the
Beeb didn't have the capacity on Mux A, which at the time contained BBC One,
Two, Choice/Three and News24 all into 24Mbps... now again the Beeb carry exactly
those services but now crammed into 18Mbps! They don't bother to stat-mux BBC
One in England apart from at CP, and BBC Two seems to bare the brunt of this.

So no, I would not say the technology has allowed infinite returns, in most
cases technical quality is now below launch levels as seen in 1998 despite the
improved coders, our diminished expectations are another matter.

How long things can be sustained if there is mainstream adoption of large 42"+
flatpanel screens coupled with sources like HD-DVD or Sky-HD remains to be seen.


Az.

"Aztech" wrote in message
...
"dylan" wrote in message
...

Does a change in multiplexing technology, actually mean we've decided
who cares about the quality lets shove an extra channel in anyway?

Since the launch of digital TV the algorithms and techniques for encoding
have improved and statistical multiplexing is more common.

I thought the CrownCastle muxes were stat-muxed from the start?

A great deal of efficiencies have been squeezed out of MPEG2 over the
years, however things hit a ceiling with encoders some time ago, before
Freeview launched even.

So did BBC/Castle re-engineer with the latest kit for freeview ?