BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

Years ago, I remember commenting that there was nothing necessarily
wrong with HD on Freeview, but it was likely that the BBC would
cripple its HD offering everywhere else as a result - holding back
from broadcasting multiple HD channels on DSat while there was only
room for one on DTT.

So insisting on making HD available on Freeview would actually
_reduce_ the choice of many people, as further BBC HD channels
launches would be delayed.


Well, straight from the horses mouth...

"I think that broadcasting the whole of the BBC's channel portfolio in
HD is a very long way off - you know better than most what capacity
would be required to do that, and how fast compression is coming into
help. But that doesn't mean that I believe we will only broadcast a
single compilation channel for evermore. We would not want to develop
an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and
the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the
moment."

....from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...on_bbc_hd.html

....not to say they have enough to fill the single channel at present,
but as they seek to broadcast more HD content, the limit will always
be "what can we fit on Freeview"?

Cheers,
David.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

....snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional cost
of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and recognise
that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being given away
with a gallon of petrol ;-).

paul DS.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional
cost of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and
recognise that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being
given away with a gallon of petrol ;-).


Or more likely petrol will have become so expensive that the bait will be, a
free gallon of petrol with every satellite system sold!

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message ...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional cost
of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

I disagree.
A hell of a lot of the market for HDTV is at the supermarket end of the scale - £300 32" sets.
A basic HD satellite system with installation is going to be what - £200?
If you want a better selection of programming then you are going to have to pay for a subscription service at £50 (ish?) a month

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and recognise
that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being given away
with a gallon of petrol ;-).

No , let's have a "best of" HD channel on freeview and then let people go for the more costly satellite options if they want everything in HD


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional
cost of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and
recognise that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being
given away with a gallon of petrol ;-).

But no-one will have dis-invented conservation areas and listed buildings.
In fact, I suggest that there will be more of them!

tim

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional
cost of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on
satellite. Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound
and recognise that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be
being given away with a gallon of petrol ;-).

But no-one will have dis-invented conservation areas and listed buildings.
In fact, I suggest that there will be more of them!

tim

Tongue a little in cheek...

But the percentage of properties which are in Conservation Areas or listed
buildings is very low compared to the average. Also, such properties tend
to be where cable is a viable alternative.

Surely better to provide one decent "low spec" system and use the high-end
alternatives to HD rather than end up with the high-end system plus a
crippled low-end system straining under the weight of an HD signal when
broadcasters are already unwilling to transmit decent quality SD.

Paul DS.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

Comments below...

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional
cost
of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

I disagree.
A hell of a lot of the market for HDTV is at the supermarket end of the
scale - £300 32" sets.

PDS Oh, so we're talking 720? I was hoping for real HD (1080) ;-). But I
take the point that prices will come down over time.

A basic HD satellite system with installation is going to be what - £200?

PDS $ky+HD - £49.00 one off plus £26.25/month. I would be interested to
see what proportion of people are willing to pay for HD just to watch
BBC1/2/ITV etc. I would expect most HD customers to be cable or $ky anyway
in order to get sports and newer movies.

If you want a better selection of programming then you are going to have
to pay for a subscription service at £50 (ish?) a month

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on
satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and
recognise
that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being given away
with a gallon of petrol ;-).

No , let's have a "best of" HD channel on freeview and then let people go
for the more costly satellite options if they want everything in HD

PDS What is the "best of" that is free? No, seriously - what do you hope
to get for free in HD?

Paul DS.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:07:41 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

PDS Oh, so we're talking 720? I was hoping for real HD (1080) ;-). But I
take the point that prices will come down over time.

Freeview HD is only going to be 720p anyway, according to Ofcom.

PDS $ky+HD - £49.00 one off plus £26.25/month. I would be interested to
see what proportion of people are willing to pay for HD just to watch
BBC1/2/ITV etc.

You don't have to pay a subscription just to watch the free HD
channels.

--

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:07:41 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

PDS Oh, so we're talking 720? I was hoping for real HD (1080) ;-). But
I
take the point that prices will come down over time.

Freeview HD is only going to be 720p anyway, according to Ofcom.

And my point is why waste valuable bandwidth and substantial effort on
implementing a system which is already obsolete? We should be aiming for
tomorrow's picture (1080p) and not phaffing around with something little
better than the existing SD system.

And before you ask, I do look in the store windows at the "720-HD/SD"
comparisons on display - darned if I can see what the fuss is about ;-).


PDS $ky+HD - £49.00 one off plus £26.25/month. I would be interested to
see what proportion of people are willing to pay for HD just to watch
BBC1/2/ITV etc.

You don't have to pay a subscription just to watch the free HD
channels.


True, but what channels are they? Are are people really going to watch HD
in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will be
free.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...
But the percentage of properties which are in Conservation Areas or listed
buildings is very low compared to the average. Also, such properties tend
to be where cable is a viable alternative.

You must be thinking of urban ones. There are a lot of rural conservation
areas, listed
buildings, and areas of outstanding whatsit. They don't have cable.

Bill

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

Paul D.Smith wrote:


True, but what channels are they?

BBC HD (Both D-SAT platforms)
ITV HD Freesat EPG only, though receivable on some Sky, and generic HD
boxes)
C4 HD Sky Only
Luxe HD (Both D-SAT platforms)

Are are people really going to watch
HD in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will
be free.

BBC HD: World Cup and Euro Footie, Wimbledon, Olympics, US Masters Golf,
ITV HD: FA Cup, Champions League.

Movies, don't bother with Sky, rent the BluRay discs, or wait three
years for them to pop up on BBC, ITV, or C4 HD.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message ...

True, but what channels are they? Are are people really going to watch HD
in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will be
free.


Actually , yes.
I'm very happy with Hi-Def shows from the BBC.
Stuff like the recent South Pacific and Human Journey documentaries , dramas like Survivors and ideally their motorsport coverage.

I'd pay for the kit to receive FTA HD transmissions of stuff that's on the "free" channels and wouldn't want to pay for movies (Lovefilm and BluRay offer better value) or sport (no interest in footie or cricket)

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

wrote in message
...
Years ago, I remember commenting that there was nothing necessarily
wrong with HD on Freeview, but it was likely that the BBC would
cripple its HD offering everywhere else as a result - holding back
from broadcasting multiple HD channels on DSat while there was only
room for one on DTT.

So insisting on making HD available on Freeview would actually
_reduce_ the choice of many people, as further BBC HD channels
launches would be delayed.


Well, straight from the horses mouth...

"I think that broadcasting the whole of the BBC's channel portfolio in
HD is a very long way off - you know better than most what capacity
would be required to do that, and how fast compression is coming into
help. But that doesn't mean that I believe we will only broadcast a
single compilation channel for evermore. We would not want to develop
an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and
the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the
moment."

...from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...on_bbc_hd.html

...not to say they have enough to fill the single channel at present,
but as they seek to broadcast more HD content, the limit will always
be "what can we fit on Freeview"?

Cheers,
David.



They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV pictures.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On 16 June, 08:36, "Paul D.Smith" wrote:
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). *The additional cost
of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite..
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and recognise
that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being given away
with a gallon of petrol ;-).

While I like that approach, the BBC is proposing exactly the opposite:
any BBC HD channel that can't fit on Freeview won't go on DSat either.

Cheers,
David.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:07:41 +0100, Paul D.Smith wrote:

A hell of a lot of the market for HDTV is at the supermarket end
of the
scale - £300 32" sets.

Oh, so we're talking 720? I was hoping for real HD (1080) ;-).

Nope:

http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-8751.aspx

OK Only 3p short of £400 but all the same 1080p.

I would be interested to see what proportion of people are willing to
pay for HD just to watch BBC1/2/ITV etc.

"True HD", ie 1080 minimum I'd pay for a decent screen the cost of a
HD DSAT box of some sort is not great. "HD Ready" is a misleading
marketing expression in my book. In shops I've rarely seen proper HD
on the demo sets, there is another thread somewhere about in which
someone asks about the difference SD/HD. If you have ever seen proper
HD you don't need to ask about the difference it is very obvious. By
proper HD I mean from Bluray or other decent bit rate source. DSAT
HD can just about manage it not so sure about freeview. Freeview SD I
consider virtually unwatchable even on the mains stream channels...

--
Cheers
Dave.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Light of Aria" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
Years ago, I remember commenting that there was nothing necessarily
wrong with HD on Freeview, but it was likely that the BBC would
cripple its HD offering everywhere else as a result - holding back
from broadcasting multiple HD channels on DSat while there was only
room for one on DTT.

So insisting on making HD available on Freeview would actually
_reduce_ the choice of many people, as further BBC HD channels
launches would be delayed.


Well, straight from the horses mouth...

"I think that broadcasting the whole of the BBC's channel portfolio in
HD is a very long way off - you know better than most what capacity
would be required to do that, and how fast compression is coming into
help. But that doesn't mean that I believe we will only broadcast a
single compilation channel for evermore. We would not want to develop
an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and
the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the
moment."

...from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...on_bbc_hd.html

...not to say they have enough to fill the single channel at present,
but as they seek to broadcast more HD content, the limit will always
be "what can we fit on Freeview"?

Cheers,
David.



They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV pictures.

You know , I doubt the BBC base their broadcasting just on your opinions.
I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are telling the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses them.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:00:10 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

And my point is why waste valuable bandwidth and substantial effort on
implementing a system which is already obsolete? We should be aiming for
tomorrow's picture (1080p) and not phaffing around with something little
better than the existing SD system.

I am glad you aren't making the decisions then. I would much rather
have 2 or 3 times as many HD channels showing at a decent bitrate than
a couple of 1080P that isn't necessary and that not everyone can see.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.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.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

They need not bother. I won't be watching BBC DOG **** smeared TV
pictures.

You know , I doubt the BBC base their broadcasting just on your opinions.
I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are telling
the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses them.

--







I don't know. How many?

Be that as it may, I don't pay the BBC TV Licence and I'll be out all night
anyway, so by either measure, The BBC will have deselected my opinion (and
cash).

I suspect there's an awful lot of us who don't count, actually.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:00:10 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

And my point is why waste valuable bandwidth and substantial effort on
implementing a system which is already obsolete? We should be aiming for
tomorrow's picture (1080p) and not phaffing around with something little
better than the existing SD system.

I am glad you aren't making the decisions then. I would much rather
have 2 or 3 times as many HD channels showing at a decent bitrate than
a couple of 1080P that isn't necessary and that not everyone can see.

So

- you get 2-3 times as many channels you want and I get to loose channels
that I want to watch?

- we don't get a decent SD bitrate so I'd be amazed if we get a decent HD
bitrate, and if we do that's more channels lost to make space.

- and you might be able to watch 720i/p but I can't. Your 720 TV should be
able to downgrade a 1080 picture - my SD can't handle any HD.

I think I'll stop now because clearly I'm fighting a loosing battle ;-).
Personally I simply don't believe we'll get anything close to a decent
Freeview HD service so I'd rather they sorted out Freeview SD first.

Paul DS

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...
But the percentage of properties which are in Conservation Areas or
listed buildings is very low compared to the average. Also, such
properties tend to be where cable is a viable alternative.

You must be thinking of urban ones. There are a lot of rural conservation
areas, listed
buildings, and areas of outstanding whatsit. They don't have cable.

Bill

Indeed but if you are rural, would you have room for a dish in the garden or
don't they allow that either? I suppose there must be "small" listed
building with small gardens in the country too.

I do rather wonder how people reacted when Band I/III aerials started
appearing on buildings because personally I find a well sited $ky size dish
quite unobtrusive and certainly no worse than a wide band, high gain TV
antenna. But I suppose you do get a little more "play" as to where to site
TV aerials.

Paul DS

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

I have a very vague recollection as a young child of being driven into
somewhere like London, and the, as I only much later realised, rather
snobby friends in the front of the car making comments to the effect:
"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it, we seem to be much more mixed up and thrown
together now.

BTW, agree with everything you've been saying here about not bothering
with HD on Freeview.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:37:50 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

I do rather wonder how people reacted when Band I/III aerials started
appearing on buildings because personally I find a well sited $ky size dish
quite unobtrusive and certainly no worse than a wide band, high gain TV
antenna. But I suppose you do get a little more "play" as to where to site
TV aerials.

Paul DS

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

In article , tim.....
scribeth thus

"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
...
...snip...

In order to watch HD, you need an HD TV (thus outlay!). The additional
cost of an HD satellite system is not much on top.

So let's face facts, Freeview is fine for SD but HD can stay on satellite.
Let's get Freeview with SD, some decent bitrates and 5.1 sound and
recognise that by the time HD takes off, satellite systems will be being
given away with a gallon of petrol ;-).

But no-one will have dis-invented conservation areas and listed buildings.
In fact, I suggest that there will be more of them!

tim



Can anyone answer me this.

Why is a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a satellite dish treated
any differently to a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a TV
aerial?..
--
Tony Sayer

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

tony sayer wrote:

Can anyone answer me this.

Why is a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a satellite dish treated
any differently to a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a TV
aerial?..

I'd love to know the answer to that too. Also, you actually have to point out
Sky/Mini dishes to foreign visitors, because they're not used to seeing
anything that small ! No one in *any* other country has a problem with
dishes, it's purely a UK thing. I'm sure that the Beeb's continued refusal to
embrace satellite as a 100% bona-fide delivery system is indicative of that
culture. We need to shake it off PDQ IMHO.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

In article , Mark Carver
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

Can anyone answer me this.

Why is a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a satellite dish treated
any differently to a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a TV
aerial?..

I'd love to know the answer to that too. Also, you actually have to point out
Sky/Mini dishes to foreign visitors, because they're not used to seeing
anything that small ! No one in *any* other country has a problem with
dishes, it's purely a UK thing. I'm sure that the Beeb's continued refusal to
embrace satellite as a 100% bona-fide delivery system is indicative of that
culture. We need to shake it off PDQ IMHO.


Class system through and through .. only India has a better one;!...
--
Tony Sayer

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

Andrew wrote:

I am glad you aren't making the decisions then. I would much rather
have 2 or 3 times as many HD channels showing at a decent bitrate than
a couple of 1080P that isn't necessary and that not everyone can see.

My TV won't show _any_ HD channels. I'll replace it when it dies.

The only HD stuff I watch is on here, where I have a full-HD capable
monitor (actually 1920x1200).

And there aren't enough programs _worth_watching_ on all the channels
put together. Why broadcasting a few more copies of the same rubbish
would change that is beyond me. I'd rather have fewer, better channels.
Tonight, for example, there is _nothing_ I want to watch on any of the
5 standard channels except the news. A few decent repeats - but I've
seen them already.

OTOH I do have about 5 hours of wish-it-had-a-higher-bitrate iPlayer to
watch...

Andy

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

In article , Tony sayer wrote:
I'd love to know the answer to that too. Also, you actually have to point out
Sky/Mini dishes to foreign visitors, because they're not used to seeing
anything that small ! No one in *any* other country has a problem with
dishes, it's purely a UK thing. I'm sure that the Beeb's continued refusal to
embrace satellite as a 100% bona-fide delivery system is indicative of that
culture. We need to shake it off PDQ IMHO.


Class system through and through .. only India has a better one;!...

And weren't they first with satellite television?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Tony sayer wrote:
I'd love to know the answer to that too. Also, you actually have to
point out
Sky/Mini dishes to foreign visitors, because they're not used to seeing
anything that small ! No one in *any* other country has a problem with
dishes, it's purely a UK thing. I'm sure that the Beeb's continued
refusal to
embrace satellite as a 100% bona-fide delivery system is indicative of
that
culture. We need to shake it off PDQ IMHO.


Class system through and through .. only India has a better one;!...

And weren't they first with satellite television?


IIRC using UHF transponders?

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it,

Oh it did, but there was a little bit tagged onto the end of that
quote "on benefits".

It was very noticable how the dishes first sprouted on the poorer
estates.

--
Cheers
Dave.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it,

Oh it did, but there was a little bit tagged onto the end of that
quote "on benefits".

It was very noticable how the dishes first sprouted on the poorer
estates.

"Dad, what's the little box on the end of a satellite dish called?"

"Son, that's a council house"

I'll get my coat

tim

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

In article , tim.....
scribeth thus

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.net...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it,

Oh it did, but there was a little bit tagged onto the end of that
quote "on benefits".

It was very noticable how the dishes first sprouted on the poorer
estates.

"Dad, what's the little box on the end of a satellite dish called?"

"Son, that's a council house"

I'll get my coat

tim




'Twas ever thus thought of...

Course Thatcher did a lot more social levelling than any socialist mob
ever did by letting tenants buy their own properties;))..
--
Tony Sayer

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

....snip...

"True HD", ie 1080 minimum I'd pay for a decent screen the cost of a
HD DSAT box of some sort is not great. "HD Ready" is a misleading
marketing expression in my book. In shops I've rarely seen proper HD
on the demo sets, there is another thread somewhere about in which
someone asks about the difference SD/HD. If you have ever seen proper
HD you don't need to ask about the difference it is very obvious. By
proper HD I mean from Bluray or other decent bit rate source. DSAT
HD can just about manage it not so sure about freeview. Freeview SD I
consider virtually unwatchable even on the mains stream channels...

Don't mean to sound snobbish but what sort of TV do you have? The problem
with SD on an HD/HD-ready TV is upscaling, turning 600-odd pixels into
720/1080 by "guessing" a few intermediate pixles and moving things around.

You can sometimes see this is you try deliverably setting a computer to
LOWER resolution than the monitor it is attached to (say 800 x 600). On a
cheap monitor the "guess" is merely "copy a nearby pixel" and the results
are horrendous. Better monitors are a little more clever and the results
can be quite good, but certainly not as good as the native format.

TVs are the same - "guess" can be anything from "crap - resulting picture is
awful" to "that's actually rather good". And of course when the TV is
typically larger than ye older TVs (say 32+ inches) any problems are even
more obvious.

My understanding from following this NG is that the difference between
"Brand X, £400 model" and "Brnd X, £600 model" is often NOT the screen,
rather the extra £200 buys you a better processing engine inside which does
upscaling etc much better.

Paul DS.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On 16 June, 20:39, Andy Champ wrote:

OTOH I do have about 5 hours of wish-it-had-a-higher-bitrate iPlayer to
watch...

I don't think the iPlayer bitrate is a problem - not for SD. The top
rate on iPlayer is 1.5Mbps H.264 at 25fps, which is potentially better
than most of Freeview.

I think it's the 50i25p conversion (or, in the case of "filmic"
programmes, the 50i25p50i25p conversion!) that makes the picture
nasty - and of course watching 50i content at 25p makes it stuttery
and/or blurry.


For iPlayer HD, I agree with you - it needs more bits to give a decent
1280x720p25 picture - but more bits would be impractical, as even
fewer PCs would be able to keep up with a higher bitrate.

Cheers,
David.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On 16 June, 15:57, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:

I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are telling the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses them.

I've got an AVIsynth script that removes the translucent BBC DOGs in
real time. It's a very geeky solution, but maybe it'll be made
available in a more user friendly / automatic manner by someone one
day.

I wouldn't _not_ watch something because it had a DOG - but if it's
going through my PC for any reason, I'll remove the DOG before
watching it.

Cheers,
David.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:00:10 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:

True, but what channels are they? Are are people really going to watch HD
in numbers without sport and big bucks movies - neither of which will be
free.

BBC HD and ITV HD both show sports and movies for free. C4 HD shows a
range of movies also. OK, not premium first-run stuff but no worse
than the usual terrestrial fare.

--

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
scribeth thus

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
hill.net...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it,

Oh it did, but there was a little bit tagged onto the end of that
quote "on benefits".

It was very noticable how the dishes first sprouted on the poorer
estates.

"Dad, what's the little box on the end of a satellite dish called?"

"Son, that's a council house"

I'll get my coat
tim

'Twas ever thus thought of...

Course Thatcher did a lot more social levelling than any socialist mob
ever did by letting tenants buy their own properties;))..
Tony Sayer


She would have if she had then let the councils spend the money to build
more, but that would have fecked her invention of the illusion of "the
property market".

With "the property market" she created the illusion of personal prosperity,
whilst in reality burdening the masses with mortgages eating most of their
wages, and worst of all by filtering all those wages into banks mortgages,
she's deprived people of purchasing goods and services providing jobs
and industry

Which eventually helps force wages down so we're become a low wage
economy and getting lower all the time

Steve Terry

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

2Bdecided wrote:

I don't think the iPlayer bitrate is a problem - not for SD. The top
rate on iPlayer is 1.5Mbps H.264 at 25fps, which is potentially better
than most of Freeview.

I beg to differ. There are obvious jpeg-type artefacts, especially in
sky shots and other almost-flat colour areas.

The fact that Freeview is just as bad - or even worse - doesn't cheer me
up. Come to that, I've seen obvious problems in SkyHD football - you
can see every blade of grass, until the picture pans. They then all
vanish, only to reappear when the camera sits still. And, no, I wasn't
paying attention to the game :)


I think it's the 50i25p conversion (or, in the case of "filmic"
programmes, the 50i25p50i25p conversion!) that makes the picture
nasty - and of course watching 50i content at 25p makes it stuttery
and/or blurry.


I realise I'm not going to get game-style true 100Hz pictures off any
broadcast. And "filmic" annoys me. I'd rather it had motion blur.

For iPlayer HD, I agree with you - it needs more bits to give a decent
1280x720p25 picture - but more bits would be impractical, as even
fewer PCs would be able to keep up with a higher bitrate.

I have one of them... Core2 plus a last-generation gamer's graphics
card. (My son upgraded!)

Andy

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

In article , Steve Terry
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
scribeth thus

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
whill.net...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

"There's a TV aerial, and there, another one! People are obviously
doing very nicely for themselves around here!"

I wonder if the same thing ever happened with satellite dishes!
Somehow I doubt it,

Oh it did, but there was a little bit tagged onto the end of that
quote "on benefits".

It was very noticable how the dishes first sprouted on the poorer
estates.

"Dad, what's the little box on the end of a satellite dish called?"

"Son, that's a council house"

I'll get my coat
tim

'Twas ever thus thought of...

Course Thatcher did a lot more social levelling than any socialist mob
ever did by letting tenants buy their own properties;))..
Tony Sayer


She would have if she had then let the councils spend the money to build
more, but that would have fecked her invention of the illusion of "the
property market".


Yes an old tub thumping labour supporter mate of mine did very well out
of her ideas but he'd never admit that the house she permitted him to
buy made him a enough to live on after he had the only access to a lump
of land behind him;).

With "the property market" she created the illusion of personal prosperity,
whilst in reality burdening the masses with mortgages eating most of their
wages, and worst of all by filtering all those wages into banks mortgages,
she's deprived people of purchasing goods and services providing jobs
and industry

Which eventually helps force wages down so we're become a low wage
economy and getting lower all the time

Steve Terry


-- Which no one has reversed have they after all that time;?..

Tony Sayer

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
scribeth thus

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
owhill.net...
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
snp
Course Thatcher did a lot more social levelling than any socialist mob
ever did by letting tenants buy their own properties;))..
Tony Sayer

She would have if she had then let the councils spend the money to build
more, but that would have fecked her invention of the illusion of "the
property market".

Yes an old tub thumping labour supporter mate of mine did very well out
of her ideas but he'd never admit that the house she permitted him to
buy made him a enough to live on after he had the only access to a lump
of land behind him;).

With "the property market" she created the illusion of personal
prosperity,
whilst in reality burdening the masses with mortgages eating most of their
wages, and worst of all by filtering all those wages into banks mortgages,
she's deprived people of purchasing goods and services providing jobs
and industry

Which eventually helps force wages down so we're become a low wage
economy and getting lower all the time
Steve Terry

-- Which no one has reversed have they after all that time;?..
Tony Sayer


Property owning via mortgages is such a powerful drug i can't see anyway
to wean the British off of it
At least not until we get an economy crushing depression like the 1930's
again

The only thing about this impending UK economic disaster that would make
me **** myself, would be if France with it's mixed economy, stopped
accepting
UK passport holders like myself, but having a French grandmother may be
in my favour?

Steve Terry

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"2Bdecided" wrote in message
...
On 16 June, 15:57, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:

I also wonder how many people who foam at the mouth about DOGs are
telling the truth when they say they won't watch any channel that uses
them.

I've got an AVIsynth script that removes the translucent BBC DOGs in
real time. It's a very geeky solution, but maybe it'll be made
available in a more user friendly / automatic manner by someone one
day.

I wouldn't _not_ watch something because it had a DOG - but if it's
going through my PC for any reason, I'll remove the DOG before
watching it.

Cheers,
David.



Simple solution. Filter one's viewing through non DOG **** sources. There's
more than enough film and programme content (plus t'interweb, books, social
conversation, clubs, travelling, journals, blogs, newspapers) to fill one's
mind.

BBC cripple HD offering to make it fit on Freeview
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:

Can anyone answer me this.

Why is a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a satellite dish treated
any differently to a lump of metal and plastic shaped into a TV
aerial?..

I'd love to know the answer to that too. Also, you actually have to point
out Sky/Mini dishes to foreign visitors, because they're not used to
seeing anything that small ! No one in *any* other country has a problem
with dishes, it's purely a UK thing. I'm sure that the Beeb's continued
refusal to embrace satellite as a 100% bona-fide delivery system is
indicative of that culture. We need to shake it off PDQ IMHO.

--


The BBC is more concerned with not seen to be embracing BSKYB too much. If
only The BBC hadn't ****ed up their satellite and interactive strategy way
back in the 1990s by over-partnering with BSKYB.

If The BBC had done their job properly, satellite would not be seen as under
Rupert's control today.