Super Hi-Vision
 

Just been to a public demonstration of Super Hi-Vision, leaflet says picture
is 16 times that of Hi-Vision with 2 million pixels, maybe someone will
equate that to BBC HD TV for me.
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of this
weekend.
Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and sound is good but felt
fewer channels of sound would have been just as good even with the cinemas
5.1 system.

In an adjacent cinema I have seen "films" in 4 and 6K digital and 5.1, 6.1
and 7.1 sound and was just as impressed.

Regards
David

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article ,
David wrote:
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of
this weekend. Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and sound
is good but felt fewer channels of sound would have been just as good
even with the cinemas 5.1 system.

The more channels of audio, the more to go badly wrong. Two is more than
adequate. Especially on something which is basically a live programme.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Super Hi-Vision
 

On 06/08/2012 14:59, David wrote:
Just been to a public demonstration of Super Hi-Vision, leaflet says
picture is 16 times that of Hi-Vision with 2 million pixels, maybe
someone will equate that to BBC HD TV for me.


hi vision is what the japanese called hi def.


--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

Super Hi-Vision
 

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:59:09 +0100, "David"
wrote:

Just been to a public demonstration of Super Hi-Vision, leaflet says picture
is 16 times that of Hi-Vision with 2 million pixels, maybe someone will
equate that to BBC HD TV for me.
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of this
weekend.
Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and sound is good but felt
fewer channels of sound would have been just as good even with the cinemas
5.1 system.

In an adjacent cinema I have seen "films" in 4 and 6K digital and 5.1, 6.1
and 7.1 sound and was just as impressed.

Funnily enough, I said much the same on 04/08/2012.

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , David
wrote:
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of
this weekend. Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and
sound is good but felt fewer channels of sound would have been just as
good even with the cinemas 5.1 system.

The more channels of audio, the more to go badly wrong. Two is more than
adequate. Especially on something which is basically a live programme.

I've encountered more than one commercial DVD with 'antiphase' stereo
rather than 'mono'. So I hate to think what some carelessly made
multichannel discs could turn out like!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super Hi-Vision
 

On 09/08/2012 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , David
wrote:
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of
this weekend. Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and
sound is good but felt fewer channels of sound would have been just as
good even with the cinemas 5.1 system.

The more channels of audio, the more to go badly wrong. Two is more than
adequate. Especially on something which is basically a live programme.

I've encountered more than one commercial DVD with 'antiphase' stereo
rather than 'mono'. So I hate to think what some carelessly made
multichannel discs could turn out like!

I had one with the stereo channels reversed... most disconcerting
watching a car cross the screen right to left while the noise went the
other way ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Super Hi-Vision
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/08/2012 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , David
wrote:
It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of
this weekend. Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and
sound is good but felt fewer channels of sound would have been just as
good even with the cinemas 5.1 system.

The more channels of audio, the more to go badly wrong. Two is more than
adequate. Especially on something which is basically a live programme.

I've encountered more than one commercial DVD with 'antiphase' stereo
rather than 'mono'. So I hate to think what some carelessly made
multichannel discs could turn out like!

I had one with the stereo channels reversed... most disconcerting watching
a car cross the screen right to left while the noise went the other way
;-)

The Goodmans GDB3 Freeview box did that until they upgraded the software.

--
Max Demian

Super Hi-Vision
 

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:59:09 +0100, "David"
wrote:

Just been to a public demonstration of Super Hi-Vision, leaflet says picture
is 16 times that of Hi-Vision with 2 million pixels, maybe someone will
equate that to BBC HD TV for me.

it is 4000 lines, compared to 1080i on BBC HD.

roughly 4x horizontal & vertical resolution.

It has 22.2 channel sound which claims to be far superior to 5.1 sound.


it was really impressive in the purpose made theatre at IBC a few
years back, but not much content, very few cameras etc.

It features recordings from the Olympics opening and GB successes of this
weekend.
Picture very impressive on a cinema size screen and sound is good but felt
fewer channels of sound would have been just as good even with the cinemas
5.1 system.

In an adjacent cinema I have seen "films" in 4 and 6K digital and 5.1, 6.1
and 7.1 sound and was just as impressed.

Regards
David
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article , Max Demian wrote:
I've encountered more than one commercial DVD with 'antiphase' stereo
rather than 'mono'. So I hate to think what some carelessly made
multichannel discs could turn out like!

I had one with the stereo channels reversed... most disconcerting watching
a car cross the screen right to left while the noise went the other way
;-)

The Goodmans GDB3 Freeview box did that until they upgraded the software.

When stereo started on analogue TV (NICAM), Channel 4 transmitted a lot of
movies like that for the first few months. It really did take months to fix it,
rather than a few minutes with a couple of patch cords as I would have
expected, from which I can only conclude that nobody was listening.

Rod.
--

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Max Demian wrote:
I've encountered more than one commercial DVD with 'antiphase'
stereo rather than 'mono'. So I hate to think what some carelessly
made multichannel discs could turn out like!

I had one with the stereo channels reversed... most disconcerting
watching a car cross the screen right to left while the noise went
the other way ;-)

The Goodmans GDB3 Freeview box did that until they upgraded the
software.

When stereo started on analogue TV (NICAM), Channel 4 transmitted a lot
of movies like that for the first few months. It really did take months
to fix it, rather than a few minutes with a couple of patch cords as I
would have expected, from which I can only conclude that nobody was
listening.


....and the BBC Scotland 6:30 news *still* keep broadcasting stereo items
where one channel can be heard before the other. (I've also heard them
broadcast antiphase as well.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

...and the BBC Scotland 6:30 news *still* keep broadcasting stereo items
where one channel can be heard before the other. (I've also heard them
broadcast antiphase as well.)

Why they bother with stereo on news I'll never know. They have more than
enough problems getting mono right.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

...and the BBC Scotland 6:30 news *still* keep broadcasting stereo
items where one channel can be heard before the other. (I've also
heard them broadcast antiphase as well.)

Why they bother with stereo on news I'll never know. They have more than
enough problems getting mono right.

Inclined to agree. I guess it because stereo is 'standard' for all the kit,
so comes with inter-operation between different purposes, uses, etc.

There is some point to well-provided stereo for some outside items, though.
Can give a better sense of being 'there'. However this seems so rarely
useful to news that we'd probably be better off if they'd stuck with mono.
Just one more thing they sometimes don't get right.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super Hi-Vision
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Why they bother with stereo on news I'll never know. They have more
than enough problems getting mono right.

Inclined to agree. I guess it because stereo is 'standard' for all the
kit, so comes with inter-operation between different purposes, uses, etc.

Fine if there is a skilled person operating it - but sadly these days too
often not.

There is some point to well-provided stereo for some outside items,
though. Can give a better sense of being 'there'. However this seems so
rarely useful to news that we'd probably be better off if they'd stuck
with mono. Just one more thing they sometimes don't get right.

Oh indeed. In an ideal world you'd do a stereo wild track not only to give
that atmosphere but to smooth over edits. But on many things they struggle
to record the voice correctly. Using personal mics in a noisy environment
where a hand held one close to the mouth would be far better. I do
sometimes wonder if anyone is actually listening during the recording.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.