Sky's HDTV

Andrew Norman wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:39:50 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sky do with their own channels in
this respect. I would've thought they'd go for 1080i, because
bandwidth isn't a problem for them, and it'd give the public service
broadcasters the

I hope this turns out to be true, but it is not as if they have always
used the highest bit rates on their existing SD channels, so I'm not
sure that the argument that bandwidth isn't a problem for them holds
much water.


Just to clarify: the point I was making was that 1080i requires a
slightly higher bit rate than 720p does, so the slight increase in bit
rate that seems to be putting off the European public service
broadcasters isn't a problem for satellite.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

What an interesting compendium of views. Ho Ho.
Equate it to colour TV and you will see that colour was quickly taken up but
I dont think someone who has just spent on a flat panel that is not
compatible, or freeview box, vcr or dvd recorder, is going to be interested
in buying into a few channels on sky at an extra subscription and equipment
cost.


"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Aztech wrote:

The fact of the matter is BSkyB are moving ahead and actually doing
something whilst the self-entitled vanguard of innovation and
originality that is the Beeb


I thought they had an Imagineering department? Surely that proves that
they are the vanguard of innovation?


(and the rest of the PSB's) are doing
sweet FA apart from publishing a few technical papers on the lowest
possible resolution they can get away with...


I knew you'd come to your senses in the end...


I can't see the BBC doing anything soon, they're so entrenched in the
promotion of their beloved (standard definition) Freeview service for
political reasons they won't do anything that might undermine its
success, like providing stunning HD content on satellite.


They could use HD as a means of luring people onto Freesat, and let
Freeview fend for itself, cos it doesn't seem to be doing badly.


Even if you question BSkyB's way of doing business you must
acknowledge they do take risks on new technology


True. But I don't think the move into HD is anywhere like the kind of
risks they've taken in the past. I think this is far more likely to be a
sure-fire success.


If we waited for the BBC or ITV do something by their own volition...


And when the BBC do move of their own volition then they choose the wrong
technology; DAB being the perfect example.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Aztech wrote:

The fact of the matter is BSkyB are moving ahead and actually doing
something whilst the self-entitled vanguard of innovation and
originality that is the Beeb

I thought they had an Imagineering department? Surely that proves that they
are the vanguard of innovation?

Why just have a pointless job title when you can have a pointless department?


(and the rest of the PSB's) are doing
sweet FA apart from publishing a few technical papers on the lowest
possible resolution they can get away with...


I knew you'd come to your senses in the end...

I have no problem with 720p, but at this stage they should be aiming for 1080p
rather than still messing around with interlace formats that are obviously dated
when it comes to modern displays.



I can't see the BBC doing anything soon, they're so entrenched in the
promotion of their beloved (standard definition) Freeview service for
political reasons they won't do anything that might undermine its
success, like providing stunning HD content on satellite.


They could use HD as a means of luring people onto Freesat, and let Freeview
fend for itself, cos it doesn't seem to be doing badly.

I doubt it, Freeview is their only method of retaining the licence long-term,
Freesat may be too much of a gamble, it may not go mainstream given the lack of
interest from ITV/C4/five and there's no guarantee the boxes won't have
conditional access capabilities (most FTA boxes do), which is obviously why the
Beeb love Freeview and consequently dislike TopUp and their nasty CA capable
boxes and cards

Just before their consortium won the Freeview licences the Beeb said they did
not see a future for DTT given the lack of viewers and high transmission
costs.... unless they won the licences. So the platform hasn't survived based on
its technical merits, it wouldn't have been built at all save the governments
vain hope of attaining some kind of platform 'plurality' back in the mid 90's.

I wouldn't say the BBC is quality focused on the technical level (or when it
comes to most of their content these days), the qualities on DAB are deemed good
enough and they're not asking for more spectrum so I can't see them begging for
any more UHF spectrum for a HD DTT service come the analogue switch-off. I doubt
anyone on the managerial level has any technical experience or understands the
finer points of this anyway, this stuff is technical voodoo after all... by the
time this problem hits them it will be too late, they'll have to start a
committee and the planning will be 5 years behind.



Even if you question BSkyB's way of doing business you must
acknowledge they do take risks on new technology


True. But I don't think the move into HD is anywhere like the kind of risks
they've taken in the past. I think this is far more likely to be a sure-fire
success.

Maybe, but the point is they don't need to do it given their strong position and
the lamentable competition. Sky could quite easily continue to milk their
existing infrastructure, all the capital costs have now been amortized. However
they've taken the decision to bite the bullet and they're making the investment.


Az.

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:26:21 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Just to clarify: the point I was making was that 1080i requires a
slightly higher bit rate than 720p does, so the slight increase in
bit rate that seems to be putting off the European public service
broadcasters isn't a problem for satellite.

AIUI there are pros & cons of 720p versus 1080i. 1080i is better for
sports & action whereas on more static pictures like documentaries
720p gives a better picture.


Other way round. 720p is better for sport and action, 1080i is better
for everything else.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:39:50 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

My main concern is that the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), who
represent the public service broadcasters (e.g. BBC, ITV, C4) want to
use 720p instead of 1080i, primarily due to bandwidth limits on DTT.
720p requires a slightly lower bit rate than 1080i, but it has far lower
resolution.

It'll be interesting to see what Sky do with their own channels in this
respect. I would've thought they'd go for 1080i, because bandwidth isn't
a problem for them, and it'd give the public service broadcasters the
dilemna that if they used 720p on DTT then Sky's marketing department
could turn round and say that HD on DTT isn't really HD at all, or at
the very least they can legitimately say that the resolution is
significantly higher on Sky.

From http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-...s.php?id=7606:

"WHAT FORMAT WILL SKY'S HDTV SYSTEM USE?
* Sky 's HDTV broadcasting system and HDTV receiver will support two
HDTV formats: 720 / P / 50 (Progressively Scanned picture) and 1080 /
I / 25 (Interlaced picture)

* Sky believes the progressively scanned picture format is better
suited for the delivery and viewing of HD content on large screen,
flat panel displays (mostly plasma or LCD) that are increasingly
available in electrical and specialist retailers. However, Sky does
accept that for some types of programming, the higher screen
resolution offered by the 1080 Interlaced format may be preferable.

* Broadcasters planning on launching HD services on the digital
satellite platform will be able to choose whether to broadcast content
in 720 / P / 50 or 1080 / I / 25. "

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:26:21 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Just to clarify: the point I was making was that 1080i requires a
slightly higher bit rate than 720p does, so the slight increase in bit
rate that seems to be putting off the European public service
broadcasters isn't a problem for satellite.

AIUI there are pros & cons of 720p versus 1080i. 1080i is better for sports &
action whereas on more static pictures like documentaries 720p gives a better
picture.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

The best thing ITV, C4 and five can do is to encourage as many people on
to free-to-air platforms, because rather than being little fishes in
large ponds on satellite or cable, they're bigger fish in smaller ponds
on FTA systems. And if they, along with the BBC, transmit HD on Freesat
then that would give people an incentive to get Freesat, and less of an
incentive to get Sky for HDTV.



That can't happen unless everyone at the same time buys a new DTT set
top box, the "old" DVB-T signal is switched off, and then a new HDTV
signal takes over. We have not got everyone to buy a DTT box yet!

The two systems are incompatible, not backwards compatible, and there
won't be the spectrum for co-running.

And when the existing analogue channels are recycled, would they go HDTV
or rather sell the frequencies for porn and more ****ing shopping
channels? ;-)



Also look how Digital Radio is inferior in quality to FM radio,


When people talk about DAB being of inferior quality to FM radio,
they're usually talking about the audio quality, not the robustness of
the signal.

DOH.





how most DTT channels are still on QAM64 rather than the more robust
QAM16,


As I said above, the 64-QAM DTT muxes have had their transmitter powers
increased, so robustness isn't really a problem any more.



So what was the point of QAM 16 then?




And lastly the BBC who admit to 20% of people being opposed to the
licence fee: Could they realistcally deploy an HDTV system


Yes.


It would be subject to both the DCMS and B of G, I mean "BBC Trust
Committee"'s approval, probably after a wide-ranging industry and public
****sultation.

There would also be the issue of an increased licence fee settlement to
pay for it.

May be Grade, Jowell, and Gordon Brown will agree this in the
forthcoming "licence fee settlment"?

More BBC trials for not paying the High Definition TV Licence Fee?




It will definitely happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4065565.stm

"The BBC will start broadcasting in HDTV when the time is right, and it
would not be just a showcase, but a whole set of programming," says Andy
Quested, from the BBC's high-definition support group.


Never believe the BBC Press Office! No dates? No costs?



"We have made the commitment to produce all our output in
high-definition by 2010, which would put us on the leading edge."


Well of course the programme storage would move to the highest level
storage standard regardless of transmission because of the issue of
global programme sales and how the BBC is trying to sell more "movies"
to the cinema distributors!



My main concern is that the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), who
represent the public service broadcasters (e.g. BBC, ITV, C4) want to
use 720p instead of 1080i, primarily due to bandwidth limits on DTT.
720p requires a slightly lower bit rate than 1080i, but it has far lower
resolution.

It'll be interesting to see what Sky do with their own channels in this
respect. I would've thought they'd go for 1080i, because bandwidth isn't
a problem for them, and it'd give the public service broadcasters the
dilemna that if they used 720p on DTT then Sky's marketing department
could turn round and say that HD on DTT isn't really HD at all, or at
the very least they can legitimately say that the resolution is
significantly higher on Sky.


Freeview plain old DVB-T.

plus

BSKYB will offer the Mercedes BMW of TV services. High price. Nice
badge. Same programmes. Same traffic-jams full of adverts, logos,
red-dots, repeats.





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...


£150M cost of collection.
£150M cost of evasion.
10% of the business of the UK's criminal justice system.

That's £300M a year just in financial overhead before even one minute of
Natasha Kaplunksky's salary is paid for.

The cost of the licence fee's collection will rise.

Also as the licence fee rises, so the incentive to evade rises, making
the use of 1930s authoritarian regime collective-socialst style tactics
even less cost effective.

In the recent announcement Tessa Jowell kept saying that the licence fee should
be reviewed after digital switchover.

Why I ask myself? Does the government have encryption in mind?

--

Michael Chare

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:08:49 -0000, "Michael Chare"
wrote:

| "Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
| news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...
|
|
| £150M cost of collection.
| £150M cost of evasion.
| 10% of the business of the UK's criminal justice system.
|
| That's £300M a year just in financial overhead before even one minute of
| Natasha Kaplunksky's salary is paid for.
|
| The cost of the licence fee's collection will rise.
|
| Also as the licence fee rises, so the incentive to evade rises, making
| the use of 1930s authoritarian regime collective-socialst style tactics
| even less cost effective.
|
| In the recent announcement Tessa Jowell kept saying that the licence fee should
| be reviewed after digital switchover.
|
| Why I ask myself? Does the government have encryption in mind?

No the Conservatives want that ASAP
After the Tessa Jowell statement the Conservative spokesman asked what was
being done to encourage CAM technology. (Tits UpTv)

--
Dave Fawthrop Sick of Premium SMS scams,
SMS marketing, Direct marketing phone calls, Silent phone calls?
Register with http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/
IME they work :-)

Bart Simpson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Can't wait to find out how much all this is going to cost.

Exactly. And the content won't be any better than it is now either.

A complete and utter waste of money.