Sky's HDTV

Alan Truelove wrote:
"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ...


"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)


Why the fork would anyone designing for a new system, consider interlacing
the picture??!?!?

Interlacing is an old form of compression necessary back in the dark ages
(with a decline in quality when compared to progressive display), so why
bring it in in this day & age? Are Sky short of bandwidth??

Please, somebody more knowledgeable than I, explain this (apparently
bizarre) decision.

Luckily, in the US where the 720p60 and 1080i30 standards coexist, they
have the good sense to film all the big shows in 1080p24. That means
that when they get shown over here they will be 1080i25 segmented frame,
i.e. no temporal difference between the fields in a frame - effectively
1080p25 by the back door.

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

(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 agree that they should be aiming at 1080p, but how many decades will
it be before we get it? And in the meantime they should use the slightly
higher bit rate required to provide us with 1080i rather than being
tight-fisted and using 720p because it requires a slightly lower bit
rate. AFAIAC, that's end of story.


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


Broadcasters are a pretty secretive bunch, though, so for all we know
they may have advanced plans for Freesat.


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



I'm sure they can convince manufacturers and retailers to make available
a load of receivers without CA if they tried. They've got a load of
manufacturers to make radios for the ****ty DAB system, so surely
anything is capable?


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


You're not fking joking....


(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


They've already asked for more DAB capacity.


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,


I don't think any of the technical staff understand the finer points of
anything technical at the BBC.


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.


No doubt.


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.


Sure.


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.


Their holy grails are subscriber numbers and, what is it, ARPU (average
revenue per unit, eh?), and HD should help on both fronts. Sitting still
and milking previous investments may be risk-free (assuming there's no
other competition -- competition for HD might come from broadband
internet rather than from other broadcasters...), but it's crap for
growth, and they need to grow as much as possible between now and
analogue switch-off.


--
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

Mike Henry wrote:
In [email protected] ews, "Alan
Truelove" wrote:

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

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.

Can (either of) you explain why this is?

"better" is a subjective term, and there has been some (a huge amount
of!) discussion about this on uk.tech.digital-tv recently, but the
chaps on uk.tech.tv.sky won't have read much of it.

3 technical PDFs cover many of the issues:
http://www.ebu.ch/trev_299-ive.pdf
http://www.ebu.ch/trev_300-wood.pdf
http://svt.se/content/1/c6/30/08/47/...exga_final.pdf

That last one discusses a series of tests,


..... on pages 41 - 49.


including a video called
"park run" which illustrated well the problems that interlacing
causes.


You conveniently omit that 1080i had better picture quality on ALL OF
THE OTHER TESTS at everything higher than the LOWEST bit rate tested.


Not only that, but IIRC plasmas and LCDs cannot display an
interlaced signal anyway, so any broadcaster which throws away half
the picture information and uses interlacing is also relying on
consumer-grade deinterlacing in the viewer's home.


I watch quite a bit of TV and recorded TV on my PC monitor (progressive
display device), and I think this "problem" has been blown out of all
proportion. Further, by using 720p we're accepting a 70% lower
resolution just so that the broadcasters can save a few percent of
bandwidth or fit the odd extra channel in. Absolutely fking barmy if you
ask me.


Much of the discussion has focuses on whether interlacing, a
70-year-old compression scheme, should still be used at all.


FM was invented in about the 1930s, too, and it wipes the floor with the
audio quality of DAB.

Oh, and the U.S., Japan, Korea, China and Australia have all opted for
1080i. The population of those countries represents 30% of the world's
population, and obviously that percentage increases dramatically if you
just consider the developed world's population. But oh no, the
tight-arsed European broadcasters have to go their own way to save a
tiny bit of bandwidth.


--
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

Ed wrote:
Bart Simpson wrote:

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


You'll find out what it costs once Sky have calculated how to
squeeze the maximum amount of dosh from subscribers
while giving them the smallest possible quality improvement.
You can expect HDTV to give better pictures but not
that much better.


Yep, it seems they've decided to use 720p, and to be honest, I don't
think 720p should even be called HD.


--
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

Mike Henry wrote:
In , "DAB sounds worse than
FM" wrote:


You conveniently omit that 1080i had better picture quality on ALL OF
THE OTHER TESTS at everything higher than the LOWEST bit rate tested.

I'm not debating this. I wrote a summary that is all.


All I was saying was that the summary was extremely biased, IMO.


--
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

Bart Simpson wrote:
Can't wait to find out how much all this is going to cost.

A lot more than the average person can afford.
If anyone got any sense, they would not touch it with a barge pole,
until all the bugs have been sorted and there is a standard.

I think I will stay clear of HDTv for the next 30 years.

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

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.


Their holy grails are subscriber numbers and, what is it, ARPU (average
revenue per unit, eh?), and HD should help on both fronts. Sitting still and
milking previous investments may be risk-free (assuming there's no other
competition -- competition for HD might come from broadband internet rather
than from other broadcasters...), but it's crap for growth, and they need to
grow as much as possible between now and analogue switch-off.

Seems like little James is pursuing a dual strategy of mainstream Freesat/basic
level subscribers and high-end stuff, mudding the water regards the switch-off
will help them gain subscribers by default, the same way so many Solus
subscribers were coaxed into basic subscriptions. If the government mandates
that an analogue transmitter be switched off and it has the result of lots of
people being forced into Sky's hands then the govt would still consider that a
success.

Their HD service should have the same effect as Sky+ and reduce churn really low
levels, if it enables them to retain lots of high-end subscribers who spend lots
of cash then they'll be happy.


Az.

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Bart Simpson wrote:
Can't wait to find out how much all this is going to cost.

A lot more than the average person can afford.
If anyone got any sense, they would not touch it with a barge pole, until
all the bugs have been sorted and there is a standard.

I think I will stay clear of HDTv for the next 30 years.

Quite, I can picture Sky One already making Star Trek and The Simpsons
*digitally re-enhanced for HDTV*
So really it'll be much the same old repeats but charging more this
round,Then of course more and more *puking up on holiday* programmes will
start being cheaply made in HDTV format too (To be shown on the HD channels
first,Then to the pauper *norm-digi* channels only.

Then how long before channels go from normal digital to HD only forcing the
subscriber to cough up for more equipment to watch their usual programming?
As far as bugs are concerned, I doubt that'll bother Sky one bit...It has'nt
so far with digital!

The Wizard wrote:


Quite, I can picture Sky One already making Star Trek and The Simpsons
*digitally re-enhanced for HDTV*

I do not think it would look right.


So really it'll be much the same old repeats but charging more this
round,Then of course more and more *puking up on holiday* programmes will
start being cheaply made in HDTV format too (To be shown on the HD channels
first,Then to the pauper *norm-digi* channels only.

Yes, that would not surprise me



Then how long before channels go from normal digital to HD only forcing the
subscriber to cough up for more equipment to watch their usual programming?

I think that will be a long time coming, since most people seems happy
with the picture quality they get from digital, I can not see them
getting HD.

I think HDTV will be for people with plenty of money or those who got
the room for it to make any difference.
Putting a T.V anoy larger than 32inches in my sitting room would be a
waste of time and money.


As far as bugs are concerned, I doubt that'll bother Sky one bit...It has'nt
so far with digital!


True, very true.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Mike Henry wrote:
In [email protected] ews, "Alan
Truelove" wrote:

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

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.


....snip...


including a video called
"park run" which illustrated well the problems that interlacing
causes.


You conveniently omit that 1080i had better picture quality on ALL OF
THE OTHER TESTS at everything higher than the LOWEST bit rate tested.


Not only that, but IIRC plasmas and LCDs cannot display an
interlaced signal anyway, so any broadcaster which throws away half
the picture information and uses interlacing is also relying on
consumer-grade deinterlacing in the viewer's home.


I watch quite a bit of TV and recorded TV on my PC monitor (progressive
display device), and I think this "problem" has been blown out of all
proportion. Further, by using 720p we're accepting a 70% lower
resolution just so that the broadcasters can save a few percent of
bandwidth or fit the odd extra channel in. Absolutely fking barmy if you
ask me.



From Sky's point of view this seems a bit of a no-brainer. The largest
majority of their subscribers do so for the football and first run movies.
It would seem that if sport and fast moving action films are going to look
better with the progressive scan system, then that is the system they will
choose.

--
Paul Schofield

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana