BBC Trust may not allow HD on Freeview!

On 25 Sep, 17:26, "Ivan" wrote:
Meanwhile in 1964 things could have been a whole lot worse if we had
listened to the so called experts back then!

"The Sub-Group had before it considerable evidence of trials and experiments
undertaken by Administrations and by members of the European Broadcasting
Union and by the Radio industry. These results covered all aspects of a
public colour television service-the design of studio equipment-magnetic
tape recorders-radio transmitters-problems of propagation-and receivers. The
delegates also had the opportunity to participate in a number of
demonstrations of the three systems. N.T.S.C., SECAM and PAL. "

doesnt that really depend on your pov, since the NTSC adoptees are
streets ahead on the HD takeup front, and this whole debate probably
wouldnt even be happening had some sensible soul said back then hey
lets adopt the same standard, as the technology we'd be using could
then be universal.

but no we'd far rather we had to contend with all that PAL speed up
nonsense, and our half written non-adopted standards that render the
technology useless in a few years, thats a much more a British
solution.

Ivan wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadc...StoryID=171339

"Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy of the BBC
Trust unit, said: "It is a consumer issue. The BBC could launch a
four hour overnight service straight away and people will go out and
buy an HD box. The danger is that following switchover the
technology will become redundant in a digital box depending on
where when digital switchover happens where you live,""


And an HD set-top box would NOT be obsolete come digital switchover,
because it would be just the same as any other MPEG-2-only set-top
box, so it won't be able to receive HD channels, but it will be able
to receive the SD channels. So unless they're going to label ALL
Freeview boxes in the shops as being "obsolete after 2012" then
they're talking out of their arses.

When I saw the professions of the people on the BBC Trust I knew
they'd screw up all technical stuff, because there are ZERO
technical people on the BBC Trust, and they're ALL bloody media
luvvies and lawyers and other people who think they understand
technical issues (oh, we're so clever, we can understand anything
the geeks can do), but the people who decided to adopt DAB were also
the exact same kind of non-technical know-nothings, and they just
thought it would be fine to launch a digital radio system that was
designed in the mid sodding 80s and everything would just be hunky
dory. And now look where that is. Clueless idiots.


Meanwhile in 1964 things could have been a whole lot worse if we had
listened to the so called experts back then!


So what are you trying to say then? Let the execs make the decisions
regarding technology adoption? We've got DAB due to that. So justify that
minuscule blunder.

Also, how do you know that the engineers preferring NTSC hadn't been told to
prefer that by their bosses? I've seen a few BBC "engineers" who sold out
over DAB (and got their promotions in return) and said how good it was,
despite the fact that it is the most incompetently designed piece of **** of
a system imaginable.

Another example of what you laughably seem to prefer is that the UK is the
only country I'm aware of using 2K mode DVB-T. And we chose to go ahead with
2K despite 8K chips coming out just a few months later. Care to justify that
little governmental ****up? No SFNs for the UK, oh no, not with 2K. Just all
the joys of impulsive interference and a 7 microseconds guard interval that
means reception screws up when there's multipaths that are delayed longer
than 7 microseconds relative to the first multipath (not far in terms of
time of flight).

The broadcasting engineers seem to make bad enough decisions as it is half
the time, without you wanting to bypass them altogether and allow the
technically incompetent executives to make all the decisions instead!!! Get
a grip.



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

wrote in message
ups.com...
On 25 Sep, 17:26, "Ivan" wrote:
Meanwhile in 1964 things could have been a whole lot worse if we had
listened to the so called experts back then!

"The Sub-Group had before it considerable evidence of trials and
experiments
undertaken by Administrations and by members of the European Broadcasting
Union and by the Radio industry. These results covered all aspects of a
public colour television service-the design of studio equipment-magnetic
tape recorders-radio transmitters-problems of propagation-and receivers.
The
delegates also had the opportunity to participate in a number of
demonstrations of the three systems. N.T.S.C., SECAM and PAL. "

doesnt that really depend on your pov, since the NTSC adoptees are
streets ahead on the HD takeup front, and this whole debate probably
wouldnt even be happening had some sensible soul said back then hey
lets adopt the same standard, as the technology we'd be using could
then be universal.

but no we'd far rather we had to contend with all that PAL speed up
nonsense, and our half written non-adopted standards that render the
technology useless in a few years, thats a much more a British
solution.



IIUI the GPO were actually are urging the government to give the go ahead
for NTSC on 405 lines VHF, how do you reckon that would have been an
improvement over the rest of Europe and ultimately most of the world
adopting PAL 625 lines?

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Ivan wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadc...StoryID=171339

"Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy of the BBC
Trust unit, said: "It is a consumer issue. The BBC could launch a
four hour overnight service straight away and people will go out and
buy an HD box. The danger is that following switchover the
technology will become redundant in a digital box depending on
where when digital switchover happens where you live,""


And an HD set-top box would NOT be obsolete come digital switchover,
because it would be just the same as any other MPEG-2-only set-top
box, so it won't be able to receive HD channels, but it will be able
to receive the SD channels. So unless they're going to label ALL
Freeview boxes in the shops as being "obsolete after 2012" then
they're talking out of their arses.

When I saw the professions of the people on the BBC Trust I knew
they'd screw up all technical stuff, because there are ZERO
technical people on the BBC Trust, and they're ALL bloody media
luvvies and lawyers and other people who think they understand
technical issues (oh, we're so clever, we can understand anything
the geeks can do), but the people who decided to adopt DAB were also
the exact same kind of non-technical know-nothings, and they just
thought it would be fine to launch a digital radio system that was
designed in the mid sodding 80s and everything would just be hunky
dory. And now look where that is. Clueless idiots.


Meanwhile in 1964 things could have been a whole lot worse if we had
listened to the so called experts back then!


So what are you trying to say then? Let the execs make the decisions
regarding technology adoption? We've got DAB due to that. So justify that
minuscule blunder.

Also, how do you know that the engineers preferring NTSC hadn't been told
to prefer that by their bosses? I've seen a few BBC "engineers" who sold
out over DAB (and got their promotions in return) and said how good it
was, despite the fact that it is the most incompetently designed piece of
**** of a system imaginable.

Another example of what you laughably seem to prefer is that the UK is the
only country I'm aware of using 2K mode DVB-T. And we chose to go ahead
with 2K despite 8K chips coming out just a few months later. Care to
justify that little governmental ****up? No SFNs for the UK, oh no, not
with 2K. Just all the joys of impulsive interference and a 7 microseconds
guard interval that means reception screws up when there's multipaths that
are delayed longer than 7 microseconds relative to the first multipath
(not far in terms of time of flight).

The broadcasting engineers seem to make bad enough decisions as it is half
the time, without you wanting to bypass them altogether and allow the
technically incompetent executives to make all the decisions instead!!!
Get a grip.



Did you miss the point of my a post? because what I was pointing out was
that if the powers that be at that time had gone along with the wishes of
the then 'experts' at the GPO, we could well have been saddled with a NTSC
405 line system on VHF.. In which case why do you feel that that would have
been a better system to adopt rather than the PAL 625 line alternative
chosen by the rest of Europe?



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

In article ,
Ivan wrote:


IIUI the GPO were actually are urging the government to give the go ahead
for NTSC on 405 lines VHF, how do you reckon that would have been an
improvement over the rest of Europe and ultimately most of the world
adopting PAL 625 lines?

Most of the world? Basically those countries that have 60Hz mains use NTSC
and those with 50Hz mains use either PAL or SECAM - the latter in ex-French
colonies and Russia. Yes, there are exceptions, but in population terms
the split is probably fairly even between PAL & NTSC.

NTSC had serious 'teething problems' in the USA, but by the early '60s
there could be solved because of improved technology. Sets didn't delay
lines which were at the time quite expensive.

405 NTSC looked good, I saw the last of the demo broadcasts on my first day
at TVC. The idea of adding colour to the existing service had its merits.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ivan wrote:


IIUI the GPO were actually are urging the government to give the go ahead
for NTSC on 405 lines VHF, how do you reckon that would have been an
improvement over the rest of Europe and ultimately most of the world
adopting PAL 625 lines?

Most of the world? Basically those countries that have 60Hz mains use
NTSC
and those with 50Hz mains use either PAL or SECAM - the latter in
ex-French
colonies and Russia. Yes, there are exceptions, but in population terms
the split is probably fairly even between PAL & NTSC.

So you don't think then that there are likely more PAL 625 viewers in China
(India) alone than there are in the whole of the NTSC 525 region?


NTSC had serious 'teething problems' in the USA, but by the early '60s
there could be solved because of improved technology. Sets didn't delay
lines which were at the time quite expensive.


I have to say that I've done a reasonable amount of work over the years for
Americans resident in this country, I've also had friends who have lived and
worked in the states and have to say that the general consensus always
appears to be that analogue OTA broadcasts here in the UK are definitely
superior to what they've been used to watching in the U.S.

405 NTSC looked good, I saw the last of the demo broadcasts on my first
day
at TVC. The idea of adding colour to the existing service had its merits.



--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM writes
Paul Schofield wrote:
"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message
. ..
...snip...

There is also the interesting discussion as to which is better:

1. Delay and then everyone will have SD Freeview and there will be
lots of boxes that need to be replaced when HD starts

2. Go-for-it and then although existing users won't get HD, new
users might actually buy HD-ready Freeview boxes.

or as I read it

3. The technical specification for the HD delivery will change in a
couple of years so people buying an HD box now would be forced to buy
a new one in 2 years time.


They'll be referring to DVB-T2, which as a standard hasn't been completed
yet but it's going to be used to enable HD on DTT. And the HD DTT boxes you
can buy today just support MPEG-4 video.

Have they not heard of sticky things called labels? You normally put them on
boxes to tell people something or other, like BUY ONE GET ONE FREE. I used
to work at a supermarket many years ago, and that label normally gets
noticed, so why the fk they can't put a label on an HD DTT set-top box
saying that it won't be able to receive HD after DSO God only knows.

Perhaps manufactures and retailers are under the impression that a
"Don't buy me!" sticker might reduce sales.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

In article . com,
wrote:
but no we'd far rather we had to contend with all that PAL speed up
nonsense, and our half written non-adopted standards that render the
technology useless in a few years, thats a much more a British
solution.

The so-called "PAL speed up problem" is nothing to do with PAL. It is
simply an incompatibility between the frame rates of cinema films and
broadcast television, and would not have been affected by our choice of
colour system in 1964. A decade before any home video recording system
was readily available, it probably wasn't foreseeable that television
equipment would be routinely used for home viewing of films originally
made for the cinema.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article . com,
wrote:
but no we'd far rather we had to contend with all that PAL speed up
nonsense, and our half written non-adopted standards that render the
technology useless in a few years, thats a much more a British
solution.

The so-called "PAL speed up problem" is nothing to do with PAL. It is
simply an incompatibility between the frame rates of cinema films and
broadcast television, and would not have been affected by our choice of
colour system in 1964. A decade before any home video recording system
was readily available, it probably wasn't foreseeable that television
equipment would be routinely used for home viewing of films originally
made for the cinema.

I expect that a 24 fps TV system would suffer from interference from the
50Hz mains, at least it would have in those days.

Nowadays it would be easy to repeat a frame every 24 frames of film, or do a
more complicated interpolation.

It could even be done mechanically with a conventional film-to-video
machine - after all, the Yanks must repeat every fourth frame to convert
from 24 to 30 fps.

--
Max Demian

Ivan wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Ivan wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadc...StoryID=171339

"Chris Woolard, head of finance, economics and strategy of the BBC
Trust unit, said: "It is a consumer issue. The BBC could launch a
four hour overnight service straight away and people will go out
and buy an HD box. The danger is that following switchover the
technology will become redundant in a digital box depending on
where when digital switchover happens where you live,""


And an HD set-top box would NOT be obsolete come digital
switchover, because it would be just the same as any other
MPEG-2-only set-top box, so it won't be able to receive HD
channels, but it will be able to receive the SD channels. So
unless they're going to label ALL Freeview boxes in the shops as
being "obsolete after 2012" then they're talking out of their
arses. When I saw the professions of the people on the BBC Trust I knew
they'd screw up all technical stuff, because there are ZERO
technical people on the BBC Trust, and they're ALL bloody media
luvvies and lawyers and other people who think they understand
technical issues (oh, we're so clever, we can understand anything
the geeks can do), but the people who decided to adopt DAB were
also the exact same kind of non-technical know-nothings, and they
just thought it would be fine to launch a digital radio system
that was designed in the mid sodding 80s and everything would just
be hunky dory. And now look where that is. Clueless idiots.


Meanwhile in 1964 things could have been a whole lot worse if we had
listened to the so called experts back then!


So what are you trying to say then? Let the execs make the decisions
regarding technology adoption? We've got DAB due to that. So justify
that minuscule blunder.

Also, how do you know that the engineers preferring NTSC hadn't been
told to prefer that by their bosses? I've seen a few BBC "engineers"
who sold out over DAB (and got their promotions in return) and said
how good it was, despite the fact that it is the most incompetently
designed piece of **** of a system imaginable.

Another example of what you laughably seem to prefer is that the UK
is the only country I'm aware of using 2K mode DVB-T. And we chose
to go ahead with 2K despite 8K chips coming out just a few months
later. Care to justify that little governmental ****up? No SFNs for
the UK, oh no, not with 2K. Just all the joys of impulsive
interference and a 7 microseconds guard interval that means
reception screws up when there's multipaths that are delayed longer
than 7 microseconds relative to the first multipath (not far in
terms of time of flight). The broadcasting engineers seem to make bad
enough decisions as it
is half the time, without you wanting to bypass them altogether and
allow the technically incompetent executives to make all the
decisions instead!!! Get a grip.



Did you miss the point of my a post? because what I was pointing out
was that if the powers that be at that time had gone along with the
wishes of the then 'experts' at the GPO, we could well have been
saddled with a NTSC 405 line system on VHF.. In which case why do
you feel that that would have been a better system to adopt rather
than the PAL 625 line alternative chosen by the rest of Europe?


Yes, I knew that you were making the point that the experts were proposing
the "wrong" (in your eyes) system. So now go back and read my post knowing
that I knew what you meant.


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