HD DTT Licences awarded

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:30:40 +0100, "Malcolm H"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:27 +0100, "Malcolm H"
wrote:



A question please for you experts...

If I buy a new set now with the tick, and get an HD dish for freesat,
will I be able to receive current and future HD channels from
satellite, and forget about terrestrial HD?

Or will satellite HD change format to this new standard as well?

Or get a dish with a Sky satellite receiver including installation for a
one
off price of £150 and NO subscription.

You will receive around 240 channels including all the channels normally
broadcast terrestrially (plus dozens of radio channels). You will also
have
the OPTION (no compulsion) to subscribe to various bundles of
documentary,
sports and movie channels. See:
http://www.freesatfromsky.co.uk/freesat.aspx

For HD you can add a Freesat HD box* or upgrade to Sky HD with built-in
PVR
see: http://packages.sky.com/hd/newcustomerpricing/

* requires a multiport LNB on the dish (included in the Sky HD
solution).

Thank you all for your advice.
I don't want any subscription channels and would prefer not to put
money into Murdoch's pockets. I just want to receive whatever HD
freesat channels are available. My Humax PVR does all I want for DTV
and I would like to have something very similar for satellite HD. Is
it true Humax will have something available soon, and if so will I
still need to specify a multiport LNB?

I am not familiar with the Humax plans but there is some info he
http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/index.php/humax-pvr-update

Any satellite system with a PVR capable of recording two channels
simultaneously (e.g. Sky+) will require a LNB with at least two ports.


Thank you for the link Malcolm. That Humax box sounds exactly what I
need.

Also see he
http://www.parabolic.co.uk/catalog/p...5&osCsid=83de2

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I'd agree there is a lot of spin applied to this subject. 50Hz interlaced
video is perfectly acceptable if all you want to do is transmit it and look
at it in its original format as we used to do, but things become very
complicated if you want to any processing such as scaling, frame-rate
conversion or freeze-frames. These are things the broadcasters want to be
able to do nowadays, so the "need" to originate as non-interlaced is mostly
for their convenience.

Indeed, hence the push towards 1080-50p for all production/origination.

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

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:43:59 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:27 +0100, "Malcolm H"
wrote:

Thank you all for your advice.
I don't want any subscription channels and would prefer not to put
money into Murdoch's pockets. I just want to receive whatever HD
freesat channels are available.

Then you need a FreeSat receiver. BBC HD is available FTA, but AIUI
ITV HD can only be accessed via a FreeSat receiver.

My Humax PVR does all I want for DTV
and I would like to have something very similar for satellite HD. Is
it true Humax will have something available soon, and if so will I
still need to specify a multiport LNB?

Yes, if you want to watch any program while recording any other, you
will need at least a twin LNB, and each outlet of the LNB will require
its own downlead. Some, perhaps all(?), receivers, while recording
one channel, can let you watch another channel on the same
transponder, which doesn't require a second LNB.

There is still no FreeSat PVR, I can't comment, but others may be able
to, on which is closest to market. However, there are some FTA ones:
http://tinyurl.com/6a2t24
.... standing in for ...
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...2&postcount=20

I've done some general info on UK TV and choosing a TV, which may, or
may not, prove useful:
http://tinyurl.com/5r73m4
.... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi...TVInTheUK.html
.... and ...
http://tinyurl.com/5srngy
.... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi.../ChooseTV.html

BTW, for the benefit of others if not yourself, let's try and clarify
some potentially confusing definitions and acronyms:

Standard Definition (SD)
In the UK, 720 x 576 interlaced, stereo (576i). Note that some
channels actually broadcast SD at lower resolutions.

High Definition (HD)
In the UK, 1920 x 1080 interlaced, Dolby 5.1 surround sound (1080i).
Currently only available via satellite. Terrestrial resolutions may
be lower when they arrive. Note that the 'HD Ready' stickers on TVs
say nothing about their resolution - they simply mean that the TVs
can display a picture from an HD source, even if that is by
downconverting it to a lower resolution.

FreeView
The brand name (loosely speaking), of Digital Terrestrial Television
(DTT) in the UK - that is, the digital equivalent of what we used to
call simply 'TV'.

FTA
FreeToAir, available unencrypted via satellite using off-the-shelf
industry-standard equipment such as the occasional budget equipment
offers from Lidl. For example, all SD BBC, ITV, & Channel 4
'FreeSat' broadcasts, and BBC HD broadcasts, are actually also
available via suitable industry standard FTA receivers.

FreeSat
A UK only non-industry-standard extension to FTA available from 28.2E.
The most notable extension is a full Electronic Programme Guide (EPG),
but other important functionality is the extra sports channels and ITV
HD via the infamous red button. As this is a non-industry standard
extension, FTA receivers cannot receive these, while on some FreeSat
receivers it might be a pain tuning in to normal FTA channels, or they
even may not be able to receive them at all - the latter was a
particular problem initially, but IIRC most, perhaps all, of those
receivers have now been upgraded to allow this.

FreeSatFromSky, formerly FreeToView (FTV)
BSkyB's deliberate (which it must be as it's happened twice in a row)
spoiling tactic in choosing confusingly similar names for Sky products
should really have been brought to the attention of the Advertising
Standards Authority by now, as should the fact that it's far from
free. You pay a one-off but nevertheless hefty fee of £150 for them
to come and fit non-industry-standard equipment (which doesn't have
useful functionality like loop-through and cannot be used to receive
encrypted channels from other sources via industry standard Common
Access Modules, CAMs). The most important benefit in choosing this
option is access to the Five channel group, which is not FTA/FreeSat
(though rumours of impending change sometimes circulate). The most
important omission is ITV HD. You also can't get Sky PVR or HD
functionality without subscription, though FTA HD, such as BBC HD but
not ITV HD, can be got through the additional expense of getting a
suitable used box from somewhere like eBay.

HTHs

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:39:15 +0100, beginner wrote:
If I buy a new set now with the tick, and get an HD dish for freesat,

There is not such thing as an HD dish, just as there is no such thing as
a digital antenna.

You will also need to buy an HD capable satellite receiver for Freesat
as well as the dish.

will I be able to receive current and future HD channels from
satellite, and forget about terrestrial HD?

If the Freesat EPG is important to you, then as the Humax FoxSat-HD
specicifications

http://www.humaxdigital.com/freesat/specifications.asp

* DVB-S2 and DVB-S compatible
* Receiving HDTV signals (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and MPEG-2)
* Resolution format: 1080i, 720p, 576p, 576i
* HDMI - digital interface for perfect transmission of picture and sound
* Simultaneous playing of transmissions over HDMI, YPbPr or Scart*

include DVB-s2 + MPEG-4 then you will be covered for current and future
HD stations which broadcast with the latest available technology.

Or will satellite HD change format to this new standard as well?

DVB-s2 (which is not yet used by UKofGB&NI broadcasters) is the
satellite equivalent of DVB-t2, hence why it is important that
any HD box purchased is capable of receiving DVB-s2 as well as DVB-s,
in addition to the MPEG-4 decoding for HD and MPEG-2 for SD.

Signed ;P
Key things S/S2 MPEG4/MPEG2

Brian McIlwrath wrote:
wrote:
:
: 720p has been shown to give better picture quality. 720p is much
: better for sport where fast moving objects are in the picture.
:
: 1080i and 720p uses about same bandwidth. the 'i' format is
: a 'left-over' from the analogue systems.

Pardon? Where is your reference for 720p giving "better quality"????

Personally I will stick to 1080i and take the better resolution!

Remember the "i" means interlaced, so what is actually being sent is a
series of 520 line half frames.

Also the interlacing can make things worse for some types of material
(the commonly given example is fast movement, such as sport) though some
TVs are better than others at de-interlacing (as the screen itself is
progressive not interlaced).

1080p would be best, but uses far too much bandwidth to be feasible at
the current time.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I'd agree there is a lot of spin applied to this subject. 50Hz interlaced
video is perfectly acceptable if all you want to do is transmit it and look
at it in its original format as we used to do, but things become very
complicated if you want to any processing such as scaling, frame-rate
conversion or freeze-frames. These are things the broadcasters want to be
able to do nowadays, so the "need" to originate as non-interlaced is mostly
for their convenience.


It isn't just broadcasters - now we have LCDs which are natively
progressive rather than interlaced (therefore requiring de-interlace
hardware) and can be using different resolution displays (requiring
scaling hardware).

mr deo wrote:

I think that this will not be as bad as the Split-Nit problems have been,
but as a lot of people will not be happy throwing out a £800 tv as they were
a £50 stb then the gov may do something about it..


Luckily you don't need to throw out your TV. Instead you will need to
buy an extra box - built in tuner for SD, extra box for HD.

Yes it would be nice to have it all built in, but it is still a long way
off from being launched.

Mark investigated this a few weeks ago, and IIRC found a great deal of
uncertainty as to whether this is actually true, but I'll leave it to
him to clarify further.

As far as my own LCDs are concerned, I do not believe they are
converting interlaced to progressive:
http://tinyurl.com/6mf87k
.... standing in for ...
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...DInterlace.png

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:59:27 +0100, Stuart Clark
wrote:

Now we have LCDs which are natively
progressive rather than interlaced (therefore requiring de-interlace
hardware)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:54:39 +0100, Stuart Clark wrote:

1080p would be best, but uses far too much bandwidth to be feasible
at the current time.

Which begs the question, how are they ever going to broadcast Super
HiVision (7680x4320) developed by NHK? ;+)

http://gizmodo.COM/gadgets/inadequac...kes-your-hdtv-
obsolete-already-264077.php

In article , Stuart Clark wrote:

I'd agree there is a lot of spin applied to this subject. 50Hz interlaced
video is perfectly acceptable if all you want to do is transmit it and look
at it in its original format as we used to do, but things become very
complicated if you want to any processing such as scaling, frame-rate
conversion or freeze-frames. These are things the broadcasters want to be
able to do nowadays, so the "need" to originate as non-interlaced is mostly
for their convenience.


It isn't just broadcasters - now we have LCDs which are natively
progressive rather than interlaced (therefore requiring de-interlace
hardware) and can be using different resolution displays (requiring
scaling hardware).

That seems like a complication that requires further complication to make it
look simple. I suppose it's progress.

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