BBC HD discussed on Points of View today

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David wrote:
I've commented on my BBC HD picture on Freesat and my finding it little
if anything better than normal BBC,

What have you been watching? Drama usually has the cameras 'softened' to
make the talent look 'better'.

So are these the ones where I see so difference between BBC1/2 and BBC HD?

Sports, etc, should be dramatically
different in HD.

Not into watching Sports, but I noticed if proper Live they look good on BBC
1/2 anyway.

Is here, anyway. Antiques Roadshow is one mainstream prog
that does benefit from HD.

Think this is where I would say little difference.


I'm using a Panasonic built in Freesat TV gives first rate pictures on
BBC1/2 anyway, maybe poorer sets do show difference from SD when in HD.

--
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:59:01 +0000, Zathras wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:03:20 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

she tried to give the impression that the only people who cared about the
quality were a bit weird.

Aren't they? I know of a guy (from 20 years ago) who refused to watch
VHS tapes as the quality wasn't good enough. Didn't upset me - it
never claimed to be top quality.

At the end of the day I am entertained by content not technical
quality. But, it's when people say I'm receiving high technical
quality and I disagree with them that I get ****ed off. Would be the
same for any product or service I receive though..

Agreed. The content is the key. Going from B&W to colour *did* improve
the programmes but SD - HD makes no difference to their watchability
at all. I.E. I don't watch any more TV now, with HD than before and have
not seen any content that was only available in HD.

The thing is, the minimum baseline for picture quality was established
a long time ago: it's basic VHS. The broadcasters know that audiences
are willing to put up with that [snip]


As you say, content is more important than quality.

I don't have HD and don't feel motivated to go out and spend a great deal on
it because the little television I watch is 'foreign' satTv programmes
broadcast in 4:3 at VHS quality because they have the content I want, e.g.
RAI Storia.

The long term decline in commercial television advertising revenue due to
changing audiences habits reflects changing a society where the days of the
family sitting round the only Tv in the house are long gone. People are
individuals, they want to see what they want, not to see what someone else -
even their partner - wants them to see even if it's in glorious HD and if
they can do that and the price is VHS quality they will choose that.

Would younger audiences rather sit watching their parents choice in amazing
HD or would they instead prefer to interact with their friends video on
myspace in the privacy of their own room even at mobile phone quality.
No choice really.

Roger R

David wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David wrote:
I've commented on my BBC HD picture on Freesat and my finding it little
if anything better than normal BBC,

What have you been watching? Drama usually has the cameras 'softened' to
make the talent look 'better'.

So are these the ones where I see so difference between BBC1/2 and BBC HD?

Sports, etc, should be dramatically
different in HD.

Not into watching Sports, but I noticed if proper Live they look good on
BBC 1/2 anyway.

Is here, anyway. Antiques Roadshow is one mainstream prog
that does benefit from HD.

Think this is where I would say little difference.


I'm using a Panasonic built in Freesat TV gives first rate pictures on
BBC1/2 anyway, maybe poorer sets do show difference from SD when in HD.

I think that is a valid point, often forgotten. I got my Panasonic LCD
(which doesn't have built-in Freesat) mainly on the grounds that every
review pointed out how good the SD picture was. And it is. But I can see
the difference between SD and HD, even "SD" on Freeview, which to my eyes
appears better than SD on Freesat (using the Bush HD Freesat receiver).

--
Jeff

David wrote:
: I've commented on my BBC HD picture on Freesat and my finding it little if
: anything better than normal BBC, I assume the BBC HD via Sky will get the
: same comments, but what about Sky's own HD programmes and movies?

Sky have always broadcasted at 1920x1080 (cf. BBCHD at 1440x1080 - even before
the bitrate decrease) and seem to have settled at about 12Mps as being "HD".

This seems to match the quality of the bulk of the source material and to
be working well!

"Brian Mc" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
: I've commented on my BBC HD picture on Freesat and my finding it little
if
: anything better than normal BBC, I assume the BBC HD via Sky will get
the
: same comments, but what about Sky's own HD programmes and movies?

Sky have always broadcasted at 1920x1080 (cf. BBCHD at 1440x1080 - even
before
the bitrate decrease) and seem to have settled at about 12Mps as being
"HD".

This seems to match the quality of the bulk of the source material and to
be working well!

So if I were to add a Sky HD box to my Panasonic Freesat TV would it be
better HD via the Sky box than the HD I see now?
Also would the Sky box upscale the normal as my Freesat built in appears to
be doing, this is why I think I see little or no differences by the way.

--
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.

David wrote:
: So if I were to add a Sky HD box to my Panasonic Freesat TV would it be
: better HD via the Sky box than the HD I see now?
: Also would the Sky box upscale the normal as my Freesat built in appears to
: be doing, this is why I think I see little or no differences by the way.

I would say that currently Sky HD output varies in quality based on the source
material - rather than being impacted by their transmission system. At its
very best (for example a series on National Geographic HD on "Wild Russia"
recently) I think it can now far exceed BBCHD.

Of course, apart from C4HD which is currently being transmitted by Sky and
which is available without a SkyHD subscription, you do pay for this
amount and quality of HD!

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:40:18 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

When they refer to "quality" they *only* mean the quality of the
content - they're not bothered *at all* about the technical quality.


Perhaps it's just me but I'm convinced the content quality of today's TV
isn't what it was.

Agreed. I miss the beardy man giving the OU lectures on daytime TV
;-)

Where's the "Horizon" of which I recall one newspaper reviewer saying
"It's all very well if you have a degree in science"? (or Equinox for
that matter)

Well there is a dumbed down version of horizon nowadays. They seem to
take trouble with fancy camera angles up the presenter's nose but less
effort goes into the content.

Where's "Tomorrow's World" to get the scientists and engineers of
tomorrow interested?

Well, exactly.

Is Tony Robinson _really_ the modern equivalent of Sir Mortimer Wheeler?

I believe Richard Hammond does some sciencey programmes for kids.

Where's "Monty Python" or "The Two Ronnies"? (no, _not_ "Only gay in the
village")

Welcome to post alternative comedy. Where actually being funny is no
longer necessary.

I'm just glad we now have the 'net!

There's only so many badly compressed versions of Monty Python I can
bear.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

In article ,
David wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David wrote:
I've commented on my BBC HD picture on Freesat and my finding it
little if anything better than normal BBC,

What have you been watching? Drama usually has the cameras 'softened'
to make the talent look 'better'.

So are these the ones where I see so difference between BBC1/2 and BBC
HD?

In terms of definition, yes. If you restrict that in the camera, the
transmission medium becomes irrelevant - assuming it's just good enough.

Sports, etc, should be dramatically
different in HD.

Not into watching Sports, but I noticed if proper Live they look good on
BBC 1/2 anyway.

I'm not a sports fan but the difference can be dramatic.

Is here, anyway. Antiques Roadshow is one mainstream prog that does
benefit from HD.

Think this is where I would say little difference.

Really?

I'm using a Panasonic built in Freesat TV gives first rate pictures on
BBC1/2 anyway, maybe poorer sets do show difference from SD when in HD.

Or perhaps your set just has a poor FreeSat tuner.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article

Or perhaps your set just has a poor FreeSat tuner.


Well in that case why do I get good ordinary TV pictures.

--
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.

"David" wrote in message
...



So if I were to add a Sky HD box to my Panasonic Freesat TV would it be
better HD via the Sky box than the HD I see now?
Also would the Sky box upscale the normal as my Freesat built in appears
to be doing, this is why I think I see little or no differences by the
way.




depends on the channel - for the ones you already get such as bbc hd, you'll
be receiving exactly the same channel - no difference.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!