A Home cinema forum. HomeCinemaBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HomeCinemaBanter forum » Home cinema newsgroups » UK digital tv
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Terrestrial HDTV ready for spectrum release



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 04, 11:51 PM
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Terrestrial HDTV ready for spectrum release

according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's IEE
Review magazine.

TERRESTRIAL HDTV READY FOR SPECTRUM RELEASE

Engineers from BBC R&D demonstrated high-definition television (HDTV)
over a digital terrestrial network (DVB-T) for the first time at the show.
Team member Richard Salmon said that the driver for an improved picture
is the quality of displays in homes. Screens over 30in make 702x576 line
definition unacceptable and 1280x720 is the best compromise of picture
quality and data rate. "It's possible for DVB-T, alongside satellite and
cable, to deliver these services in the near future," said Salmon.
"European broadcasters are already producing high-definition content for
overseas sales."
The problem is the amount of spectrum required to broadcast HDTV over
the terrestrial network. Europe cannot currently justify using a whole
multiplex for a single channel. However, emerging compression
technologies will make a service feasible soon.
Karl Gasson, business development manager with satellite operator SES
Astra, agreed that, although customer demand for better broadcast
quality is growing, high-definition services won't be able to penetrate
the digital terrestrial market until spectrum is released by switching
off the analogue signal - probably not until 2010.



So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i with
something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed up
by analogue switchoff.
  #2  
Old July 2nd 04, 12:59 AM
Stephen Neal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ben wrote:
according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's IEE
Review magazine.

[snip]

So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i with
something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed up
by analogue switchoff.


I read that on the train this evening (sad MIEE that I am) - but I think
1280x720 is only ever likely to be deployed as a 720p format. I've never
seen 720/50i or 60i espoused as a broadcast HDTV format - for broadcast or
acquisition. The two camps are pretty much 1920x1080/50i or 60i (with
1920x1080/25p or 24p - with possible 30p for acquisition) and 1280x720/60p
and a possible 1280x720/50p standard. (In Aus they use 1440x1080/50i - and
also class 720x576/50p as HDTV) Currently also HDCam subsamples to
1440x1080/50i or 60i for VTR recording purposes.

I think the 1280x720 format would only be deployed progressively - as with
the Kell factor it pretty much approaches the same vertical resolution as a
1080 line interlaced format.

With the increasing popularity of progressive displays (plasma, DLP, LCD) -
much as it pains an interlaced-CRT fan like myself to admit it - I suspect
that pragmatically progressive may be the way forward if progressive
displays are the future. (Unless consumer level interlace to progressive
conversions improve that is...)

Steve


  #3  
Old July 2nd 04, 10:47 AM
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Neal wrote:
Ben wrote:

according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's IEE
Review magazine.


[snip]


So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i with
something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed up
by analogue switchoff.



I read that on the train this evening (sad MIEE that I am) - but I think
1280x720 is only ever likely to be deployed as a 720p format. I've never
seen 720/50i or 60i espoused as a broadcast HDTV format - for broadcast or
acquisition. The two camps are pretty much 1920x1080/50i or 60i (with
1920x1080/25p or 24p - with possible 30p for acquisition) and 1280x720/60p
and a possible 1280x720/50p standard. (In Aus they use 1440x1080/50i - and
also class 720x576/50p as HDTV) Currently also HDCam subsamples to
1440x1080/50i or 60i for VTR recording purposes.

I think the 1280x720 format would only be deployed progressively - as with
the Kell factor it pretty much approaches the same vertical resolution as a
1080 line interlaced format.

With the increasing popularity of progressive displays (plasma, DLP, LCD) -
much as it pains an interlaced-CRT fan like myself to admit it - I suspect
that pragmatically progressive may be the way forward if progressive
displays are the future. (Unless consumer level interlace to progressive
conversions improve that is...)

Steve



I agree with your comments, but its the phrase "best compromise" that
lead me to suspect 720i. Surely 720p is not a compromise - it uses as
much bandwidth as 1080i. If we are going to get 720p on terrestrial then
I for one would be delighted.
  #4  
Old July 2nd 04, 11:23 AM
Stephen Neal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ben wrote:
Stephen Neal wrote:
Ben wrote:

according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's
IEE Review magazine.


[snip]


So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i
with something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed
up by analogue switchoff.



I read that on the train this evening (sad MIEE that I am) - but I
think 1280x720 is only ever likely to be deployed as a 720p format.
I've never seen 720/50i or 60i espoused as a broadcast HDTV format -
for broadcast or acquisition. The two camps are pretty much
1920x1080/50i or 60i (with 1920x1080/25p or 24p - with possible 30p
for acquisition) and 1280x720/60p and a possible 1280x720/50p
standard. (In Aus they use 1440x1080/50i - and also class
720x576/50p as HDTV) Currently also HDCam subsamples to
1440x1080/50i or 60i for VTR recording purposes.

I think the 1280x720 format would only be deployed progressively -
as with the Kell factor it pretty much approaches the same vertical
resolution as a 1080 line interlaced format.

With the increasing popularity of progressive displays (plasma, DLP,
LCD) - much as it pains an interlaced-CRT fan like myself to admit
it - I suspect that pragmatically progressive may be the way forward
if progressive displays are the future. (Unless consumer level
interlace to progressive conversions improve that is...)

Steve



I agree with your comments, but its the phrase "best compromise" that
lead me to suspect 720i. Surely 720p is not a compromise - it uses as
much bandwidth as 1080i. If we are going to get 720p on terrestrial
then I for one would be delighted.


Yep - I can see that interpretation - but I see 1280x720 as a compromise
between 1920x1080 and 720x576 - ignoring Kell factor ? Personally I still
suspect that 1080/50i will still take some beating - as that is the
universal production format in the European/Aus HD scene - with very little
(if any) stuff happening at 720/50p (though Aus has the fudged 576/50p
standard as well)

The arguments supporting 1280x720p are that the current DLP / LCD projectors
and plasmas support this resolution - whereas there are very few that reach
1920x1080 yet (a couple of very expensive plasmas are the only non-CRT 1080
line domestic display devices I think?) Progressive material is also easier
to compress using the new (designed for PCs) compression algorithms - and
the resultant bandwith required for 1280x720/50p is still less than
1920x1080/50i as a result of the improved compression available with
progressive? (AIUI US ATSC uses a lower bit rate for 720p stuff?)

I can't see an HD standard based on 1280x720/50i - as this would only offer
a marginal vertical resolution increase over 576/50p - though a major
horizontal increase which would produce very unbalanced pictures? There is
also no production kit based on 720/50i - so production would be on a
different standard to transmission - which is never a good idea (meaning
loads of format converters etc.)

Steve



  #5  
Old July 2nd 04, 11:23 AM
Stephen Neal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ben wrote:
Stephen Neal wrote:
Ben wrote:

according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's
IEE Review magazine.


[snip]


So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i
with something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed
up by analogue switchoff.



I read that on the train this evening (sad MIEE that I am) - but I
think 1280x720 is only ever likely to be deployed as a 720p format.
I've never seen 720/50i or 60i espoused as a broadcast HDTV format -
for broadcast or acquisition. The two camps are pretty much
1920x1080/50i or 60i (with 1920x1080/25p or 24p - with possible 30p
for acquisition) and 1280x720/60p and a possible 1280x720/50p
standard. (In Aus they use 1440x1080/50i - and also class
720x576/50p as HDTV) Currently also HDCam subsamples to
1440x1080/50i or 60i for VTR recording purposes.

I think the 1280x720 format would only be deployed progressively -
as with the Kell factor it pretty much approaches the same vertical
resolution as a 1080 line interlaced format.

With the increasing popularity of progressive displays (plasma, DLP,
LCD) - much as it pains an interlaced-CRT fan like myself to admit
it - I suspect that pragmatically progressive may be the way forward
if progressive displays are the future. (Unless consumer level
interlace to progressive conversions improve that is...)

Steve



I agree with your comments, but its the phrase "best compromise" that
lead me to suspect 720i. Surely 720p is not a compromise - it uses as
much bandwidth as 1080i. If we are going to get 720p on terrestrial
then I for one would be delighted.


Yep - I can see that interpretation - but I see 1280x720 as a compromise
between 1920x1080 and 720x576 - ignoring Kell factor ? Personally I still
suspect that 1080/50i will still take some beating - as that is the
universal production format in the European/Aus HD scene - with very little
(if any) stuff happening at 720/50p (though Aus has the fudged 576/50p
standard as well)

The arguments supporting 1280x720p are that the current DLP / LCD projectors
and plasmas support this resolution - whereas there are very few that reach
1920x1080 yet (a couple of very expensive plasmas are the only non-CRT 1080
line domestic display devices I think?) Progressive material is also easier
to compress using the new (designed for PCs) compression algorithms - and
the resultant bandwith required for 1280x720/50p is still less than
1920x1080/50i as a result of the improved compression available with
progressive? (AIUI US ATSC uses a lower bit rate for 720p stuff?)

I can't see an HD standard based on 1280x720/50i - as this would only offer
a marginal vertical resolution increase over 576/50p - though a major
horizontal increase which would produce very unbalanced pictures? There is
also no production kit based on 720/50i - so production would be on a
different standard to transmission - which is never a good idea (meaning
loads of format converters etc.)

Steve



  #6  
Old July 2nd 04, 10:47 AM
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Neal wrote:
Ben wrote:

according to an article on Mediacast 2004 which appeared in July's IEE
Review magazine.


[snip]


So there you have it, sounds like the future is a compromise 720i with
something like H264 or VC9, probably about as many channels per
multiplex as we have now, occupying the spectrum that will be freed up
by analogue switchoff.



I read that on the train this evening (sad MIEE that I am) - but I think
1280x720 is only ever likely to be deployed as a 720p format. I've never
seen 720/50i or 60i espoused as a broadcast HDTV format - for broadcast or
acquisition. The two camps are pretty much 1920x1080/50i or 60i (with
1920x1080/25p or 24p - with possible 30p for acquisition) and 1280x720/60p
and a possible 1280x720/50p standard. (In Aus they use 1440x1080/50i - and
also class 720x576/50p as HDTV) Currently also HDCam subsamples to
1440x1080/50i or 60i for VTR recording purposes.

I think the 1280x720 format would only be deployed progressively - as with
the Kell factor it pretty much approaches the same vertical resolution as a
1080 line interlaced format.

With the increasing popularity of progressive displays (plasma, DLP, LCD) -
much as it pains an interlaced-CRT fan like myself to admit it - I suspect
that pragmatically progressive may be the way forward if progressive
displays are the future. (Unless consumer level interlace to progressive
conversions improve that is...)

Steve



I agree with your comments, but its the phrase "best compromise" that
lead me to suspect 720i. Surely 720p is not a compromise - it uses as
much bandwidth as 1080i. If we are going to get 720p on terrestrial then
I for one would be delighted.
  #7  
Old July 2nd 04, 02:14 AM
Stephen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It was the satellite man from SES who suggested no HDTV on terrestrial until
analogue switch off, and he would. The man from BBC R&D says, "It's possible
for DVB-T, to deliver these services in the NEAR future". If they want to
make an early start I think the BBC already have room for HDTV on Multiplex
B. Channels 701 and 702 use up half a mulitplex, and are put to very little
good use for the majority of the year (the current Euro 2004 & Wimbledon
coverage being the exception rather than the rule). Timesharing this
capacity, using BBCi downtime for an HDTV channel instead of static
captions, would be good enough for a startup service of HDTV.

Even ITV may find room for an HDTV channel on Multiplex A if, as frequently
predicted, Top Up TV fails. ITV will be desperate for their own HDTV outlet
once Sky start screening commercials in HD to viewers with large flat panel
HD screens at home. Advertisers are ITV's top priority, and ITV will
risk losing them to Sky if they don't have an HDTV channel of
their own. Plus, they won't want to be in the position of saying that you
have to get a Sky dish to watch ITV in High Definition. They will want to
deliver HDTV through an aerial, and start as soon as Sky start HDTV on
satellite. ITV cannot afford to wait for analogue switch off while Sky take
away all the advertisers who understandably want their commercials to be
seen in the highest definition possible to create the greatest impact on
viewers.


  #8  
Old July 2nd 04, 10:35 AM
Stephen Neal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen wrote:
It was the satellite man from SES who suggested no HDTV on
terrestrial until analogue switch off, and he would. The man from BBC
R&D says, "It's possible for DVB-T, to deliver these services in the
NEAR future". If they want to make an early start I think the BBC
already have room for HDTV on Multiplex B. Channels 701 and 702 use
up half a mulitplex, and are put to very little good use for the
majority of the year (the current Euro 2004 & Wimbledon coverage
being the exception rather than the rule). Timesharing this capacity,
using BBCi downtime for an HDTV channel instead of static captions,
would be good enough for a startup service of HDTV.


I guess the space in Mux B could be used for an HD service using a newer
codec (MPEG4 or WM9) - at 1280x720 rather than 1920x1080? MPEG2 would be a
squeeze though.

I think the US ATSC stuff uses 13-18Mbs for a single 1280x720-1920x1080 HD
stream which would be an entire 18Mbs Mux - though returning to 64QAM - only
a suggestion ;-) - would allow BBC Four and an ATSC-rate MPEG2 HD stream to
co-exist in Mux B.


Even ITV may find room for an HDTV channel on Multiplex A if, as
frequently predicted, Top Up TV fails.


Err - but ITV don't own Mux A - that is SDN's isn't it - though I suspect
ITV1 could buy some space in it? If TUTV failed then there would be space
in ITV/C4's Mux 1 - in the Channel Four half though.

ITV will be desperate for
their own HDTV outlet once Sky start screening commercials in HD to
viewers with large flat panel HD screens at home. Advertisers are
ITV's top priority, and ITV will
risk losing them to Sky if they don't have an HDTV channel of
their own.


Are any of the adverts in the US HD yet? It is something I have never been
clear about.

Plus, they won't want to be in the position of saying that
you have to get a Sky dish to watch ITV in High Definition. They will
want to deliver HDTV through an aerial, and start as soon as Sky
start HDTV on satellite. ITV cannot afford to wait for analogue
switch off while Sky take away all the advertisers who understandably
want their commercials to be seen in the highest definition possible
to create the greatest impact on viewers.


It will be interesting to see what Sky do in HD. My first guess is that
their movie channels will be HD, and Sky One (which mainly shows US imports
already produced in HD for the US market) will move over. Sport would
probably be the main driving force for HD - but will also be one of the most
expensive upgrades - as OB facilities providers would charge a premium (and
need to upgrade their facilities) to Sky etc. - whereas the Movies and Sky
One cost increases would be marginal, Sky Sports upgrading would be
significant.

Steve


  #9  
Old July 3rd 04, 01:01 AM
Peter Hewitt-Dutton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ESPN manages it well enough, although not too often, looks bloody good
though


"Stephen Neal" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:
It was the satellite man from SES who suggested no HDTV on
terrestrial until analogue switch off, and he would. The man from BBC
R&D says, "It's possible for DVB-T, to deliver these services in the
NEAR future". If they want to make an early start I think the BBC
already have room for HDTV on Multiplex B. Channels 701 and 702 use
up half a mulitplex, and are put to very little good use for the
majority of the year (the current Euro 2004 & Wimbledon coverage
being the exception rather than the rule). Timesharing this capacity,
using BBCi downtime for an HDTV channel instead of static captions,
would be good enough for a startup service of HDTV.


I guess the space in Mux B could be used for an HD service using a newer
codec (MPEG4 or WM9) - at 1280x720 rather than 1920x1080? MPEG2 would be

a
squeeze though.

I think the US ATSC stuff uses 13-18Mbs for a single 1280x720-1920x1080 HD
stream which would be an entire 18Mbs Mux - though returning to 64QAM -

only
a suggestion ;-) - would allow BBC Four and an ATSC-rate MPEG2 HD stream

to
co-exist in Mux B.


Even ITV may find room for an HDTV channel on Multiplex A if, as
frequently predicted, Top Up TV fails.


Err - but ITV don't own Mux A - that is SDN's isn't it - though I suspect
ITV1 could buy some space in it? If TUTV failed then there would be space
in ITV/C4's Mux 1 - in the Channel Four half though.

ITV will be desperate for
their own HDTV outlet once Sky start screening commercials in HD to
viewers with large flat panel HD screens at home. Advertisers are
ITV's top priority, and ITV will
risk losing them to Sky if they don't have an HDTV channel of
their own.


Are any of the adverts in the US HD yet? It is something I have never

been
clear about.

Plus, they won't want to be in the position of saying that
you have to get a Sky dish to watch ITV in High Definition. They will
want to deliver HDTV through an aerial, and start as soon as Sky
start HDTV on satellite. ITV cannot afford to wait for analogue
switch off while Sky take away all the advertisers who understandably
want their commercials to be seen in the highest definition possible
to create the greatest impact on viewers.


It will be interesting to see what Sky do in HD. My first guess is that
their movie channels will be HD, and Sky One (which mainly shows US

imports
already produced in HD for the US market) will move over. Sport would
probably be the main driving force for HD - but will also be one of the

most
expensive upgrades - as OB facilities providers would charge a premium

(and
need to upgrade their facilities) to Sky etc. - whereas the Movies and Sky
One cost increases would be marginal, Sky Sports upgrading would be
significant.

Steve




  #10  
Old July 3rd 04, 01:01 AM
Peter Hewitt-Dutton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ESPN manages it well enough, although not too often, looks bloody good
though


"Stephen Neal" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:
It was the satellite man from SES who suggested no HDTV on
terrestrial until analogue switch off, and he would. The man from BBC
R&D says, "It's possible for DVB-T, to deliver these services in the
NEAR future". If they want to make an early start I think the BBC
already have room for HDTV on Multiplex B. Channels 701 and 702 use
up half a mulitplex, and are put to very little good use for the
majority of the year (the current Euro 2004 & Wimbledon coverage
being the exception rather than the rule). Timesharing this capacity,
using BBCi downtime for an HDTV channel instead of static captions,
would be good enough for a startup service of HDTV.


I guess the space in Mux B could be used for an HD service using a newer
codec (MPEG4 or WM9) - at 1280x720 rather than 1920x1080? MPEG2 would be

a
squeeze though.

I think the US ATSC stuff uses 13-18Mbs for a single 1280x720-1920x1080 HD
stream which would be an entire 18Mbs Mux - though returning to 64QAM -

only
a suggestion ;-) - would allow BBC Four and an ATSC-rate MPEG2 HD stream

to
co-exist in Mux B.


Even ITV may find room for an HDTV channel on Multiplex A if, as
frequently predicted, Top Up TV fails.


Err - but ITV don't own Mux A - that is SDN's isn't it - though I suspect
ITV1 could buy some space in it? If TUTV failed then there would be space
in ITV/C4's Mux 1 - in the Channel Four half though.

ITV will be desperate for
their own HDTV outlet once Sky start screening commercials in HD to
viewers with large flat panel HD screens at home. Advertisers are
ITV's top priority, and ITV will
risk losing them to Sky if they don't have an HDTV channel of
their own.


Are any of the adverts in the US HD yet? It is something I have never

been
clear about.

Plus, they won't want to be in the position of saying that
you have to get a Sky dish to watch ITV in High Definition. They will
want to deliver HDTV through an aerial, and start as soon as Sky
start HDTV on satellite. ITV cannot afford to wait for analogue
switch off while Sky take away all the advertisers who understandably
want their commercials to be seen in the highest definition possible
to create the greatest impact on viewers.


It will be interesting to see what Sky do in HD. My first guess is that
their movie channels will be HD, and Sky One (which mainly shows US

imports
already produced in HD for the US market) will move over. Sport would
probably be the main driving force for HD - but will also be one of the

most
expensive upgrades - as OB facilities providers would charge a premium

(and
need to upgrade their facilities) to Sky etc. - whereas the Movies and Sky
One cost increases would be marginal, Sky Sports upgrading would be
significant.

Steve




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Perfume on the PIG Bob Miller High definition TV 31 June 20th 04 02:49 PM
Dish HDTV PVR gets a "not ready for primetime" review. Joe Smith Tivo personal television 4 February 20th 04 10:22 PM
Sony KF60WE610 .. what is HDTV "Ready" Lem Lo High definition TV 1 November 25th 03 01:46 PM
Sony KV-HR36M90 - HDTV ready WEGA Wide screen Will High definition TV 0 October 17th 03 01:04 AM
Completing the HDTV Picture Ben Thomas High definition TV 0 July 22nd 03 09:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 HomeCinemaBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.