Sky reveals HDTV launch lineup

critcher said
one of the longest threads i've seen on here, but most enjoyable.
Who knows what the future holds?

Doug McDonald wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:




But a lot of what you get in the US is 1080i, isn't it?


Very little is originated as 1080i. Leno is. Some sports on
CBS and NBC is. But as far as I know essentially NO scripted
drama or sitcom is originated as 1080i. It is originated as
[email protected] It is transmitted as 1080i. This is immaterial,
since the original 1080p can be resonctructed by a receiver,
with only a small loss in resolution and increase in noise.


Right.


--
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

critcher wrote:
critcher said
one of the longest threads i've seen on here, but most enjoyable.
Who knows what the future holds?


Mystic Meg.


--
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

John Russell wrote:
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"Clem Dye" wrote in message
...

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Weird Al wrote:



It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
"Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"



Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
"megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can dispute
this on various counts, but it is usually true)?

Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:

720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
interlace = 294,451 pixels

HDTV 720p resolution:

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels

HDTV 1080i resolution:

1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels

and

1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0

i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
definition TV we see today.

It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and so is
better for everything else apart from sports.



That all may be true. HD will do very nicely on films and suchlike shot
from the early 90's onwards with good prints and DD5.1/DTS audio, but
what about the vast back catalogue that's not so suitable for HD? Right
now we're still getting stuff broadcast originally in the year dot. IMHO,
this will look utter ****e on HD, even if it is upscaled in some way.
Until we only have high quality material to watch there's quite a scope
to make HD look well and truly naff. The latest whizz-bang technology
isn't always the best for the job. Take an example - 1970s Ronnie
Barker's Open All Hours. The BBC transmit this type of programme with
alarming regularity. It looks pretty poor on SD. God knows what it will
look like when it gets to HD!


Clem

My point exactly. Where's the content coming from?

We went down the digital PAL+ route in the first place becuase the vast
majority arn't bothered about picture perfection. Most people are happy to
watch crap VHS recordings on a ten year old tape on a player that's never
had a head cleaner near it! That fact has justified the crap picture
quality on most digital channels for years.



This view is supported by the idea that people will tolerate watching TV on
a phone!


Not so! It's worth pointing out that just because something is on DVD
that isn't an automatic guarantee of high quality! I have plenty of
supposedly re-worked films on DVD that look little better than they did
on VHS.

I'm all for HD and am certainly looking forward to the point past where
early adoption brings pain. I've been there before and financially it
can hurt. HD isn't the panacea for all ills that people will think it
will be though - old/library material will, IMHO, look poor and will
remain so, even if digitally cleaned-up. You've only got to look at some
of old 1960s b&w stuff that's been on BBC4 recently, or some old b&w
films. The Linn hi-fi motto used to be (still is?) garbage in, garbage
out. I don't see anything that changes my opinion regarding HD in that
respect. I don't doubt for one minute that as new stuff is cut for HD it
will look stunning, but even then, that's not guaranteed either.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm happy to wait for now.


Clem

loz wrote:
"John Russell" wrote in message
...

HDTV will be a premium product, the Rolls Royce of TV presentation, It
will not be mainstream untill you can get a HDTV, a HDTV Recorder and a
subcription service that are cheap as chips.


Well HDTVs, and HD Recorders are not going to be that expensive.
HD Ready plasma TVs are already not that much more expensive than SD
plasmas.
Some HD plasmas are in fact already selling cheaper than some SD plasmas are
still selling at.
And HD ready LCDs are pretty reasonably priced to.

Nil points! It's always been the case that those who adopt early pay a
premium. Take plasmas. When they were first available they cost silly
money, but a couple of years later and, as prices have dropped, people
are now more ready to consider them. It's folly to think that HD
recorders will be cheap at the outset. FFS, we don't even have HD yet,
but it's not unreasonable to assume that early kit will be pricey and
feature light. Until prices drop, as the earlier poster mentions, HD
won't become a mainstream product. History is replete with examples - CD
players, DVD players, satellite kit. Manufacturers will want to recoup
their development and marketing costs. Their best chance of doing that
is while they can charge a premium. Whatever product, the rules are
pretty similar. Still, we can wait to see can't we? Or will the world
end tomorrow if we don't get HD?

Even if the Sky HD box comes in at the top end of people's estimates at
£400, thats still not a bad price for a Hard Disk recorder, especially one
capable of HD.


The next think you'll be claiming is that Plasma TV are mainstream, that
large screen TV's of any kind are mainstream. Not many live in the
penthouse flats shown on TV with such items.


Most TV retailers seem to think that plasma, lcd and other large screens are
already mainstream. Go to any showroom and it is CRT displays that are the
niche tucked away in the corner.

Loz

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
critcher wrote:
critcher said
one of the longest threads i've seen on here, but most enjoyable.
Who knows what the future holds?


Mystic Meg.


those were the days

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
ISTR having registration problems with some AXs, but can't remember which
ones or how I fixed them. This might help ...
http://ac3filter.sourceforge.net/

No use. 1.0x is an alpha and 0.7 is beta version and it probably is
compatible with Windows XP sound drivers at all since there is no indication
of any kind of commutation whatsoever. And anyway it doesn't say it can play
back HD audio in AC3 which is what I need. I can already playback AC3 using
WinDVD 4 but that doesn't pay HD video.


"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
It doesn't work.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Russell wrote:

"loz" wrote in message
...

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

HDTV will be a premium product, the Rolls Royce of TV presentation,
It will not be mainstream untill you can get a HDTV, a HDTV
Recorder and a subcription service that are cheap as chips.

Well HDTVs, and HD Recorders are not going to be that expensive.
HD Ready plasma TVs are already not that much more expensive than SD
plasmas.
Some HD plasmas are in fact already selling cheaper than some SD
plasmas are still selling at.
And HD ready LCDs are pretty reasonably priced to.

Even if the Sky HD box comes in at the top end of people's estimates
at £400, thats still not a bad price for a Hard Disk recorder,
especially one capable of HD.


The next think you'll be claiming is that Plasma TV are
mainstream, that large screen TV's of any kind are mainstream. Not
many live in the penthouse flats shown on TV with such items.

Most TV retailers seem to think that plasma, lcd and other large
screens are already mainstream. Go to any showroom and it is CRT
displays that are the niche tucked away in the corner.

Loz


"new sales" don't define mainstream. It's the vast bulk of TV's
already in people homes which define it. We have an aging population,
most of which will have a bog standard 20 inch 4:3 TV in the corner.



You seem to be living in the 1970s.


Hmm, let's see now: oh, I have 2 4:3 TVs at home doing sterling service
right now. Not for prime time viewing admittedly, but they're fully
serviceable. I would suggest that this is fairly commonplace up and down
the land, across all age and social spectra. HMG is wrestling with this
now by way of the analogue switch-off - people don't like being told to
junk something when it works fine for them. I have Freeview, $ky et al,
and I'm not living in the 1970s, but I see no reason right now to junk
my 4:3 TVs.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:08:30 +0100, "Java Jive" wrote:

Whenever I see a clip on, say, BBC News 'courtesy of Sky Sports' the quality
is sh*t. Footballers running around with pixellated edges (you would think
that collectively footballers maybe have enough chips on their shoulders
without the broadcasters adding to them :-)

That's because the BBC record Sky Sports off the composite feed of a
regular digibox onto analogue tape, then needlessly **** about with it
with an ARC so that it fits with the rest of their news footage.
Anything would look **** after that kind of treatment.

John Russell wrote:
"JC" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:10:36 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


The vast majoirty of people in the UK got their sets in the 1970's!

If the vast majority of TVs in this country were really 30 years old
they'd be black and white, mono and the high street retailers would be
out of business. What utter rubbish.

In reality almost all main home TVs will be under 8 years old which
would mean they were purchased after 1997. Just a year before
widescreen digital TV launched. In my experience very, very few people
seem to have a 4:3 TV as their main set now and when was the last time
you saw a black and white set?

Rgds
Jonathan



Most of my relatives/freinds have no interest in the internet, or digital
TV. They don't have large TV's either. I'm part of the "grey market" you
see, that vast majority who get ignored.

TV is for everyone, not those who see it as means to show off the
technowizardry or affluence.

The way some of you post it's as if the whole debate over analoge shutoff
never happened.

It's still touch and go if everyone will have access to ordinary DVB by the
due date, and you lot are talking about HDTV as if it's mainstream.


Agreed, but nothing stands still. Everyone seemed to manage the switch
from 405 to 625 line TV - I can remember it myself. It was only
relatively recently that 405 line transmissions were stopped. The case
for HDTV isn't necessarily proven yet, but it will be in time. We live
in a faster, ever changing environment and I do think that DTV is the
right way forward for the populous as a whole. In time, HDTV will be
too, at just about the point when SuperDuper HDTV becomes the norm, with
even higher resolutions and other gizmos. Much as I can appreciate your
position, things sometimes do have to change, as do people. DTV is one
of those things in my book.