Sky Sports News RIP...

Ivan wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

you can only have one modulation scheme in use on a mux.

Thanks, that's what I meant, which means that there will have to be a
lot of consultation, agreement and jigging about of channels before any
of the other broadcasters (such as Sky) can switch over to a terrestrial
HD package.

THere isn't anything stopping a broadcaster using MPEG4 within DVB-T1 to
transmit either SD or HD pictures, other than being limited in which
STBs will receive and display them ... that was what SKY's wrangling
with OFCOM over Picnic was about.

BTW what's your take on this? there's no mention a DVB-T2 in this
advert, however when one reads it the implication is that it will
receive the new terrestrial HD broadcasts, (which is surprising, as I
would have thought that Novatech of all companies should know better)
that is unless of course I've got it wrong, they quote "It is also ready
for the new terrestrial HDTV." my own guess is that it is probably only
suitable for somewhere like France which uses MPEG4 AVC/H.264 for HD on
DVB-T.
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Components/TVTunerCards/PCTVSystems/23004.html

Yes, you're right it could be used in for MPEG4 broadcasts in e.g.
France or Eire but won't receive UK terrestrial HD.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Burns
saying something like:

THere isn't anything stopping a broadcaster using MPEG4 within DVB-T1 to
transmit either SD or HD pictures, other than being limited in which
STBs will receive and display them

Which is the case here in Ireland.
I have an old Pinnacle 300i pci card which was sold in the UK market for
analogue/DVB-T and which works perfectly well here with mpeg4/h.264
using DVBViewer software. The original software was utterly gash, of
course, as many found out.

I had a reasonable expectation of it working, having looked at the chips
that were specified on the card. Since it cost me nothing save postage,
I thought it was worth a go.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Ivan wrote:

BTW what's your take on this? there's no mention a DVB-T2 in this
advert, however when one reads it the implication is that it will
receive the new terrestrial HD broadcasts, (which is surprising, as I
would have thought that Novatech of all companies should know better)
that is unless of course I've got it wrong, they quote "It is also ready
for the new terrestrial HDTV." my own guess is that it is probably only
suitable for somewhere like France which uses MPEG4 AVC/H.264 for HD on
DVB-T.
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Components/TVTunerCards/PCTVSystems/23004.html

Yes, you're right it could be used in for MPEG4 broadcasts in e.g. France
or Eire but won't receive UK terrestrial HD.



One thing I did like the look of in that advert, was that it's apparently
possible to record a TV programme 'directly' as DivX (an idea IMV the major
PVR manufacturers could do well to copy) especially as so many devices
nowadays include facilities for playing back DivX recordings from either USB
or card slots.
"A full-fledged Personal Video Recorder that lets you timeshift and record
TV shows. PC users can choose between MPEG-1/2 or DivX recording formats or
record directly to DVD"


|

"Ivan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

One thing I did like the look of in that advert, was that it's apparently
possible to record a TV programme 'directly' as DivX (an idea IMV the
major PVR manufacturers could do well to copy) especially as so many
devices nowadays include facilities for playing back DivX recordings from
either USB or card slots.

But wouldn't that require quite some processing power, as the transport
stream must be decoded and then re-encoded in a different format?

Encoding is always fairly processor-intensive, so it would add to the cost
of the product. I doubt the average punter would know or care enough about
this feature to want to pay the extra.

For a device which plugs in to a PC, it's trivial of course - there's masses
of processor power. But for a PVR?

Dunno... just a thought.

SteveT













"A full-fledged Personal Video Recorder that lets you timeshift and record
TV shows. PC users can choose between MPEG-1/2 or DivX recording formats
or record directly to DVD"


|

On 18/06/2010 14:59, Chris wrote:
John wrote:
...on DTT from later on this year.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10346894.stm

Shame, I like this channel. It will be replaced by Sky 3 +1. Given
that there is hardly ever anything to watch on Sky 3, I am not
thrilled by the Plus-One service; a waste of bandwidth if you ask me.

John

This is just stage one of Sky's plan to turn all their freeview slots to
pay channels.

Surely they won't be allowed to continue on FREEview then?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:09:09 +0100, Steve Thackery asked:

But wouldn't that require quite some processing power, as the transport
stream must be decoded and then re-encoded in a different format?

What if the decoding and encoding was done in hardware rather than
software?

On Sunday, June 20th, 2010 at 14:03:01 +0100, Mikeos asked:

Surely they won't be allowed to continue on FREEview then?

Although multiplexes B, C, and D were originally licenced as
Freeview multiplexes and not permitted to carry subscription
TV services, back in 2006, OfCon under the Bliar administration
quietly removed this restriction.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/paytv/statement/

Freeview became "free" in marketing name only.

Thus all services on B, C, and D could become pay only,
which presumably includes the HD services, unless a separate
free only licence was issued for PSB-3 (formerly B) but I am
not aware that this was the case.

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, June 20th, 2010 at 14:03:01 +0100, Mikeos asked:

Surely they won't be allowed to continue on FREEview then?

Although multiplexes B, C, and D were originally licenced as
Freeview multiplexes and not permitted to carry subscription
TV services, back in 2006, OfCon under the Bliar administration
quietly removed this restriction.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/paytv/statement/

Freeview became "free" in marketing name only.

Thankyou for that reference. I'm appalled by Ofcom's decision and
attitude, and would have responded very negatively to that consultation
had I known about it.

Me too.

I felt I'd been conned when Top-Up TV was allowed.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:46:53 +0100, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

I felt I'd been conned when Top-Up TV was allowed.

That was different though.

Multiplex A, which is not a Freeview multiplex, had been
licenced for subscription services from its inception.

So in fact, Top-Up TV did not have to be allowed as a
subscription service for being a subscription service,
but just licenced as tv service on Multiplex A within
the existing licencing conditions.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...

What if the decoding and encoding was done in hardware rather than
software?

Of course, but it's still additional costs - hardware and licensing. That's
why, as far as I know, no HD PVR in the sub-£100 range will transcode the
received video (in fact, will any HD-only PVR?).

PVRs with recordable DVD drives obviously will, and they cost another £100
or so (of course, only a small part of that must be attributable to the
software/hardware transcoding).

SteveT