When is HD really going to start..?

advid · 16-03-2008, 4:30 PM

......like lots of you on here and now so many, many people all over the country - everyone it seems is buying or going to buy 'real soon' a new 'wonder panel' - be it LCD or Plasma - be it 32,37,40,42,46,50 or more inches in size - most of these screens from all manufacturers capable of producing superb results when given an HD input...

In the USA they're well on the move with HD - in Europe and Asia too - it's all happening - there's now even talk of Super HD in Japan being developed ...

Why are we in this country (UK) limited to just a few costly HD channels from SKY and from Virgin (even less) ?

When your 'average joe' is now buying LCD and Plasmas left right and centre and a lot being somewhat disappointed with the sometimes fizzy /blocky SD picture quality often saying 'It's not as good a picture as my old CRT' - surely we should be getting a better service and more HD channels from the broadcast companies...?

Ripoff Britain wins yet again....!

Helicon · 16-03-2008, 4:51 PM

Hopefully very, very soon........

Starburst · 16-03-2008, 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by advid

In the USA they're well on the move with HD - in Europe and Asia too - it's all happening - there's now even talk of Super HD in Japan being developed ...

Why are we in this country (UK) limited to just a few costly HD channels from SKY and from Virgin (even less) ?

The US have had broadcast HD for ten years and had an established large screen market while we the UK were impressed with 28" screens and also had more favourable markets for expensive display technology.
As for Europe well we have PAY HD from Premiere and others which are no better overall than SKY HD and FTA HD which has seen the closure of two FTA HD channels in Germany a market that is considered to be very TV friendly.
Japan has a culture of adopting high tech and very expensive technology at a incredible rate but in that regard it is rather a unique market and can not really compare to the rest of the world.

In the UK considering broadcast HD (in the form of TW and a DTT trial) appeared late 2005 it's quite amazing how well it's developed under 3 years based mainly on a PAY business model and a public broadcaster offering content on satellite and cable which would probably not exist if said broadcaster didn't have commercial rivals to thank for getting the market started.

Quote:

When your 'average joe' is now buying LCD and Plasmas left right and centre and a lot being somewhat disappointed with the sometimes fizzy /blocky SD picture quality often saying 'It's not as good a picture as my old CRT' - surely we should be getting a better service and more HD channels from the broadcast companies...?

Ripoff Britain wins yet again....!

It would be great to see all the SD channels being replicated in HD but this simple fact is that HD costs a small fortune and brings NO extra money in terms of advertising and as you yourself say the price tag to make a PAY offering viable is a problem for millions even those that have spent upto a couple of grand on a HD telly.

In this case I don't think HD is a ripoff as the term is used say by the example of products in the US being valued on a $1 to £1 ratio when sold in the UK, there are too many variables involved in HD to simply stamp your fit and proclaim ripoff.

mkcurtis · 16-03-2008, 6:31 PM

I think HD will really take off when "joe public" actually understand it and see a need for it. At the moment people are buying LCD/Plasma because its fashion and that is all you can buy in the shops now, together with the fact they are dropping in price weekly.

I think the main issue is that the average punter in the hight street does not know what it is or are really that worried. If you look in the Sky HD area in this forum you will see many tales regarding people who thought that they were watching all 600 channels on SKy in HD cause they had a HD Ready TV. Also some people wathing SKy HD box with Scart to the TV and they never really worried about the picture quality. Not to mention the 720/1080 confusion for some people. Add in the confusion for many people around this digital switch off its a nightmare at the moment for people who dont understand this technology. My grandad had a good CRT with a digital freeview box, he went out and bought a LCD without a freeview box and got rid of his existing kit so he was ready. Thats the sort of thing some people are doing.

I dont think there is a market for it. Unlike in the US where the the jump from their really old format to HD was like night and day, many people are happy with a good quality SD feed into a good CRT.

Those of us who have it want more channels, but I dont think that there will be a time when every channel is replaced with HD. It costs too much for the broadcasters to upgrade to make the space and most people are happy with what they have.

The youth in Japan are brought up on technology so adopt quickly and most of the kit is made local so very little cost. For me I think HD will always be a niche for those of us who want quality and techology in our front room, plus those of us who can afford it!

derek500 · 16-03-2008, 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by advid

Ripoff Britain wins yet again....!

Here in Spain, where the cost of living is much lower than the UK, there is ONE channel in HD and it costs 6€ extra on a digital sub. The HD boxes are 385€.

I'm one of the many who believe that Sky is good value. Considering it's been up and running for less than two years, Sky HD have 17 channels and 442,000 (as of December 2007) subscribers.

davemurgatroyd2 · 16-03-2008, 6:54 PM

As stated it costs signifcantly more to produce ( or buy) programmes in HD. The UK has at present two FTA HD channels plus one FTV HD this will shortly be increased by at least two and possibly another 4 FTA channels (licences have been applied for). There is little to gain for non Pay TV channels in going HD other than being able to charge other broadcasters for their own home produced HD content. The BBC/PSB freesat operation may increase the awareness of HD when it finally gets round to launching in May but it is strongly rumoured that HD capable PVR receivers will not be ready until the Autumn.

advid · 16-03-2008, 8:08 PM

from originator of this thread (ADVID)

...a thing that annoys me is that some SD broadcasts look (to me) almost as good as HD on my setup - and some (supposedly) HD broadcasts from the HD channels look sometimes simply pathetic...very low quality...

The broadcasters have the upper hand now that they can pipe the signal at various digital quality settings. Even in the 8 months that I've had SKY HD some channels seem to offer lower quality (at times) than when I first subscribed....

In the good old analogue/crt days a good picture was recived almost all the time....

Starburst · 16-03-2008, 8:58 PM

The ability to manipulate resolution and bitrate has been with us since 1998 with OnDigital and SKYD, nothing new there and it's more of a case of CRT's being able to disguise the side effects of high compression where as HD displays don't sugar coat the poor broadcasts.

I have yet to really see a SD broadcast look as good as a native HD broadcast, granted there are times when grain and noise on a HD programme are more pronounced than on the SD version, if that's good of bad is really upto the viewer

Just remember that a few of the HD channels are a mixture of native HD and upscaled HD so PQ will be different even at the same bitrate plus production choices make a huge impact on HD far more so than SD simply because with HD we see more detail and detail can be good or bad.

I would question if PAL analogue was good at least in hindsight, it was suited to the CRT technology of the day and regulated unlike digital but it's not gone away just yet (well apart from Whitehaven) so unless you have a TV, VCR or DVDr without an analogue tuner you can at least compare say BBC1 digital to BBC1 analogue on your HD display.

Helicon · 16-03-2008, 11:15 PM

With the amount of money being spent on HD compatible equipment here in the UK, TV companies should be providing HD services as standard.

Chris Muriel · 16-03-2008, 11:41 PM

But they need a revenue stream from somewhere before they can spend money on setting up an HD service (and possibly shareholders' approval etc. depending on the setup of the company).

Chris Muriel, Manchester

Starburst · 17-03-2008, 12:43 AM

Yeah the UK consumer can spend hundreds of millions on HD televisions but it won't generate a penny for the broadcasters who are the ones to foot the bill for the HD upgrades in every aspect of TV production from set design to make up to editing and transmission.

All FTA HD does is move a viewer from an SD counterpart and the advertisers don't care which is why FTA HD is simply not flooding the market anywhere in the EU. In this case I fully understand why ITV HD is still not with us and why it probably took SKY offering a lending a helping hand to get CH4HD operational.

Bottom line no one in the industry is looking for HD to replace SD and the government don't care either way so no regulatory pressure.

advid · 17-03-2008, 9:52 AM

from originator of this thread (ADVID)

...so it seems that in the next few years millions of households will have new HD capable equipment installed - lots of them will simply be receiving Freeview straight from the inbuilt TV tuner - some will have their SKY or SKY+ boxes connected via scart.... and only a relative few (overall) will have SKY HD via HDMI...

Lots of them will say (as I do) that the SD picture is not as good as on the 'old CRT set' and this will probably put them off of any further investment to instal SKY(or Virgin) HD....

Seems to me that this 'HD ready' thing is all a load of advertising hype raking in millions/billions for the TV set /panel producers and leaving us with a broadcasting service that is not as good program-wise or picture-quality-wise as the older CRT/analogue service ?

In a realtively few years the 'masses' will be all HD READY - the broadcasting companies WILL NOT.....

advid · 17-03-2008, 9:59 AM

I would question if PAL analogue was good at least in hindsight, it was suited to the CRT technology of the day and regulated unlike digital but it's not gone away just yet (well apart from Whitehaven) so unless you have a TV, VCR or DVDr without an analogue tuner you can at least compare say BBC1 digital to BBC1 analogue on your HD display.

..... from a 'normal' viewing distance looking at a good Trinitron 32/36 inch screen with a BBC analogue signal and a 32/36 LCD/Plasma with BBC digital - I think it would be very hard to say which is 'better' overall...

Get up real close and maybe you could say 'yes' the digital is a 'purer' signal and so 'technically speaking' it is BETTER... BUT - I don't view from 6 inches away...

Ian J · 17-03-2008, 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkcurtis

I think HD will really take off when "joe public" actually understand it and see a need for it. At the moment people are buying LCD/Plasma because its fashion and that is all you can buy in the shops now,

<snip>

The youth in Japan are brought up on technology so adopt quickly and most of the kit is made local so very little cost. For me I think HD will always be a niche for those of us who want quality and techology in our front room, plus those of us who can afford it!

What a load of patronising nonsense. I do dislike references to "Joe Public" as if they are a lesser species. People are buying LCD/Plasma screens as they are much more room friendly than huge great CRT televsions that take up half of the room and the reason that these screens are all you can buy in the shops is because that is all people are buying and there is no point manufacuring and selling a product that no-one wants.

I agree that HD will probably remain a niche offering but mainly because most people won't be able to see sufficient difference on average sized screens sitting at a normal viewing distance. I'm not sure that being able to afford it is relevant as there are many things that I can afford to buy but don't as they represent poor value or are simply things that i don't want or need.

Jaycee Dove · 17-03-2008, 4:35 PM

SD channels via some poorer LCDs are giving worse PQ than the old CRTs.

Although partly this is because most LCDs are bigger than the CRTs they replaced in any house and this is the main cause of picture deterioration.

On the other hand, when we were picking a TV to go with Sky HD in May 2006 we checked loads and quickly decided against LCD and for Plasma precisely because the LCDs we saw provided a less good looking image via SD (both were much of a muchness on HD).

The PQ for SD on our Panasonic Plasma 37 inch is definitely as good as our old 32 inch CRT (which we still have in my bedroom). But it took very careful consideration of the matter and the fact that we would be watching lots of SD during the life of this TV.

My guess is that a lot of people simply get sold on TVs for their flat panel look and never take into account how good a job they do on SD channels until they get home.

But a very good TV can do a very good job on SD and HD provided you do your homework. What has changed is that it is now not as simple as looking at the picture that happens to be on screen in the showroom and assuming that at home all the channels will look as good. They might have done, more or less, with a CRT. But these days TV buying has become an art and a science and too few people yet appreciate this.

malcom · 17-03-2008, 7:24 PM

Judging any TV in stores be it LCD or Plasma is really rather pointless. They seldom get them set up properly or just show special pre-recorded material to show off what they are capable of.

It took me nearly a year before taking the plunge and getting a new HD ready TV. I was put off by all the negative comments about HD ready sets be it LCD or whatever not being as good as the old CRT.

Well about a month ago I took the plunge and purchased a 42" Toshiba LCD......along with sky HD. I was concerned about the comment concerning SD quality versus CRT. I need not have feared. The SD quality is better than CRT. I have both CRT and 42" LCD in seperate rooms bur viewable at the same time. LCD SD quality is just fine....As for HD it is positively breath taking.......Its not a question of if plasma or LCD are better or worse than each other its down to how they are set up when installed in the home environment. Plasma or LCD they are all fantastic performers and its a pity stores don't take more trouble to display SD signals as they should be seen instead of multiple connection of massess of TV's which denegrades the picture on all of them...

I am taking the trouble with this post because I was put off for a long time by negative comments about picture SD quality.....Any wannabe LCD buyer do not worry.......Go buy and enjoy.......

malcom · 17-03-2008, 7:34 PM

I am more optimistic that in time HD will become the new standard and push SD to one side. Advertisers wil wake up the the fact that items shown in beutiful detail impress the viewer more than blurred images do....Beauty sells.....

The question was when will HD really start. I would argue it has started and after stalling for awhile will now begin to grow in number and popularity.

The conditions for proper take off are getting stronger by the month. All new TV HD ready.....Broadcasters/advertisers can would sell more by showing beauty and brother HD can sure be beauty to watch.....

mkcurtis · 18-03-2008, 8:19 AM

[QUOTE=Ian J;6643292]What a load of patronising nonsense. I do dislike references to "Joe Public" as if they are a lesser species. People are buying LCD/Plasma screens as they are much more room friendly than huge great CRT televsions that take up half of the room and the reason that these screens are all you can buy in the shops is because that is all people are buying and there is no point manufacuring and selling a product that no-one wants.

QUOTE]

That was my point exactly, LCD/PLASMA is all you can buy and people are buying them because they look good in the front room. Its all people want hence the fact there is no point in manufacturing kit that is not going to sell, such as CRT. But people are buying these "HD Ready" TVs and taking them home, plugging them in, thinking they have HD now and then complaining about the picture quality, or not seeing any difference or the point in HD. Because the average guy in the street (I wont use Joe Public if it offends) does not understand the digital switch over, never mind the process of receiving HD broadcasts. SO, until the mass of the public want and understand HD it will continue to be a niche market. For me HD has already taken off in a big way, most of the movies, sports and docs I watch are in HD.

malcom · 18-03-2008, 9:59 PM

I do think Sky could do a lot more to make people HD aware. HD advertising is in cinderella state at the mo.......About time Sky shouted from the roof tops that high picture quality is here and here to stay........

Depending on ones financial priorities HD is not all that expensive when you consider the dosh spent on booze. smoking, Bingo and so on.......

I am an average guy. Retired now but not a big wager earner for most of my working life. Always been keen to obtain the benefits of mans wonderful inventions. far more fun to me than bingo or booze.....But then we all have different priorities.

Many moons ago when I worked for a TV company it was a fact that I soon came to realize that many many people cared little about picture quality but did care about cost. I used to go into peoples homes and they truly thought they had a great picture when in fact they were watching rubbish and paid the rental company regardless........

The fact that so many rubbish picture quality channels are around does little to promote HD as many just get used to watching rubbish.

Which brings me back to my first comment. HD awareness is what Sky should be shouting at full volume.......

All it needs for HD to be regarded as HD proper is for the "Main stream channels" to convert to HD. They after all are responsible for most of the content that is repeated in lousy quality on lousy SD Sky channels.