Channel 5 Need an HD channel

roxyskinflint · 29-09-2009, 8:06 AM

Even if its just like the BBC and only certain shows,

But after watching Flash Forward last night (which was excellent by the way) I couldnt help but think this looks rubbish compared to watching HEROES,LOST,FRINGE,BONES etc in HD

And when they have the Gadget Show that raves on about the latest tech and high end Gadgets yet its in SD

scarey · 29-09-2009, 8:44 AM

havnt watched last nights fast forward yet but generally i find most progs on c5 very good..

dunks517 · 29-09-2009, 8:46 AM

Just think CSI: MIAMI in HD, I had a couple of HD episodes (RIO) on my Xbox 360 and they were excellent. Calleigh Duquesne in HD...

Coffin · 29-09-2009, 9:22 AM

Your thoughts are not alone

Ray_Woodward · 29-09-2009, 9:29 AM

Patience is a wonderful thing, there is all of 2010 not yet broken into ...

lotsatoys · 29-09-2009, 9:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarey

havnt watched last nights fast forward yet but generally i find most progs on c5 very good..

Ditto.I'll be watching this tonight.I too find CH5 progs to have generally very good PQ.

BrianMc · 29-09-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roxyskinflint

Even if its just like the BBC and only certain shows,

But after watching Flash Forward last night (which was excellent by the way) I couldnt help but think this looks rubbish compared to watching HEROES,LOST,FRINGE,BONES etc in HD

I agree! Sky are unlikely to offer to put HD "Flashforward" onto Anytime (like they did with the Red Dwarf special - "Back to Earth" - on "Dave") - as they were outbid for it!

HDCriticalFan · 29-09-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roxyskinflint

And when they have the Gadget Show that raves on about the latest tech and high end Gadgets yet its in SD

Not even SD if you ask me. They add all that post-processing which makes the colours seem wrong and created "jaggies" (on my TV at least) - I believe it is referred to as a "filmic" effect. All it seems to do is re-create the downsides of film (lower frame rate) without of course realising the higher potential of film to capture colours more accurately (and be able to support HD and above resolutions).

The killer for me is that they have now changed to smaller on screen graphics (like HD sports channels). The irony is that it is the graphics that really "jump out" as being razor-sharp on (for instance) Sky Sports NFL coverage. On TGS they are so blurry as to be almost difficult to read - I have to double-check that I am actually wearing my glasses !!!

Regards

antacid · 29-09-2009, 2:06 PM

Question in regards to HD, why aren't all channels broadcast in HD as of yet?

Broadz · 29-09-2009, 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antacid

Question in regards to HD, why aren't all channels broadcast in HD as of yet?

Answer cos it costs a fortune to make and to lease transponders, most TV programmes are not recorded in high definition, most TV cameras are not capable of recording a high definition picture, and the bandwidth required to transmit high definition rather than standard definition is much higher. And how would a channel which mostly broadcasts repeats (i.e. G.O.L.D., Paramount, Bravo, UK Living, all the channels which show House Doctor and Ground Force and A Home In The Country and Location, Location etc) manage to broadcast something in high definition which wasn't made in high definition?

Just some of the reasons...

eiren · 29-09-2009, 2:45 PM

Then we can get Neighbours in HD (as it's already shot in HD)

kenedin · 29-09-2009, 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eiren

Then we can get Neighbours in HD (as it's already shot in HD)

OMG

jwball · 29-09-2009, 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadz

And how would a channel which mostly broadcasts repeats (i.e. G.O.L.D., Paramount, Bravo, UK Living, all the channels which show House Doctor and Ground Force and A Home In The Country and Location, Location etc) manage to broadcast something in high definition which wasn't made in high definition?

Just some of the reasons...

I seem to remember watching location, location, location on C4HD.

Jaycee Dove · 29-09-2009, 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eiren

Then we can get Neighbours in HD (as it's already shot in HD)

So is Home and Away!

RobM · 29-09-2009, 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwball

I seem to remember watching location, location, location on C4HD.

It's in HD every week, but it's upscaled as far as I know

dunks517 · 29-09-2009, 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobM83

It's in HD every week, but it's upscaled as far as I know

Rob, There were a few episodes earlier this year in HD and were flagged up as such in the EPG but they reverted back to SD after around 4 episodes.

antacid · 29-09-2009, 5:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadz

Answer cos it costs a fortune to make and to lease transponders, most TV programmes are not recorded in high definition, most TV cameras are not capable of recording a high definition picture, and the bandwidth required to transmit high definition rather than standard definition is much higher.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadz

And how would a channel which mostly broadcasts repeats (i.e. G.O.L.D., Paramount, Bravo, UK Living, all the channels which show House Doctor and Ground Force and A Home In The Country and Location, Location etc) manage to broadcast something in high definition which wasn't made in high definition?

Just some of the reasons...

Obviously old programs wont, but new programs can be in HD when/if all channels start to broadcast in HD.

BrianMc · 29-09-2009, 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antacid

Fair enough.Obviously old programs wont, but new programs can be in HD when/if all channels start to broadcast in HD.

As well as extra costs all along the broadcast chain (new HD cameras, editing suites, playout systems, broadcast bandwidth....) there are the less obvious extra costs - the current Corrie and Eastenders sets, for example, would/will need a complete rebuild as HD would show the corners that have been cut! Also actors may demand better makeup etc. as HD can show more of their flaws!

RobM · 29-09-2009, 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunks517

Rob, There were a few episodes earlier this year in HD and were flagged up as such in the EPG but they reverted back to SD after around 4 episodes.

That's interesting to know... wonder why?

HDCriticalFan · 30-09-2009, 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobM83

It's in HD every week, but it's upscaled as far as I know

At the risk of engaging "picky" mode ... if it's upscaled then it ain't HD.

If simply scaling something up created HD, then every "HD Ready" flat panel could be said to be showing HD all the time

Regards

RobM · 30-09-2009, 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

At the risk of engaging "picky" mode ... if it's upscaled then it ain't HD.

If simply scaling something up created HD, then every "HD Ready" flat panel could be said to be showing HD all the time

Regards

That was my point...

Starburst · 30-09-2009, 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

At the risk of engaging "picky" mode ... if it's upscaled then it ain't HD.

If simply scaling something up created HD, then every "HD Ready" flat panel could be said to be showing HD all the time

The only sorta legal definition of HD is the resolution, like it or not regardless of the source material or the compression if it's a recognised HD resolution then it can be called HD.

This is why no HD channel showing upscaled HD will ever be up before the regulator for false advertising

HDCriticalFan · 01-10-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starburst

The only sorta legal definition of HD is the resolution, like it or not regardless of the source material or the compression if it's a recognised HD resolution then it can be called HD.

This is a fascinating discussion. I can see both sides, I really can.

But ...

The output from my Sky+HD box is set to 1080i. All SD channels are upscaled to this resolution.

So is all my viewing in "HD" because of this ?

My flat panel screen converts all incoming signals to its own native resolution for display.

So is all my viewing in "HD" because of this ?

I don't see why one should treat the broadcast of upscaled material any differently from the upscaling of broadcast material. So logically (captain) my above two statements would be true if we followed the "legal definition of HD is the resolution" route.

So all those punters who thought that they were watching HDTV just because they bought an HD Ready TV were right after all

Regards

eiren · 01-10-2009, 2:03 PM

Either way, Channel 4 HD upscaled programming looks a lot better than the SD version.

I think Channel 4 has proven that having a simulcast of mixed upscaled SD and true HD broadcast is a lot more successful than BBC HD having a dedicated HD only channel

Channel 4 has a much better scaler/video processor than any of us can ever afford

Starburst · 01-10-2009, 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

This is a fascinating discussion. I can see both sides, I really can.

But ...

The output from my Sky+HD box is set to 1080i. All SD channels are upscaled to this resolution.

So is all my viewing in "HD" because of this ?

My flat panel screen converts all incoming signals to its own native resolution for display.
So is all my viewing in "HD" because of this ?

Given the way HD is all about resolution and when you get right down to it nothing to do with Picture Quality at all which is easily proved by the wide range in PQ on both broadcast HD and Blu-ray yet all come under the HD banner.
There is no minimum PQ level for HD just a resolution number so I suppose we should be grateful that some channels (well most of them) clearly indicate when they are showing native HD and upscaled HD and that so far 99.99% of Blu releases are native HD.

Given that situation then yes the argument could be made that we are all watching HD on our 1366*768 or 1920*1080 (variations there of) flat panels.

Starburst · 01-10-2009, 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eiren

Either way, Channel 4 HD upscaled programming looks a lot better than the SD version.

Indeed

A broadcaster has high quality masters and even they are only SD resolution they are a world away from the heavily compressed SD that is broadcast on standard channels. Use the source master in a high end broadcast standard encoder/scaler to produce 1080i and a decent broadcast bitrate you have material that is at a high def resolution but while not being as good as native HD it will get the performance out of the TV that SD simply can not do.

I understand why BBCHD does what it does but a full simulcast using the bandwidth that is there doing nothing ( like ITVHD) or running promos like BBCHD is a good stop gap to the time when everything is made in HD.

Jaycee Dove · 01-10-2009, 4:04 PM

You only have to look at Paul O Grady on Channel 4 HD now to see how good. Not HD but it is better than some actual HD shows on BBC HD.

Scapegoat · 01-10-2009, 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eiren

Either way, Channel 4 HD upscaled programming looks a lot better than the SD version.

I think Channel 4 has proven that having a simulcast of mixed upscaled SD and true HD broadcast is a lot more successful than BBC HD having a dedicated HD only channel

Channel 4 has a much better scaler/video processor than any of us can ever afford

BBC HD dedicated channel means that they can show a range of programmes from across their network (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4) in HD. So you can watch Being Human (also on BBC3), Heroes (also on BBC2) and Antiques Roadshow (on BBC1) in HD.

Ch4 HD simulcast channel means that programmes that are available in HD but are shown on e4 (my name is earl) or More4 (ER) can not be watched in HD - unless you are willing to take the chance that Ch4 will show them at a later date on Ch4 in HD (they eventually did this with ER and Reaper).

In my opinion I prefer a dedicated HD channel for 'multi-channel' organisations as it means I have more chance of seeing shows I want to in HD. The alternative for the BBC would be a simulcast version of all 4 channels, which may happen eventually but not for a while.

FX HD / SciFi HD - I prefer the simulcast approach because they only have one channel, so I know that if they get a programme (Dollhouse, True Blood etc) it will definitely be shown in HD.

But the dedicated v simulcast debate has raged on these forums before and will never get a definitive answer.

HDCriticalFan · 02-10-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scapegoat

But the dedicated v simulcast debate has raged on these forums before and will never get a definitive answer.

It certainly has, but I like your answer.

Dedicated for broadcasters with "bouquets" of channels, simulcast for single-channel broadcasters.

I do like that

Regards

HDCriticalFan · 02-10-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eiren

Either way, Channel 4 HD upscaled programming looks a lot better than the SD version.

Here, here.

Sometimes SD material on 140 looks so good you have to double check that it is not HD !

I know that it runs counter to my response above, but if only ITV and C5 could run similar services.

Regards