[Skiddins]

I have been trying to find out information on the rollout of HDTV across the UK.
Does anyone know when it is likely to happen?

I know that the BBC is one of the main companies involved in it's technical development and has joined forces with at leat one of the Australian broadcasters.

Also, is it likely to be 1080 line?
I realise that HDTV has already been out in the USA as well, although as usual their system will probably be crap.

Skiddins

[hornydragon]

US, use 1080i as well UK based hidef available from euro1080 by sat NOW sky in 2-3 years, terrestrial (10-15) and cable (possibly never!)

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I realise that HDTV has already been out in the USA as well, although as usual their system will probably be crap.

Skiddins

What do you mean "crap?" All the major networks broadcast in HD. I can receiver almost a dozen of them. And this is terrestrial channels.

Over satellite I get many more.

[Skiddins]

As with NTSC v's PAL, the US (and presumably due to it's proximity with the USA, Canada as well) has adopted a new standard, perhaps without comparisons with other HDTV broadcasting systems.

The Australians performed laboratory and 'real world' tests on the the proposed systems (ATSC in the USA, DVB in the UK and I believe the rest of Europe) and chose to go with DVB instead.

DVB is used at the moment in the UK for Digital terrestrial broadcasting, which I have, and most of which is broadcast in 16:9 (interestingly with the exception of most US programmes we get that are from their major broadcastors, the exception, from things I have watched being anything from HBO).

DVB is also 'futureproof', meaning when the HDTV system is finally developed, it can still be broadcast using DVB.

My main comment about picture quality is due to the differences in the systems and the quality produced.

This is what happend with NTSC originally, whence the USA and Canada having Colour before anywhere else, but the quality was and still is, crap (525 line) compared with PAL at 625 Line.

Skiddins

[StooMonster]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I have been trying to find out information on the rollout of HDTV across the UK.
Does anyone know when it is likely to happen?

Search this group, or the internet and you'll see Sky announced they are starting UK service in 2006.

Most likely to be 720p @ 50Hz IMHO.

StooMonster

[StooMonster]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

As with NTSC v's PAL, the US (and presumably due to it's proximity with the USA, Canada as well) has adopted a new standard, perhaps without comparisons with other HDTV broadcasting systems.

The Australians performed laboratory and 'real world' tests on the the proposed systems (ATSC in the USA, DVB in the UK and I believe the rest of Europe) and chose to go with DVB instead.

DVB is used at the moment in the UK for Digital terrestrial broadcasting, which I have, and most of which is broadcast in 16:9 (interestingly with the exception of most US programmes we get that are from their major broadcastors, the exception, from things I have watched being anything from HBO).

DVB is also 'futureproof', meaning when the HDTV system is finally developed, it can still be broadcast using DVB.

My main comment about picture quality is due to the differences in the systems and the quality produced.

This is what happend with NTSC originally, whence the USA and Canada having Colour before anywhere else, but the quality was and still is, crap (525 line) compared with PAL at 625 Line.

Skiddins

HDTV has two supported resolutions (1920x1080 and 1280x720 pixels) and everyone uses either of these. There are two camps (similar to PAL / NTSC) for the vertical refresh rate where USA/Canada is 60Hz and UK/Europe/Australia is 50Hz. This is the only real difference, and it results in 3:2 pulldown judder with movies in the 60Hz region and 4% speedup in the 50Hz region (similar to DVD).

Simple nes pas?

StooMonster

[StooMonster]

DVB means "Digital Video Broadcasting", i.e. the name for digital terrestrial, digital analogue and digital cable.

Have come back to you question because I didn't notice the DTT (Digital Terrestrial Television) part ... I've heard that Australia have terrestrial HDTV but all services existing and announced in UK are satellite based.

StooMonster

[hornydragon]

US have tee]rrestrial HDTV too i think korea is cable or terr as well !!!!

[Abit]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

As with NTSC v's PAL, the US (and presumably due to it's proximity with the USA, Canada as well) has adopted a new standard, perhaps without comparisons with other HDTV broadcasting systems.

The Australians performed laboratory and 'real world' tests on the the proposed systems (ATSC in the USA, DVB in the UK and I believe the rest of Europe) and chose to go with DVB instead.

DVB is used at the moment in the UK for Digital terrestrial broadcasting, which I have, and most of which is broadcast in 16:9 (interestingly with the exception of most US programmes we get that are from their major broadcastors, the exception, from things I have watched being anything from HBO).

DVB is also 'futureproof', meaning when the HDTV system is finally developed, it can still be broadcast using DVB.

My main comment about picture quality is due to the differences in the systems and the quality produced.

This is what happend with NTSC originally, whence the USA and Canada having Colour before anywhere else, but the quality was and still is, crap (525 line) compared with PAL at 625 Line.

Skiddins

To be honest, having lived in Germany for a few years there really is not so great of a difference between a good NTSC picture and a good PAL picture. Sorry, that's my experience. I'd consider the source more than the differenc e in NTSC and PAL.

Now HD is a different matter completely. The difference is more than dramatic.

Since the standard resolution for HD is likely to be the same for the rest of the world, as it looks like it will be in Europe, as it has been in America, why would the quality be less than there in Europe?

Originally Posted by Skiddins

As with NTSC v's PAL, the US (and presumably due to it's proximity with the USA, Canada as well) has adopted a new standard, perhaps without comparisons with other HDTV broadcasting systems.

The Australians performed laboratory and 'real world' tests on the the proposed systems (ATSC in the USA, DVB in the UK and I believe the rest of Europe) and chose to go with DVB instead.

DVB is used at the moment in the UK for Digital terrestrial broadcasting, which I have, and most of which is broadcast in 16:9 (interestingly with the exception of most US programmes we get that are from their major broadcastors, the exception, from things I have watched being anything from HBO).

DVB is also 'futureproof', meaning when the HDTV system is finally developed, it can still be broadcast using DVB.

My main comment about picture quality is due to the differences in the systems and the quality produced.

This is what happend with NTSC originally, whence the USA and Canada having Colour before anywhere else, but the quality was and still is, crap (525 line) compared with PAL at 625 Line.

Skiddins

What point are you making? Why is our system "crap?"

HDTV is HDTV. 720 or 1080. There are no other resolutions. 8VSB and COFDM are just two different encodings.

And, we do use DVB-S and DVB-C. Our DVB-T just use 8VSB encoding instead of COFDM.

I have an ATI HDTV Wonder for terrestrial HDTV and a Nexus DVB-S for satellite HDTV.

What was your point again?

[Skiddins]

You mention there are no other resolutions than 1080 or 720 line.
But 720 line less than a 100 more than PAL, at that res, whats the point?
The old system, NTSC was crap, have they chosen the better system this time?

But I'm more interested in the way that colour is converted, other than a difference in the number of lines, there was a HUGE difference in the quality of the colours that the NTSC (nicknamed Never The Same Colour) and PAL systems produced.
My interest is in how the colour is being transmitted on the HDTV systems, as once again, they, meaning all the corporations, haven't come up with a single standard which could be used across the world, so once again different systems everywhere.

there really is not so great of a difference between a good NTSC picture and a good PAL picture

There is.
They have managed to improve the picture over the last 15 years or so by adding something else to the signal, sorry it's been quite a while since I read about so I've forgotten what.

Also guys, have you seen PAL on PAL TV's and NTSC on NTSC TV's?

I have some imported NTSC DVD's and the difference is less noticable, but there is still a difference, mainly in the colours again.

[Dutch]

"But 720 line less than a 100 more than PAL"

Incorrect. PAL is 576 lines interlaced. 720p is 720 lines progressive. Hope this helps.

Steve

[Skiddins]

Incorrect. PAL is 576 lines interlaced. 720p is 720 lines progressive

Fair Enough

Originally Posted by Skiddins

You mention there are no other resolutions than 1080 or 720 line.
But 720 line less than a 100 more than PAL, at that res, whats the point?

What are you talking about??

720 x 576 = 414,720
1280 x 720 = 921,600

Don't you think there is a little difference? Not even a bit? (Ignore the fact that it has 100+% more pixels...)

The old system, NTSC was crap, have they chosen the better system this time?

Hmm, better than a system that refreshes at 50 Hz. I get headaches from that.

But I'm more interested in the way that colour is converted, other than a difference in the number of lines, there was a HUGE difference in the quality of the colours that the NTSC (nicknamed Never The Same Colour) and PAL systems produced.

Yeah. In 1970.

My interest is in how the colour is being transmitted on the HDTV systems, as once again, they, meaning all the corporations, haven't come up with a single standard which could be used across the world, so once again different systems everywhere.

Color isn't transmitted in any special way. You get a raw TS MPEG-2 stream from the satellite/cable/antenna.

There is.
They have managed to improve the picture over the last 15 years or so by adding something else to the signal, sorry it's been quite a while since I read about so I've forgotten what.

Also guys, have you seen PAL on PAL TV's and NTSC on NTSC TV's?

I have some imported NTSC DVD's and the difference is less noticable, but there is still a difference, mainly in the colours again.

I have. I've lived in a PAL country for a few odd years. I really can't see the difference on anything made after 1985. Today? Not a chance. The only thing that does creep me out though, is the 50 Hz refresh rate on PAL systems.


Now tell me, since 720p isn't really such an improvement, why would Sky bother to go with 720p?

[Abit]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

You mention there are no other resolutions than 1080 or 720 line.
But 720 line less than a 100 more than PAL, at that res, whats the point?
The old system, NTSC was crap, have they chosen the better system this time?

Uh, you've already been told a few times what the system is. It was choosen quite some time ago. And before you judge 720P maybe you should wait until you see what it actually looks like?

[QUOTE=Skiddins] But I'm more interested in the way that colour is converted, other than a difference in the number of lines, there was a HUGE difference in the quality of the colours that the NTSC (nicknamed Never The Same Colour) and PAL systems produced.

I never saw any color difference bewteen PAL and NTSC. What should I have been looking for?

Originally Posted by Skiddins

My interest is in how the colour is being transmitted on the HDTV systems, as once again, they, meaning all the corporations, haven't come up with a single standard which could be used across the world, so once again different systems everywhere

Well at least resolution wise it appears the wolrdwide standard will be the one used in America.

Originally Posted by Skiddins

They have managed to improve the picture over the last 15 years or so by adding something else to the signal, sorry it's been quite a while since I read about so I've forgotten what.

Sorry, I'm being honest. I never saw any huge difference.

Originally Posted by Skiddins

Also guys, have you seen PAL on PAL TV's and NTSC on NTSC TV's?

Yes. As I already said I lived in Germany for a few years and I am American. I have seen both systems and see NTSC every day.

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I have some imported NTSC DVD's and the difference is less noticable, but there is still a difference, mainly in the colours again.

What's the difference?

[StooMonster]

You won't see any colour difference in R1 ("NTSC") DVDs or R2 ("PAL") because they both use the YUV colour-space in MPEG2 compression.

But you will see 3:2 pull-down versus 4% speedup; possibley notice lower resolution and resulting overuse of Edge Enhancement; etc. etc.

Corrections: the joke was "never twice same colour" and this refers to analogue broadcast NTSC, as opposed to analogue broadcast PAL, because NTSC used the YIQ colour-space instead of PAL's YUV (and French SECAM uses YDbDr).

YUV colour-space: (Y for luminance, U for blue minus Y, and V for red minus luminance). Note: the YCbCr or YPbPr colour space, used in component video, is derived from YUV (Cb/Pb and Cr/Pr are simply scaled versions of U and V), and is sometimes inaccurately called YUV because of this. YUV is simply created from an original RGB (red, green and blue) source and is easy to do with analogue equipment: hence it's use since the 1960s.

YIQ colour-space: (Y for luminance, I for in-phase, and Q for quadrature).

YDbDr colour-space: is almost identical to YUV but weighted slightly.

The primary use of these colour-spaces is to remain compatible with black and white televisions sets. However, with YIQ it was also possible to get rid of 89% of blue signal and 60% red and therefore use a much lower broadcast bandwidth -- the result was a need for a "tint" setting on sets to adjust the end-users colour.

Digital pictures don't have the old analogue broadcast colour-space differences, be it broadcast HDTV or DVDs. If you see one on DVDs, it probably down to the ISF calibration of your screen rather than the source material; it's that or your mind is playing tricks on you.

Saying that, I always laugh when I visit the States and turn on the square 4:3 TVs in my hotel rooms -- the scan-lines can be seen from the other side of the room! When I was a kid I always wondered why movies put a special effect of horizontal black lines over television pictures to make screen "look like tv"; until I went to USA and saw that 480 lines doesn't stretch too well over a 28" CRT.

StooMonster

[Abit]

Originally Posted by StooMonster

Saying that, I always laugh when I visit the States and turn on the square 4:3 TVs in my hotel rooms -- the scan-lines can be seen from the other side of the room! When I was a kid I always wondered why movies put a special effect of horizontal black lines over television pictures to make screen "look like tv"; until I went to USA and saw that 480 lines doesn't stretch too well over a 28" CRT.

StooMonster

I have a 32 inch that looks good to me.

Again, there is no practical difference between PAL and NTSC. I think you really want that to be the case but it isn't.

[StooMonster]

Originally Posted by Abit

I have a 32 inch that looks good to me.

So you don't mind the visible scan lines then?

Sure, 32" square 4:3 television is 25.6" wide and 19.2" high, therefore 480 line NTSC has 25 scan lines per inch and PAL has 30 scan lines per inch.

What we probably see here is people who grow up with NTSC notice the 50Hz flicker on PAL, whereas people who grow up with that and are oblivious to it can see the 20% less scan-lines of NTSC.

People are happiest with what they are used to.

Originally Posted by Abit

Again, there is no practical difference between PAL and NTSC. I think you really want that to be the case but it isn't.

Apart from my closing remark, I thought my detailed post above made it clear that there is little difference between digital versions, but... No pleasing some people.

StooMonster

Originally Posted by StooMonster

So you don't mind the visible scan lines then?

I would assume he isn't using a TV from the 1980s. I don't see scan lines, and I'm viewing on a 42" TV.

What we probably see here is people who grow up with NTSC notice the 50Hz flicker on PAL, whereas people who grow up with that and are oblivious to it can see the 20% less scan-lines of NTSC.

That I can agree with. It drives me nuts.

I have never been very pleased with our NTSC in the US but now I am getting to see it with OTA ATSC broadcasts on an HD set. With my low-budget, direct-view, HD sets' line doubling, it looks better than I ever imagined they could be. You do not see the scan lines at all, the color balance is good, and the detail level lets you tell a good tie from bad.

The worst HD broadcasts are about equal to a DVD at 480p and the best ones (OTA & Voom satellite for me) have the "WOW" factor. The PQ has made going to the movies disappointing lately. Granted, reducing the picture size from 50' to 30" should help but I don't feel like I am missing anything to watch a movie on the tube anymore. Other countries will likely improve on our HD system but you would not be too disappointed with the same specs. Problems on some stations include over-compression, cropping 2.35:1 films to 16:9, and having pixelization with fast motion. Its still better than I ever thought TV could be.

[MartinImber]

I can see differences of resolution between NTSC and PAL DVDs - PAL definately better resolution.

Before I here PAL - TV - Sony tube - stripes not dots

[StooMonster]

Originally Posted by Master Rahl

I would assume he isn't using a TV from the 1980s.

Perhaps it's just the Four Seasons hotels? I'll complain next visit.

StooMonster

[Skiddins]

Hmm, better than a system that refreshes at 50 Hz. I get headaches from that.

True, although if you grew up with it.....
And all the mid to high range TV's have 100Hz screens to prevent any flicker at all

What's the difference

See below for exact technical differences, but as said before the colours are not the same, with DVD's I believe the number of lines would be the same between PAL & NTSC but again, it's to do with the way the colours are broadcast

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/compare.html

Well at least resolution wise it appears the wolrdwide standard will be the one used in America.

Yes I would certainly agree that 1080 Lines would appear to the standard, and I haven't said anywhere that 1080 lines won't look a lot better than any of the current standards, it will.

I really can't see the difference on anything made after 1985

I have a reasonable 32" Sony Widescreen which is a few years old in front of me, I can switch between channels and view stuff made in the USA (NTSC), ie. Friends, Sex And The City etc. then switch channels immediately to something made in PAL, and I'm not talking about old programmes either.

There is definitely a difference, and as I've said, I have DVD's made in both systems as well.

My original 'crap' comment was about the difference between NTSC and PAL, and it would appear that there will be little difference between the the digital systems from what people have said here.
Even if there is, it would appear that some people will not notice the difference anyway

[Abit]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I have a reasonable 32" Sony Widescreen which is a few years old in front of me, I can switch between channels and view stuff made in the USA (NTSC), ie. Friends, Sex And The City etc. then switch channels immediately to something made in PAL, and I'm not talking about old programmes either.

What's happening to those programs to be viewed on your system? Surely they have to be altered in some way. Would that not degrade the picture quality?

Originally Posted by Skiddins

My original 'crap' comment was about the difference between NTSC and PAL, and it would appear that there will be little difference between the the digital systems from what people have said here.
Even if there is, it would appear that some people will not notice the difference anyway

What comments have been made to make you believe that?

You are awfully smug about something that for you doesn't even exist yet. You don't have any French in you, do you?

[Skiddins]

What comments have been made to make you believe that?

Have you read the comments here!!!!!
People have said that there is virtually no difference between NTSC and PAL, THERE IS, so even if there is a difference in the systems (And I DON'T know if there will be) if people can't tell the difference between PAL and NTSC (for the sake of argument we'll call this Stevie Wonder syndrome ) they probably won't tell any difference in the HDTV systems (Even if there is one)

What's happening to those programs to be viewed on your system? Surely they have to be altered in some way. Would that not degrade the picture quality?

I doubt it, as most programmes are stored on digital media, I'm not sure whether the tapes are converted in the US then sent over or changed here, but even fairly low cost VCR's can play NTSC tapes here.
And in professional broadcasting companies, they don't own any equipment that can transpose that badly.
On my frequent visits to the US I can see the colour problems immediately (Just as people from the US notice the 50Hz flicker on PAL), and as our TV's don't have 'Hue' adjustment or the electronic equivalent which is in higher end US TV's, the transmission is if anything, probably better (Better to sort out the source, rather than at the other end, just ask any audio enthusiast.)

[Abit]

Originally Posted by Skiddins

Have you read the comments here!!!!!
People have said that there is virtually no difference between NTSC and PAL, THERE IS, so even if there is a difference in the systems (And I DON'T know if there will be) if people can't tell the difference between PAL and NTSC (for the sake of argument we'll call this Stevie Wonder syndrome ) they probably won't tell any difference in the HDTV systems (Even if there is one)

Yes I have read what was said and it is silly to assume that there is going to be some noticeable difference between our HDTV and yours, which doesn't even exist yet, based on NTSC and PAL differences, and because you have some people disagreeing with you. The way you are going about your argument its as if you want there to be a noticeable difference so you can gloat over it. Sorry my friend but it all comes across as rather silly.

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I doubt it, as most programmes are stored on digital media, I'm not sure whether the tapes are converted in the US then sent over or changed here, but even fairly low cost VCR's can play NTSC tapes here.
And in professional broadcasting companies, they don't own any equipment that can transpose that badly.

You say "I doubt it," "I'm not sure," so basically you don't know, is what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Skiddins

On my frequent visits to the US I can see the colour problems immediately (Just as people from the US notice the 50Hz flicker on PAL), and as our TV's don't have 'Hue' adjustment or the electronic equivalent which is in higher end US TV's, the transmission is if anything, probably better (Better to sort out the source, rather than at the other end, just ask any audio enthusiast.)

Maybe your only point of view is from cheap TVs in hotel rooms?

Originally Posted by Skiddins

I have a reasonable 32" Sony Widescreen which is a few years old in front of me, I can switch between channels and view stuff made in the USA (NTSC), ie. Friends, Sex And The City etc. then switch channels immediately to something made in PAL, and I'm not talking about old programmes either.

You think that the above programmes are conversions from NTSC format?

[Skiddins]

I'm not sure if they are converted or just broadcast across the PAL system.

[Skiddins]

Have looked at the BBC website and they are converted, but I'm not sure how.

US primetime drama and comedy are traditionally shot on 35mm film, so there is no NTSC to PAL standards conversion. What you see on your screen is a PAL video transfer of the 35mm film prints, much like a PAL movie transfer. If the picture looks soft it's because of the lower frame-rate of film (usually 24 frames per second, shown at 25 to fit our TV system) compared with the 50 interlaced fields used in PAL video. Also, Americans like everyone to look golden, and over colour-correction can make things look soft.

Ironically, as 35mm film is inherently a high-definition format, old shows like the original Star Trek series (as well as TNG etc) can be shown in high-def, while tonight's Eastenders, and pretty much every other UK produced programme can't because they're shot on standard definition video (standard-def programmes can be upconverted to HD format, but I wouldn't call it proper HD).