Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by xxalxx, Feb 18, 2005.
Here is a scan of the article....
Interesting point. Thanks.
Ahh good old Barry Fox, much missed on LBC btw
Interesting article, but I rather get the impression Mr Fox hasn't watched that many hours of good HD at his own home.
Fact is, in the right conditions, even with a 1280x720 or 1024x1024 display, there is absolutely no comparison between an upconverted DVD and true HDTV. It's not just the resolution but the massive increase in colour depth which makes the difference.
DVD (upconverted or not) looks flat, uninvolving and frankly boring by comparison. There is a lot of average HD out there (video and film sourced) but the production end seems to be getting the hang of HD (the more recent D-Theater titles are an excellent example of how HD film transfers have evolved) and things will continue to improve. The top quality HD transfers are a world apart from SD and are just so much more involving and enjoyable to watch.
Once good HD starts to get into people's homes they will not put up with upconverted SD material as a substitute.
But why should the Brits have to pay for a furthur subscription to watch from Sky only. We deserve a FTA deal like in the US and Australia. I hate to think what rip off figure Sky will get away with for just a few HD film and Sports channels
While Sky might charge extra for HD services, there is no reason to expect current broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV etc. will once they start their own HD services. FTA HD will come to the UK, even if initially it is primarily via satellite.
US subscription channels such as HBO, Discovery etc. charge for their HD channels just as Sky will/do.
what we need is an american cable / sat provider to start giving $ky a bit of competition here.
I think Mr.Fox proved completely the opposite to what he was trying to prove.
The fact is you don't even need a screen capable of showing the full resolution of HD to appreciate how much better it is than upscaled dvd, and when he said it looked very good, even on an xga projector I don't think he clicked.
And to say people won't see the difference is nonsense, take the Sony plasma in Harrods, it is running a Hi-Def loop, just about everyone stops in front of it and comments on the picture, they don't realise it is HD that makes it look so good, they just think it is a better TV than the rest, but they all stop and comment.
"I asked the TI Texans whether they could honestly say that most home viewers would see any difference between true HDTV and up-converted PAL, even on a 7ft screen - and, to their credit, they had to admit no."
That made me laugh!
I can't believe Sony did a presentation on the benefits of HDTV using a 1024 x 768 XGA projector. What was that supposed to demonstrate? The benefits of EDTV or similar?
"Viewers will probably only be able to record the [Sky] HDTV broadcasts with a Sky+ box."
If that is true it won't please the Blu-ray backers.
Well until Blu-ray is launched the only practical way to record HDCP compliant HD programming will be with a bitstream recording system such as used in SKY+, it will record encrypted content complete with the HDCP flags thus preventing offboard copying when played back.
Unprotected content (if any) will I suppose be recordable on a PC via various cables/convertors.
When Blu-ray is in the loop then that will give SKY HD viewers the option of recording onto optical disc via HDMI (HDCP complaint or not as the programming requires) but with other permissions and limitations imposed.
The same would apply to HD-DVD when they finally get around to offering a recordable format to the public
You should have seen some of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray demos done at this year's CES. Way below the level of quality most members of this forum could have setup in 1/2 an hour. For anyone interested, it is possible to get a reasonable selection of material in your own home in HD in the UK right now with a bit of effort and frankly any journalists should do this before commenting on HD v SD.
As far as the recording issue is concerned you are quite correct. There is, however, a well established copy protected (the "5C" protocol) firewire bitstream transmission method which Sky could easily implement were they minded too. As they have never implemented off-board SD bitstream recording I do not hold out an enormous amount of hope they will do this for HD. Without such a feature, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders are essentially dead in the water in the UK as far as HD recording is concerned.
HDMI would be an odd way to record as it would mean decoding the compressed signal, transmitting an uncompressed video signal and then re-compressing it. This means extra complication, costs (in encoders) and most importantly of all a loss in quality.
A direct bitstream recording to disc with copy flags ("copy once", "copy never" etc.) is by far the best way to do this. This could, in theory, be done by HDMI (although it would require another revision to the standard) although a perfectly good Firewire system has been around for about 4 years now.
Separate names with a comma.