Quantcast

New UK satellite platform to be hi-def?

StooMonster

Well-known Member
I read in a number of industry sources that the BBC is lobbying the government to create a free digital satellite platform. The Corporation has warned that the Government will miss its 2010 analogue switch-off target unless a fourth service exists alongside Freeview's digital terrestrial, Sky's digital satellite and Telewest and NTL's digital cable.

Andy Duncan, BBC director of marketing and communications, said that 'freesat' would complement the existing Sky pay-TV service and not compete with it.

I've heard a rumour that this 'freesat' lobbying is for High Definition service; as you know there's no way that Sky are doing it for the forseeable future, therefore it compliments not competes.

How does one help the BBC lobby the government to get free HD satellite?

StooMonster
 

Starburst

Novice Member
If the intent is to increase the take up of digital TV in the UK then High Def is not the way to go.
There has been no surge in sales of FTA Dsat receivers since the BBC went FTA so why would anyone expect analogue viewers to rush off and buy £400 HD set top boxes?
Best result would be existing Dsat viewers would buy into the tech and that would not affect UK digital penetration one bit.

The BBC are desperate to get more broadcasters off the SKY platform especially ITV, CH4 and Five to add credability to it's abandoning the FTV system and helping to create the mess with have now.

There would be more impact on digital take up if the regulator forced SKY and the three commercial terrestrial broadcasters to offer a FTV card and the hardware/installation required for a one off fee similar to the cost of a Freeview box and aerial upgrade.
The £120 deal SKY offered ( after the regulator stepped in) was great since the FTV card was paid for by the viewers license fee but now that isn't an option (but should be) the deal is pretty much useless.

I think SKY will lauch a HD service although maybe only one or two channels and they will be subscription.
They have the content, they have the capacity and they have a subscriber base that want more than the terrestrials offer and accept the idea of paying for something they want.
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
Perhaps the BBC plan regular SD as well as HD on "freesat"? That would be nice.

Originally posted by Starburst
I think SKY will lauch a HD service although maybe only one or two channels and they will be subscription.
They have the content, they have the capacity and they have a subscriber base that want more than the terrestrials offer and accept the idea of paying for something they want.
Starburst you could be right in your assessment, but Sky are still halfway through their investment lifecycle with digital platform and won't be changing to any new technology any time soon.

However, they know they are plateauing with subscriber base and looking for ways to increase that annual spend per customer ratio as per James Murdocks plans. There are plenty of rumours about of how they plan to do this, and investing in HD for a couple of movie channels, and then perhaps sports :(, is the way to go.

If Sky ever did HD it would be of the 720 flavour not the 1080, purely because of the bandwidth it would require (they'd rather have more channels) and because their sister company FOX uses this format.

I hope the BBC choose 1080 then we would have a complimentary choice. :)

StooMonster
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
New Media Age, 13 May 2004

BBC proposals for FreeSat pledge interactivity for all
Jonathan Webdale

The BBC will be aiming to make the full range of its interactive TV services available via a free digital satellite service, which it has called on the Government to back if the UK is to reach its 2010 target for analogue switch-off.

The Corporation, which has been instrumental in the development of iTV content, will be seeking to replicate interactive services it makes available on Sky Digital, digital cable and Freeview if its proposals receive government and industry support.

The BBC is already in discussions with potential partners for the creation of what's being tentatively dubbed 'FreeSat', with BSkyB believed to be among them.

The two parties already collaborate in their capacity as founding members of the consortium behind Freeview, which also includes Crown Castle.

A BBC spokeswoman said it was too early to confirm who the Corporation had held discussions with, but confirmed that any FreeSat development it was involved with would aim to be in line with the BBC's ambitions of universal access to its services.

The Corporation has won plaudits for using interactivity to provide audiences with multi-screen coverage of Wimbledon, as well as groundbreaking factual and entertainment formats such as Restoration and Test the Nation.

The crucial issue will be whether the model finally arrived at will, like Sky Digital and digital cable, provide users with the return path, which gives audiences access to a much wider range of iTV services, including red button voting, betting, ad response and buying. Freeview doesn't have this facility.

The BBC spokeswoman said that it was too soon to speculate as to what the model for FreeSat may be.

One pessimistic iTV insider said he anticipated a service that lacked a return path. He urged the Corporation to seek the adoption of the same OpenTV middleware as Sky Digital, rather than an alternative such as MHP, in order to ensure a level playing field for interactive services across UK digital satellite.

Source: New Media Age

In the same way that Sky is obsessed with increased ARPU and as many channels as possible, one gets the feeling BBC is obsessed with "interactivity" and not bothered with HD. :(

So the case for FreeSat is that FreeView doesn't have iTV (Interactive Television) functionality. ***! :suicide:

StooMonster
 

encaser

Member
*** indeed. Most of the supposedly great 'benefits' of iTV is known to peeve viewers. They know what they can do with their red dots etc.
The coverage of multi screen choice is good but then they bugger that up with onscreen banners/dogs etc. When will they learn.
It's sickening to hear of the beeb starting to film with hd gear and know it'll be elsewhere that gets it - sits waiting for the day when we have to dl UK material in HD from abroad...
 

rscott4563

Standard Member
Originally posted by StooMonster
If Sky ever did HD it would be of the 720 flavour not the 1080, purely because of the bandwidth it would require (they'd rather have more channels)

I hope the BBC choose 1080 then we would have a complimentary choice. :)

StooMonster
I assume where talking about 1080i and 720p, if this is the case isn't 720p higher bandwidth than 1080i, as 1080i is really just 540p?

Ryan
 

cerebros

Active Member
rscott4563 said:
I assume where talking about 1080i and 720p, if this is the case isn't 720p higher bandwidth than 1080i, as 1080i is really just 540p?
Yes, you'd need third more bandwidth for 720p as opposed to 540p or 1080i (assuming that they're all at 50Hz).
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
rscott4563 said:
I assume where talking about 1080i and 720p, if this is the case isn't 720p higher bandwidth than 1080i, as 1080i is really just 540p?

Ryan
Yes, but 1080i has got more horizontal pixels.

Assuming uncompressed 50Hz (PAL) video sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 50 fps = 46 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x540 pixels x 50 fps = 52 mega-pixels per second

Assuming uncompressed 60Hz (NTSC) video sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 60 fps = 55 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x540 pixels x 60 fps = 62 mega-pixels per second

Furthermore, video is only used for news and sport and movies are a different kettle of fish with 24/25 fps also used by American drama series; anyway,

Assuming uncompressed 50Hz (PAL) film sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 25 fps = 23 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels x 25 fps = 52 mega-pixels per second

Assuming uncompressed 60Hz (NTSC) film sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 24 fps = 22 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels x 24 fps = 62 mega-pixels per second

1080 requires more bandwidth regardsless of 60/50Hz and/or film/video sources.

StooMonster
 
B

beeblebrox12

Guest
The HDTV resolutions are

1280x720p
1920x1080i

As you can see, 1080i has more pixels per frame (1920x540) than 720p, which theoretically would require more bandwith. But, as I've said in another thread, broadcasters tend to squeeze both formats in the same bandwidth, which favours 720p. Another advantage of 720p is the fact that compression of progressive signal is more effective than that of interlaced. And progressive looks better on anything other than CRT.
So no need to worry, if your provider chooses 720p over 1080i. That would be the wiser choice, IMHO. In the end, conversion from one HDTV format to the other in the final display (or other devices) is an easy task which has already been perfected, so it's not that much of an issue either.
Of course, the ideal would be 1080p, but I don't think we will see it on anything other than future (and some current) HD-DVDs.
 
B

beeblebrox12

Guest
StooMonster said:
Assuming uncompressed 60Hz (NTSC) film sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 24 fps = 22 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels x 24 fps = 62 mega-pixels per second
StooMonster
This calculation is meaningless, because there isn't and won't be a transmission that is done at 24fps, so the megapixel values per second are a meaningless number. You can only argue that the 1920x1080i by having to draw only 24fps effectively becomes 1920x1080p, but, as I've already said, because of the lack of capable enough displays and bandwith restrictions, this is rarely the case. Surely not for most of US network series.
 

CKNA

Novice Member
StooMonster said:
Yes, but 1080i has got more horizontal pixels.

Assuming uncompressed 50Hz (PAL) video sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 50 fps = 46 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x540 pixels x 50 fps = 52 mega-pixels per second

Assuming uncompressed 60Hz (NTSC) video sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 60 fps = 55 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x540 pixels x 60 fps = 62 mega-pixels per second

Furthermore, video is only used for news and sport and movies are a different kettle of fish with 24/25 fps also used by American drama series; anyway,

Assuming uncompressed 50Hz (PAL) film sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 25 fps = 23 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels x 25 fps = 52 mega-pixels per second

Assuming uncompressed 60Hz (NTSC) film sources...
720p = 1280x720 pixels x 24 fps = 22 mega-pixels per second.
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels x 24 fps = 62 mega-pixels per second

1080 requires more bandwidth regardsless of 60/50Hz and/or film/video sources.

StooMonster
Just to be clear. There is no PAL or NTSC in HDTV. HDTV is HDTV which can be 50Hz or 60Hz.
 

CKNA

Novice Member
beeblebrox12 said:
This calculation is meaningless, because there isn't and won't be a transmission that is done at 24fps, so the megapixel values per second are a meaningless number. You can only argue that the 1920x1080i by having to draw only 24fps effectively becomes 1920x1080p, but, as I've already said, because of the lack of capable enough displays and bandwith restrictions, this is rarely the case. Surely not for most of US network series.
I agree with beeblebrox12. There will be no 24fps transmisions, (even if it is specified in specs) because switching frame rates on a fly would wreak havoc on all kinds of transmitting and receiving equipment.
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
beeblebrox12 said:
This calculation is meaningless, because there isn't and won't be a transmission that is done at 24fps, so the megapixel values per second are a meaningless number.
The caveat is clearly "uncompressed video sources".

Besides, when compressed repeating the same pixels in 3:2 pulldown does not take same bandwidth as showing 60 individual and different frames per second.

Furthermore, the HD specs cover transmitting at 24fps and 25fps too, if the broadcaster (or whichever HD encoder) doesn't want to use 2:2 or 3:2 pulldown. :D Quick Google will bring up HD specs for you. ;)

beeblebrox12 said:
You can only argue that the 1920x1080i by having to draw only 24fps effectively becomes 1920x1080p, but, as I've already said, because of the lack of capable enough displays and bandwith restrictions, this is rarely the case.
That's why my "movie" calcs had 24/25 x 1080 not 540, because it is in effect 1080p.

beeblebrox12 said:
Surely not for most of US network series.
Almost all US network dramatic series since the 1950s have been shot on film and are played back at effective 23.976fps using 3:2 pulldown, sitcoms may be a different matter; off the top of my head I can't think of one network drama that isn't/wasn't shot on film.

StooMonster
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
CKNA said:
Just to be clear. There is no PAL or NTSC in HDTV. HDTV is HDTV which can be 50Hz or 60Hz.
Apologise for my shorthand.

The Hz of the power supply cycle does not determine the limit of the screen refresh rate; thus a 720p or 1080 HDTV should be able to display HD content at 24, 25, 50, 60 frames per second and also NTSC derivatives such as 23.976, 29.97 and 59.94.

http://www.snellwilcox.com/ have got loads of free Books and Whitepapers available on their website in PDF that cover all aspects of HDTV, albeit with a technical production leaning.

StooMonster
 

CKNA

Novice Member
StooMonster said:
Apologise for my shorthand.

The Hz of the power supply cycle does not determine the limit of the screen refresh rate; thus a 720p or 1080 HDTV should be able to display HD content at 24, 25, 50, 60 frames per second and also NTSC derivatives such as 23.976, 29.97 and 59.94.

http://www.snellwilcox.com/ have got loads of free Books and Whitepapers available on their website in PDF that cover all aspects of HDTV, albeit with a technical production leaning.

StooMonster
Yes, I know that power cycle does not determine refresh rate anymore. I was pointing a out that you were calling 50Hz PAL HD and 60Hz NTSC HD.
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
CKNA said:
Yes, I know that power cycle does not determine refresh rate anymore. I was pointing a out that you were calling 50Hz PAL HD and 60Hz NTSC HD.
Yeah, and my friends and I call Region1 DVDs NTSC and Region2 ones PAL, it's just a shorthand that everyone knows what it means even if it no longer applies to those colourspaces anymore.

Albeit that PAL was always YPbPr anyway. ;)

StooMonster
 

CKNA

Novice Member
StooMonster said:
Yeah, and my friends and I call Region1 DVDs NTSC and Region2 ones PAL, it's just a shorthand that everyone knows what it means even if it no longer applies to those colourspaces anymore.

Albeit that PAL was always YPbPr anyway. ;)

StooMonster
Stoomonster,

I am reading your posts and getting a feeling that you do not how television works, you make up stuff, do not know the difference between progressive and interlaced and so forth.

PAL was never YPbPr during RF anallog broadcasting. It is composite just like NTSC. NTSC and PAL were always YPbPr or RGB as far studio production goes. The difference is how color was transmited over the air.

I am not going to argue your points because it is a waste of time. You basically just troll, spread misinformation and I am sick of it. You have a long way to go as far knowledge of HDTV.

I came to this forum to help UK members better understand HDTV, explain benefits and so forth. But because of people like you, I am not going to post anymore here.
 

rscott4563

Standard Member
Hold up......

Come on calm down, I think you might be taking things a little too personally here, StooMonster has and does provide a lot of help for many members of this forum and is certainly no troll, but no one is perfect and everyone gets things wrong, but I don't think anyone here is purposefully spreading mis-information. If someone has got something wrong then someone else will come along and correct them and help to educate them and the rest of us at the same time...

I came to this forum to help UK members better understand HDTV, explain benefits and so forth. But because of people like you, I am not going to post anymore here.
I don't know nearly enough about HDTV and television standards in general and very much appreciate any and all advice and information that I can get, if you now stop just because one other person has different/incorrect views then how will anyone get the right information??

Anyway all I'll say is if you think someone is spreading incorrect info then please put the correct information foward, afterall isn't that the point of this forum...

Just wanted to state that I have no idea whether Stoo is right or wrong, but he's always been very helpful and informative in helping users in many areas of AV.

Cheers

Ryan :smashin:
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
CKNA said:
The difference is how color was transmited over the air.
That's right... and PAL is transmitted as Luminance and Chroma, and in fact YUV colourspace.

Y = luminance
U = Red - luminance
V = Blue - luminance

Which you may notice is remarkabley similar to "component video". I thought it possible you would miss the irony of that and called it YPbPr instead (as many people cross-refer to YUV and YPbPr as same thing).

The RF modulator turns PAL's analogue broadcast YUV signal to composite video, it is not broadcast in composite video.

...so I think you'll find that I am correct.

Don't know what else you could be refering to when you say I'm spreading misinformation? Is an example the study of "Digital TV Penetration" by Informa Media Group who stated that UK 59% and US 47% of households; but you disagree and say USA is 90% with no apparent evidence to back up this claim. I question who is really spreading misinformation here.

Sorry you don't like a bit of friendly banter.

StooMonster
 

CKNA

Novice Member
I overreacted a little. I guess it must have been the weather. :laugh:

Stoomonster,

Do not get me wrong. I did not call you a troll, just that you were trolling sometimes.

That's right... and PAL is transmitted as Luminance and Chroma, and in fact YUV colourspace.
That is exactly how NTSC is done also. It is only composite when going to analog RF modulator which is in fact what is called broadcasting. This only applies to analog broadcastind as digital is sent as component. Professional production is usually done in RGB and sometimes component for both systems and has been for many years.

Don't know what else you could be refering to when you say I'm spreading misinformation? Is an example the study of "Digital TV Penetration" by Informa Media Group who stated that UK 59% and US 47% of households; but you disagree and say USA is 90% with no apparent evidence to back up this claim. I question who is really spreading misinformation here.

I am not disputing the study. All I am saying is that conversion to HD is harder and more expansive than just simple digtal tv. There is no requirement to do HD but all networks except FOX are doing it. Fox is going to start HD in the fall because of competion and not FCC forcing them.

It is actually remarkable that US is at 47%. There are problems like independent stations delaying conversion to digital or broadcasting at such a low power that you can only receive it standing next to transmitter.

Also OTA STB prices average $200-$300 as they all have to be HD capable. If they were just regular SD digital STB's they would cost $40-$50 the most.
If there was no HD US could easily be at 80% or 90% penetration.

Sorry you don't like a bit of friendly banter
Now that I know it is just friendly banter I will certainly interpret your posts differently. :hiya:
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

MQA expands global partnerships for high end experience
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung 2020 TV app lineup upgraded
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Film festivals move online: We Are One starts 29th May
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bafta 2020 TV Awards to proceed behind closed doors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Tidal brings Dolby Atmos Music to home cinema setups
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom