Discussion in 'Televisions' started by duncs, Apr 14, 2005.
Not a bad article, seemed to be at least factual and he got the numbers for PAL transmition right which you don't see every day.
Yep - they look like they have done their research - infact better than some of the AV press.
Quite well written, but there was no mention of the difference between interlaced PAL and progressive HD with regard to 576 versus 720 lines - quite important, I think.
Nor the difference in horizontal resolution: 576 v. 720 doesn't sound like much, but 576x720 v. 720x1280 is quite a significant difference, and even more so when you include the progressive/frame-rate aspect.
I work for the Guardian, so I might be a bit biased!
It was a well researched article, but I think there was too much emphasis on the transmission of HDTV, and nothing on other sources such as DVD, games etc.
I don't have Sky so if I get an HD panel it'll wont be for TV, but for films and Halo 3!
Sorry, but the paragraph quoted above is complete gibberish!
I agree. I lived in The States, NYC, during the mid to late 90's, and although TV was not that important to me, I do know friends were very interested and the pq was fantastic. I have wanted it since. I must say that I have written many academic pieces and the usual research pattern has been followed. I am interested though in what primary research was used (for example, stats). From my experience in The States, and Australia (where I grew up) where the same PAL format is used as in the UK, it is catching on, especially with the critical 30 somethings with high disposible income. When in Oz I have seen SD and HD (with the same boxes BBC are testing), and the difference is fantastic at times. No always, but mostly. For example, I have seen Terminator broadcast (although not natural HD) in HD. At some points I asked if it was worth the money (about 10% of the time), then suddenly, WOW, look at the depth of this pic!
The article research is also out of date. The BBC have been testing Thompson STB's from Australia for 12 months, and are broadcasting a test now. It appears they will be introducing some HD next year, and the STB's will be available. I have heard this is because the cable providers and Sky are opening for HD business, probably in time for Christmas spending! It also appears Thompson will be using upscaling in the STBs so the non-natural HD will be seen on many channels! Wait until you see the difference on the wildlife channels! It will blow anyone away! Anyway, it makes sense for the Beeb to not fall behind the 8ball, when they need audience share to justify an increase in the licence fee. Available bandwith will also grow over time, but at present the first to see BBC HD will be those with Cable or Sky. STB's won't be far behind.
Anyway, I do agree about Euro digital broadcast quality. On the right channel on the right day, the PQ can be fantastic on my tele. I think natural HD will increase the pq depth by about 50%, and with upscaling 25-30%.
Hope this is useful.
One of the comments was that 1080i was likely to be less popular than the 720p service. That's because of the much higher cost of the provision of the service. I'd like to know where that comes from. I believe video for HD is shot in 1080 in the first place, not 720, so the recording is not a significant factor. The cost would surely come from the extra bandwidth required for the broadcast of the transmission.
However, 1080 is interlaced, so although there are 125% more pixels, the frame rate is halved, so the bandwidth should only be around 13% higher. I don't call that "much" higher for the benefits available. Remember that in practice, a HD TV is likely to display a progressive picture one way or another anyway.
Separate names with a comma.