PC Pals Forum
Technical Help & Discussion => AV Lounge => Topic started by: Clive on June 30, 2008, 11:51
-
The BBC's test transmissions of HD content for people using the Freeview digital TV service have begun from the Guildford transmitter.
Though the BBC has an HD channel that can be seen on Sky and through the new Freesat service, no HD programming is currently available through Freeview.
The BBC aims to provide HD content to everyone using Freeview by 2009.
The technology that will enable the provision of HD content on Freeview is known as DVB-T2 and has greater capacity to handle HD content than DVB-T, the standard currently used for most Freeview broadcasts.
Justin Mitchell, leader of the DVB-T2 modem development team at the BBC, said: "We are delighted that our team, in collaboration with our partners, has been able to deliver such a key piece of technology in such a short timescale.
"This is a big step forward in enabling the introduction of full HD terrestrial on Freeview by the end of 2009," he continued.
www.bbc.co.uk
www.freeview.co.uk
-
Brilliant!
-
Any up date on this, as I was contemplating paying out for a Freesat installation similar to the Sky+ set up [ I wouldn't give Murdoch the smell of my farts, never mind me money ] At present we cannot get Freeview, but are due for connection in 2011........bloody last as usual.
edit: I'm reading the links in Clives post................but basically I'm lazy :)x
-
2011 until you get Freeview? And they still charge you a license fee? :o
-
Well, it's all crap anyway, Clive. :)
-
I still think HD is over rated. Not that it's but good, it just isn't THAT good.
-
But = not. Bloody new phone! ;D
-
But = not. Bloody new phone! ;D
:pmsl:
-
It doesn't matter how many he goes through, does it, Sam? ;D
-
user incompetence... I think that's the right word :devil:
-
;D
-
Are they picking on you bro?
I hear what your saying about HD Simon. But I'm guessing your in a good reception area for both analogue and digital signals, so what your seeing normally is OK. But we are in a crap signal area, no channel 5 reception hence no Freeview reception. And analogue reception is crap with ghosting on some channels, and that's with signal boosters on the aerial set up.
So I'm thinking, even when they switch off the analogue signal in 2011 and boost up the digital signal. If they are using the same transmitter infrastructure [I don't know if they do] I reckon because we live in a dip [best way to describe it] I may end up after buying a Freeview+ box, still not be happy with the reception. Then fork out for an aerial upgrade, and still not be happy.
So I'm thinking sod it, would I be better to have done with it and fork out £350 now for a Freesat+ installation.
I have a Toshiba full HD TV with freeview receiver installed. It had excellent reviews for HD viewing. But the pro reviewer marked it down on its analogue viewing, and I'm getting fed up waiting for a decent signal.
Comments please.
-
If £350 would enhance your viewing pleasure, it seems to be a waste of a good TV not to go for it. Even Yorskshiremen can't take it with them, bruv. ;)
-
I'd second that, it sounds like you may still not get a decent signal, Tony. Though a sat install should cost a lot less than £350, unless you're including hardware.
-
I'd second that, it sounds like you may still not get a decent signal, Tony. Though a sat install should cost a lot less than £350, unless you're including hardware.
Yes that includes a 350GB Sky+ type box, allowing you to record two programs at once, or record one view one
-
But bear in mind that the minimum Sky subscription charge is £22 a month.
-
But bear in mind that the minimum Sky subscription charge is £22 a month.
Clive
Does your carer know your on the PC :devil:
Hence I'm going the Freesat route,
-
Actually, Clive, it's £18.50.
-
:)x
-
Actually, Clive, it's £18.50.
Does that include the subscription for HD content Rik ? I don't the visit the Sky website if I can help it.
-
Clive
Does your carer know your on the PC :devil:
Hence I'm going the Freesat route,
I manage to slip away from her several times a day Tony. :laugh:
-
Does that include the subscription for HD content Rik ? I don't the visit the Sky website if I can help it.
No, HD is £10 extra, multi-room a further £10.
-
No, HD is £10 extra, multi-room a further £10.
Right at that its £28.50 a month for basic Sky + HD content plus £30 one off installation.
Set against what I have priced up. Rang an local installer, getting the dish and two cable install done for £85 + best price Humax Foxsat Freesat HD+ box 320GB is £243.95 at Comet or Dixons = £328.95 So stacked up against Sky cost, come month 10.5, its costing me ziltch there after. As against giving that anti democratic T@wt Murdoch £28.50 a month, after month,after month, after .....you get the drift.
Now I'll need a HDMI cable to connect between the Foxstat box and the TV, is that right ?
Jeez for a 1m Monster cable they want £49.99 in Comet and that's with £10 off. Surly I can get a decent HDMI cable for less than that ...any suggestions
-
Where can I find a list of channels for Freesat Tony? Problem is that my wife likes watching the Hallmark channel which airs all those Law and Order and Criminal Intent programmes. Not my cup of tea really.
-
I've had a look here Clive http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.Main (http://Freesat Channels)
I did not spot Hallmark, but there is a proper news channel Aljazzera :thumbs:
And getting back to HDMI cables this sums it up I think (http://reviews.cnet.com/hdmi-cable/[/url)
-
As against giving that anti democratic T@wt Murdoch £28.50 a month, after month,after month, after .....you get the drift.
It depends how much HD access you want, Tony. Sky holds most of the cards there.
-
It depends how much HD access you want, Tony. Sky holds most of the cards there.
Yes I realise that Rik, but I find I don't have enough time to watch what I want to with my current four channels. So the extra offerings of Freesat will do me fine. I wont pay Murdoch to watch my national teams, he can stuff his fees where the sun don't shine. The film channels, well I buy what I like, give em a few months ....
-
You don't need to spend a fortune on an HDMI cable, Tony. The cheaper ones are just as good. Assuming you don't need a long one, this should do the job. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/LINX-HDMI-Cable-Premium-Plated/dp/B000H8VM8Y/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258740795&sr=8-11)
-
I've had a look here Clive http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.Main (http://Freesat Channels)
I did not spot Hallmark, but there is a proper news channel Aljazzera :thumbs:
Thanks for the info Tony. There's not really much difference between BBC Freesat and Freeview apart from the HD channels. I've seen a comparison of HD and standard TV in the shops and it does look better. But I've also seen it on a top of the range 50" Pioneer plasma at my cousin's house and I am hard pressed to see a great deal of difference. I don't think I would be prepared to fork out for it myself! In a few years time, everything will be in HD and it will be free. :) Imagine how much we would have to pay each month for a subscription to colour TV and a special decoder box if colour TV was just available for the first time! :o
-
hear what your saying Clive and if you have already got a good digital signal via Freeview why bother.
But I'll add one caveat, when Freeview HD is available if you want to use it like you use say a SKY+ or FreesatHD + box. I reckon you will be paying out the same kind of money for a Freeview HD+ box. So really what we are talking about difference here is the cost of up grading to a good digital aerial for Freeview HD reception. As against the cost of a Freesat dish install @ £85 and remember it is a line of sight signal with Freesat. Plus in my case I could not be @rsed waiting another two years to get Freeview
Simon, coz I got the dish install for decent money, I splashed out in the HDMI cable department http://www.amazon.co.uk/PLATINUM-STATION-BLU-RAY-Version-High-Speed/dp/B001QJXACO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258748542&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/PLATINUM-STATION-BLU-RAY-Version-High-Speed/dp/B001QJXACO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258748542&sr=1-1)
I initially put some in my basket @ £1.55 but then I thought what the hell it's only money.
So the set up will have cost £340 in total
-
anyway where's our Sandra when you need her? She hasn't gone and won the premium bonds again has she. Don't tell me, she's run off with Terry........
-
The HDML cable looks great, Tony. The very cheap ones can have poor quality connectors, that drop out when you breathe on them, but that's about the right price for pay for a decent enough one. :)
-
How come this thread has managed to hit page 3 and it's still on topic?
-
We must be slipping. ;D
-
Sorry Tony, I have been tied up with a funeral this week and havent had much time on the pc. In fact I was walking Charlie at 11am this morning and almost gave a neighbour a heart attack as she had never seen me out so early ;D
Had to get up and take him out early as I wanted to leave the house around noon to be able to help my niece with the buffet for afterwards.
The problem with Freesat is that there still arent many HD channels, only currently a few programmes on BBC in HD, even less on C4 and even less again on ITV. As you will already know, the new LCD and Plasma TVs are crap on any SD signal as they work best at their optimised resolution, unlike CRT which works fine across any resolution that it can do. Even with a HD signal if its not at a high enough bitrate, BBC has recenly dropped their bitrate according to some satellite forums, you get motion blur on fast action programmes such as sport and action films.
With your TV you really need a good HD source, which unfortunately means paying Uncle Rupert a lot of money or tuning into one of the German or Bulgarian satellites for a bit less, I think.
Have you already bought the gear and booked the installer ?
-
As you will already know, the new LCD and Plasma TVs are crap on any SD signal as they work best at their optimised resolution, unlike CRT which works fine across any resolution that it can do.
The last I heard about CRT-HD TVs is that Samsung were the only ones making them, and they were going to stop due to geometry issues. That must have been a couple of years ago, so I hope yours keeps going, Sandra, as it doesn't look like you'll be able to get another.
-
Yes its ridiculous isnt it. Samsung made a 36 inch version that was supposed to have various improvements over the 32 inch one that I have. More HDMI sockets, even slimmer than mine and fixed the geometry problems some people have complained of. I have a very slight issue on the left and right edges of my picture if viewing my PC on it on ocassion, but I would rather have the clarity, the levels of contrast, real blacks and no motion blur, with almost as good an SD picture as the HD ones than have a poorer picture quality.
Unfortunately Samsung couldnt find a major retailer who would stock their new models as they are a little heavier and even though they are "slimfit" they still take up a bit more room than LCD and Plasma TVs, so they never marketed them :cry:
When I went into Currys to see what my TV looked like, before buying it cheaper online, I asked the sales guy if he could show me a HD source on it. He looked at me like I was an idiot and said it wasnt HD ready as it was "only" a CRT :)x
I showed him the HD ready lables stuck all over the front of it and the one saying HDMI connection but he had to look on the website to see the specs saying that it was a HD CRT TV.
With sales staff like that then its hardly surprising that Samsung couldnt get the management to stock their TVs ::)
-
What do you expect from a major high street chain? I think you have to go to the smaller, specialist shops to get any kind of worthwhile advice, and to view the product. Then go home and buy it cheaper online. :devil:
-
Hi Sandra,
sorry about the funeral.
Yes I've been out and bought it to day, and the installer is coming Wednesday, don't tell me its a mistake ':|
The new stuff is coming out in HD well more so on the BBC, than ITV HD Schedule (http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=whatson.HDschedule)
Give Rupert my money, never
I've read postings that the picture quality is better than sky, but I suppose different people have different views. One thing is for sure Rupert, would like Freesat to fail, so in that respect he could have minions posting negative stuff about Freesat. Not everybody wants masses of movie channels, and I've read many posts of people buying the Humax Foxstat HDR, just to be shut of the Sky fees.
-
Yes I've been out and bought it to day, and the installer is coming Wednesday, don't tell me its a mistake ':|
Not really Tony but I did show you my setup when you were here didnt I ?
The initial outlay may have been a little higher but you would have got a lot more in long run :o:
-
Yes but the wife thinks I've spent enough as it is ;D
Anyhow, I'm glad your still about, when nobody came back at me when I posted asking where you were...........I was beginning to wonder...................has she run off with Terry ;D
Anyway it's time I was going bedebyes, nite xxx
-
I'm sure you'll be really happy with your purchase, Tony. Nite! :)
-
How did your footie go Tony ?
Just read this on a satellite forum :
BBC admits HDTV is being squeezed
Chris Forrester
29-11-2009
The BBC's Roly Keating, formally the Controller of BBC 2 but now the broadcaster's head of archive content, has confirmed that the BBC has cut back its HDTV transmission bit-rate by almost 40%.
Typical transmission bit rates have tumbled from 16-19Mb/s to an average 9.7Mb/s, with the BBC saying it has done this as a result of new compression encoding equipment that had been installed. Last week a senior Ericsson/Tandberg official said he was aware of the industry concerns, and had himself noticed what he described as the lack of ‘Wow factor' that now seemed to affect the BBC's HDTV transmissions. "But Tandberg kit is not involved," said our source.
An application by a concerned viewer Mr Paul G Eaton to the BBC to have assorted BBC correspondence concerning HDTV released under the UK's Freedom of Information Act has had only a limited success.
The head of the BBC's HD efforts, Danielle Nagler, who is on record (see Rapid TV News Nov 12) as saying that there was no evidence that a reduction in bit-rate reduced the picture quality, has had her position supported by Mr Keating saying "no-one cares more deeply about maintaining, and improving the quality of service on our HD channel" than her and her team. She has promised that the BBC's Head of HD Technology (and highly regarded HD-guru) Andy Quested, would be making a disclosure on the amount of HD testing done.
Nevertheless, Keating also confirmed that the new compression equipment had resulted in unacceptable artifacts. "On occasion, a change in technology may have unpredicted results: it's clear for instance that the August switch from the old-generation coders to the new set caused a number of visible problems on air. Swift action was taken to acknowledge these problems, and to address them," he said in a note to Mr Eaton.
-
If those quotations are accurate and in context, the BBC should hang its head in shame.
-
indeed, shameful of them really.
-
No reason to disbelieve them Gill. Its from a site that covers all sorts of satellite information from all over the world.
http://www.gccadm.net/forum/index.php
I think that you have to register to read anything on there.
I think they got the info from here after googling the guys name :
http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200911295313/bbc-admits-hdtv-is-being-squeezed.html
-
disgusting,
I must admit, the idea of having a full HD tv and being able to view HD content, was one of the prime movers for me spending £324 on the kit needed. And if I'm being honest, when I first switched from say a 568i program [which is great to what I was getting pre Freesat] to HD.....good but yes I was expecting some how to be really wowed.....then I thought ...possibly is it me expecting to much.
A bit like when watching trailers for soon to be released movies, when you actually watch the film, you realise you saw all the best bits in the pre release hype.
I've not seen BBC HD at the rate it was prior to it being altered, ha well I suppose I don't know what I now missing, so maybe it's better that way ???
My Toshiba displays up to 1080p, I see the Humax Foxsat supports 576i, 576p,720i,720p and 1080i, I suppose Sky is the same. Buggered If I know what the difference is between the i and p, or wither my eye could register the difference in the out put.
Got to say though, the more I find out what this Humax box can do the more I like it. Love the live TV, love the ease of recording or reserving straight from the EPG. Love the fact I can put all my music on the HDD.
-
Inevitable, though. :(
-
i = Interlaced, p = Progressive, but I can't explain further without Googling. Progressive is better for sports, I believe, as there is less motion blur.
-
The only way that you will get 1080p at the moment Tony, is from a Blu Ray DVD. I think there is one european satellite that was trialling 1080p broadcast but I cant remember which one at the moment. I dont know of any satellite boxes that do 1080p that are currently available.
I expect its a bit like freeview HD, they are going to start transmitting it in my region next wednesday but there isnt any equipment that can receive and decode it on sale yet, as far as I know. Once the service is running then the manufacturers will start to produce the equipment but they wont do it before so that we can be ready for the new service ::)
-
cheers Sandra,
Well to be honest I'm happy with the reception I'm getting now.
But that seems to be the way of things don't it. Industry keeps pushing development of new products an e nth degree better and we all feel the need to have it...in short consumerism......I think I'll step of the treadmill again.......obviously after I get the up scaling DVD player [still out of stock] in at Argos but a fiver dearer.....Do I need it no....why do I want it, because its not an arm and a leg and I'm interested to see if it improves my DVD's there.........see what I mean.......... :crazy:
-
Of course, it has to be said that a £30 upscaling DVD player isn't going to be as good as a £300 one, so I wouldn't be too surprised if you're not awestruck with the difference, Tony. That said, I bought a Denon DVD player for £250 a couple of years ago, and it produced a worse picture than my old Pioneer which didn't upscale. :dunno:
-
If you are passing anytime soon Tony, you can borrow my cheap upscaling DVD player to try it. I havent used it for 12 months or so as my Dreambox plays all my DVDs and its just sat in my bedroom doing nothing at the moment.
-
If you are passing anytime soon Tony, you can borrow my cheap upscaling DVD player to try it. I havent used it for 12 months or so as my Dreambox plays all my DVDs and its just sat in my bedroom doing nothing at the moment.
Should I bring my Jim Jams :devil:
-
If you're lucky, you might not need them! :devil:
-
:-X ;D