HDTV

Seems sky are really trying at last.


With the launch of their new Freeview style service they hope to get current terrestial veiwers onboard, with Skyplus they are getting current subscribers to pay more, if they successfully launch HDTV then it should encourage a good few to pay even more.

You got shares greeny?

Guess that'll be another new telly then.

Howard

Nope, I haven't even got a dish or cable.

I might have to think about it though if they start doing a freeview service.

I have seen a digitally recorded HDTV trailer. It is waaaaaay superior to UK TV or DVD, because it uses around 1100 lines as against 625. Martin Kleiser had a demo recently and I was very impressed.

I'll need a new TV to watch it, of course, but then again, the current one will be knackered by then.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

I've got about 10 to 15 HD channels here through cable. Yes it is way better than normal tv, the only problem is a lack of decent programming on them.

As for being better than DVD I don't think it's that good, it's certainly close. Sometimes it feels as if it too clear and sharp. Not sure if that makes sense, but on watching the two towers on it last year I felt the foreground and the background did not blend in too well.

It is a bit of an unfair comparison since I'm comparing from an arcam dv89 with decent cables against a cheap digi box (just the one I got from the cable company). Since the comparison above I have replaced the cables from cheap ones they gave me to better ones.

The problem with todays TV-world is not the limitations in the existing PAL system (or even NTSC, for that matter). The problem is the limited bandwidth being used in the digital transmissions now used for most channels. The result for the viewer is a disastrous picture quality (and sound quality), with pixeling more or less all the time if there is something resembling action in the program material.

The limited bandwidth, and the digital bit reduction systems used for it is of course there for a reason. The reason being to squeze more channels into every transmitter (sattelite or good old mast on the ground) to save money for the tv channels.

A case study: A couple of months ago, one of Swedens biggest channels, "TV4", closed down there analogue sattelite transmission and went to a digital one. The result was disastrous, from the BEST picture AND sound (good old mono, but sometimes one even got a feeling of PRaT!) of all channels available to me, to one of the worst.

So what will Sky do here? Use the same bandwidth as on all other channels, but pretend it's "better".
Increase the bandwidth on the HD transmissions and let us pay extra for something everybody had anyway, up to a couple of years ago?

JohanR

I do think that the rest of the channels I get (allegedly digital) are among the worst I've seen. Certainly far worse than bbc1/2 when I'm back in the uk picking them up terrestrially and through the cable I had in Belgium.

I have seen HDTV via DVHS onto a 7ft screen via Barco 808.

STUNNING.

What hurts is that most UK TV is now recorded HDTV for USA Canada and parts of Europe.

We in the UK cannot as yet access our own programmes on HDTV but Johnnie Foriegner can.

I saw a US programme on Steam trains and the clarity vibrancy colours etc were so good you could almost smell the trains and the scenery.

It is like going from vhs 3 rd gen copy to SUPER BIT DVD.

AMAZING.

The only way i would go Satelite is if i can get HDTV for my Barco 600 onto my 6ft screen.

HDTV is everything they promised and more.

I WANT IT.

Have seen a film on D VHS where the depth of the image was almost 3d. The matrix was truly amazing via HDTV .

Who needs a scaler when HDTV has it all already. I have considered a scaler but very expensive and results can be variable.

So i am going to go for this if satelite freeview can offer it.

regards David

So, David, did you like it?

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

yep

Can anybody explain to me what is the point and purpose of wasting money on technically superior delivery systems such as HDTV when the programme content has declined to a level where there's little if anything worth watching?

well there's............

quote:

---

Can anybody explain to me what is the point and purpose of wasting money on technically superior delivery systems such as HDTV when the programme content has declined to a level where there's little if anything worth watching?

---

I would totally agree. I get 10 channels of HDTV and nearly all of it is absolute garbage. In addition I believe a lot of the stuff on thier is not actually HDTV, i.e. it is broadcast in HDTV, but the source material is not HDTV.

quote:

---

What hurts is that most UK TV is now recorded HDTV for USA Canada and parts of Europe.

---

Which programs are these, I don't remember seeing any British stuff on HDTV here at all.

quote:

---

Have seen a film on D VHS where the depth of the image was almost 3d. The matrix was truly amazing via HDTV

---

This is through a controlled source, not a broadcasted program. Since buying my HD TV set I tried playing my dvd player through composite, s-video and component and there is a clear difference when you step up to component so I would expect the same from VHS.

After having HDTV for almost a year now, I'd prefer ten channels of good quality programmig with crap quality as opposed to what i've got. What I find most dissapointing is the lack of movies in HD. There is a movie channel on HD and it duplicates one of the 5 normal tv movie channels we have here (which show premiere on tv films - so now stuff like the recreuit, pirates of the carribean), but hardly any are in HD, the last one I watched in HD was the tuxedo.