| Author |
Message |
K. B.
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
BBC Terrestrial HDTV |
|
|
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4417202.stm>
The BBC aims to produce all its programmes in
high-definition format by 2010.
---
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roderick Stewart
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject:
Re: BBC Terrestrial HDTV |
|
|
In article <4g23n1tkcmlfa80888u53n3as2jumilnmg@4ax.com>, K. B. wrote:
| Quote: | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4417202.stm
The BBC aims to produce all its programmes in
high-definition format by 2010.
|
I wonder if the quality of whatever digital transmission system we are
using by then will be good enough for us to tell the difference?
Rod. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K. B.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:46 pm Post subject:
Re: BBC Terrestrial HDTV |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:28:07 GMT, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> posted:
| Quote: | In article <4g23n1tkcmlfa80888u53n3as2jumilnmg@4ax.com>, K. B. wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4417202.stm
The BBC aims to produce all its programmes in
high-definition format by 2010.
I wonder if the quality of whatever digital transmission system we are
using by then will be good enough for us to tell the difference?
|
By digital transmission system, do you mean the video data
reduction encoder type and settings or (DVB-T) COFDM?
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roderick Stewart
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:40 am Post subject:
Re: BBC Terrestrial HDTV |
|
|
In article <nm93n1tk2p6v7r1bhkohscmoe384tcnr3f@4ax.com>, K. B. wrote:
| Quote: | The BBC aims to produce all its programmes in
high-definition format by 2010.
I wonder if the quality of whatever digital transmission system we are
using by then will be good enough for us to tell the difference?
By digital transmission system, do you mean the video data
reduction encoder type and settings or (DVB-T) COFDM?
I mean whatever they decide to use to transmit the programmes to us. I |
watch digital terrestrial TV at the moment because in the UK it is the
only way to see the whole of the widescreen picture without going to the
trouble and expense of installing a satellite system. I'm slightly less
than impressed with the picture quality though. Most of the time it isn't
too bad, but there are occasional annoying digital artefacts like
blockiness on fades, and sometimes the whole picture locks solid for a
second or two, which I find more annoying than the slight graininess of an
analogue transmission.
I understand that this is a consequence of bit rate reduction, the
original SDI signal being superb. High definition television has about
four times the number of pixels, and therefore will require about four
times the bandwidth to transmit without any data loss, so it's a realistic
assumptiuon that the broadcasters will apply even more severe bit rate
reduction to these signals. If it's really bad, there's a danger that it
will negate much of the improvement given by using more pixels.
I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it of course. I was impressed with
the idea of HDTV when I read about it thirty years ago, I was impressed
when I saw it with my own eyes at trade shows about twenty years ago, and
I'm impressed with what can be achieved with today's cameras, but whether
I'll still be impressed with 2-megapixel pictures by the time they're in
our homes - probably another twenty years - remains to be seen.
Rod. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:22 am Post subject:
Re: BBC Terrestrial HDTV |
|
|
Roderick Stewart (rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
| Quote: | High definition television has about
four times the number of pixels, and therefore will require about four
times the bandwidth to transmit without any data loss
|
It's even worse than that.
You can get a viewable SD picture using about 2Mbps, but 4-5Mbps is required
for any real quality. For HD, you need 15Mbps *minimum* and closer to 20Mbps
for "acceptable". To get real quality, you need about closer to 30Mbps
(although there aren't any broadcast systems that provide this, DTheater
tapes and network backhauls can).
So, it's likely that you are currently viewing something more on the 2-3Mbps
end of things for your SD, so you'd need more like 6x the bandwidth to keep
from having obvious artifacts.
--
Jeff Rife |
| (insert funny signature here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in