TV Home Forum

BBC HD

(October 2006)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IS
Inspector Sands
Brekkie Boy posted:
The thing with HD is how clear do we really need our pictures.

I'm pretty satisfied with the digital quality I've got now - but as they say it's not until you see the difference that you notice it!


I was very sceptical about it too, then I went to work for an HD tv channel and I've been converted to it (although for a while the onl way I could watch something in HD was on a monitor about 10cm by 7cm!).

However I only ever watch it on high end broadcast quality monitors, I've been very disappointed with seeing HD demostrated on domestic sets (mind you these were in shops)

Quote:

However, Ultra HD is already said to be in development where the picture quality is something like 16 times better than standard HD!


Wasn't there a new qudio format once that had quality so good it even reproduced sounds that couldn't be heard by the human ear!?
CC
CyberCD
Ultra HD is - I think - designed for big outdoor screens. The resolutions it uses would be pointless at anything less than double-decker-bus size.
:-(
A former member
Brekkie Boy posted:
The thing with HD is how clear do we really need our pictures.

I'm pretty satisfied with the digital quality I've got now - but as they say it's not until you see the difference that you notice it!

There's also the difference between digital terrestrial and digital satellite with the latter having more bandwidth to provide picture quality DTT can only dream about - considering how many channels are being squashed into the available frequencies.

Silly sort of example, but recently there were a few uploads of abc1's new identity - smooth and clear which must have come from DSAT, as DTT is so over-compressed resulting in very blocky pictures.

My concern for HD (as has been voiced above) is to what extent can the broadcasters push the bandwidth - and will quality suffer?
JA
james2001 Founding member
Same goes for everything that way. SD DIgital had good bitrates originally, but blockiness and artifacts are order of the day now.
JB
JasonB
Brekkie Boy posted:

but as they say it's not until you see the difference that you notice it!


Thats very true. I experienced my first HDTV yesterday while at a friends house and the picture quality was amazing. You can certainly tell the difference the moment you look at a HD picture. It was more clearer and there was no 'ghosting' or interference with the picture what so ever.
AN
All New Johnnyboy
I have Sky HD showing on a 1080i television set and it can look absolutely wonderful. Some programmes do look distinctly average though.

BBC HD is the best of the offerings imho at the moment, even though it's only on for a few hours each night.

HD is over-rated though - given the choice between HD and the Sky+ functionality on the box, I would take the Sky+ every time.
DA
davidhorman
Quote:
Wasn't there a new qudio format once that had quality so good it even reproduced sounds that couldn't be heard by the human ear!?


CDs can reproduce sounds that can't be heard by the human ear (my human ear, anyway).

A little while ago they demoed that mosquito-noise anti-hoody thing on This Morning - I couldn't hear anything, being in my late 20s, but I recorded the audio and slowed it down, and sure enough, there was the noise. Bloody irritating it is, too.

David
:-(
A former member
FriendsFanatic posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:

but as they say it's not until you see the difference that you notice it!


Thats very true. I experienced my first HDTV yesterday while at a friends house and the picture quality was amazing. You can certainly tell the difference the moment you look at a HD picture. It was more clearer and there was no 'ghosting' or interference with the picture what so ever.


This is what I was talking about though -- the ghosting and interference is more a function of the comb filter on the TV and the compression of the SD signal, rather than any technical superiority of the HD picture itself.

Don't get me wrong, HD is much better than SD, but the difference you see is as much to do with the quality of the SD signal (which has been degraded over the years) as much as the lower resolution.

38 days later

RT
rts Founding member
Just had my HD digibox installed. Bloody hell. The improvement in sound and picture quality is phenomenal . I've just been sat watching The Chronicles Of Riddick with my mouth open. SD looks dissatisfying by comparison.

Any idea when ITV/C4/Five are to start broadcasting on DSat in HD? And how can I go about receiving Aljazeera in HD?
DA
davidhorman
Is it possible to get an HD satellite box without having to resort to a Sky subscription?

David
MA
marksi
davidhorman posted:
Is it possible to get an HD satellite box without having to resort to a Sky subscription?

David


Yes it is, but to be honest you may as well buy the Sky one. If you get the FTA one then the BBC HD channel will be the only UK HD service you get as all the other HD channels on Sky are encrypted. You'll pay much the same for the Sky box as an FTA one. Yes, you'll have a subscription, but you could just take it for the minimum period, probably 12 months. That way you have the option of the other services if you want to pay for them.

Newer posts