BBC HD is the BBC High Definition trial service. It is carried on Digital Satellite (and can be received by Sky HD boxes ,and a couple of other brands of HD receivers), Digital Cable (Telewest HD areas) and is also available to 500 test homes via Digital Terrestrial (aka Freeview) in the London area.
Some people are also receiving the DSat and DTT broadcasts using DVB-S and DVB-T cards or USB2 interfaces via their computers.
The channel contains a "best of the BBC's HD catalogue" schedule - carrying shows that the BBC has shot in High Definition.
It carries stuff like Planet Earth, Bleak House, Later with Jools, Sorted, Robin Hood, Big Blue, the Proms, and some movies. All of the BBC's World Cup Match of the Day coverage was carried (I think - even the highlights shows from Berlin were in HD), and there was specially provided (not BBC One or BBC Two presentation) coverage of Centre Court and Court Number One at Wimbledon, with out of vision presentation.
ITV, Channel Four and Five are also running HD tests via DVB-T in London - with C4 showing Desperate Housewives and Five showing CSI for example. ITV's World Cup HD stuff (which was only HD for the match coverage - the studio, unlike the BBC's, was standard def) was also carried on Telewest HD.
The BBC HD service launched just before the World Cup - with a weekend of Planet Earth and Bleak House as a special preview.
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!
However, Ultra HD is already said to be in development where the picture quality is something like 16 times better than standard HD!
Certainly as far as Freeview is concerned I think it's very difficult to justify using the space of 3 or 4 standard channels to provide a HD service. If they've got that space to spare I think interactive services are more important.
The thing with HD is how clear do we really need our pictures.
Take a look at the SD->HD upscales on some of the Sky channels.
These prove that the problem isn't so much that SD is no good, more that the way it's being transmitted (no RGB on analogue, overcompressed on digital) is not up to snuff.
The upscaled pictures are usually very impressive -- because they lack any noticable compression artefacts and are digital from source to screen.
I have a theory that if the broadcasters were to keep SD, but switch over the compression systems from MPEG2 to something like H264 that most people who rave about the current HD would be entirely satisfied, and there wouldn't be much need for more bandwidth. Take a look at XVid -- take the bitrate up to even half DVD levels and I defy anyone to notice the compression.
But, that wouldn't make for good headline advertising would it. You can just hear the geek voice coming on when people start hearing about a brand-new codec....
They say HD might provide better pictures, but the cynic inside me is screaming: as soon as it becomes 'mainstream' and not the preserve of a rich/techy few the quality will go down in order to cram on more (useless) channels to offer more "choice".
Just look at what happened to DAB. In its early days, the marketing guff raved on about how this was near CD quality sound etc - but when it became mass market, the notion of sound quality went out the window and in came the hordes of identikit stations with robojocks to supposedly provide more "choice", bitrates took a nosedive at low bitrates and some even transmit in mono!
The thing with HD is how clear do we really need our pictures.... Certainly as far as Freeview is concerned I think it's very difficult to justify using the space of 3 or 4 standard channels to provide a HD service. If they've got that space to spare I think interactive services are more important.
Oh yes. 1080
p
(the p is very important here) can be truly wonderful -- I saw the demos at Sony's electronic museum in Tokyo a couple of years back. They also had UHD tests on display which were staggering.
They say HD might provide better pictures, but the cynic inside me is screaming: as soon as it becomes 'mainstream' and not the preserve of a rich/techy few the quality will go down in order to cram on more (useless) channels to offer more "choice".
Just look at what happened to DAB. In its early days, the marketing guff raved on about how this was near CD quality sound etc - but when it became mass market, the notion of sound quality went out the window and in came the hordes of identikit stations with robojocks to supposedly provide more "choice", bitrates took a nosedive at low bitrates and some even transmit in mono!
Definitely. The picture will gradually degrade to the point where they start pushing UHD "because HD is rubbish", and the whole gravy train starts over.
Try explaining to people that DAB is
capable
of excellent results now that they've heard the mush that's there now, most won't believe you. HD will be the same.