I was thinking that myself, why can't they just create a new mux?
Because the whole point of DSO is to
reduce
the number of UHF channels being used from 4 (analog BBC-1, BBC-2, ITV, C4) to 3 (digital multiplexes PSB-1, PSB-2, PSB-3) at most relays, and after repositioning the broadcast channels, thus be able to sell off the cleared spectrum at a high price for other purposes.
I was thinking that myself, why can't they just create a new mux?
Because the whole point of DSO is to
reduce
the number of UHF channels being used from 4 (analog BBC-1, BBC-2, ITV, C4) to 3 (digital multiplexes PSB-1, PSB-2, PSB-3) at most relays, and after repositioning the broadcast channels, thus be able to sell off the cleared spectrum at a high price for other purposes.
No, this is what OFCOM wants - to reduce the bandwidth allocated to broadcasting, so it can sell off the remaining space for as much money as possible. They don't seem to care who or what is using the space, just as long as they get a nice big fat cheque.
Regardless of whether it's possible to create a new mux or not, if the current plans go ahead, British programme making, arts and entertainment will be irrepreably damaged. All radio talkback, radio mics and data feeds are sent in current spare space between broadcast transmissions, which are needed to reduce interferance. But OFCOM are desperate to sell this off, making the use of a radio mic virtually impossible. When's the last time you saw a programme which didn't use a radio mic?
4 HD is just a simulcast of C4 isn't it, rather than the pick of programming from across C4, E4, More4 and Film4.
Yeah that's the plan AFAIK, so I'm not quite sure how this logo will be used on air.
It animates quite nicely, lines flowing all around the screen before resolving in the "hd" shape, and it doesn't always look exactly the same as the image - sometimes different parts of the lines in the "hd" are thick and thin, sometimes its all thick, sometimes all thin.
I said no because I fear there will be less new channels and more HD ones. Also if I want Freeview HD I have to get a HDTV aswell. Unless you're a teacher you won't be rushing to them.
I said no because I fear there will be less new channels and more HD ones. Also if I want Freeview HD I have to get a HDTV aswell. Unless you're a teacher you won't be rushing to them.
The UK would be behind then... US, Australia, Italy, Spain and much more broadcast HD over the air, why shouldn't we? It's a significantly a better picture than MPEG2 compressed the **** out of.. Also your forgetting that HD TVs are going down in price the same way Widescreen TVs have gone down in price that it's pretty affordable to get one.
I said no because I fear there will be less new channels and more HD ones. Also if I want Freeview HD I have to get a HDTV aswell. Unless you're a teacher you won't be rushing to them.
The UK would be behind then... US, Australia, Italy, Spain and much more broadcast HD over the air, why shouldn't we? It's a significantly a better picture than MPEG2 compressed the **** out of.. Also your forgetting that HD TVs are going down in price the same way Widescreen TVs have gone down in price that it's pretty affordable to get one.
Don't forget SVT HD in Sweden - they've formally launched a 720/50p service via DVB-T.
AIUI Sweden has also, like Finland, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, switched off analogue OTA.
However there is merit in delaying our HD launch until DVB-T2 has been finalised - the benefits of approx 30% more data bandwith in the same RF bandwith is surely worthwhile.
After all - we wouldn't want to be like the US - where their HD is based on a 19Mbs bandwith channel, with MPEG2 not H264, because they launched early (1998). Some of their HD stuff, particularly on the channels that try and broadcast extra SD services, looks awful.
We're starting to run into that sort of squeezing in Australia now..all three major networks are planning on launching full-time HD multichannels - a second channel only in HD - which has led to the need for a bit of reorganisation in how things are done..some have got it right, others oh so wrong.
The ABC also plans on launching a third channel, ABC3 - targeted at children. This is all good and well but that will mean that there will be a bit of a squeeze - as well as ABC TV, ABC2, and ABC HD at 720p, they'll need to find room for an extra SD service.
I'm not entirely clear if this is what you're doing or not (I haven't been paying the closest attention ) but in my view the best way to go would be SD in MPEG2 and HD in H.264 MPEG4 if that's possible..then you can kind of have the best of both worlds. Since you actually have the option to do this - unlike early adopters like us - I can't see any reason not to.
Don't forget SVT HD in Sweden - they've formally launched a 720/50p service via DVB-T.
AIUI Sweden has also, like Finland, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, switched off analogue OTA.
However there is merit in delaying our HD launch until DVB-T2 has been finalised - the benefits of approx 30% more data bandwith in the same RF bandwith is surely worthwhile.
After all - we wouldn't want to be like the US - where their HD is based on a 19Mbs bandwith channel, with MPEG2 not H264, because they launched early (1998). Some of their HD stuff, particularly on the channels that try and broadcast extra SD services, looks awful.
It does make sense to wait a bit for DVB-T2, looks promising. However does that mean existing viewers would need new Aerials? (especially viewers that are watch SD only). And I see what you mean about the US's current way of doing HD via OTA, I was over there and the additional SD channels looked terrible, it was like watching a really low budget channel on Sky. There was a situation where the local affiliates in Los Angeles transferred all primetime/network programmes to their SD sub channel because there was a brush fire in Malibu and other hilly areas and was spreading fast due to the winds. And I must say if I bet a lot of viewers would have been rather peeved. Because the programme was in HD and got reduced to awful quality SD and 4:3 (since they don't use SD 16:9 (853 x 480) ); If only MPEG-4 H.264 was around when they started HD/ DTT OTA..
We're starting to run into that sort of squeezing in Australia now..all three major networks are planning on launching full-time HD multichannels - a second channel only in HD - which has led to the need for a bit of reorganisation in how things are done..some have got it right, others oh so wrong.
Yep - AIUI Aus has had the worst of both worlds in some ways.
It launched an HD MPEG2 service (same video system as the US - though at 50Hz not 60Hz) using DVB-T (same transmission system as Europe)
However so little HD was originally broadcast the service was pretty similar to Freeview in quality - almost entirely SD but with some 16:9 - but without the ability to broadcast lots more channels (for regulatory reasons). Also any HD service had to be simulcast in SD to allow people who bought cheap SD-only digital receivers to still get the channels.
Now that Aus is finally moving to broadcasting a decent amount of HD - the combination of HD MPEG2 and DVB-T is beginning to look a bit limiting and long-in-the-tooth.
However it is probably too late to change it...
Quote:
The ABC also plans on launching a third channel, ABC3 - targeted at children. This is all good and well but that will mean that there will be a bit of a squeeze - as well as ABC TV, ABC2, and ABC HD at 720p, they'll need to find room for an extra SD service.
In the UK our current DVB-T system uses 18Mbs 2k 16QAM for 4 muxes and 24Mbs 2k 64QAM for 2 muxes - but we have 8MHz RF channels as part of PAL I.
Aus uses PAL BG and 7MHz RF channels, but I think it uses mainly 64QAM - not sure if 2k or 8k - to deliver around 20Mbs. (Very similar to the US ATSC system which delivers approx 19Mbs)
Now it depends on the quality and resolution of the HD and SD services you want to squeeze into this.
Quote:
I'm not entirely clear if this is what you're doing or not (I haven't been paying the closest attention ) but in my view the best way to go would be SD in MPEG2 and HD in H.264 MPEG4 if that's possible..then you can kind of have the best of both worlds. Since you actually have the option to do this - unlike early adopters like us - I can't see any reason not to.
That is what Europe is doing mainly - SD MPEG2 FTA and HD H264, with some countries also using H264 for SD Pay TV, and a few just about to switch (Latvia for example) going entirely H264 for everything.
HOWEVER - in the UK we have 6 DVB-T muxes entirely dedicated to MPEG2 SD. However 4 of these switched from 24Mbs to 18Mbs about 7 years ago, to improve reception quality at low power whilst remaining compatible with existing first gen boxes. The plan is to switch these 18Mbs muxes to 24Mbs but also switch to 8k from 2k - which should improve reception quality.
In doing this - they hope to shift the current 6 muxes of SD into 5 muxes, and switch the 6th mux to DVB-T2. This is a more efficient RF modulation system - that should deliver nearer 30Mbs.
This will be incompatible with existing DVB-T receivers, but as these are SD MPEG2 in the UK, it also means they are free to run this mux in HD H264. That is the plan I believe. I suspect they will aim to run at around 10Mbs 720/50p...
Don't forget SVT HD in Sweden - they've formally launched a 720/50p service via DVB-T.
AIUI Sweden has also, like Finland, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, switched off analogue OTA.
However there is merit in delaying our HD launch until DVB-T2 has been finalised - the benefits of approx 30% more data bandwith in the same RF bandwith is surely worthwhile.
After all - we wouldn't want to be like the US - where their HD is based on a 19Mbs bandwith channel, with MPEG2 not H264, because they launched early (1998). Some of their HD stuff, particularly on the channels that try and broadcast extra SD services, looks awful.
It does make sense to wait a bit for DVB-T2, looks promising. However does that mean existing viewers would need new Aerials?
Shouldn't do - though if you are at the very edge of reception it might do if you want HD.
Quote:
(especially viewers that are watch SD only).
There may be some SD viewers who have issues - but 2k 16QAM and 8k 64QAM are pretty similar in robustness terms. If people can't get ITV/C4 and Five currently then there is a chance they might lose the BBC and Freeview services, but if they can get all muxes then they are likely to continue to get all services in SD.
Of course the DVB-T2 mux carrying HD won't be an option for SD only receivers using DVB-T.
Quote:
And I see what you mean about the US's current way of doing HD via OTA, I was over there and the additional SD channels looked terrible, it was like watching a really low budget channel on Sky.
CBS seems to be the best - particularly on their O&Os as they don't multicast. Fox encode for broadcast at the network centre, not the regional centre, so can deliver better quality at lower bit rates. ABC seems to be OK, with NBC often slated for very poor quality.
However those of us used to Sky and BBC HD would be very disappointed at some US HD stuff.
Quote:
There was a situation where the local affiliates in Los Angeles transferred all primetime/network programmes to their SD sub channel because there was a brush fire in Malibu and other hilly areas and was spreading fast due to the winds. And I must say if I bet a lot of viewers would have been rather peeved. Because the programme was in HD and got reduced to awful quality SD and 4:3 (since they don't use SD 16:9 (853 x 480) ); If only MPEG-4 H.264 was around when they started HD/DTT OTA..
Just for info - 853x480 isn't a broadcast standard. The two offical US SD DTV standards are effectively square-pixel 640x480 in 4:3 only - though nobody uses this - and 704c480 in 4:3 OR 16:9 (non-square pixels). That said - some broadcasters are now using more non-standard resolutions outside the formal ATSC spec - like 544x480 and 528x480.
(Just as in the UK we have 720x576, 704x576 and 544x576 as DVB-T 4:3 AND 16:9 specs)
However those of us used to Sky and BBC HD would be very disappointed at some US HD stuff.
That's quite interesting. I once saw screen captures of the same scene in an Episode of Lost on ABC HD and Sky One HD, and clearly the Sky broadcast looked better.
However those of us used to Sky and BBC HD would be very disappointed at some US HD stuff.
That's quite interesting. I once saw screen captures of the same scene in an Episode of Lost on ABC HD and Sky One HD, and clearly the Sky broadcast looked better.
Apart from compression there is also a resolution issue. ABC HD is also 1280x720 (they broadcast in 720/60p - though most of their high-end shows are produced in 1080/24p) whereas Sky HD is 1920x1080 (they broadcast in 1080/50i).
Whilst 720/60p may offers some advantages for sports coverage (providing 60 full 720 line frames each second), it offers no advantages for 24fps drama and sitcom. 1080/60i only offers 60 540 line images (aka fields) each second, so delivers potentially lower vertical resolution on fast moving sports material, but for 24fps stuff it can deliver much higher resolution.
In the US Fox, ABC and ESPN are 720/60p, whilst CBS, NBC, PBS and most other HD broadcasters are 1080/60i.
In the UK all broadcasters are broadcasting 1080/50i - though in Europe some are using 720/50p (SVT, Sky Italia?)
) but in my view the best way to go would be SD in MPEG2 and HD in H.264 MPEG4 if that's possible..then you can kind of have the best of both worlds. Since you actually have the option to do this - unlike early adopters like us - I can't see any reason not to.