HD TV

Yes I do agree with ya, it's too expensive and too be honest, as I have said before, if they want to develop this HD stuff, they need to keep it to premium channels/programmes, programmes that would benefit from this HD technology, not just any wishy washy show.

Indeed Andrew, it could complicate matters for the "digital refusniks".

Everyone can get digital with the purchase of a £30 box from Tesco. The government might even cough up some cash to swivel your ariel (if you get my meaning) to get a signal by 2008-2012.

The HDTV idea is only about to confuse the "easily confused consumer".

Yeah, but screw 'em. I want sweaty footballers.

Etc.

Don't be crude Gavin....this is a serious discussion.....not one about any fetish you have for feremones produced through exertion on a football pitch and a wish to see the results on Sky in HD

(PS: I prob spelt feremones wrong - but will be told no doubt)

You spelt pheromones wrong

As for HD... I would love it, but I just can't see it taking off. I know for a fact that convincing my dad that HD will dramatically improve his life will be hard - He has digital TV and a wide screen tv - why should he have to fork out even more money for a new format that will only really make any discernable difference on larger sets.
And I know that doesn't only apply to my dad.

One worrying thing I heard after IBC was an engineer quoting how low you can take the bit-rates before the picture degrades too badly - if they are already talking about that and the product isn't even launched, there isn't great hope for the format in my opinion! Surely higher resolutions will just make digital compression more apparent!
I'd be a little more confident if one standard had been settled on too...

As for being able to transmit Dolby 5.1... the current DTT services are CAPABLE of offering that anyway!

I have heard that ITV don't plan to go into HD transmission on DTT until 2010. I would much rather have the current selection of channels spaced out better to give me a higher quality picture on standard definition than see space wasted on a gimmick format!

Having said that, I would love to be proved wrong. I would love to see Britain regain its rightful place as the cream of worldwide TV, but in the current climate, I can't see it happening.

Of course, if HD is to mean anything at all, we would have to dump all the crappy DV formats for a start - but I'll stop there or this will just turn into an "engineers are ignored" rant!

Thanx Ezer, itz my dickshunary ewe no that max merstayks

EDIT:
Apologies for that comment. I made it after only reading your first line.

You have made some very good points, and in keeping with the discussion I intended to start with this thread. You obviously know more of the technical side of this development than most, and yet you still have your reservations and compare them to your own domestic circumstances (as most will in time).

Are "those in the know" not as enthusiastic at peddling this additional equipment at the broadcasters behest as we are lead to believe :

HD will make increasing sense as people buy larger and larger flat-screen displays, and realise how low-resolution current standard def broadcasts are.

On a 28" CRT current stuff looks reasonably OK. When you watch it on a 50" DLP RPTV or a Plasma or LCD of similar size, and then see an HDTV broadcast, you become much more aware of the differences.

Given that flat panels and rear projection sets are now selling in increasing numbers - this will be the driving force for HD. It may not have the fast market penetration of DVD Players, Freeview etc. - but it does have a place in the broadcast future.

(Japan is already working on a replacement for HD - after all they started work on the HD system, a version of which we're likely to adopt, in the 70s and have been broadcasting tests and then a full analogue, and now digital, HD service since the late 80s...)

My 31" Daewoo TV (4:3 TV set as widescreen letterbox - laugh all you like ) is fine for me. It has served me well and I have kept up with all the changes (ie Sky Analogue/Digital/+)

I know I will have to spend £600+ on a new TV soon (mine has almost run it's course), but I am not going to get an "HD-ready" one just so I can see a tear on someone's face in a romantic film. I will get the best quality for what I am watching now.

Surely, with the government's plans to sell off of the "vacant" analogue spectrum on the same scale as the "3G phone money making scam", the current DTT licence holders must be on a "highly controlled substance" if they think they will be granted the bandwidth left to broadcast on HD for nothing.

I had a play around with this hi def camera last summer. The main thing which I noticed, is how much more difficult it is to keep in focus!

Because of the level of detail you will be able to see in pictures under HD, its going to become much more costly to broadcasters to make programmes. Sets will have to be finished to much higher qualities, and cameramen are going to need longer for training and familiarisation with new cameras. Thats before you add in the cost of the equipment; I believe an HD lens is in the range of 10x as expensive as an equivalent SD lens. My question is, who's gonna end up paying for all this?!

Sadly us consumers

In which case, if HD's going to make programmes more expensive and no-one wants that level of quality anyway, the most sensible thing for the engineers to start thinking about is - how do we turn the new technology to our advantage.

I too remember that in the old days before digital tv, it was said that the major advantage was going to be higher quality. The same was said about radio. But it turned out, didn't it, that was consumers wanted was broader choice - not higher picture quality.

The market got what it wanted, not what the broadcasters thought it wanted - and even as someone who can spot tell low-bitrate digital broadcasts from higher ones, I prefer wider choice to better picture quality. I'd only start making a fuss if everything got as bad as BBC Parliament.

A final note on the HD thing: I can't remember where I read this, nor can I find a link to the story, but apparently lots of US viewers who have upgraded to HD are now having to upgrade their PVRs - not because the PVRs can't record HD TV, but because they can only record it at standard 625 line resolution, and it's just not the same . I'm sure I read one viewer quoted as saying that 'once you've got HD, you can't go back'.

Anecdotally at least, that suggests that HD offers a significant enhancement to the viewing experience.

One thing is certain with HD, though: the massive potential for higher quality DOGs! Which, if nothing else, will reinvigorate the (recently rather quiet) anti-DOGging community.

Someone once told me the number of pixels the human eye can distinguish between, can't remember it but it was a stupidly high number. NHK have been developing a Ultra High Definition format, but seeing as a half hour show would take over 6 terrabytes of data, I can't see it making an appearance for quite a long time! I'm pretty sure that won't leave much room on my Sky+

As has been said, many HD screens aren't great at upscaling SD pictures, and every flaw in the compression is visable. So, unless you're plan to watch a lot of sports, movies and nature documentries, it might not be the time to upgrade.

If buying a set, as has been said, make sure you look at more than just the shop demo - have a look at how it handles SD sources (some of them look like they've put on the watercolour effect on photoshop) and demanding, fast-moving, HD material.

Personally, once the PS3 and Blu-ray comes I don't think I'll be able to resist buying into HD, it'll be great to come back from Glastonbury '07, watch the recorded coverage and actually be able to make out faces in the crowd and details in the background.

But if you're happy with the definition of your current set, no need to upgrade.