120hz versus 240hz

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <mM6jn.192295$4D2.36704@newsfe12.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50f1a111e3dave@davenoise.co.uk...
In article <td_in.163148$Dy7.138444@newsfe26.ams2>, Arfa Daily
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The digital terrestrial TV being provided here in the UK now,
currently carries no HD content, despite ongoing promises.

Not so. BBC HD is transmitted on FreeView as is ITV HD. CH4 and 5 will
be added shortly. This is from the London transmitter. Not sure about
everywhere.

None available on FV here in my east midlands location.

They're really just tests at the moment. The full HD service should be
available by the Olympics next year.

Just looked at
my "TV Times" (national) listings mag, and it claims that BBC HD is
available on Freesat CH 108, Sky CH 143 and Virgin Cable CH 108.
Likewise, it says that ITV HD is only available on Freesat via the 'red
button' service.

Well, I don't have a FreeSat receiver but get ITV HD off satellite.

In any case, BBC HD is hardly a useful service, as
they just stick a mixture of their total network output on there at
random times. I was recording "Survivors" on BBC HD via sat on series
link. Suddenly, the series finale has disappeared from the recording
list. I check the schedules, and it's just not on there. Some random
olympics programme or something. So I hastily set it to record on SD
BBC. Then, a couple of days later, it randomly appears again on BBC HD
at some obscure time when they had a slot to fill.

With just the one HD service, choices will be made.

ITV HD, from what
I've seen of it on the Freesat service, seems to be just for football
matches, once in a while.

Some dramas too. The most regular being The Bill.

Either service is hardly inspiring for people
with HD TV sets and a built-in DTTV tuner, as most have.

I'd be surprised if many have an HD set with a built in HD tuner - they've
only just been announced. And an ordinary Freeview tuner won't get HD.

So I would have to conclude that at the moment, the London area is
possibly unique in carrying these services. Just as a matter of
interest, what equipment is required to receive these FreeView HD
transmissions, and has the compression scheme now been finalised then,
to allow manufacturers to produce necessary equipment in bulk ?

FreeView HD tuners are on the market. But I'll not get one until there's a
HD PVR at a reasonable price.

Interesting that you say that CH5 is shortly going to be placing HD
content onto FreeView. At the moment, they have no HD output at all,
and I would have thought that if they were about to start, then the
first places would have been on the Sky satellite service, and Virgin
cable, where there is an existing customer base, with fully operational
equipment to allow them to access and view the service.

The relationship between Sky and its audience is based on making Sky
money. Nothing to do with providing a service.

Channel Four I can understand wanting to provide a FreeView service as
they already produce an HD mirror of their SD service on Sky and Virgin.

Just as a matter of interest, do you know what cameras they use for
producing their HD content (or their programme makers / suppliers) ?
Just that their HD output is stunningly good compared to some other
efforts by other stations. And I'm talking original 'native' HD here,
not just content that was shot in standard res, and then placed on the
station's HD channel. Taking, for instance, Phil and Kirsty's
"Relocation, Relocation" (Wednesday 8pm) programme on CH4. The image
quality is absolutely cracking, and everything you would expect HD to
be. Likewise, "Extreme Engineering" on NatGeo I think it is, and
"American Chopper" on Discovery. OTOH, "Lost" and "24" from Sky 1 both
claim to be 'originals' in HD format, but although they look better in
HD than they do in SD, they still seem to lack that 'pin-sharp' quality
that the other programmes I've cited, have. As you are 'in the
business' so to speak, just wondered if you had any insights into this ?

I'm not sure what gear is used for the progs you mention. But the snag is
some still use filters to soften the image - especially with 'talent' of a
certain age who don't want every wrinkle to show. Near always on drama.
However, anything shot outdoors to look good is likely to look
particularly sharp due to the light levels than drama, etc.

The HD drama I work on uses Thompson cameras and is recorded on Panasonic
P2 - memory card based system. The pictures are quite superb - until the
fog filters go in. ;-(

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:988jn.171149$8t3.42734@newsfe29.ams2:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@cable.mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhopt25.sj.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

The digital terrestrial TV being provided here in the UK now,
currently carries no HD content, despite ongoing promises. This is
due to some extent
on the government reneging on a promise to make more of the UHF band
available to the broadcasters. Having now told them that they can't
have any
more, and the broadcasters having already filled up what they have
got available with multiplexes carrying 'proper' channels and crap
channels in a
ratio of about 1 to 5, the only option that they are now left with
is to use
another different and non standard variant of mpeg 4 compression.

It's not nonstandard. MPEG4 is one of those "evolving standards", so
that they can sell you a decoder box or TV that supports the current
variants and next week turn around and sell you a new one.

Or if you have a computer, provide a firmware update.

It gets rid of the problem that CRT TVs had, they did not change fast
enough
to get people buying new ones in a fast enough cycle to keep the
companies in business.

I have a spare TV that I bought in 1986 and AFAIK, it still works. We
have not yet switched to digital over the air here (Israel).

Speaking of MPEG4, Israel chose H.264 with AAC audio, a combination
no one had ever used before. The idea was to squeeze as many regular
(520p 4:3) channels in one 8mHz DVD-T channel.


The situation via direct broadcast satellite is much clearer. Here,
they have so much bandwidth available that they are able to carry
many HD channels, so this is where people here get their HD content
from. Unfortunately, the satellite operator charges us another
tenner ($15) a month for the privilege of receiving these
transmissions ... :-(

Same here, but it's 40 NIS ($25).

BTW, where do those HDTV BBC programs come from? They are not over
the air?

Geoff.
--


BBC HD is currently available by direct broadcast satellite, and from
the Virgin cable service. I receive it via the former. It would seem
that in a few areas, it is now available via the FreeView DTTV service
which is replacing our current analogue service over the next couple
of years. However, although I receive FreeView from one of the 'main'
national transmitter sites, the FreeView HD service will not be
available to me for some long time yet, according to

http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/freeviewhd.html

A different DTTV receiver is required, and it looks as though the only
one currently available is 180 quid ($270 ish). I can't see many
people wanting to hang yet another receiver on the end of their 'HD
Ready' TV sets, for that sort of money, and to receive just a few HD
services. There is never going to be the bandwidth available to put
more on there, alongside the other services.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "an evolving standard". That
seems an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Either it's a standard, or it's
an evolving system. It can't be both. The sat broadcasters have been
using the same transmission standards for years, and don't seem to
suffer problems with compatibility of receiving equipment. The DTTV
service, OTOH, seems to be a mish-mash compromise system, which has
changed 'standards' and names several times, in an effort to make it
do what was, in truth, never going to be practically possible ...

Arfa

some PC card interfaces were "standards",yet evolved;
like ISA evolved into EISA,PCI into PCI-E.

And VGA evolved into Super VGA.

Then there's Linux...... ;-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

To the best of my understanding, all audio and video codecs carry with them
the information need to correctly decode the transmission. This allows (for
example) DVDs and Blu-rays to use varying bitrates and different codecs. (If
this isn't right, please correct me.)

No. It's much more complicated than that. AVI files carry imformation about the
file, such as a codec number each for audio and video, the bit rate,
the frame rate, number of audio channels, and so on.

Satellite (and DBS) data feeds contain some information, some feeds contain
none at all.

DVD's, Blu-Ray, VCD's, etc, all have a very specific format. DVD's are also
limited to MPEG-2 video encoding (with a limited range of resolutions, frame
rates, etc.) They also have a very limited range of audio encoding.

Sometimes it amazes me that a program such as mplayer or VLC can play a
random file and it works.

The reason the Chinese DVD players can play so many files now is that they
either use the freeware Linux based player, Mplayer, or the proprietary
clone of it written in a language for embedded systems.

Just as an example, someone gave me a sample of the files created by their
DVB-T TV decoder. They are raw MPEG-TS files, encoded with H.264 and AAC.
Nothing I have can open them. :-(

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

 

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 00:02:50 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (Fucking Nut Case Pommy Cunt )

Studio luminaries are commonly filament lamps.

** DUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!

WRONG CONTEXT - you fucking STUPID MORON !



In the UK TV hasn't been mains locked for about 40 years.

** WRONG CONTEXT - you fucking STUPID MORON !


Fluorescent types are used on location these days,


** WRONG CONTEXT - you fucking STUPID MORON !


Only time I've seen a phased array used was for a boxing ring


** WRONG CONTEXT - you fucking STUPID MORON !

Someone PLEEEEASE go and SHOOT this imbecile through the head !!!



.... Phil



You can do that yourself. The concept is simple - insert the muzzle

of the pistol in your ear and pull the trigger. If you are too stupid
to understand the concept, let me know, I'll gladly break it down into
a series of steps even you can follow.

PlainBill

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <td_in.163148$Dy7.138444@newsfe26.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Mark Zenier" <mzenier@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:hmgpb8027j7@enews1.newsguy.com...
In article <PrNhn.74162$_W6.55448@newsfe30.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You should also be aware that there are several 'resolutions' of screen
and
drive to take into consideration. Almost all TV showrooms both here and in
the US, tend to have the sets running on at least an HD picture, and often
a
BluRay picture. This makes them look very good at first glance. Problem is
that in normal day to day use when you get it back home, you are going to
be
watching standard resolution terrestrial broadcasts on it, and on many
sets,
these look pretty dreadful, and it is the reason that so many people are
disappointed with their purchase when they get it home, and think that it
is
not what they saw in the store.

At least in my area (Seattle), all the mainstream over the air stations
are HD, now. (Each station has its own transmitter, so they don't have
shared "multiplexes" like in the UK). The typical situation is an
HD subchannel with the main program and one SD subchannel with some
secondary service (sports, weather, old movies, old TV show, or an
SD copy of the main signal to feed analog cable).

There's a smaller number of stations that trade selection for resolution,
running four or five SD subchannels. Christian broadcasting and
speciality stuff like the secondary channels on the other stations.

The only way you'd get stuck with standard definition on the national
networks is to still be using analog cable. (I'm not familiar with
what you get with the two (subscription only) national direct broadcast
satellite providers).

So what band are we talking here ? Are these UHF digital transmissions ? How
many OTA HD channels would you typically have available in any given area ?
Do you know what compression scheme they are using ?

Both VHF-High (channels 7-13, 170something to 220? MHz) (3 stations, here)
and UHF (channels 14-51(?), around 500-700 MHz) (another 10, here).
There are some VHF-low band stations in other parts of the country
but I gather that 54-88 MHz has real problems with thunderstorms and
interference.

The US channels are all 6 MHz wide, both UHF and VHF. ATSC using 8VSB
with something around 19 MBPS, using MPEG-3. As I understand it, HD
will use about 12 MBPS. The over the cable version uses a different
modulation, [mumble]-QAM, and has twice the number of bits per second.
HD in the case of ATSC may be only 720p, or 1080i.

I can't get them all, (They're clustered in 5 different locations),
but at least 8 (maybe 10) are in HD.

The bucks from auctioning off channels 52(?) to 69 to the cell phone
and wireless companies is what got the government to push this through.

The digital terrestrial TV being provided here in the UK now, currently
carries no HD content, despite ongoing promises. This is due to some extent
on the government reneging on a promise to make more of the UHF band
available to the broadcasters. Having now told them that they can't have any
more, and the broadcasters having already filled up what they have got
available with multiplexes carrying 'proper' channels and crap channels in a
ratio of about 1 to 5, the only option that they are now left with is to use
another different and non standard variant of mpeg 4 compression.

Around here, since nobody had to be nice and share, they just toss off
a few crap channels when they shift to HD. (The PBS non-commercial
stations were about the only ones to do this, as they were early adopters,
and had their transmitters going long before they rebuilt their inside
equipment).

One of the things you have there, judging from the web pages I surfed
a while back, are the audio only transmissions from the various
national stations. I wish they had done that here, but most of the
stations that used to be combined radio and TV split up into separate
corporations back 15-20 years ago, so there no organizational connection
anymore.

The situation via direct broadcast satellite is much clearer. Here, they
have so much bandwidth available that they are able to carry many HD
channels, so this is where people here get their HD content from.
Unfortunately, the satellite operator charges us another tenner ($15) a
month for the privilege of receiving these transmissions ... :-(

Sounds cheap to me, I gather you can spend $90 a month (not including
pay per view) to get the full load. Minimum, $30-$40 a month.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Mark Zenier wrote:

Sounds cheap to me, I gather you can spend $90 a month (not including
pay per view) to get the full load. Minimum, $30-$40 a month.

It is cheap. The 10 quid (UKP) is an EXTRA fee for HD. You buy whatever
package you want, and if you want HD, you buy the HD package, which is a
few channels in HD.

Most channels are not available in HD.

Here for example, the DBS system I use has 4 movie channels, in HD they have
one. If you want all four channels, or a different movie than the HD channel
is showing, you have to watch it in regular, which means you had to pay
for that channel.

Regular def here is a mixed bag, about 10% of the programs are 16:9, most
are 4:3. The decoder box gives you a choice of always 16:9 (which means the
TV set has to detect the difference and switch), always 4:3, or letterboxed
16:9 on a 4:3 set.

I have no idea of what really is on HD, I don't have a TV capable of it.

Note that if I were to upgrade to an HDTV, I would not upgrade the service,
I get so much of my program material from other sources, it's not worth it.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Mark Zenier" <mzenier@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:hmmldb02qp8@enews6.newsguy.com...

In article <td_in.163148$Dy7.138444@newsfe26.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Mark Zenier" <mzenier@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:hmgpb8027j7@enews1.newsguy.com...
In article <PrNhn.74162$_W6.55448@newsfe30.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You should also be aware that there are several 'resolutions' of screen
and
drive to take into consideration. Almost all TV showrooms both here and
in
the US, tend to have the sets running on at least an HD picture, and
often
a
BluRay picture. This makes them look very good at first glance. Problem
is
that in normal day to day use when you get it back home, you are going
to
be
watching standard resolution terrestrial broadcasts on it, and on many
sets,
these look pretty dreadful, and it is the reason that so many people are
disappointed with their purchase when they get it home, and think that
it
is
not what they saw in the store.

At least in my area (Seattle), all the mainstream over the air stations
are HD, now. (Each station has its own transmitter, so they don't have
shared "multiplexes" like in the UK). The typical situation is an
HD subchannel with the main program and one SD subchannel with some
secondary service (sports, weather, old movies, old TV show, or an
SD copy of the main signal to feed analog cable).

There's a smaller number of stations that trade selection for
resolution,
running four or five SD subchannels. Christian broadcasting and
speciality stuff like the secondary channels on the other stations.

The only way you'd get stuck with standard definition on the national
networks is to still be using analog cable. (I'm not familiar with
what you get with the two (subscription only) national direct broadcast
satellite providers).

So what band are we talking here ? Are these UHF digital transmissions ?
How
many OTA HD channels would you typically have available in any given area
?
Do you know what compression scheme they are using ?

Both VHF-High (channels 7-13, 170something to 220? MHz) (3 stations, here)
and UHF (channels 14-51(?), around 500-700 MHz) (another 10, here).
There are some VHF-low band stations in other parts of the country
but I gather that 54-88 MHz has real problems with thunderstorms and
interference.

The US channels are all 6 MHz wide, both UHF and VHF. ATSC using 8VSB
with something around 19 MBPS, using MPEG-3. As I understand it, HD
will use about 12 MBPS. The over the cable version uses a different
modulation, [mumble]-QAM, and has twice the number of bits per second.
HD in the case of ATSC may be only 720p, or 1080i.

I can't get them all, (They're clustered in 5 different locations),
but at least 8 (maybe 10) are in HD.

The bucks from auctioning off channels 52(?) to 69 to the cell phone
and wireless companies is what got the government to push this through.

The digital terrestrial TV being provided here in the UK now, currently
carries no HD content, despite ongoing promises. This is due to some
extent
on the government reneging on a promise to make more of the UHF band
available to the broadcasters. Having now told them that they can't have
any
more, and the broadcasters having already filled up what they have got
available with multiplexes carrying 'proper' channels and crap channels in
a
ratio of about 1 to 5, the only option that they are now left with is to
use
another different and non standard variant of mpeg 4 compression.

Around here, since nobody had to be nice and share, they just toss off
a few crap channels when they shift to HD. (The PBS non-commercial
stations were about the only ones to do this, as they were early adopters,
and had their transmitters going long before they rebuilt their inside
equipment).

One of the things you have there, judging from the web pages I surfed
a while back, are the audio only transmissions from the various
national stations. I wish they had done that here, but most of the
stations that used to be combined radio and TV split up into separate
corporations back 15-20 years ago, so there no organizational connection
anymore.

The situation via direct broadcast satellite is much clearer. Here, they
have so much bandwidth available that they are able to carry many HD
channels, so this is where people here get their HD content from.
Unfortunately, the satellite operator charges us another tenner ($15) a
month for the privilege of receiving these transmissions ... :-(

Sounds cheap to me, I gather you can spend $90 a month (not including
pay per view) to get the full load. Minimum, $30-$40 a month.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

It's not too bad, price-wise. The (basic) digital terrestrial service here
is all free - if you ignore the cost of the required broadcast receiving
licence. That's all of the 'national' channels that were available as part
of the analogue service, plus other offerings from the same broadcasters,
such as BBC3 and BBC4 and ITV2 and so on. On top of all of these channels,
there is a cartload of other channels that are a real mixed bag of
'specialist' and 'kinda watchable' right through to utter crap that is a
total waste of bandwidth and transmission resources. There are also, as you
say, many radio stations. And finally, some quite clever 'interactive'
services. It would seem, in the not too distant future, that there will be
some HD content on there, shoehorned in amongst what's already there. Mpeg 4
DVB T-2, I seem to recall reading somewhere. All of this is broadcast in the
UHF band CH21 to 68 - about 470MHz to 860MHz, alongside the existing
analogue transmissions, which are being totally phased out over the next two
years. I believe that after the last analogue has gone, the UHF TV band is
being shrunk, to allow the government to sell more of it off, and some of
the high-band multiplexes will shift down-band.

Direct broadcast satellite TV is very well established here, and is mostly
operated by a private company called Sky. It's one of Murdoch's News
Corporation companies. A lot of basic content can be viewed on a Sky
receiver for free, although there is a one-off small charge for a
free-to-air viewing card. Outside of this content, you move into the realms
of pay TV. Sky have cleverly designed a very complex system of putting
together your own viewing package. They have grouped channels by genre, and
then you pick those genres to assemble your package. I take all of the
channels except premium movies, and premium sports. It costs me 22UKP (about
$33) a month, and provides me with a very wide range of content.

When I recently bought my HD TV set, I then added an additional bundle to my
package. This was all of the available HD channels, ex the premium movie and
sports channels. For this, I pay an additional 10 UKP, so my total monthly
cost is now 32 UKP (about $48). Whilst this is not exactly 'cheap', I also
don't think that it represents too bad value for the entertainment value it
provides, although there are many who disagree with that point of view, and
think that Sky as a company, belongs to the devil himself ...

Of course, there are hundreds of free radio stations on the satellite, as
well.

Signals from the same suite of satellites can also be received via a system
called FreeSat. This allows you to receive pretty much the same free
channels that you would get on terrestrial FreeView or free-to-air Sky, as
well as a very limited amount of HD content, all for free.

Then, of course, there's always cable ...

It's all getting a bit complicated here now, and I don't see much scope for
it all settling down, until the analogue services have finally all stopped,
which will then force people to make service provider choices, more than
they are doing at the moment.

Arfa