Digital High Definition Over Hyped

vbimport

#1

As expected the BBC have started to compress and significantly lower the bit rate of their HD broadcasts.
After numorous complaints the BBC have closed the HD website.
No doubt most broadcasters will follow.
Anyway Analogue film is still (and probably will always be) better than anything digital so don’t believe the hype.
The movies with the HIGHEST quality picture and definition?
Suprise suprise, all shot on 70mm film and all from the 60s:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Zulu (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
The Sound of Music (1965)


#2

We got our first HDTV about one month ago and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I can’t watch SD stations now. Plus, I am getting to see a lot of movies and TV shows in HD which it entertaining due to the added details in the picture. Plus, the Comcast signal we get here is 1080i and there is a lot of free on demand programming to watch. Most of the TV shows we watch like Heroes, CSI etc. are available on-demand in HD the next day. I can understand your frustration. The nice thing about being here in the USA is that we have affordable multiple choices for HD service so if one doesn’t provide a high quality signal we can dump them for one that does. One of the perks of capitalism, I guess.

If they are recording their shows in less than HD I can’t see why they would do that. I assume that you are referring to the signal from your cable provider being compressed and not the original content they are broadcasting.


#3

It is not the cable provider, most HD broadcasts in the U.K are via a satellite dish, the BBC themselves are filming in HD then compressing and lowering the bit rate dramatically to save band width.
In the U.K the BBC (our main broadcaster) has a bad reputation and anyone owning a TV set MUST by British laws buy a TV licence which costs £139.50 ( $220 USA). :Z


#4

No big logic here. Big huge investments have to be made.

Most consumers like the eye candy, but are not willing to pay the fees the industry has designed for them. The industry does this to earn profit and get their huge investment back, plain simple. If they can force certain financial models to all consumers, they will.

But…

If consumers can get their stuff any other way with more results and less expense, they will. Therefore industry will have to adapt as well.


#5

In the UK is it what the industry has designed for them or what the government has deemed necessary?

… and a LICENSE to own a TV!!! That is just plain nuts. Why do you people in the UK allow the government to do such crazy things? They evidently aren’t using the fees to improve service.


#6

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/


#7

[QUOTE=UTR;2477307]… and a LICENSE to own a TV!!! That is just plain nuts. Why do you people in the UK allow the government to do such crazy things? They evidently aren’t using the fees to improve service.[/QUOTE] For the same reason there are license fees for owning a tv-set in e.g. the Scandinavian countries: Public state-owned television channels funded by license fees instead of by commercials.

The fee in Denmark is twice as high as the one in the U.K.

For some reason the politicians prefer to collect this as a fee from 95% of all homes (ballpark figure) instead of including it as part of the income tax.


#8

The PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is funded in the US from tax dollars and individual contributions…I support the system through my voluntary contributions every year…


#9

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2477318]The PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is funded in the US from tax dollars and individual contributions…I support the system through my voluntary contributions every year…[/QUOTE]

The tax dollars PBS gets are relatively low. Certainly no where close to $220 per TV set in the USA.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2477315]For the same reason there are license fees for owning a tv-set in e.g. the Scandinavian countries: Public state-owned television channels funded by license fees instead of by commercials.[/QUOTE]

I would take the commercials along with the improved signal quality and multiple choice of providers. Besides, there are ways to avoid those pesky commercials if they bother you too much. :wink:

The UK license fees would add to over $1,300 in our house!


#10

[QUOTE=UTR;2477330]The tax dollars PBS gets are relatively low. Certainly no where close to $220 per TV set in the USA.[/QUOTE]

Hence the voluntary contributions and support from underwriters…

[QUOTE=UTR;2477330]The UK license fees would add to over $1,300 in our house![/QUOTE]

The license fee is per household, not per TV…


#11

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2477335]The license fee is per household, not per TV…[/QUOTE] Same here! :iagree:

We have one public service HDTV channel (included in the mandatory license fee).

All the commercial HDTV channels cost money on top of the usual fees for commercial cable/sattelite/terrestrial television.


#12

[QUOTE=UTR;2477330]I would take the commercials along with the improved signal quality and multiple choice of providers. Besides, there are ways to avoid those pesky commercials if they bother you too much. ;)[/QUOTE] We have a choice of commercial content providers (channels) in addition to the public service channels; this wasn’t the case in the early days of Danish television, however.

The public service SD channels generally have a significantly better picture quality than most of the commercial SD channels. I cannot comment on how the HD channels compare, as I currently only have one HD channel.

The ways of avoiding those pesky commercials are rapidly shrinking, as many settop recorders have commercial skipping disabled, and there are almost no digital cable-tv recorders on the market except those tied to a certain cable-tv network. :doh:


#13

Our PBS stations have just recently started showing commercials but in a mostly unobtrusive manner…And then, just at the beginning and ending of the show…


#14

Recently I subscribed to “Sky HD” here and now get around 30 HD channels.

I can honestly say it’s a revelation as the full HD content is stunning compared to SD and I genuinely wasn’t expecting the difference to be so pronounced.

The sound is also superior with surround sound on all films and a high proportion of the other HD programmes.

It has actually spurred me on to get a blu-ray player as I know the quality of this will be even better again.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#15

I haven’t owned at television in 15 years. Whenever I visit a friend or family member a
TV is usually playing in the background. It doesn’t seem like I’ve missed much. :slight_smile:

A friend of mine years ago referred to televison as the “universal mother”. It took me a while to get her point. :slight_smile:


#16

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2477387]We have a choice of commercial content providers (channels) in addition to the public service channels; this wasn’t the case in the early days of Danish television, however.[/QUOTE]

I am curious as to what your costs are compared to mine for what you get. We get TV and internet access via Comcast cable for about $130 per month. That gets us high speed internet at about 2-2.5 [B]MB[/B]/sec (not Mb/sec) download rates (250 GB/month download cap), 250-300 TV channels of which 40-50 are HD @ 1080i resolution and around 50 CD quality music channels. Also, included is a couple of cable boxes. For around $20-$30 more per month we could get a boatload of pay channels and another 40-50 HD channels.

There are options to get even more HD channels. Especially through the satellite providers. We also have fiber optic service from Verizon to the house available in our area for about the same cost and options as Comcast. In all, we probably have the choice to use around five service providers.


#17

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2477335]The license fee is per household, not per TV…[/QUOTE]

Thank God for small favors. Is that an annual fee or just when you buy a TV? Also, is there a monthly service fee on top of the $220?


#18

[QUOTE=UTR;2477496]Thank God for small favors. Is that an annual fee or just when you buy a TV? Also, is there a monthly service fee on top of the $220?[/QUOTE]

It’s just an annual license…Similar to licensing your auto here…


#19

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2477511]It’s just an annual license…Similar to licensing your auto here…[/QUOTE]

To me paying to license the use of a TV is like buying a license for a radio, microwave, electric toothbrush etc. I know the EU has taken taxation of people to the level of an art form but requiring a license to own TVs?


#20

Damn Commies…
Beat you to it…:smiley: