Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Well, the title says it all really, what's the point? Surely at some time in the future, SD will disappear altogether leaving us just with the HD channels. As far as I am concerned it might as well happen sooner rather than later! It would presumably free up a load of bandwidth and reduce costs, also it would end the rediculous channel numbering system we have at present where the HD variant of a channel may be hundreds of channels away from its SD version.
I appreciate that some people would have to upgrade their TVs, but have you seen the prices of basic HD TVs these days, they're dirt cheap!
I honestly can't see a downside to this suggestion, but appreciate that others may have a different point of view and if so would be interested to hear it.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Topgun, you just have to understand that not everyone is in your privileged position. There are still a lot of SD TVs out there and unlike you, there are also a lot of hard pressed families trying to make ends meet. A new TV will not be on their list of priorities.

As for channel numbering, why is this such an issue. Just select 'HD' on your channel guide and all the HD channels come up, excluding the SD channels. I really don't see the problem!

In any case, what do you expect VM to do with all that vacant bandwidth? To be realistic, we have most of the channels we need now anyway. There's sufficient space for those we don't have that are worth having.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Agreed I think all new channels should be in HD.Ok there are certain channels that would not benefit from HD (gold).But there should be an HD version of all channels available to customers

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I agree with your last sentence.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Fair point. But the point I was trying to make is, that like black and white TVs and the analogue signal, technology moves on and makes previous hardware redundant. I think what I suggested will happen at some point, I was just saying I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I expect you are right that it will happen, but customers will be alienated if VM or Sky try to push this too far too soon.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Easy solution get shot of the + 1 channels replace with HD

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Ok, here goes... :)

1) A HD channel takes typically 4 to 6 times the bandwidth of a SD channel. So changing all channels to HD would require far more bandwidth, even if the SD versions were dropped. That either means losing a load of channels, or introducing new expensive technologies (e.g. switched video; motorised dishes and more satellites)

2) The fact that many TVs are SD-only isn't a problem if they have an HD STB that can downscale. However, LOTS of people still have SD-only STBs. Are you willing to pay for new STBs for them?

3) HD production and broacasting is more expensive, and requires new equipment. Are you willing to pay for all the minor broadcasters to upgrade?

4) Interest in HD simply isn't that great. Although 73% of the UK population have a HD-ready TV, only 49% actually have a HD source (source).
And many of those who could watch HD, don't. As an example only 5.7% of ITV viewing last week was HD.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I think all channels should be in SD and HD I watch a lot in HD Virgin should split there packages into SD and HD so you have a choice

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

It will happen at some point. However, it was 17 years after the introduction of 625-line PAL colour TV on UHF that 405-line mono on VHF was switched off in the UK - officialdom likes to avoid making changes that force large numbers of people to upgrade their equipment, because officialdom dislikes having to compensate people for it.

As it runs a closed, subscriber-based system, VM could of course do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, but remember it didn't complete its own analogue switch-off until relatively recently, and right through the process we had people on this forum complaining that analogue suited their needs, why should they be forced to change, etc etc etc.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I'm not going to get rid of a perfectly fine television just because it's not HD.
I'll 'upgrade' when it breaks and becomes too expensive to repair compared to the cost of a new one

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I honestly don't think i know a single person who doesn't at least have a 720p capable TV in the living room, most have 1080p. TV's elsewhere in their houses is another matter though.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

And (I assume, based on its location) the fact that it's too small for it to be noticeable.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

In addition, I remember reading an article a few months back stating tv licensing announced there were still around 20k black and white tv licenses being purchased!

Even those tv sets haven't died yet!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I presume you mix amongst upwardly mobile people rather than pensioners and low paid workers, then...

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

it's handy having some channels in SD for when the V+ box gets nearly full, I can record the SD version of a show to avoid guessing how critical critical is

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

My Gran doesn't. Had my last TV not broken down I wouldn't either. I could afford one but I'm not in the business of buying things just because I can (I'm tight, truth be told!).

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

This is the kind of thread we should be comming back to in 10 years time when

95% of VM STB are HD capable
HD channels are compressed to Mpeg4 codec
HD channels are not sold as premium channels
SKY does not hold HD variants to themselves

Then if these conditions are met you can have the debate what is the point of the SYFY channel being available in SD!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

perhaps the question should be 'when will we be stopped being charged more for HD' ?

HD could be regarded as the 'standard' format for most mainstream channels for many viewers.

Yes i know HD is included 'free' for those channels available in the XL pack but as we all know nothing is actually free and part of the cost is absorbed into the price of that package.

And of course an actual fee still applies to Sky's premium channels (ie sport & movies). I cancelled the HD premium charge as i was finding it difficult to justify the cost for a few channels- that was before i cancelled Sky sports & movies altogether.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Nor does my mum. She has a 4:3 CRT Sanyo set in her living room that must be 25 years old. It's connected to a Freeview PVR via the single SCART socket on its back, which was so mysterious and newfangled when the TV was new, we didn't know what it was supposed to be for!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

What I don't understand is why are the channels separate? Can't the device downscale the HD to SD, or switch or the broadcast switch bitrates?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Think you have summed it up rather well in this post SP!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I find that some HD channels are better than others I've seen some poor HD channels where standard has looked better.

I find the BBC puts out some good HD

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Which is exactly why 3D has not failed either although people are proposing it has. I've only just bought a 3D set so until now could not view it.... ...simples :)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Logistically, if downsampling HD+SD boxes were rolled out to everyone, they could recover some channel space by eliminating the SD version of HD channels.

The question being... what is the channel space worth, compared to replacing old SD boxes.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

im the other way why are we bothering with +1s with TiVo and v+ boxes theres no need

---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ----------

in 10 years well be wanting super HD most will be owning 4k tvs

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

There has been occasion where the +1 variants have been handy whilst flicking through channels.
I don't sit down each week with a marker pen and tick off the programs I want to watch from the TV Times! - maybe I should, but I more often than not find an interesting program by channel hopping, and so if I have missed the start, the +1 is handy.

(Glad Carl is not here to read that else he would crucify me for using the Tivo incorrectly!)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

HD boxes can downscale, but SD ones can't.

Switching bitrates would be a massive change to the technology - basically getting rid of broadcast entirely. I expect it will happen eventually though.

There is no pressing need to replace the SD boxes. VM already have enough space free for current plans.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Well, some interesting points there. I have to say I don't quite understand the compensation argument, no-one suggested that Kodak should compensate anyone who owned an old camera when they said they weren't going to make film any more. No-one suggested that the makers of HD DVD devices should pay compensation to owners when they lost out to Blu Ray in the format wars and loads of other examples of similar that have occurred over the years!
I still stick to my original assertion, that this is a case of when this will happen, not if. I realise it's not going to be imminent, but I'm just saying I'd like to see it happen in the next, say, 4 to 5 years rather than the 15 to 20 which unfortunately I believe is the more likely scenario.
Lastly, when I watched the Community Shield yesterday, I watched it on 113 rather than 103. I've always wanted to be in the top 5.7% of the population for something, looks like I've finally achieved my goal!:D

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I only have HD for the wife who will go out of her way to watch it, I don't see the point in it myself so don't record / watch HD stuff.

I can see a time when it'll all be HD but I'm in no hurry for it to happen.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

A lady with vision and is she the Hotel Inspector to boot;):)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

It'd be nice, but my missus is MUCH better looking :)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

:)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Actually, no. Every channel moving to HD only would not save bandwidth. It would actually use a lot more. This is why we are *never* likely to get a situation where SD is switched off entirely. There is also the problem for current SD channels of cost. While you or I might only have to upgrade 1 TV at the cost of £100 or £200, a TV company would have to look at upgrading all it's cameras, recorders, editing systems and playback systems. Not to mention the networking and power systems of it's buildings, as the new equipment is likely to use a lot more power. This is actually the reason the BBC moved out of Television centre: It would have cost too much to fully upgrade TC for HD work. In short, you or I would be looking at a couple of hundred pounds for a cheap set. A TV company (even a small one) could be looking at several million pounds of expenditure to upgrade their buildings and equipment.

Personally, I don't think we will get a situation where the current channels with both HD and SD variants will switch the SD variants off. Purely because while HDTVs are dirt cheap these days, they are still out of reach for some people. Not everyone can afford to throw out a perfectly good SD set purely because the world has gone HD, even if new HD sets are around the £100 mark.

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Spiderplant is, I think, looking at things from Virgin's point of view. Because we rent the STBs from Virgin, people would (rightly) expect them to provide replacement boxes for free (or at least a reasonable cost) if any of the major channels stopped SD broadcasts. I think, although I am not sure, that there may also be a legal requirement for them to do so, or at least allow the customer to terminate their contract with no penalty.

When you buy something (like a Blu Ray player or Camera), the company's responsibility toward you ends when the warranty does (and even then it's limited). When you rent something from a company, their responsibility does not end until the contract is cancelled, which may take years (or even decades).

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

One thing that I do dislike about Virgin and HD is how the HD channels are nearly all high up in the channel numbers. It would be much better if they did what Sky did and swapped them with the SD versions at the lower numbers.

Unfortunately, they're going away from this recently, swapping the HD channels of Alibi, Watch etc with their +1 variants, bringing the +1s to lower numbers and HD channels to forgettable high numbers.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

That may sometimes have a hidden advantage. I remember reading a post a while back now, by someone that said that Tivo will pick the highest numbered channel to record a wishlist item from, if the same whishlist show appears at the same time on two different channels.

I can't say that I've studied this at all, but I have noticed that whishlist shows that turn up on Sky One or Living tend to pick up the HD channel and some whishlist shows that turn up on the BBC are sometimes on the BBC1 Eng and BBC2 Eng channels. It could be pure coincidence though?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but why are you concerned with the channel numbering system?

If you are only interested in the HD channels, then why not just select HD on the EPG when looking for the channel you want?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Because I'm not 'only interested in HD channels. Frequently I'll be flicking through the channels looking for something to watch, and find something interesting on ITV4 or Comedy Central, only to then be confronted by the 'oh god, what number is ITV4 HD? 182? 168? Somewhere around here... 175? Eventually I'll find it, but it'd be a lot less effort to have the channel lower down - who wants to watch the SD version of a channel they have in HD?

I think you may be right, and that's a very good point. I do wish they could at least stay grouped together (on channels 131, 132 and 133, for example), rather than shoving the HD variant up high.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

SD will undoubtedly die off. It may take another 10 years +, but it will happen. There will be few people left with non HD TVs, studios will all eventually upgrade to HD equipment as it's getting cheaper each year. It'll get to a point where having to downscale to SD causes more hassle.

People use to say that about widescreen - that as not everyone has a widescreen TV, 4:3 programmes would be around for a while yet. To a point it is, but not for much longer.

Only historical programming will remain in SD 4:3...! The future is HD 16:9 or better.

Can you imagine when UDH/4K really takes off, trying to watch SD on a 100in screen? No chance.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

So why not go straight to the HD channels to look up your programmes?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Current regional programs are still shown on SD, I am not interested in non Yorkshire based adverts whilst watching say ITV HD.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Because then the SD-only ones won't be listed?

I read it as 'browse all channels to see what's on, but have an easy way to get to the HD version if it is an SD programme that catches your eye'.

Personally I'd like an option to hide SD versions of HD channels entirely.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Still think SD will last a while yet and not everyone has the full XL package and all the possible HD channels.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Maybe we've been spoiled but the SD picture on some channels is terrible. Watching a re-run of Man Utd v Liverpool on SS3 and the picture is shocking.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

IIRC that's down to bitrate rather than the picture definition. There has always been a very noticeable difference in quality between the main PSB channels like BBC1 and some of the also-rans, on satellite at least.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I agree and the tv industry appears to be leaning towards this view too.

There will be another 10 HD channels on Freeview within the next year and Freeview is also looking to move the HD channels into the top spots, ie BBC One HD moves to channel 1.

I think it will be a while before we see SD totally killed off, probably 10 years as you say. But pay tv operators like Sky and Virgin will move sooner, I think.

With the imminent launch of CH4 +1 HD on the horizon, I could see companies such as Sky killing off the SD +1s to free up EPG places. Then you may see channels such as Sky 1 HD simply being called Sky 1 and the current Sky 1 being renamed Sky 1 SD.

At some point companies especially Sky will "force" everyone onto HD as they did when they changed from their analogue service to their digital service.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

In 10 years year time, if not a lot sooner:

The bulk of stbs will be gone. Content will be "broadcast" straight from the cloud.

Mpeg4/h.264 will be gone. H.265 is on the way now and even that will be superseeded within 10 years.

HD is now being seen as the "standard" and not premium way to broadcast channels. The BBC will have all of its channels in HD within 12 months. So, by the end of 2014 there will be at least 15 HD Freeview channels, so no longer premium.

Sky will not hold HD channels to themselves in 10 years time. That's what 4k/8k will be for.;)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I would like to see one of 2 things:

1: I have always wondered, is it not possible to build something into the new supposedly intelligent boxes whereby if you go to an SD channel, the box can automatically forward you to the HD version of the channel instantly. There could be an option in the menu of the TIVO box something like "HD TV Channels only" and if you tick it you are basically saying you have a HD TV and always want to watch and record HD where possible.

In fact, we do not even need that, since the STB's Virgin use should know they are running on a HD TV since you select what picture quality you want in the menu depending on the TV being used. This could trigger this menu option for HD Channels.

2: Better still...I would like to see the SD channel numbers 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 etc, become HD. It should be the SD channels that are 108, 113, 151, 140 etc. It's ridiculous that we have to go hunting for the HD channel over the SD one now. The priority and weight should be towards HD.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

HD = Emperors new clothes. The most popular TV size is 32 inch, on which it makes diddly squat difference. Same thing happened with digital tv and digital radio - people with good analogue signals and good FM reception got no difference (or downgraded quality in the case of digital radio vs a FM signal)

HD is useless for recording too as it fills up Tivo - very quickly. Got a wish list set for the 'Carry On' films ( I know, but lets forget my taste for the moment...)- pees me off when it chooses an HD channel to record it on.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

On the other hand I choose to record certain things so I can watch them properly, at leisure, on a big screen. SD just doesn't cut it for that.

My wife tends to scroll down the EPG list and put something on. Then I ask her why she's chosen the SD version, and after some more scrolling the HD version is found. Wouldn't it be so much simpler if there was an option to hide SD channels that have an HD equivalent.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I don't agree that HD = Emperor's new clothes. My dad has a Panasonic 32in full HD TV and watching Blu Ray is still incredibly detailed. Live broadcast sports also look much more defined. 32in may well be a very popular size TV, but this is changing toward larger screens - hence why we're seeing so many larger screens at only a few pounds more than their smaller counterparts. I have around 37 HD movies on my 1TB TiVo, along with dozens of HD programmes, and hover about the 75% full capacity. Could probably still record around 15-20 more movies if I wanted to.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

It's not the size of the screen but how far away you are. Try sticking the 32inch on your lap and say there is no difference!! :D

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

Nice insight there SP, Thanks! ;)

And alot of us DO NOT WANT or CARE ABOUT HD :)

I have always preferred SD ... Its beautiful and how stuff started...

CRTs are beautiful and in my opinion produce THE NICEST picture......

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Dinosaurs used to rule the world, where are they now?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

You're at it............:td:

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

My job takes me into a number of houses each week (my previous job took me into hundreds of houses each week)

On the odd occasion I see a 4:3 tv I have to double take to ensure my eyes haven't betrayed me.

Additionally, I would say most low in one families have a decent sized flat panel TV (not always a top brand make I would agree) - they also seem to find money for the latest smartphones and often smoking.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

This is now a genuine question for 2017?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Agreed mate. Trolling .. well attempting too lol :D:D

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Yes, it is, but the answer is not to have an SD switch off at this stage.

Not only are there many people who cannot afford the cost of upgrading to HD ready equipment, but a lot of channels would be lost as a result - in fact almost all those channels which do not currently have an HD alternative.

I really cannot understand why anyone should be so exercised about the continuing existence of SD channels. Nobody is forced to watch them!

If anyone wants to look at an SD sanitised version of the EPG, they only have to select the HD channels option.

The question for 2017 is how to facilitate the introduction of UHD channels. Should these be added to the EPG or would it make more sense to offer UHD content via streaming/on demand?

Why we should be focussing on scrapping older technologies before the population has had a chance to adapt, I really cannot fathom.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

If we assume that you're correct, I don't suppose you like others moving in on your occasional speciality.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Way of the world isn't it, you know, onwards & upwards and all that stuff. Improvements and enhancements that do little in the way of improving stuff, but adds a few quid to the profits if you can convince the masses that it's better than what they currently have.

I remember the days of 5 channels of quality (ish) TV, now we have 300 channels of garbage.
I'm not yet a dinosaur
I also remember Luton being a top flight club a mere 30 years ago *waves at mhatter67* (good win Sat) :wavey:

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Gosh yes, especially the old 405 line monochrome versions. Such beautiful beasties. If only they still worked...

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

The trouble with linear UHD channels is that they take up a heck of a lot of bandwidth. Probably why there aren't many of them around and no great desire to introduce them. If space is to be released for these bandwidth hungry monsters, it might be time to start the process of removing the SD simulcast channels, if only to free up some space.

Wrong..... Isnt trolling someone who wants to cause problems??



Im just stating my opinion.. I LIKE SD..... Im not trying to cause any problems (If you notice I put a :) in my message)


I dont have a probem with those who like HD......

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Good grief two old minds think alike for once.:Yikes::eeek:

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Need to get rid of some channels to free up bandwidth.

Start by getting rid of the myriad of +1 channels - never saw the point of them, if you want to watch 2 programmes at any one time record them, if you have missed something and realise it then use catch-up.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I think you're right, at one time the plus one channels served a good purpose before the advent of PVR's. Surely the bandwidth would be better used towards launching hd channels. It still amazes me that so many channels still haven't got an hd counterpart. So many channels have absolutely terrible SD quality, makes it painful to watch.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Our TV is a 6yr old Panasonic 37" Plasma. My wife only watches the Freeview stuff which I guess (cos I'm not bothered to check) is mainly SD quality?

On the few occasions I've glanced at the TV - usually to make snide comments about the program being shown - it looks pretty good viewing, and the wife & daughter have no complaints.

I'd take a wild guess though, that if we exchanged the TV for a 60" generic standard resolution piece of junk costing £299 the picture would be abysmal.

Not everyone understands that bigger isn't necessarily better when it comes to TV's

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

The best picture I ever saw was an HD Sony CRT (like https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Trinit...-/272844629359 ).

Modern technologies don't, IMO, display colour as well as CRT. Plasma comes close, but it's not quite right.

Don't get me wrong, all the sets in my house now use LCD/LED displays, and all give excellent pictures, I just prefer the colour given by CRT.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Until BARB figures show a significant decline in the +1 audience, the broadcasters will continue to operate them. Sure, the availability of multiple tuner PVRs and catch-up will reduce demand over time but not in the short term.

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

If there was a shortage of bandwidth for launching new HD channels that would be a good point but there isn't a shortage at this point in time. There's a possibility that some channels will never operate in HD but a decision based on cost rather than bandwidth availability.

There probably isn't the bandwidth to launch a myriad of linear UHD channels with the current infrastructure but, again, no real demand for the bandwidth as broadcasters are baulking at the cost.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

More modern technologies such as OLED and HDR should change that.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I still have my Plasma, I'm hoping it keeps going for a few more years yet.

One of the problems with HD take-up is that you get charged extra for some of it (at least on Sky, not sure about VM these days).
For example, to get HD Sports I would have to upgrade to Box Sets, which I just dont want.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Isn't Sky Sports cheaper to watch on Now tv than on satellite or cable? And it's shown in 720p HD.

Thank you Stu for not being afraid to agree with me ... I dont think me or you is trying to cause trouble or anything for Paul :)

Just our opinions :)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I never had a plasma, but I've heard quite a few people say that they wish they were still available as they have a better picture than LCD/LED. I think they use more electricity though.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

In short answer a lot of elderly people still only have SD TVs. Also I’m terrified of HD only channels since sky will lick their lips and add more HD charges

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Vince, chill mate, you're beginning to sound like Dave...........;)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Not really no Skysports cost a average of £25p/m on sky and cable whereas on nowtv it's £33.99p/m

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

And vm won't?
At least both SKY and BT are honest about their HD charges and don't say "HD at no extra cost" and hide it in the cost of the package.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Yes, they do, about 25% to 35% more.

However, bear in mind that overall they use less than an old 100W bulb, so physically its about 20W - 30W more, so not exactly going to be very noticeable.