Why are we still bothering with SD?
05-11-2017, 20:20
|
#61
|
Guest
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111
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......
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 06:48
|
#62
|
An Awesome Dude
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,993
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfunkdup
Agreed mate. Trolling .. well attempting too lol
|
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......
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 07:06
|
#63
|
Still alive and fighting
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the land of beyond and beyond.
Services: XL BB, 3 360 boxes , XL TV.
Posts: 56,351
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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.
|
Good grief two old minds think alike for once.
__________________
“The only lesson you can learn from history is that it repeats itself”
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 10:37
|
#64
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,641
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 12:02
|
#65
|
cf.addict
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 311
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 12:59
|
#66
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: At the Leaving door
Posts: 4,050
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoni
So many channels have absolutely terrible SD quality, makes it painful to watch.
|
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
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 13:16
|
#67
|
-
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere
Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone
Posts: 26,536
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111
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......
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 13:44
|
#68
|
Guest
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoni
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Modern technologies don't, IMO, display colour as well as CRT. Plasma comes close, but it's not quite right.
|
More modern technologies such as OLED and HDR should change that.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 13:51
|
#69
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 61
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (900 Mbps)
Posts: 27,863
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Modern technologies don't, IMO, display colour as well as CRT. Plasma comes close, but it's not quite right.
|
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.
__________________
Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
06-11-2017, 13:55
|
#70
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
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.
|
Isn't Sky Sports cheaper to watch on Now tv than on satellite or cable? And it's shown in 720p HD.
|
|
|
07-11-2017, 08:35
|
#71
|
An Awesome Dude
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,993
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
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.
|
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
|
|
|
07-11-2017, 11:53
|
#72
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,145
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
07-11-2017, 12:09
|
#73
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Services: XL TV
XL Phone
XL 100MB broadband
TiVo
Cat
Posts: 2,279
|
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
|
|
|
07-11-2017, 12:28
|
#74
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,098
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincerooney
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
|
Vince, chill mate, you're beginning to sound like Dave...........
|
|
|
07-11-2017, 12:35
|
#75
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: between Mars and Venus
Age: 44
Services: Plusnet 40mb unlimited fibre, roku, Verizon, netflix, nowtv, hbogo, hulu, SKY+HD box sets pack
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Isn't Sky Sports cheaper to watch on Now tv than on satellite or cable? And it's shown in 720p HD.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincerooney
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
|
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.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:41.
|