Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Indy Qualifying
Indy Qualifying
I'm watching Indy qualifying and they have a really cool feature where
they show how far ahead or behind pole position the driver is. I don't
mean 3 times a lap, but constantly during the lap. Why does F1 not have
this?
And why does F1 not broadcast in HD? Is there no HD in Europe (a lot of
my friends in Europe seem to have plasma tvs)?
--
"It is painfully obvious to me that the right guy to be world champion
is Lewis”-Bernie Ecclestone
Fritz
I'm watching Indy qualifying and they have a really cool feature where
they show how far ahead or behind pole position the driver is. I don't
mean 3 times a lap, but constantly during the lap. Why does F1 not have
this?
And why does F1 not broadcast in HD? Is there no HD in Europe (a lot of
my friends in Europe seem to have plasma tvs)?
--
"It is painfully obvious to me that the right guy to be world champion
is Lewis”-Bernie Ecclestone
Fritz
Re: Indy Qualifying
On 2008-05-10, The Wizard <the_wiz@nospamhere . com > wrote:
> Kinda reverse really, There is NO difference apart from poorer contrast and
> of course cost.
You really do have bad eyesight!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-05-10, The Wizard <the_wiz@nospamhere . com > wrote:
> Kinda reverse really, There is NO difference apart from poorer contrast and
> of course cost.
You really do have bad eyesight!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng2d196.oja.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-05-10, The Wizard <the_wiz@nospamhere . com > wrote:
>
>> Kinda reverse really, There is NO difference apart from poorer contrast
>> and
>> of course cost.
>
> You really do have bad eyesight!
It depends on the source.
A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng2d196.oja.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-05-10, The Wizard <the_wiz@nospamhere . com > wrote:
>
>> Kinda reverse really, There is NO difference apart from poorer contrast
>> and
>> of course cost.
>
> You really do have bad eyesight!
It depends on the source.
A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
Re: Indy Qualifying
Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> It depends on the source.
And the compression. Particularly if it's been recoded for any sort of
reason.
> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
> often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
But it's not. The only problem with Virgin HD (that I've found) is that
there's only BBC HD - one channel, and relatively little new content.
Mark
Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> It depends on the source.
And the compression. Particularly if it's been recoded for any sort of
reason.
> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
> often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
But it's not. The only problem with Virgin HD (that I've found) is that
there's only BBC HD - one channel, and relatively little new content.
Mark
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Mark" <spam@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:g06l4c$kgn$1@north.jnrs.ja . net ...
> Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> It depends on the source.
>
> And the compression. Particularly if it's been recoded for any sort of
> reason.
>
>> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source
>> is
>> often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
>> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared
>> to
>> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
>> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
>
> But it's not.
I don't know, I ditched them years back because there picture quality had
dropped so much.
"Mark" <spam@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:g06l4c$kgn$1@north.jnrs.ja . net ...
> Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> It depends on the source.
>
> And the compression. Particularly if it's been recoded for any sort of
> reason.
>
>> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source
>> is
>> often worse than a good SD source the problem is the huge amount of extra
>> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared
>> to
>> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
>> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
>
> But it's not.
I don't know, I ditched them years back because there picture quality had
dropped so much.
Re: Indy Qualifying
On 2008-05-11, Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
> often worse than a good SD source
Captain blimmin obvious to the rescue ;-)
I'm still amazed at those who think that for example a well prepared
HD DVD is worse than a well-prepared SD DVD, I've re-purchased a
number of my favourite movies on HD and the difference is fantastic,
you even get different shots, on HD versions there are a lot more
panoramic shots as the encoders take the capabilities of the medium
into account, e.g. on 2001 you get wide panoramic shots while on the
SD version there's close-up on bits of detail.
> the problem is the huge amount of extra
> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
I've so far got no experience of over-the-air HD material, just DVD
material, but from what I've seen of over-the-air digital material,
it's all shit! Mind you I did see an example of the BBC's HD output
and that looked pretty good. You could pick out the totty in the
crowd much better ;-)
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-05-11, Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source is
> often worse than a good SD source
Captain blimmin obvious to the rescue ;-)
I'm still amazed at those who think that for example a well prepared
HD DVD is worse than a well-prepared SD DVD, I've re-purchased a
number of my favourite movies on HD and the difference is fantastic,
you even get different shots, on HD versions there are a lot more
panoramic shots as the encoders take the capabilities of the medium
into account, e.g. on 2001 you get wide panoramic shots while on the
SD version there's close-up on bits of detail.
> the problem is the huge amount of extra
> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared to
> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I don't
> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
I've so far got no experience of over-the-air HD material, just DVD
material, but from what I've seen of over-the-air digital material,
it's all shit! Mind you I did see an example of the BBC's HD output
and that looked pretty good. You could pick out the totty in the
crowd much better ;-)
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng2geaa.oja.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-05-11, Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source
>> is
>> often worse than a good SD source
>
> Captain blimmin obvious to the rescue ;-)
>
> I'm still amazed at those who think that for example a well prepared
> HD DVD is worse than a well-prepared SD DVD, I've re-purchased a
> number of my favourite movies on HD and the difference is fantastic,
> you even get different shots, on HD versions there are a lot more
> panoramic shots as the encoders take the capabilities of the medium
> into account, e.g. on 2001 you get wide panoramic shots while on the
> SD version there's close-up on bits of detail.
>
>> the problem is the huge amount of extra
>> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared
>> to
>> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I
>> don't
>> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
>
> I've so far got no experience of over-the-air HD material, just DVD
> material, but from what I've seen of over-the-air digital material,
> it's all shit! Mind you I did see an example of the BBC's HD output
> and that looked pretty good. You could pick out the totty in the
> crowd much better ;-)
>
I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are PBS and
National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you think you're there,
after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by law whether on satellite or
broadcast over the air. One year later in Canada.
Peter R.
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng2geaa.oja.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-05-11, Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> A good HD source is much better than a good SD source but a bad HD source
>> is
>> often worse than a good SD source
>
> Captain blimmin obvious to the rescue ;-)
>
> I'm still amazed at those who think that for example a well prepared
> HD DVD is worse than a well-prepared SD DVD, I've re-purchased a
> number of my favourite movies on HD and the difference is fantastic,
> you even get different shots, on HD versions there are a lot more
> panoramic shots as the encoders take the capabilities of the medium
> into account, e.g. on 2001 you get wide panoramic shots while on the
> SD version there's close-up on bits of detail.
>
>> the problem is the huge amount of extra
>> bandwidth needed to transmit a good HD source. NTL weren't even prepared
>> to
>> invest enough for good SD encoding quality when I was with them so I
>> don't
>> have a lot of trouble imagining there HD could be worse than SD.
>
> I've so far got no experience of over-the-air HD material, just DVD
> material, but from what I've seen of over-the-air digital material,
> it's all shit! Mind you I did see an example of the BBC's HD output
> and that looked pretty good. You could pick out the totty in the
> crowd much better ;-)
>
I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are PBS and
National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you think you're there,
after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by law whether on satellite or
broadcast over the air. One year later in Canada.
Peter R.
Re: Indy Qualifying
On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
> in Canada.
Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
mandatory?
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
> in Canada.
Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
mandatory?
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>> in Canada.
>
> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
> mandatory?
Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
HD.
Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
except PBS and National Geographic.
As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel has
no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch that. As
my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm not sure
that BernieVision is in true HD.
But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
off the list price from Sears, just love it.
Peter R.
"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>> in Canada.
>
> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
> mandatory?
Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
HD.
Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
except PBS and National Geographic.
As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel has
no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch that. As
my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm not sure
that BernieVision is in true HD.
But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
off the list price from Sears, just love it.
Peter R.
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>> in Canada.
>>
>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>> mandatory?
> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
> older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
> HD.
> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
> except PBS and National Geographic.
>
> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>
> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>
I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
local news anchor will rue ;)
"Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>> in Canada.
>>
>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>> mandatory?
> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
> older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
> HD.
> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
> except PBS and National Geographic.
>
> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>
> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>
I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
local news anchor will rue ;)
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>
>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>> in Canada.
>>>
>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>> mandatory?
>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>> true HD.
>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>
>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>
>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
Not really, ITV HD, BBC HD will be on Freesat for Free (A fortune on $ky) I
think ITV for once will NOT be carrying their HD channel on $ky.
Reading the blurb, The Freesat boxes are HD ready where with $ky you have to
go out and buy their HD specific box.
IF BBC HD have the F1 content...Well broadcast then they'll obviously show
it, As you rightly say though, They'll need to be broadcasting the actual
Races with HD equipment and that's no doubt up to Bernie!
"Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>
>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>> in Canada.
>>>
>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>> mandatory?
>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>> true HD.
>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>
>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>
>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
Not really, ITV HD, BBC HD will be on Freesat for Free (A fortune on $ky) I
think ITV for once will NOT be carrying their HD channel on $ky.
Reading the blurb, The Freesat boxes are HD ready where with $ky you have to
go out and buy their HD specific box.
IF BBC HD have the F1 content...Well broadcast then they'll obviously show
it, As you rightly say though, They'll need to be broadcasting the actual
Races with HD equipment and that's no doubt up to Bernie!
Re: Indy Qualifying
"Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>
>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>> in Canada.
>>>
>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>> mandatory?
>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>> true HD.
>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>
>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>
>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>
> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
> local news anchor will rue ;)
I use Star Choice satellite and already the main US channels have HD
channels in both East and West coast feeds but with very few HD programmes.
In Canada both CBC and CTV also have HD channels and CBC has many HD shows,
rather less on CTV but here full digital is not until 2010.
Peter R.
"Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>
>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>> in Canada.
>>>
>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>> mandatory?
>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>> true HD.
>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>
>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>
>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>
> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
> local news anchor will rue ;)
I use Star Choice satellite and already the main US channels have HD
channels in both East and West coast feeds but with very few HD programmes.
In Canada both CBC and CTV also have HD channels and CBC has many HD shows,
rather less on CTV but here full digital is not until 2010.
Peter R.
Re: Indy Qualifying
Peter R wrote:
> "Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>>> in Canada.
>>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>>> mandatory?
>>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>>> true HD.
>>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>>
>>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>>
>>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>>
>> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
>> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
>> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>>
>> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
>> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
>> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
>> local news anchor will rue ;)
> I use Star Choice satellite and already the main US channels have HD
> channels in both East and West coast feeds but with very few HD programmes.
> In Canada both CBC and CTV also have HD channels and CBC has many HD shows,
> rather less on CTV but here full digital is not until 2010.
>
> Peter R.
>
>
All the US networks broadcast their 'good' shows in HD.
All the baseball games, hockey games, Letterman, Leno, The Office, 30
Rock, etc.
The picture quality is night and day, I'd watch golf just to see the
picture.
Bell also has 4 or 5 HD documentary channels that are pretty good.
--
"It is painfully obvious to me that the right guy to be world champion
is Lewis”-Bernie Ecclestone
Fritz
Peter R wrote:
> "Silent Observer" <harrynospam@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:LZqdnXD7daOAQrXVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Peter R" <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4828d944$0$4071$9a566e8b@news.aliant . net ...
>>> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:48289ac3$0$11122$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere . com ...
>>>> On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I watch many HD shows on satellite in Canada, so far the best are
>>>>> PBS and National Geographic, many incredible shows that make you
>>>>> think you're there, after February 2009 all US TV must be in HD by
>>>>> law whether on satellite or broadcast over the air. One year later
>>>>> in Canada.
>>>> Blimey, it's a bit odd that it's being mandated by law, given that HD
>>>> and SD can happily co-exist, I wonder why TPTB decided to make it
>>>> mandatory?
>>> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with
>>> the older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be
>>> true HD.
>>> Already CBC, our national broadcaster has many programmes in true HD and
>>> they look great. A few US channels have some in HD but not really many
>>> except PBS and National Geographic.
>>>
>>> As to F1 carried by TSN here (The Sports Network) their present channel
>>> has no HD, you have to subscribe to an extra satellite channel to watch
>>> that. As my interest in sports is very limited I don't subscribe and I'm
>>> not sure that BernieVision is in true HD.
>>> But in less than a year all US TV must be in true HD whether off air on
>>> cable or satellite followed by all Canadian TV one year later.
>>>
>>> I bought a Sony 40 inch Bravia in the after Xmas sales for more than $400
>>> off the list price from Sears, just love it.
>>>
>> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
>> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
>> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>>
>> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
>> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
>> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
>> local news anchor will rue ;)
> I use Star Choice satellite and already the main US channels have HD
> channels in both East and West coast feeds but with very few HD programmes.
> In Canada both CBC and CTV also have HD channels and CBC has many HD shows,
> rather less on CTV but here full digital is not until 2010.
>
> Peter R.
>
>
All the US networks broadcast their 'good' shows in HD.
All the baseball games, hockey games, Letterman, Leno, The Office, 30
Rock, etc.
The picture quality is night and day, I'd watch golf just to see the
picture.
Bell also has 4 or 5 HD documentary channels that are pretty good.
--
"It is painfully obvious to me that the right guy to be world champion
is Lewis”-Bernie Ecclestone
Fritz
Re: Indy Qualifying
Silent Observer wrote:
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>
> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
> local news anchor will rue ;)
>
>
You are correct. What is mandated, both in Canada and the US is Digital
TV, not HD. And it only affects people getting over-the-air signal,
with the good old rabbit ears. People using cable TV or satellite are
not affected in any way.
Radio-Canada, the french version of CBC, is already broadcasting the
news and many shows in HD. Private Candian broadcaster are lagging
quite a lot behind, very little of their content is HD.
Silent Observer wrote:
> I believe that you all confusing *digital* broadcast with HD. In 2009 all
> broadcast TV will be in *digital*, but not necessarily in HD. SD or HD can
> be sent over the digital broadcast signal.
>
> Many local newscasts will probably be aired in SD since converting a news
> studio over HD is quite costly and will be held off until the studio
> equipment needs to be replaced. Which will be the day that many an older
> local news anchor will rue ;)
>
>
You are correct. What is mandated, both in Canada and the US is Digital
TV, not HD. And it only affects people getting over-the-air signal,
with the good old rabbit ears. People using cable TV or satellite are
not affected in any way.
Radio-Canada, the french version of CBC, is already broadcasting the
news and many shows in HD. Private Candian broadcaster are lagging
quite a lot behind, very little of their content is HD.
Re: Indy Qualifying
On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
> older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
> HD.
Ah, as someone else has said, you are probably confusing HD/SD with
"digital" TV, SD is standard definition, 480i or 576i in the UK,
whereas HD is anything from 720p upwards. Over the air this is
transmitted normally in multiplexed "digital" form using the original
analogue spectrum as a data carrier, and an SD signal can go on the
same multiplex as an HD signal, sort of like downloading two videos of
different resolutions over your single internet connection.
Analogue TV is pretty much invariably SD, and has been largely
overtaken by digital SD signals which are often inferior quality due
to bitrate compression, but as digital TV is essentially a broadcast
one-way data network, it's possible now to send out HD digital video
streams over that same network, with the resulting signals looking
very good provided the stream hasn't been compressed too hard.
The references to legal requirements apply to the move from analogue
to digital TV, the same is happening in the UK, with all the analogue
channels being removed soon-ish (next year I think) to be replaced
with digital. That has no bearing on whether the channels are HD or
not though.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-05-12, Peter R <robimson@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Not sure what SD is, Standard Definition?. But HD cannot co-exist with the
> older version. Old TVs can watch HD with a converter but will not be true
> HD.
Ah, as someone else has said, you are probably confusing HD/SD with
"digital" TV, SD is standard definition, 480i or 576i in the UK,
whereas HD is anything from 720p upwards. Over the air this is
transmitted normally in multiplexed "digital" form using the original
analogue spectrum as a data carrier, and an SD signal can go on the
same multiplex as an HD signal, sort of like downloading two videos of
different resolutions over your single internet connection.
Analogue TV is pretty much invariably SD, and has been largely
overtaken by digital SD signals which are often inferior quality due
to bitrate compression, but as digital TV is essentially a broadcast
one-way data network, it's possible now to send out HD digital video
streams over that same network, with the resulting signals looking
very good provided the stream hasn't been compressed too hard.
The references to legal requirements apply to the move from analogue
to digital TV, the same is happening in the UK, with all the analogue
channels being removed soon-ish (next year I think) to be replaced
with digital. That has no bearing on whether the channels are HD or
not though.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
