43 replies to this topic

[MLXXX]

Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I believe that we will see a continuaton of HD-ish format transmissions (e.g. 1440x1080) by all the main broadcasters on one of their services, despite lack of a regulatory requirement. That is my gut feeling and prediction.

[newtaste]

^ I agree.  Even though Nine has failed to live up to their agreement to have 2 hours a night of NRL content on Extra, surely they will make good on Gyngell's promise to show the NRL in HD in 2014.

[mrmaxwell]

newtaste, on 01 June 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

^ I agree.  Even though Nine has failed to live up to their agreement to have 2 hours a night of NRL content on Extra, surely they will make good on Gyngell's promise to show the NRL in HD in 2014.

Cannot believe in 2013 - a full 13 years since HD broadcast commenced in this country we are still here discussing the remote chances of getting some decent HD content!


What a sad joke.

[timj]

mrmaxwell, on 05 June 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Cannot believe in 2013 - a full 13 years since HD broadcast commenced in this country we are still here discussing the remote chances of getting some decent HD content!


What a sad joke.

Too true. The FTA industry is a bad joke.

[jsmith]

alanh, on 24 May 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

...cameras also contain shutters...

Alanh

Wow, really?

JSmith

[Wags]

mrmaxwell, on 05 June 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Cannot believe in 2013 - a full 13 years since HD broadcast commenced in this country we are still here discussing the remote chances of getting some decent HD content!


What a sad joke.

True ^

How about the appalling PQ of the NRL last night on 9, as bad as I've ever seen it. Or maybe I'm just used to watching on FOX now?

[Slattery]

"As I've pointed out in the past - when One and Ten used to simulcast AFL in HD people with HD sets chose to watch in SD."    Are you taking the piss?

[GoForMoe]

Slattery, on 06 June 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

"As I've pointed out in the past - when One and Ten used to simulcast AFL in HD people with HD sets chose to watch in SD." Are you taking the piss?

That post is a link to the ratings evidence of exactly that, so no.

From the maths I did in a followup post:

GoForMoe, on 27 August 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Figures are from June 2011, almost exactly a year ago. The digital tracker report covering that time suggests that at the time 89% of the 81% of digital ready households had HD - or 72% of all households (if I can do maths). Assuming that the population watching the AFL align with the digital conversion rates - that means that of the 765k people watching that football match, around 619k of them would have had access to One HD, and of those, less than one in three would have chosen to watch that HD coverage.

[Slattery]

I find that 1 in 3 figure astounding. Surely it must be simply because the other two thirds are technologically challenged and simply didnt know any better. Eg no idea about the difference between SD and HD and the fact it was simulcast on ONE in better quality.

[Smacca]

mrmaxwell, on 05 June 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Cannot believe in 2013 - a full 13 years since HD broadcast commenced in this country we are still here discussing the remote chances of getting some decent HD content!

What a sad joke.

Even sadder to think we were leading the way with full HD simulcasts from the get-go while other countries were only doing SD. It's like we've gone backwards.

The mind boggles even more when you think we had HD so early on, yet the government made sure the primary service was an analog/SD simulcast and not an analog/HD simulcast. We should have seen Nine SD get replaced by Gem, not Nine HD.

Edited by Smacca, 06 June 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[GoForMoe]

Slattery, on 06 June 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

I find that 1 in 3 figure astounding. Surely it must be simply because the other two thirds are technologically challenged and simply didnt know any better. Eg no idea about the difference between SD and HD and the fact it was simulcast on ONE in better quality.

Yes, but it means there's no incentive for broadcasters, especially when most would still watch in SD once they didn't have the option.

There's an argument that those who don't know/care would also be fine getting an HD channel if that's what was put in the one digit channel number position (as in swapping 30 and 3 around, etc) - but the laws prevent doing that without a simulcast. and adding a simulcast into things for the commercial networks would just further drop overall quality.

I hope I get proven wrong and that somehow in 2014 we get an influx of native HD broadcasting on the networks - but I strongly doubt it.

[MLXXX]

Slattery, on 06 June 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

I find that 1 in 3 figure astounding. Surely it must be simply because the other two thirds are technologically challenged and simply didnt know any better. Eg no idea about the difference between SD and HD and the fact it was simulcast on ONE in better quality.

I agree. For many years in Brisbane we had LCN 2, 3, 7 and 9 as standard definition streams and LCN 20, 30, 70 and 90 as the corresponding high definition streams. Currently we have LCN 1 as a high definition stream and LCN 10 as a standard definition stream, the reverse convention! As they say these days: go figure.

To add to the confusion, at a previous time "One" used LCN 12 as their high definition stream. No wonder many viewers don't know where to find the HD stream for "One"!

On top of confusion with LCNs, there is so much upscaled SD shown using the nominally HD streams that it is often not obvious you have successfully tuned your set to a high definition stream, simply by inspection of the picture.

I still get a thrill when watching an HD stream with actual HD content. I repeat my prediction that I believe the major networks will each retain one of their streams in the HD format. However, I will not try to predict how much native HD content will be shown using the HD stream.

Edited by MLXXX, 07 June 2013 - 01:42 AM.

[GoForMoe]

MLXXX, on 07 June 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

On top of that, there is so much upscaled SD shown using on the nominally HD streams that it is often not obvious you have successfully tuned your set to a high definition stream, simply by inspection of the picture.

Which is why I'd hope that if there is a HD channel, it would be a composite one like the old BBC HD, rather than a full time simulcast or a channel in its own right. I'm sure some wouldn't mind watching at a different time to see something in HD.

The flexibility on the amount of channels should help there, but bandwidth is the main issue, especially when their preference is channels full of ads.

[pgdownload]

Smacca, on 06 June 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

The mind boggles even more when you think we had HD so early on, yet the government made sure the primary service was an analog/SD simulcast and not an analog/HD simulcast. We should have seen Nine SD get replaced by Gem, not Nine HD.

When the government allowed the SD and HD channels to show different content (2007) digital takeup was less than 30%, HD digital takeup would have been significantly less again given the high premium HD goods attracted. If the government had mandated at that point the HD channel must simulcast the analogue channel then all the stations would have simply continued to simulcast the SD channel as well. Keeping in mind also that the amount of actual HD content available to the networks of the shows on their analogue station was still fairly limited.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Edited by pgdownload, 07 June 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Soap]

I sometimes wonder if the best option is make all the existing Digital channels high data-rate MPEG-2 SD, with the spare sixth channel used to carry 4x 720p MPEG4 HD simulcasts of the main channels.  For example:

ABC SD carries ABC1, 2, 3, News24 at 6 MBit/s each
7SD carries 7, 7Two, 7mate at 7 MBit/s each, 74ME at 2 MBit/s
9SD carries 9, Go, GEM at 7 MBit/s each, + Extra with the rest
10SD carries 10, 11, One at 7 MBit/s each, Shopping channel at 2 MBit/s
SBS remains as is.

HD channel: ABC1HD, 7HD, 9HD, 10HD at 6MBits/s MPEG4 720p each.

[pgdownload]

The ideas got merit. I'm assuming that a sample MPEG4 channel will appear sooner (say in 4 years) rather than later to gauge how pervasive the MPEG4 penetration has become. Switching to MPEG4 should be a lot less painless than the analogue switch over - mostly just a rescan of of your STB.

I also wondered about just having a MPEG2 HD station or two (in a single mux) that pools together the best of all the networks offerings. Maybe a sport station a drama station and a documentary. Revenue would be split according to ratings results. I presume it would require too much collaboration to ever happen.

I really liked what they did in the UK, where they grouped different networks primary channels into the same mux. If they did it here it might be 7SD, 9SD and 10SD all together and perhaps ABC1, 31 and SBS in another. This meant that your average twin tuner PVR could theoretically record every major station at once.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

[timj]

Slattery, on 06 June 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

"As I've pointed out in the past - when One and Ten used to simulcast AFL in HD people with HD sets chose to watch in SD." Are you taking the piss?

https://blu176.mail....r.com/DPyfZ.jpg

[alanh]

More HD outside broadcast super trucks available for hire. A new pair are available now and another pair by the end of the year. They will mainly be used for sporting events but also live realty shows. They have capacity for 24 cameras and 80 sound sources. Alanh

[Smacca]

alanh, on 19 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

More HD outside broadcast super trucks available for hire. A new pair are available now and another pair by the end of the year. They will mainly be used for sporting events but also live realty shows. They have capacity for 24 cameras and 80 sound sources. Alanh

How many live realty shows are there to warrant new OB trucks? I thought the market was in a downslide?