Why are we still bothering with SD?
14-08-2013, 23:03
|
#46
|
Media Watcher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Essex
Services: Sky, Cable & Freeview
Posts: 2,408
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamav
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhatter67
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!
|
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.
|
|
|
15-08-2013, 13:55
|
#47
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 480
|
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.
|
|
|
15-08-2013, 14:47
|
#48
|
Woke and proud !
Join Date: Jun 2004
Services: TV, Phone, BB, a wife
Posts: 9,134
|
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.
|
|
|
15-08-2013, 16:10
|
#49
|
cf.member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 51
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
HD is useless for recording too as it fills up Tivo - very quickly.
|
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.
|
|
|
15-08-2013, 16:12
|
#50
|
cf.addict
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Glasgow
Services: VM L TV powered by TiVo, 30MB BB, Sky Sports, Phone L, Freeview.
Posts: 280
|
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.
|
|
|
15-08-2013, 16:20
|
#51
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sutton Coldfiled
Age: 49
Services: Virgin Media XL TV, XXL Broadband, L Phone, TiVo, V+
Posts: 1,029
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
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.
|
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!!
---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant
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.
|
Nice insight there SP, Thanks!
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 07:59
|
#52
|
An Awesome Dude
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,876
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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....
|
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......
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 14:00
|
#53
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,641
|
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......
|
Dinosaurs used to rule the world, where are they now?
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 14:01
|
#54
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,096
|
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......
|
You're at it............
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 14:10
|
#55
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,641
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I presume you mix amongst upwardly mobile people rather than pensioners and low paid workers, then...
|
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.
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 17:48
|
#56
|
Guest
Location: Luton
Services: Big Kahuna, Phone XL, Boxnation
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
This is now a genuine question for 2017?
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 18:11
|
#57
|
NoT 1oF tHe UsUaLSuSpeCtS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: DaRk SiDe Of ThE MooN
Services: Hyper-Optic 1Gig
Posts: 645
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max
You're at it............
|
Agreed mate. Trolling .. well attempting too lol
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 18:47
|
#58
|
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: 14,589
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhatter67
This is now a genuine question for 2017?
|
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.
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 19:56
|
#59
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,070
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfunkdup
Agreed mate. Trolling .. well attempting too lol
|
If we assume that you're correct, I don't suppose you like others moving in on your occasional speciality.
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 20:06
|
#60
|
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 OLD BOY
Why we should be focussing on scrapping older technologies before the population has had a chance to adapt, I really cannot fathom.
|
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)
|
|
|
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 22:25.
|