Briantist: @fairtelecoms @mookigoose http://t.co/bdXVWtMcls cornelli has posted My name is cornellia am from UK I live in Canada I have been married Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/fU9QzVdW7p Dave Lindsay has posted sally Did you get from at Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/HQklyPT3fy sally has posted I only get bbc 2 3 etc No itv No Briantist: @fairtelecoms http://t.co/6dTMuwVd65 Charles Stuart has posted MikeB refers to the distance that one should sit from one 039 s TV to get Briantist: http://t.co/B4L0VIMeCy trevorjharris has posted If the BBC is spending more on programming than Sky just goes to show how inefficient is Briantist: http://t.co/DgbdJIZhZu jb38 has posted J Peter Wilson Many thanks for your comprehensive update with regards to the equipment used in TV Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/KpcBe9tTqq Dave Lindsay has posted sally That 039 s correct Briantist: @fairtelecoms http://t.co/xdPtH0hS09 Briantist has posted Briantist I 039 ve also done a write up here http www ukfree tv fullstory php Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/wg3uKSdjWp sally has posted The aerial is pointed towards we Briantist: http://t.co/TNQ1LkeZoZ am sure you know that in 2013 British Sky Broadcasting had an income of 7 255 million More or less exactly twice Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/PxuEjVgdui Dave Lindsay has posted sally It sounds like the Briantist: @fairtelecoms http://t.co/UdyDYCObe6 Briantist has posted I 039 ve done a little picture http ukfree tv styles images 2013 bbcvssky png Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/faWAxgfGD3 sally has posted On 514mhz i got no joy and on I Briantist: @fairtelecoms @stevbu @jaynefishwick @hotmail.co.uk @kari_leeann http://t.co/VJgWRVckGJ Dave Lindsay has posted sally A lot of TVs use in Briantist: @fairtelecoms @al1304 @dolphin5 @carlyroweis @domrobinson http://t.co/2D2lut6Jcc Dave Lindsay has posted MikeP That 039 s interesting the
It appears that the seven UHF channels in the lower "digital dividend review" cleared spectrum for additional Freeview services.
It is possible that these services could be used for seven single-frequency networks (SFN) multiplexes, or less if they are used for multi-frequency networks.
Ofcom could assign C37 to a second public service high definition multiplex, as it can be received by all aerial groups. This could provide BBC three and BBC FOUR in HD, with perhaps ITV 2 HD and ITV 3 HD plus E4 HD, as Ofcom expect to get five HD channels per multiplex by 2013 - Five HD is expected on the BBCB multiplex at the end of 2012.
The remaining channels C31 to C36 will be receivable for group A, group B, group E group K and wideband aerial, and could provide high definition capacity to match all of the existing standard definition Freeview channels. (See also Aerial group performance).
Seven single frequency HD multiplexes would give Freeview HD another 35 high definition channels, making a total of 40 by 2016.
"The decision has now been taken to reallocate spectrum at 600 MHz for
additional terrestrial television broadcast services and OFCOM is tasked
with the preparatory work leading up to the auction of this spectrum."
September 2011 - Arqiva Reference Offer prepared for OFCOM
Q2 2012 - Government holds Spectrum Auction
Q3 2012 new licences issued
Q3 2016 - Arqiva antenna works completed at Main Stations
What this report really is saying is about a 2nd change when many people who already have bought equipment once. Have to go out and replace/upgrade again their freeview SD tv's/boxes and buy DVB-T2 versions if they want to watch the HD channels.
Why do they continue in this country to sell HDTV's that still only have SD tuners in them, when the HD versions cost so little now to produce.
Am I correct in thinking that the Digital Divide is about to get much wider & those that are on "Freeview Lite" will miss out on any extra channels.
I cant see this going down very well in the valleys and other rural area's.
The idea of trying to squeeze 5 HD channels into a multiplex is really bad. Because of the current bandwidth limitations the BBC only transmits 1440x1080 instead of the full HD 1920x1080. A reduction in bitrate will certainly reduce the quality even more. The BBC will say that encoder improvements will compensate but certainly not enough.
I think it will be very optimistic to believe that all these channels will be filled by so called free television. The quality of BBC programs has certainly deteriated over the last year. Just look at the number of repeats being shown this week. Most of the new programs are cheap rubish. The abandoment of F1 is another example of dumbing down.
I would certainly expect the Sky Sports HD channels to be available. And on that bomb shell I will say goodbye.
You can actual see this was going to happen in the next few years after switchover. I receive my channels through Belmont and since it also started broadcasting digital signals, there have been 11 frequencies used 5 analogue & 6 digital.
Now we have gone back to 6 frequencies again you would of thought what they would do with the other 5. Plus Freeview desperately needs more capacity due to the compression of a lot of channels.
Now if they broadcast and use on all the frequencies using the newer DVB-T2 MPEG4 system by 2016. I bet on it that by about 2020 the rest of the DVB-T channels will cease to be broadcasted and switched to DVB-T2. Hence another switchover on equipment like I was saying earlier. When people are only just buying equipment for this switchover still with only the DVB-T spec.
The DVB-T MPEG2 spec has been broadcasting here since 1998. Over the next 5-10 years I would say DVB-S broadcasting on satellite will go the same way and completely switch to DVB-S2 MPEG4.
Actually Brian I looked at you reference and I could not find any thing about 5 channels in it.
Computing power is not really the problem here. It is a question of encoding quality which has certainly been increasing over the last few years. But the improvements that can be made are limited by the requirement to hold to the H264 specifications. In my view any improvements should be used to upgrade to 1920x1440.
I notice you have not mentioned 3D which must surely be a part of any expansion.
Yep I have seen this document. As I said rather optimistic and as I said thier 2010 prediction failed as they are still transmitting 1440.
Actually I don't understand you saying there is no consumer demand for 3D. The take up at Sky is the same as HD was at the same stage. Sky have just anounced a big expansion of thier 3D service. ITV has test transmisions at the moment. By 2016 I would expect 3D to be common place.
I have recently bought a 3D camcorder and monitor and have been very suprised how good it is. The secret of good 3D is to keep the depth to a natural level.
Trevor Harris: There are several problems with 3D, which the consumer electronic industry have yet to address, which was not the case with HD as "HD" production had been going on for years and there was piles of existing content that was in HD (ie, anything on film).
Perhaps one day there will be a way of watching stereoscopic television transmissions without having to wear a silly pair of glasses, until then it is not going to catch on with the vast majority of viewers.
Another problem is that for the 3D to work, the camera-work has to be very static, which means programmes have to be produced as a separate process for 3D. Watching a 2D version of a 3D broadcast is very uninteresting from a viewers point of view, and broadcasters can't really afford to produce in 2D and 3D.
Brian, I was only talking about the new 7 frequencies stated in the report going DVB-T2 for HD. I forgot to say new frequencies in my last comment. Not that we know what channels will be broadcasted and what system will be proposed in the report.
It's a shame as we are the first country to use DVB-T2 that we are not exploiting it and making manufactures only sell the DVB-T2 spec products in the UK. Sky now only sell DVB-S2 spec boxes.
Technology moves quickly and we didn't really think how to design this generation of flat screen tv over the last few years. Products should be designed so you can upgrade them like a PC and of a modular design. The tv's and PVR's are basically computers and they get more intelligent every year, just like Smart TV's we are seeing which have more processing power.
By only changing the tuner(s) in the product swapping in and out the tuner card and not replacing the whole thing. Wouldn't that be a better way to implement things.
I know this is thinking out of the box and really something for the future. But anything is possible.
The rapid advance in technology is certainly a problem. Infact I think it would be right to say that when the switch over is complete in 2012 it will be obsolete. We need a faster way of implementing change. I was rather disappointed that mimo was not included in the Freeview HD spec. This requires a new aerial but it would double the capacity of the system.
As for 3D I understand that ITV is planning to show championship football in 3D. It remains to be seen if it will be FTV. There are alot of other events now becoming available in 3D.
I'm probably going to annoy some by saying this but while I find 3D a interesting & clever gimmick but I cannot use it for more than 15 mins without feeling sick or getting a headache, It looks very artificial or "processed" to me & I also don't like having to wear glasses to "enjoy" it. until it has vastly improved, I regard it a bit of a waste of bandwith. I would far rather see more or higher qualityHD transmissions which I regard as a far more genuine leap forward in quality & a much better use of precious bandwith (especially on dtt)
I know it's not a simple software implemation. That's because you are taking out the DVB-T hardware and replacing with DVB-T2 tuner hardware. If products were designed this way.
People are replacing and upgrade things every 3 to 5 years, not every 10-15 years when you used to buy a tv. Why not design it with the right hardware and processor to start with.
Processing power isn't really an issue these days. Not when the technology has already been used in Japan using a cell processor which is also used in a PS3 designed in 2006. Toshiba made a television in 2009 that implemented this.
I am talking about tv's in the last couple of years should all have DVB-T2 tuners built in as standard. Also building products that are upgradable and last. In the last 10 years I have upgraded 7 devices in my house.
Just remember how many devices are no longer able to be used after the switchover, i.e old ITV Digital boxes which only came out 13 years ago and many other devices.
Mark Aberfan Aerials: I think that most people I have spoken to in the industry concur that 3D (it isn't 3D, it is stereoscopic, they just call it 3D) is a gimmick being used to sell high end television sets, now that "Full HD" sets are now commodities (you can get a 40" HDTV for Ã£300 - ASDA Launches Budget 40â³ Full HD 1080p Freeview LCD TV Priced At Ã£299 - it is a commodity). The problem with stereoscopic production is that you can't make a stereoscopic programme that looks good that also looks good in normal 2D. With the upgrade to HDTV, you can make a programme in HD and show on a SD channel either later, or at the same time. But, anyway, as I have said before there is no need to "plan for 3D" as it carried in a standard HDTV frame with a flag set for televisions that can do something with it.
I do not agree that most of the industry believe that 3D is just a gimmick. Have a look at 3D News Including Virtual Reality and Other Immersive Entertainment It was 3D that persuided David Attenborough to switch to Sky with considerable success. Of course there is a commercial element to this but that is the only way of making it all happen. The amount of content is increasing rapidly we now have Blu-ray, Sky, and consumer camcorders. It is also possible to convert 2D to 3D as has been done with the Star Wars films. I think the biggest advance has been in postproduction technology. I have been using Cineforms Neo to edit my 3D and it is amaizing what can be done.
John Logie Baird demonstrated high definition colour 3D in the 1940's so it is hardly new.
You mention the side by side transmission systems. There is a better way and that is using a frame compatable based system such as MVC as used in Blu-ray 3D. The advantage of this is that it is compatable with 2D decoders so a Blu-ray 3D disc will play in a 2D on a 2D player. I tried this by making a 3D blu-ray and it worked in 2D on my very old Sony player. This system gives full HD definition for both eyes but does require a higher bitrate.
I have no doubt that by 2016 3D will be common place and so if Freeview does not keep up with the technology it is going to loose out to satellite.
We have not mentioned Super HD yet with 8k and 4k pictures. A service is already starting in Japan so I would expect that by 2016 we would have some sort of service. I have seen plans to include this on terestrial but it looks to be very limited because of the bandwidth required. Personally I cannot wait for 8k at p50 in 3D. Awesome.
Trevor Harris: Obviously you are talking to different industry people than I am.
I think the idea that David Attenborough voiced over a documentary should be regard with the "one swallow does not make a summer". Sky have a fast marketing budget and tends to like having one-offs like that.
As you rightly point out there have been many demonstrations of stereoscopic systems over the years, but they have always fallen by the wayside due to being, as I said before, one-off gimmicks by the public.
The two above formats are the ones proposed by the broadcast industry.
I actually very much doubt if "by 2016 3D will be common place", and even if it were it is carried as I have indicated in standardHD frames, with the left and right parts having half horizontal resolution.
I think your point about higher resolutions is fair, it does seem that "full HD" is quite low resolution, as computer monitors in excess of "full HD" have been around for a long time.
It is possible that improvements in computing power and the MPEG-4 encoding algorithms will allow better-than-full-HD to be carried via DVB-T2, or that DVB-T2 could be extended to carry more bits.
Took 9 months to make and more are planned. Sky has formed a new production company called Colossus Productions for producing 3D. There is a long term commitment. Currys and PC World are reporting that 20% of all televisions sold are 3D. Sky claims that half of all 3D tvs in the UK are connected to their 3D service.
This site is all about FREE television and not really for those who can afford 3D televisions and 3D camcorders and pay Sky over ¬£60 a month to get 1 3D channel.
Just because you can afford 3D doesn't mean that everyone can - especially in these difficult economic times.
You must learn to stop using marketing claims by Sky (and other vendors) as facts to support your arguments.
There are a lot of other skeptical sources (such as The Register) that do not believe what these marketing groups are saying.
There is the additional bandwidth required for 3D over 2D and until a true downward compatible 3D>HD>SD system is available it will require additional bandwidth for a relatively small customer base who actually want 3D.
Rather than quoting marketing groups, have you any independent customer analysis that supports your assertions - i.e. that 3D will be common place (whatever that may means) by 2016?
I'd just like to say that the small independent I work for sold our first 3D TV this weekend. The chap who bought it has no interest in 3D but liked the design and 2D picturequality on the TV (The exact reason we stocked it). I'm not really convinced by 3D personally, nor do I believe the sales figures being quoted by the "shed" retailers. We've not had lots of peopleasking for 3D. Let's face it, most retailers are going to tell the press they are selling lots so as not to look bad. Can you imagine an article that says Big Retailer Inc are selling 20%, but One Man Band Ltd haven't sold any?
Sorry Peter I did not mean this to become a discusion about 3D. My original point was that some of the extra space on freeview would be allocated to 3D.
Of course the distinction between so called "Free" television and pay TV is rather achademic. For BBC we have to pay a yearly fee and with ITV we pay with higher prices in the shops. As Bevin once said if you want a free National Health Service you have to pay for it.
Steve. Companies have to be very carefull about publishing sales figures as they could be construde as miss leading share holders which is a very serious offence.
I sincerely hope that the extra capacity on Freeview is not wasted on 3D. Of all the new developments that have come along recently 3D is by far the biggest waste of time and effort. Watching a 3D TV reminds me of those old children's toy play theatres that used characters on flat card. If you imagine a flat piece of card with a character on it and then another character on another flat piece of card placed behind it that is what 3DTV looks like - a series of flat planes with no depth to individual characters. As Brian says above, it is not 3D it is stereoscopic, a principle that has been around as long as photography and stereoscopy is only an illusion of depth to a scene. That is why the human eye and brain do not like it, normally the eye scans a scene and focuses separately on near and then far objects - it cannot do this with 3DTV or 3D cinema - the image is still on a flat plane - the TV screen - and the eye is attempting to focus beyond that plane, hence the headaches and other medical symptoms that manufacturers of 3DTVs warn about in their instruction booklets.
Additional HD services is the more likely result of the extra capacity and that can only be a good thing.
This new extra capacity should NOT be adding 35 HD extra channels for some viewers
but by making some of the selected array channels into national channels.
E.g. IVT3, ITV4, Film4 et cetera being transmitted from a new multiplex from all transmitters.
If you disagree with me then just close down all transmitters apart from Crystal Palace and transmit millions of channels that transmitter only.
briantist, your knowledge of moore's law is very poor. What it says is that the number of transistors doubles every 2 years. This is processing power, it has nothing to do with cost of the processor nor encoding quality.
The way the bbc increases the quality of mpeg4 over time is by implementing more of the mpeg4 spec which was created many years ago, this is very time consuming to do to maximise quality of the video by having the pixels analyse those around them and countless other techniques which take years to fully implement. New encoders are released with more and more of the specification completed, a bit like firefox adding more of the html5 specification.
The bbc will be able to increase the quality of video with the same bitrate a little over time but not by an enormous amount, the bbc is lying by saying they can fit 5 hd channels on the mux and there be no difference in quality. The same as when they dropped the bitrate from 16mbps on satellite to around 9 and said as a result of new encoders there was no difference in quality, this was a lie, screenshots of the same tv shows prove it.
btw 12% of brits can't see 3d and get headaches as a result, this is because their brains can't see 2 seperate images. One of the countless reasons why 3d is just a gimmick.
I'd rather we keep 4 hd channels on the mux and wait until another mux is opened until more hd channels come on freeview hd otherwise the quality will be way worse than it is now. Freesat hd is around 8mbps average, freeview hd is around 6.4mbps average so the quality is way worse as it is.
sam potts: Thank you for your comment. I suspect you need to do some reading up, as the "computing power doubles every 18 months at the same cost" is a typical industry usage of Moore's Law, and not just the now meaningless "transistors on a chip" version.
Sam I agree that the number of HD channels per multiplex should be kept at 4. Unfortunatly this is Ofcom. They reduced the bitrate of DAB dispite a public consultation which showed that most people did not want a reduction in sound quality.
I don't agree about 3D though. 8% of males and 0.5% of females are colour blind but that does not mean we should not have colour television.
As for headaches there has been some scientific study. This study looks at visual comfort:
In view of the Satellite transponder cutbacks I wonder if the BBC will be able to afford any of the new freeview multiplexes in 2016. My guess is they will not bid for any of them without a substancial increase in licence fee.
Trevor Harris: If Ofcom DO offer C37 for public service broadcasting as a SFN, then the BBC adding this to 80 existing sites, as appears to be the plan, the additional costs will be quite marginal. Another effect of the new Astra capacity being taken by ITV is there will be room for another BBC stream on Astra 2D transponder 50. Looking to the Olympics next year, the BBC has already said that BBC three will be used 24/7 for the Olympics (and BBC Parliament will close for the duration). I rather suspect that BBC HD will become BBC TWOHD and the third slot become BBC three HD so there will be three HD channels for the Olympics at the very least. BBC three has also just won "Digital Channel of the Year" - The Press Association: Stars see Sherlock pick up TV gong . I also suspect that, at least for the Olympics, BBC three HD will be put onto the BBCB multiplex, in the place where Channel 5 HD will go at the end of the year.
With inflation running so high and the licence fee fixed I cannot see how the BBC can afford any expansion without cutting else where. If the BBC do take a channel on C37 they would also have to take a satellite channel.
I have always felt that it would be better for BBC HD to be BBC 2 HD. I don't watch BBC3 ( too old) so I would have prefered BBC 4 to go HD first. The BBC certainly need more HD channels for the Olympics. At least Eurosport will be able to provide some extra coverage.
I should say I don't watch BBC very much because most of it is either repeats or trash television. One thing I did watch is F1 but I will be watching it on Sky next season. Even the BBC news has been very poor recently. Sky News coverage of Libya has been exceptional and some of it in HD. So I don't see why I should have to pay the licence fee to support the BBC executives lifstyle.
Squeezing another HD channel on BBCB is also bad news.
George Buchanan: It's not really offensive, just inaccurate, "gobbledegook" means "jargon", not "foreign".
It reminds me of when I was in Athens looking at the ancient amphitheatre and some loud-mouthed American was going on about "decoding" the wording - it wasn't encoded information, it was just Ancient Greek and required either reading or translation.
I get high signal strength and quality on all digital channels except channel 42 ( most ITV stations,4,5 and all other stations within Channel 42) On Channel 42 stations I rarely get any picture except when the weather is bad with low pressure prevailing and even then the picture quality is not reliable.
The analogue stations are not affected.
My Post Code is CT14 8HG. Why are Channel 42 stations the only ones affected in this way.?