Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Further to all the discussion in this thread about HD, it would occur to me that what would be really cool is to see an 'Also in HD' overlay on an SD channel when the programme is being simulcast in HD. Hitting that colour (hey, use blue) and it'll pop over to the BBC HD channel. Neat. I don't think Sky allow you to switch TV channels using MHEG, which is a shame, so I guess I'll never get to see that on my box... J
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 13/04/2008, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further to all the discussion in this thread about HD, it would occur to me that what would be really cool is to see an 'Also in HD' overlay on an SD channel when the programme is being simulcast in HD. Hitting that colour (hey, use blue) and it'll pop over to the BBC HD channel. Neat. This would be acceptable, but it would be annoying if the same thing did not happen automatically when using a PVR. IMHO. I don't think Sky allow you to switch TV channels using MHEG, which is a shame, so I guess I'll never get to see that on my box... Hate to be picky, but Sky use OpenTV, not MHEG. J -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
I'll really pleased to hear that there is a good chance that the text and interactive services on Freesat are going to be HD. The HD abilities of the MHEG profile on Freesat are rather nice. But we won't be using them yet. I'm wondering if they will be animated, like little vignets from the 3D view, that would be good. I'm guessing we can't have PROPER 3D weather maps that you can controll Google Earth style with the Freesat remote... RD did a concept demo using MHEG a couple of years ago, playing out through a Freeview box. It's not quite Google Earth style in that was more scrolling between different regions (press UP on the Midlands map to go to the North England map, and it scrolls through it). Technically it's not that difficult - you tile a series of mpeg stills up on the set top box. Even zooming in would be do-able. Would anyone use it is the question - which is an important question in a bandwidth contstrained enviroment. As a member of the Weather production team tells me, most people look at the weather for their locale only and don't care about anywhere else. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Yes, there is always a certain problem with the need to provide local and regional data from a satellite that covers the whole of the EU! I would personally welcome the effort of putting a zoomable, animated weather system on Freesat. It would be a very BBC thing to do, of course, a combination of a technical trial and public service. It seems to me it might be worth giving it a go for until Xmas, and drop it if people hate it. Unfortunately the project plan of work is extremely big and with some very tight deadlines. If the team had chance to do more fun stuff like that, we'd all be up for it because we're all very keen to push the limits and move the technology forward as much as we can. Alas it won't be for now. As a response to the Weather production team: their locale only isn't necessarily just one place. Many people commute long distances, or have family and friends around the country. It's not, as I am also sure they say in weather production, cut and dry. Ah well, as some of my colleagues in Nations and Regions are very keen on saying most activities and purchases take place within a dozen miles from home. The average commute is 13 miles, and that's about the furthest people tend to go (see Average distance normally travelled for various purposes in http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/documents/publications/NS-BBC-submission/ ns-bbc-submission.htm for example - it is from 2003 but I doubt has changed much) As the current BBCi weather maps cover very large areas (we split the UK into seven) chances are, very few people are regularly needing the option to move onto another weather map.
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? // BBC 7i?
Currently the service broadcasts blocks of comedy and science fiction (7th Dimension), as well as children's (CBeebies) and drama. It would be nice if these blocks could be rebroadcast all day in an interactive loop, so you could come to BBC 7 during the CBeebies block, press RED and switch to the comedy, Scifi or whatever... probably a rights nightmare, but it would be great to just have somewhere to get some comedy at any time of the day. When BBC7 first launched, they had serious rights problems - the range of programmes they could broadcast on air was highly limited, and what could go online was far less. Took them about a year to sort it out IIRC - both to get stuff online and get lots more from the archive available. Because they went through that serious pain then, they may well have done it in a way that would hopefully avoid such pain in the future. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Ah well, as some of my colleagues in Nations and Regions are very keen on saying most activities and purchases take place within a dozen miles from home. The average commute is 13 miles, and that's about the furthest people tend to go (see Average distance normally travelled for various purposes in http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/documents/publications/NS-BBC-submission/ ns-bbc-submission.htm for example - it is from 2003 but I doubt has changed much) Ah, that wonderful word most is, and what a mass of sins the word average covers. I'm wondering if this is a mean, normal or 2-standard-deviation average already... I should hope it's mean average, as many years of studying maths (including some statistics at degree level), it was always, if it don't say, it be mean. But who knows. This article claims that the average commute is just 8.7miles (which is 14km...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7009776.stm Ah, old BBC News website. How I will miss you and your nice narrower pages... (and only 74 validation errors ;)
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 1 02 BBC (your nation) Two HD. Actually, Freesat boxes are ultimately under the control of Freesat (UK) TV, which is a joint venture between BBC and ITV plc - subtle difference ;) Perhaps most importantly though, the specification for launch was made months ago, because people do need something in order to make the boxes. I have no idea if such functionality is included - but if it's not, it won't get there quickly. I have a Freesat connection in that I'm working on the BBCi version of Freesat (I should be deciding on weather map designs right now - whoops!) After all the bleeting in the press about the feels like temperatures, there does seem to be a rationale to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/03/feels_like.html I'll really pleased to hear that there is a good chance that the text and interactive services on Freesat are going to be HD. I'm wondering if they will be animated, like little vignets from the 3D view, that would be good. I'm guessing we can't have PROPER 3D weather maps that you can controll Google Earth style with the Freesat remote... Personally, I still don't like the prediction of clouds being so translucent, but everyone else seems to have got to grips with it. -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, *Steve Jolly* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're underestimating the difficulties. And ignoring the costs. :-) Bear in mind that you can't make any changes that would break the millions of installed Sky STBs. As I pointed out before, it would only be the Sky HD boxes that would need reprogramming. The Freesat boxes have not been released yet, so they can be fixed. Getting Sky to reprogramme their HD boxes to make life easier for a competing service sounds like a bit of a challenge by itself to me. But the point I was trying to make was that the existing MPEG-2 SD services and all their associated SI and interactive content will have to be broadcast for as long as there are substantial numbers of Sky SD boxes in use, *and* that any changes to the signalling on the multiplexes that carry them will have to be designed and then proven not to cause Sky boxes to do strange things. (This was one of the more obvious design challenges for Freesat, obviously.) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, *Steve Jolly* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're underestimating the difficulties. And ignoring the costs. :-) Bear in mind that you can't make any changes that would break the millions of installed Sky STBs. As I pointed out before, it would only be the Sky HD boxes that would need reprogramming. The Freesat boxes have not been released yet, so they can be fixed. Getting Sky to reprogramme their HD boxes to make life easier for a competing service sounds like a bit of a challenge by itself to me. I agree. But if this is the reason for having a separate BBC HD channel, it's not really a well defended one. However, I note that Sky is planning to totally overhaul the EPG on teh HD boxes, so perhaps they can. But the point I was trying to make was that the existing MPEG-2 SD services and all their associated SI and interactive content will have to be broadcast for as long as there are substantial numbers of Sky SD boxes in use, *and* that any changes to the signalling on the multiplexes that carry them will have to be designed and then proven not to cause Sky boxes to do strange things. (This was one of the more obvious design challenges for Freesat, obviously.) Yes, that was my assumption that the SD services will continue for the future. Let me see if I can explain a little better what I am saying. Here is the BBC Trust's approved plan for the HD channel. The proposal is that the HD channel shows the content from different BBC channels. This is, in effect, getting the consumer to type 143 into their Sky HD box at the appropriate time. As we know, the higher in the EPG a channel is the more it gets watched. All my proposal is that says is 'let the computer (ie set-top box)' do the 143ing for you. The problem is echoed in the listing problem that BBCi has. The BBC Sport on BBCi has a full, published schedule at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/search/daylist.cgi?service_id=10001day=Today Is this listed in ANY newspaper? It's not even in the Radio Times. So, it seems unlikely that the HD channel will get good listings, and therefore no promotion. Let's assume that there is going to be a single transponder used for BBC HD. Instead of just having a single stream of BBC HD, it has six streams that usually occupy 3Mb/s each, leaving plenty for one of the streams to be in HD at full bitrate. CBBC/BBC THREE, CBeebies/BBC FOUR, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament are national channels. Therefore these can be swapped in HD boxes to occupy the usual channel numbers as replacement services. The SD originals could be shunted into the 9XX range, if required. So, that just leaves BBC Two and BBC One. BBC Two has four version with BBC Two England being the feeder. So, both the Freesat and Sky HD boxes would need to be able to cope with regional splits - this would require them to see a data signal and change to the SD stream you listed. This should be reasonably easy as the opt-outs are infrequent and long. But BBC One is a problem, I agree. The opt-outs are short and frequent. I'm guessing that you might just need a black-frame or a freeze frame in the original source to give the reciever time to switch transponders, but it certainly is possible, and desirable. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 1 02 BBC (your nation) Two HD. Actually, Freesat boxes are ultimately under the control of Freesat (UK) TV, which is a joint venture between BBC and ITV plc - subtle difference ;) Perhaps most importantly though, the specification for launch was made months ago, because people do need something in order to make the boxes. I have no idea if such functionality is included - but if it's not, it won't get there quickly. I suspect that there is a closer working between Freesat (UK) TV and the BBC than there is between Auntie and BSkyB. I *hope* so. There is. When you've got the award winning BBC Research and Innovation department available with all their skills, you'd want to use them. What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires just a bit more thinking about and configuration. Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of thing, but it is an ask. Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio channels etc) Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. Besides that. The point is that all of that is pre-configured. CBBC and CBeebies always go off air at a set time close to 7pm. It's fixed - has been fixed years in advance. A system makes the swap and the bandwidth goes to BBC Three and BBC Four (there's even a nice patch of black whilst the swap happens). The times are fixed, the stat-mux bandwidth pot is fixed, the screen resolution is fixed, the transmission format is fixed. It's all known quanitities and fixed. What you're suggesting is an unknown quantity and an enviroment where such things are not quite as fixed. Hey, even the broadcast transponder in your scenario wouldn't be fixed, because BBC One/Two/Three/Four are all on different tranponders to BBC HD. Also, there are additional audio channels that come on and off (for Audio Description and multilingual options). Unless I'm very much mistaken, always using pre-configured audio tracks - they just play out default audio when not in use. Hmm.. I've watched BBC channels from the south Greek islands. It works well doesn't it, the old 2D thing? No one would ever claim it is perfect. Merely it is fit enough for the purpose required of it. The further you go away from Britain the bigger the dish you need. The bigger the dish you need, the less likely someone is to have it. And then there's the film right owners, imported programming etc and so on. Yes, the EU directive is clear about all these - they ARE allowed on satellite. And does it say they have to be in the clear?
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Just to backup the point about the need for simplicity in the HD offer... http://www.betanews.com/article/Analysts_US_consumers_like_HDTVs_better_than_HD_programming/1206484078 *Fully 41 percent of TV owners in the US now possess a high definition TV, yet only 56 percent of those same consumers subscribe to an HD programming package, according to a new survey by ABI Research.*
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
As I pointed out before, it would only be the Sky HD boxes that would need reprogramming. The Freesat boxes have not been released yet, so they can be fixed. Getting Sky to re-programme their set top boxes just to suit the BBC is highly unlikely to happen. To be frank, it's probably far cheaper for them to keep simulcasting the way they do. If I was them, all I'd do would be to decide down the line to do something clever so that Sky One HD and Sky One use the same EPG number but have different video streams. For Freesat, as I mentioned, the spec has been decided. As I didn't mention, boxes are close to production. If you were saying this 12 months ago, I'd say maybe. Now I say, if the spec hasn't been built to include this, no chance on earth. And I'm sure several people from box manufacturers would be nodding their head with that. Another thing occurred to me... the Freesat boxes (BBC/ITV Freesat UK, not fSfS) will need to get the user to set up their BBC and ITV regions on 101/103, so there is less of an issue here, as the boxes will default to London and England anyway. I have yet to see a box, however I have been told that setting region is part of the box installation process. As such, the default would only happen if the user does not install their set top box correctly. Incidentally on Sky, ITV do not default to London. They default to ITV1 Central West for some reason. But then, why not default to somewhere else other than London?
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 1 02 BBC (your nation) Two HD. Actually, Freesat boxes are ultimately under the control of Freesat (UK) TV, which is a joint venture between BBC and ITV plc - subtle difference ;) Perhaps most importantly though, the specification for launch was made months ago, because people do need something in order to make the boxes. I have no idea if such functionality is included - but if it's not, it won't get there quickly. I suspect that there is a closer working between Freesat (UK) TV and the BBC than there is between Auntie and BSkyB. I *hope* so. There is. When you've got the award winning BBC Research and Innovation department available with all their skills, you'd want to use them. I'm pleased to hear it. BBC RD have done excellent work over the years. What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires just a bit more thinking about and configuration. Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of thing, but it is an ask. Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio channels etc) Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. Besides that. The point is that all of that is pre-configured. CBBC and CBeebies always go off air at a set time close to 7pm. It's fixed - has been fixed years in advance. A system makes the swap and the bandwidth goes to BBC Three and BBC Four (there's even a nice patch of black whilst the swap happens). The times are fixed, the stat-mux bandwidth pot is fixed, the screen resolution is fixed, the transmission format is fixed. It's all known quanitities and fixed. What you're suggesting is an unknown quantity and an enviroment where such things are not quite as fixed. Hey, even the broadcast transponder in your scenario wouldn't be fixed, because BBC One/Two/Three/Four are all on different tranponders to BBC HD. In fact I am saying DO NOT change the existing SD transmissions one single jot. I was just illustrating that channels are not on fixed bandwidth 24/7 Also, there are additional audio channels that come on and off (for Audio Description and multilingual options). Unless I'm very much mistaken, always using pre-configured audio tracks - they just play out default audio when not in use. Is that to say that the boxes switch back to Audio 0 when there is nothing on the AD track, or that the AD tracks are fed with the standard stereo content? Hmm.. I've watched BBC channels from the south Greek islands. It works well doesn't it, the old 2D thing? No one would ever claim it is perfect. Merely it is fit enough for the purpose required of it. The further you go away from Britain the bigger the dish you need. The bigger the dish you need, the less likely someone is to have it. And then there's the film right owners, imported programming etc and so on. Yes, the EU directive is clear about all these - they ARE allowed on satellite. And does it say they have to be in the clear? Yes! That exactly what it says! -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I pointed out before, it would only be the Sky HD boxes that would need reprogramming. The Freesat boxes have not been released yet, so they can be fixed. Getting Sky to re-programme their set top boxes just to suit the BBC is highly unlikely to happen. To be frank, it's probably far cheaper for them to keep simulcasting the way they do. If I was them, all I'd do would be to decide down the line to do something clever so that Sky One HD and Sky One use the same EPG number but have different video streams. I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch the SD version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. And if I can't watch HD then I have no interest in a channel that puts up a message like this: Two reasons. 1) It basically says Do not press this button again! and 2) The number to call is SKY! For Freesat, as I mentioned, the spec has been decided. As I didn't mention, boxes are close to production. If you were saying this 12 months ago, I'd say maybe. Now I say, if the spec hasn't been built to include this, no chance on earth. Sadly, I have been going about this for about a decade! And I'm sure several people from box manufacturers would be nodding their head with that. Perhaps. However, I understood these boxes will come with software that can be updated. Another thing occurred to me... the Freesat boxes (BBC/ITV Freesat UK, not fSfS) will need to get the user to set up their BBC and ITV regions on 101/103, so there is less of an issue here, as the boxes will default to London and England anyway. I have yet to see a box, however I have been told that setting region is part of the box installation process. As such, the default would only happen if the user does not install their set top box correctly. And I guess the BBC HD channel will probably be on 106, not 143. Incidentally on Sky, ITV do not default to London. They default to ITV1 Central West for some reason. But then, why not default to somewhere else other than London? The box I have here went to BBC London. I guess you pick the most populated region as a default! Of course that's going to be ITV1 Granada and Central later this year... -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, always using pre-configured audio tracks - they just play out default audio when not in use. Is that to say that the boxes switch back to Audio 0 when there is nothing on the AD track, or that the AD tracks are fed with the standard stereo content? On satellite the AD tracks are just fed with the standard content with the AD overlaid on. This means every Sky box has audio description because it's just a different audio track. Freeview is configured differently, and the AD is sent as a seperate audio track which the box mixes with the standard audio track. This means you need a special set top box to get Freeview AD because most boxes can't mix two audio tracks.
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch the SD version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. I don't know exactly how the Sky system works, but perhaps you want to record it in SD to watch it on a TV which doesn't support HD? Paul -- Paul Waring http://www.pwaring.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Let's assume that there is going to be a single transponder used for BBC HD. Instead of just having a single stream of BBC HD, it has six streams that usually occupy 3Mb/s each, leaving plenty for one of the streams to be in HD at full bitrate. To take just this paragraph as an example: nice idea, doesn't work in practice. Firstly, statmuxing a single HD h.264 service and a bunch of MPEG-2 SD channels performs poorly. (It's like putting chickens and hippos in the same pen - when a hippo wants a bit more space, the chickens tend to suffer.) Secondly, five 3Mb/s streams in a 22Mb/s multiplex leaves 7Mb/s, which is too little for an HD video stream, let alone all the SI and six channels' worth of audio and data. You can't increase the capacity of the multiplex, because you need to keep backwards compatibility with the existing Sky boxes. Thirdly, 3Mb/s is too low an estimate - none of the BBC's main channels average that on DSAT at the moment, so you're talking about a significant loss of quality for the non-HD majority of the viewing population. And so on. The problem with your idea is that it consists entirely of problems. The simplest of which is that it would be comparable in complexity to digital switchover and cost an absolute fortune. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
And I'm sure several people from box manufacturers would be nodding their head with that. Perhaps. However, I understood these boxes will come with software that can be updated. Yep. But can the hardware do what the software wants it to do?
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Paul Waring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch the SD version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. I don't know exactly how the Sky system works, but perhaps you want to record it in SD to watch it on a TV which doesn't support HD? I can't see the logic in that. If you have a HD box, you can replay the HD content as SD. But why would you buy a HD box if you can't watch HD? Paul -- Paul Waring http://www.pwaring.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm sure several people from box manufacturers would be nodding their head with that. Perhaps. However, I understood these boxes will come with software that can be updated. Yep. But can the hardware do what the software wants it to do? They seem to manage it OK when using systems like BBCi which can change transponder in the middle of a session! All the OpenTV apps can do this... perhaps MHEG5 isn't up to it? -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They seem to manage it OK when using systems like BBCi which can change transponder in the middle of a session! All the OpenTV apps can do this... perhaps MHEG5 isn't up to it? It works, although we hide the transision which is not particularly neat. The video/audio cut out or freeze/restart and so on. Instead the user sees a nice static picture. MHEG can do the same - we do do the same on DTT but without the pretty picture - we do lock screens to cover up messiness if we can. However it's not like for like. And it's not about OpenTV or MHEG. It's about a video stream reconfiguring mid broadcast. That's a different can of worms. I really do appreciate this, and that it might be a little tricky to do! You would, I would guess have to force the SD channels into a I-frames mode (perhaps with a static caption) when you make the switch. It is not like it has to happen every 20 minutes (as ITV1 would require) to do adverts, so it would only have to happen at 6:28, 6:58, 7:28, 7:58, 8:28, 8:58, 13:30, 15:28, 18:30, 19:59 and 22:25. If Breakfast isn't in HD, then it could just be a full time swap to the regional SD feed from 6am-9am, which just leaves the news inserts at 13:30, 15:28, 18:30, 19:59 and 22:25. The 19:59 would be the tricky one! But six redirects a day can't be beyond the BBC! The problem is that there has to be a long-term plan anyway. Whilst the SD broadcasts remain, it would seem sensible to use them as a backup feed for a HD service (to me). When the SD regional broadcasts are removed, they will need HD replacements anyway, and given that the regions are not going to go HD anytime soon, the BBC isn't going to want to carry 17 HD BBC ONE streams, is it? I just think that the only way the HD upgrade plan can really be a success is to make room for the whole lot to go HD, as soon as possible. A single HD channel is clearly not the way ahead, and so we can't really avoid the problem of the need for BBC ONE HD within the medium term, and something is going to have to be done to regionalise it by then anyway. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 27/03/2008, Paul Waring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch the SD version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. I don't know exactly how the Sky system works, but perhaps you want to record it in SD to watch it on a TV which doesn't support HD? I can't see the logic in that. If you have a HD box, you can replay the HD content as SD. But why would you buy a HD box if you can't watch HD? I do it fairly regularly. If you are short on disk space there is no point recording an upscaled SD programme as HD. Granted if the broadcaster using a Snell and Wilcox box to do the deinterlace/upscale/reinterlace then it should look much better than the same process done by the budget chipset in the Sky HD receiver - or even the better chips (Faroujda etc.) you get in screens and AV receivers these days. I'd rather not be forced into recording and watching in 1080i, 576i deinterlaced to 576p looks better on my system than 576i upscaled to 1080i. So I'd rather do that and save the disk space. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ * 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: I can't see the logic in that. If you have a HD box, you can replay the HD content as SD. But why would you buy a HD box if you can't watch HD? Perhaps you're recording a programme for someone who doesn't have a HD box (family, friend etc.)? I presume HD also takes up more space if recorded onto disk. Paul -- Paul Waring http://www.pwaring.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 27/03/2008, Gareth Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: On 27/03/2008, Paul Waring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch the SD version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. I don't know exactly how the Sky system works, but perhaps you want to record it in SD to watch it on a TV which doesn't support HD? I can't see the logic in that. If you have a HD box, you can replay the HD content as SD. But why would you buy a HD box if you can't watch HD? I do it fairly regularly. If you are short on disk space there is no point recording an upscaled SD programme as HD. Granted if the broadcaster using a Snell and Wilcox box to do the deinterlace/upscale/reinterlace then it should look much better than the same process done by the budget chipset in the Sky HD receiver - or even the better chips (Faroujda etc.) you get in screens and AV receivers these days. I'd rather not be forced into recording and watching in 1080i, 576i deinterlaced to 576p looks better on my system than 576i upscaled to 1080i. So I'd rather do that and save the disk space. Why would the BBC broadcast upscaled programming? That would be awful. -- *Gareth Davis* | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division 8 http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ + 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH ** -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Freesat will have a mixture of HD and SD channels (exact lineup still to be announced). The BBC will be using the same physical video streams that are used on the Sky platform, so the only HD channel from the BBC will continue to be BBC HD. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 26 March 2008 09:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? Seems a reasonable marketing proposition (like Freeview but HD) than the alternative (like Freeview if you can't get Freeview). So, does this mean there's going to be all the BBC channels in full-time HD, rather than the 9-hour simulcast service?
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? The Freesat website implies that HD programming will be broadcast in addition to SD. http://www.freesat.co.uk/what_is_it.php S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Thanks. I know what's on the website, my understanding is that the proposition has changed from a Freeview where you can't get it to a HD service. Obviously the service will be able to receive the MPEG2 services from the 23.2 east position, but my understanding is that the box spec will have HDMI, without the digital to analogue output on a SCART. Can't see how this would help for those areas that can't get Freeview and don't have a HDMI slot. On 26/03/2008, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? The Freesat website implies that HD programming will be broadcast in addition to SD. http://www.freesat.co.uk/what_is_it.php S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Details of the set top boxes have not been announced yet, however there will be different kinds of set top boxes, with different capabilities. Freesat's own website proclaims on the matter says: If you haven't yet got an HD-ready television you can still be prepared for the future by getting a freesat HD digital box. With a freesat HD digital box you can still view HD programmes on your standard definition television but the content will be scaled down to standard definition. If you buy a freesat standard definition box you will not be able to view HD programmes even if you have an HD-ready television. http://www.freesat.co.uk/help.php From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 26 March 2008 13:35 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? Thanks. I know what's on the website, my understanding is that the proposition has changed from a Freeview where you can't get it to a HD service. Obviously the service will be able to receive the MPEG2 services from the 23.2 east position, but my understanding is that the box spec will have HDMI, without the digital to analogue output on a SCART. Can't see how this would help for those areas that can't get Freeview and don't have a HDMI slot. On 26/03/2008, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? The Freesat website implies that HD programming will be broadcast in addition to SD. http://www.freesat.co.uk/what_is_it.php S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freesat will have a mixture of HD and SD channels (exact lineup still to be announced). The BBC will be using the same physical video streams that are used on the Sky platform, so the only HD channel from the BBC will continue to be BBC HD. I still can't help thinking that this is a terrible idea. The BBC has a massive investment in the BBC+number brands. BBC One has been around for 44 years with that name and nearly 75 years as a channel. BBC Two has had been on air for 44 years. Even BBC Four is now six, BBC three is five. Historicially, BBC One has gone from low-res VHF mono transmissions, to colour UHF ones, then in stereo and then digitally. BBC Two started out in colour UHF, and has transitioned to digital. BBC three, Four, CBBC and CBeebies have all been digital only. News 24 and Parliament started on analogue cable systems. So, now, instead of these channels transforming into digital channels - something every consumer can understand - some of the programmes will be in HD, but you will need to actually leave the well-understood branded BBC channels for a HD service that has no defined programming remit, other than to simulcast programmes from the other channels. This is a terrible proposition to put in front of the public. Why buy a HDTV (if you don't have one) if you only get a damp squib of a BBC channel. ITV plans to make ITV1 in HD, Channel 4 is doing (already) C4HD, five will do HD. Even Sky has HD versions of the existing channels. Please Auntie, stop this nonsense! I understand it's hard to put the regional/national inserts into HD versions of the channels, but the current HDTV service looks as awful as the idea of UK Today that used to go out on satellite: something to please everyone that pleases nobody. -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 26 March 2008 09:30 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? Seems a reasonable marketing proposition (like Freeview but HD) than the alternative (like Freeview if you can't get Freeview). So, does this mean there's going to be all the BBC channels in full-time HD, rather than the 9-hour simulcast service? -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
The decision ultimately rested with the BBC Trust as part of the Public Value Test. Their conclusions on content were: 3.32 There was considerable support from respondents for our provisional conclusion that the BBC HD channel should aim always to show programmes which most benefit from the HD uplift, rather than simply simulcast BBC One during peak time. We acknowledged in our provisional conclusions that, in practice, many of the BBC One programmes will represent the best use of HD capacity. But simulcasting BBC One at prime time could result in the peak-time transmission on the HD channel of programmes which benefit less from HD than programmes from other BBC channels that might have higher HD value. 3.33 The BBC Executive has told us that where possible, the core peak-time 'spine' of BBC One's high impact, modern, popular content would be complemented by high quality HD content from across other channels and the archive. We recognised the need for the channel to offer a coherent schedule comprising a mixture of genres. But we reiterate that the channel should aim to schedule the programmes from across the BBC's portfolio of channels which would play most effectively to the benefits of HD. Prime-time scheduling should not be guided solely by the motivation to simulcast BBC One. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/hdtv/pvt_final_co nclusions.pdf That's the decision the BBC management have to work to. At this time, when there is limited HD content available in the archives (BBC HD isn't exactly brimming with new programmes at the moment) and not all programming is being made in HD, then it's argurable that the costs of a second (and potentially third and fourth) channel aren't worthwhile. However if HD takes off - as most people expect it will - will BBC HD be the only channel in the long term? Personally my view is that ultimately BBC HD will turn into BBC One HD, and will be coupled with BBC Two HD and so on. Now someone just has to make the space on the satellites for all these channels. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 26 March 2008 13:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freesat will have a mixture of HD and SD channels (exact lineup still to be announced). The BBC will be using the same physical video streams that are used on the Sky platform, so the only HD channel from the BBC will continue to be BBC HD. I still can't help thinking that this is a terrible idea. The BBC has a massive investment in the BBC+number brands. BBC One has been around for 44 years with that name and nearly 75 years as a channel. BBC Two has had been on air for 44 years. Even BBC Four is now six, BBC three is five. Historicially, BBC One has gone from low-res VHF mono transmissions, to colour UHF ones, then in stereo and then digitally. BBC Two started out in colour UHF, and has transitioned to digital. BBC three, Four, CBBC and CBeebies have all been digital only. News 24 and Parliament started on analogue cable systems. So, now, instead of these channels transforming into digital channels - something every consumer can understand - some of the programmes will be in HD, but you will need to actually leave the well-understood branded BBC channels for a HD service that has no defined programming remit, other than to simulcast programmes from the other channels. This is a terrible proposition to put in front of the public. Why buy a HDTV (if you don't have one) if you only get a damp squib of a BBC channel. ITV plans to make ITV1 in HD, Channel 4 is doing (already) C4HD, five will do HD. Even Sky has HD versions of the existing channels. Please Auntie, stop this nonsense! I understand it's hard to put the regional/national inserts into HD versions of the channels, but the current HDTV service looks as awful as the idea of UK Today that used to go out on satellite: something to please everyone that pleases nobody. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 26 March 2008 09:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? Seems a reasonable marketing proposition (like Freeview but HD) than
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freesat will have a mixture of HD and SD channels (exact lineup still to be announced). The BBC will be using the same physical video streams that are used on the Sky platform, so the only HD channel from the BBC will continue to be BBC HD. I still can't help thinking that this is a terrible idea. The BBC has a massive investment in the BBC+number brands. BBC One has been around for 44 years with that name and nearly 75 years as a channel. BBC Two has had been on air for 44 years. Even BBC Four is now six, BBC three is five. Historicially, BBC One has gone from low-res VHF mono transmissions, to colour UHF ones, then in stereo and then digitally. BBC Two started out in colour UHF, and has transitioned to digital. BBC three, Four, CBBC and CBeebies have all been digital only. News 24 and Parliament started on analogue cable systems. So, now, instead of these channels transforming into digital channels - something every consumer can understand - some of the programmes will be in HD, but you will need to actually leave the well-understood branded BBC channels for a HD service that has no defined programming remit, other than to simulcast programmes from the other channels. This is a terrible proposition to put in front of the public. Why buy a HDTV (if you don't have one) if you only get a damp squib of a BBC channel. ITV plans to make ITV1 in HD, Channel 4 is doing (already) C4HD, five will do HD. Even Sky has HD versions of the existing channels. Please Auntie, stop this nonsense! I understand it's hard to put the regional/national inserts into HD versions of the channels, but the current HDTV service looks as awful as the idea of UK Today that used to go out on satellite: something to please everyone that pleases nobody. I would have to totally disagree with the above, as i prefer to know that every programme on a HD channel is in HD. No broadcaster is able to tguarantee his, so what is the point of having a 50+% of channels on this channel in poor quality yet using valuable bandwidth. Of course when everyone has started creating HD content then this will be a different matter and i'm sure BBC will switch to broadcasting all channels in HD. I'm not saying what *I* want. I'm saying what the consumer will understand. I understand that the BBC is committed to moving to having everything in HD in the end, so the HD channel can be nothing other than a stop-gap. Also, the BBC has channel controllers, and channel service licences that provide the public service remit. Having a sideways HD channel will just confuse the consumer, as they KNOW the BBC television services. I also want HD service to carry HD programming all the time, but I would still prefer to have, when I get a Freesat box, to have all my current services with the programming in HD wherever possible. Yes, the BBC HD service looks great as a demo in some high street stores, but it is a terrible proposition for the public. I can't find a single example of a service like this 63-hour a week HD service when the BBC broadcasts ~1008 hours a week of television. Think about listing mags. If you want to get people into HD, you need to have HIGH DEFINITION printed by programmes (in the way they were once labelled with colour or stereo) in the TV listings in the RT, newspapers and online. Creating a wall between HD people and everyone else is just another digital divide, which I though Auntie doesn't approve of. -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 26 March 2008 09:30 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only? Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? Seems a reasonable marketing proposition (like Freeview but HD) than the alternative (like Freeview if you can't get Freeview). So, does this mean there's going to be all the BBC channels in full-time HD, rather than the 9-hour simulcast service? -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It still would be better to have four TV streams that are BBC ONE HD, BBC TWO HD, BBC THREE/CBBC HD, BBC FOUR/CBeebie HD which can get the full MPEG4 capacity at the simulcast point and then revert to standard (720x576i) mode for the rest of the time. This would cost no more than providing the single HDTV channel (no extra capacity) but would be easier to understand. That does assume that no two (or three) BBC channels would be showing HD programming at the same time. Probably true at the minute, but not forever. But this is the proposal at the moment, to simulcast from one channel at once. Yes, some special software would be required to jump to the BBC nations and regions, but nothing is impossible. I'm no expert, but I know that whilst nothing is impossible, when it comes to set top boxes, things that appear to be possible, often aren't without a huge amount of work. Given that the cost of the bandwidth - the satellite transponders - is large (needs rockets to launch) and the costs of software changes smaller, I would go for the latter. What I am saying is that what should happen is: Sky standard boxes: no changes required as they cannot receive HD services. Sky HD boxes: 101 is BBC (London) One HD, 102 BBC Two (England) HD, 115 BBC three HD, 116 BBC FOUR HD, 614 CBeebies HD, 613 CBBC HD, 503 BBC News 24 HD, 504 BBC Parliament HD. If Sky will sort it, the HD boxes could switch the correct non-HD content to make 101 the correct region (from 17) at the opt-out times, and 102 the correct one (from 4). The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 102 BBC (your nation) Two HD. There's little sign of the Freeview HD service as DVB-T2 is currently vapourware http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051316 What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires just a bit more thinking about and configuration. Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of thing, but it is an ask. And not least we have to think about the poor so and so who has to cross reference all the schedules to ensure that BBC One and BBC Two haven't both put out HD programmes at the same time ;) With the HD channel, that is the plan at the moment. In the future it would be a simple matter of having an extra transponder or two. That's my point. There is no point investing in a new brand of the BBC HD channel which is a simulcast service if it is to be dropped eventually. Ah well, I suspect people are in agreement there - the amount of promotion the BBC HD brand has had since it launched has been almost minimal. It's actually none, isn't it? There's LOADS of space on the Eurobird 1 Astra 2A/2B/2C/2D http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.htmlsatellites, and as I say, I propose that the BBC services are in SD when they are not in HD mode, requiring little bandwidth. Almost all of the BBC's content is on Astra 2D because it's beam is focussed on the UK, thus allowing programmes to be broadcast without the encryption which would be required otherwise due to rights issues. ITV similarly use this same satellite for the same reasons. But it's not a requirement for BBC services to be on Astra 2D. BBC News 24 and the radio channels have just moved to Astra 2A. To use Astra 2A/B/C/Eurobird 1 (which have a pan-European footprint) would therefore require encryption (we could debate this individual point til the cows come home, but I won't because frankly it wouldn't change anything - the BBC and ITV went in the clear by moving to Astra 2D in the first place, and any move back to 2A/B/C would either be costly or require encryption). Encryption is, by its very nature, not feasible with Freesat, so any broadcasting a Freesat service would either need pan-European rights for all their content (or at very least, not have content where it matters!) or be on Astra 2D. No encryption is required under the *EU* Council *Directive* (89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989) So there's a lot of potential demand on 2D. And at some point, it will fill up. As I just pointed out, it doesn't really matter. Other satellites are available... -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
On 26/03/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC Freesat boxes are under BBC control and 101 could be BBC (your region) One HD and 1 02 BBC (your nation) Two HD. Actually, Freesat boxes are ultimately under the control of Freesat (UK) TV, which is a joint venture between BBC and ITV plc - subtle difference ;) Perhaps most importantly though, the specification for launch was made months ago, because people do need something in order to make the boxes. I have no idea if such functionality is included - but if it's not, it won't get there quickly. I suspect that there is a closer working between Freesat (UK) TV and the BBC than there is between Auntie and BSkyB. I *hope* so. The functionality can be added later, I hope. Even Sky can update their boxes! I have a Freesat connection in that I'm working on the BBCi version of Freesat (I should be deciding on weather map designs right now - whoops!) Poor you. The BBC and it's invisible clouds. Dumpbed down effective temperatures. You've got the short straw there! What I do know is that changing a channel's configuration on the fly isn't that easy and simple - in the world of interactive TV we'd love to have the options to suddenly close down one of our video streams and replace it with (say) 10 audio streams, just like that. But we don't. It requires just a bit more thinking about and configuration. Sky does the BBC and ITV regions by broadcasting many different EPGs structures. It's not a massive change to make the HD boxes do this kind of thing, but it is an ask. Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio channels etc) Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. Also, there are additional audio channels that come on and off (for Audio Description and multilingual options). The thing that doesn't happen is channels retuning between transponders. But this could be achived with OK results if the poloraization doesn't change. It would be worth it to preserve the BBC's regional services (ITV is dumping theirs - http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051345 ) Ah well, I suspect people are in agreement there - the amount of promotion the BBC HD brand has had since it launched has been almost minimal. It's actually none, isn't it? Probably, but if I'd said none then someone is bound to have seen some. As close as dammit is to swearing! Almost all of the BBC's content is on Astra 2D because it's beam is focussed on the UK, thus allowing programmes to be broadcast without the encryption which would be required otherwise due to rights issues. ITV similarly use this same satellite for the same reasons. But it's not a requirement for BBC services to be on Astra 2D. BBC News 24 and the radio channels have just moved to Astra 2A. Yep - those with without rights problems. You can beam Chris Moyles around the world and no one is really going to mind. However Five Live and Five Live Sports Extra remain on Astra 2D - both of course carry sport. For radio, this is where geographically-based rights to broadcast come into play. Hmm.. I've watched BBC channels from the south Greek islands. It works well doesn't it, the old 2D thing? Similarly, the BBC TV channels on Astra 2A are BBC Parliament, BBC News 24 and some BBCi streams. None of these channels have any rights implications - which will be why they are there. Don't expect much else to move to 2A any time soon. To use Astra 2A/B/C/Eurobird 1 (which have a pan-European footprint) would therefore require encryption (we could debate this individual point til the cows come home, but I won't because frankly it wouldn't change anything - the BBC and ITV went in the clear by moving to Astra 2D in the first place, and any move back to 2A/B/C would either be costly or require encryption). Encryption is, by its very nature, not feasible with Freesat, so any broadcasting a Freesat service would either need pan-European rights for all their content (or at very least, not have content where it matters!) or be on Astra 2D. No encryption is required under the *EU* Council *Directive* (89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989) Never said the EU mandated it. Rights holders on the other hand, are a bit more picky. Sports rights holders in particular are the problematical ones - hey, BBC Scotland even had to blank out Scottish football matches on satellite, because it didn't have the rights to show the matches in England. It is unlawful for rightsholders to
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, *Andrew Bowden* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio channels etc) Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. I think that of all the (15-odd) BBC 1 variants broadcast by satellite, only the London region is statmuxed, isn't it? That's a lot of HD services to find room for, and a very big (and expensive) upgrade to the BBC's DSAT broadcast chain. A simpler way to get a similar effect would be to tell the receiver when a programme was being simulcast in HD on a different service, so that it could automatically switch over to it at the appropriate moment, if that's what the user wanted, and back again at the programme's end. I think TV-Anytime supports that kind of thing in the related content table, IIRC. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: I think you are confusing Freeview with Freesat. On Freesat the multiple services are statmuxed together, on Freeview BBC ONE is in 4.9Mb/s, apart from Scotland, Wales and NI where the extra two radio channels mean the whole of mux 1 is statmuxed. I might be wrong, but I'm not confused. :-) I haven't done my own measurements, but linowsat.com backs me up: of all the BBC One regions, only London shows any kind of statmux-related bitrate varation that I can see: http://www.linowsat.com/0282/all/0282.shtml As I said, ideally the BBC One (London) and BBC Two services would form the foundation of BBC ONE HD and BBC TWO HD, but it would be brilliant if they could switch to the MPEG 2 SD transmissions for the regional news. I'm sure ITV1 HD would LOVE to do the same, especially for all that regional advertisting they are required to do... So, there may be a slight frame pause going to the news at 6:28, 6:58, 7:28, 7:58, 8:28, 8:58, 13:30, 15:28, 18:30, 19:59 and 22:25, but it would be a better way of sorting out the problem - well, cheaper. It's hardly rocket science! I think you're underestimating the difficulties. And ignoring the costs. :-) Bear in mind that you can't make any changes that would break the millions of installed Sky STBs. A simpler way to get a similar effect would be to tell the receiver when a programme was being simulcast in HD on a different service, so that it could automatically switch over to it at the appropriate moment, if that's what the user wanted, and back again at the programme's end. I think TV-Anytime supports that kind of thing in the related content table, IIRC. That would have the same effect, but I personally would perfer to have my content in MPEG4 rather than MPEG2. Your preference is noted. ;-) Personally I'd like Dirac. :-P S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
