BBC to launch HDTV on Satellite next year

[harlequin]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1526695,00.html

BBC gears up for HDTV launch

Dan Milmo
Tuesday July 12, 2005

The BBC is preparing to launch a high definition television service
early next year after signing a multimillion pound satellite
broadcasting deal.
The corporation yesterday confirmed it had increased the amount of
satellite capacity it rents from Luxembourg-based SES Global. The BBC
said it would use the extra space to "reconfigure" the satellite
broadcasting of its TV, radio and interactive services.

However, sources close to the deal said the corporation had snapped up
the capacity on the Astra 2A satellite so it could launch a HDTV package
when BSkyB unveils its much-anticipated HD service early next year.

"The BBC wants to match it," said one source close to the transaction.

Industry speculation indicates that the BBC will struggle to keep up
with BSkyB's plans.

The UK's largest satellite broadcaster has started negotiations with SES
over booking capacity for its HD service. It is understood BSkyB is
discussing a deal for three satellite transponders, which would allow it
to broadcast nine channels, including all its sport services, in HD.

BSkyB wants to launch a HD service this year, according to recent trade
press reports, but it is understood the pay-TV group will wait until it
has a full-blown HD offering and will not test HD's appeal by
soft-launcing the service one channel at a time.

BSkyB is also planning the simultaneous of launch an updated version of
its personal video recorder, Sky+, that will be able to record and play
back HD broadcasts.

The HD service is expected to launch in the spring of next year.

The BBC declined to give further details on the satellite capacity deal,
as did SES.

Richard Waghorn, the corporation's acting controller of distribution,
said in a statement yesterday that the "new transponder will increase
our flexibility to meet our audiences' changing aspirations for the
satellite platform."

[infocus]

And I've been so keen not to have a dish on my house...... Now, which way is south....? :):)

[mooblie]

Can we expect any news on "Freeview HDTV"? Alan? Anyone? Any whispers?

[StevenBagley]

And I've been so keen not to have a dish on my house...... Now, which way is south....? :):)

This is superb news -- especially as you can get HD ready Samsung LCD panels for £599 now that actually look good (or £796 for a 32" model)

Stevne

[Alan Roberts]

BBC will never endorse pay-tv, so it'll be a free channel, I reckon.

This press release is not news to me, it was leaked to me several weeks ago as a potential launch. Like I've been saying for ages, "Sky won't have it all to themselves, major broadcasters will offer competition". I'me dead chuffed to see it made public.

I'll poke my usual sources for anything else I can release.

[Alan Roberts]

First response from one sourec indicates that he doesn't know any details, he gave me the usual line about the BBC applauding Sky and that there are curently no plans.....

I'll wait a while and try some others.

[Alan Roberts]

Here's what I got from one source, in reply to the question "is the Guardian report true or not?".

HD Transmission
The BBC has no current plans to broadcast High Definition Television (HDTV) in the short-medium term where it would be hard to justify the necessary investment of licence fee revenue to initially serve a small number of licence fee payers.
The BBC also welcomes the initiative taken by BSkyB to launch HDTV channels in 2006, which we expect to drive consumer demand for HDTV, in particular for high-end drama and factual programming, Music and for sporting events such as the 2006 World Cup. .
When the conditions would make it appropriate, if the BBC then decided to start HDTV broadcasting this would enable licence payers to obtain full value from the investments already made by the BBC in HD content.

[cstv]

i still don't understand how it can cost sooo much to broadcast 1 HD sat channel when the beeb are already shooting huge chunks of content in HD anyway... Most of the infrastructure is there already too. Just decide on a codec and a format and get on with it!

[StevenBagley]

i still don't understand how it can cost sooo much to broadcast 1 HD sat channel when the beeb are already shooting huge chunks of content in HD anyway... Most of the infrastructure is there already too. Just decide on a codec and a format and get on with it!

Well there is far more to a channel than just technology, and even the technology is more than just infrastructure. Yes, the BBC playout centre can do HD transmission, but this doesn't mean it's ready to launch a HD channel. For example, I suspect there are no H264 codecs in place yet (you'd need at least two for redundancy), nor enough HDCam (HDCamSR?) decks in place to load the servers. And those servers probably need some more disk space to hold all that HD content. Add to that the setting up and testing of the system costs (remember the Norton audio break through on Dr Who, you wouldn't want something similar on BBC HD). Although all this is BBC Broadcast's problem not the BBC following the sell-off.

Then there are the other costs, if you launch BBC HD, then you need to brand the channel (expensive!), pay for schedulers to work out how to schedule all the HD content on it. Plus there is the bigger problem of is their enough HD content available in HD -- some HD acquired stuff is finished in SD (Mysti, 'The Last Olympian' spring to mind), and then promote it to get viewers.

And then you have to be able to justify all this (multi-million pound) expense while renegotiating the licence fee. :)

I imagine that when the BBC launch HD, it'll be HD versions of the main channels. There's no point in stop-gap solutions in my opinion. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it isn't time to coincide with Wimbledon so they can provide several hours of HD very cheaply, quickly followed by the Proms :) (after all, it worked for colour :))

I also suspect that it'll be programmes like Gardeners' World that go HD first too.

Steven

[cstv]

ok, so i was exaggerating a little, but it's still only "multi-million pound" - it's by no means the end of the world. I suppose it won't be a problem so long as the BBC are open about it and let people know that they'll be launching HD at about the same time as Sky. What concerns me is that if people don't know, then Sky will get all the early adopters and there won't be enough people left to drive uptake of BBC HD.

Hi Def Gardener's World... sounds strange at first and then makes perfect sense!

mark.

[harlequin]

Bets on first HIDEF transmissions from BBC.

1. anything by David Attenborough
2. Eastenders
3. eurovision song contest

[StevenBagley]

What concerns me is that if people don't know, then Sky will get all the early adopters and there won't be enough people left to drive uptake of BBC HD.

But the BBC won't make their stuff incompatible with SKY, all they'll do is broadcast on the same satellite (As they do now with SD)

Hi Def Gardener's World... sounds strange at first and then makes perfect sense!

Exactly, relatively cheap to make -- just need a couple of HDW730S to replace the digibeta cameras, no need to worry about making sure the sets look real (after all a flower can't look any nicer than a flower ;) -- yet will produce images that really show off how much nicer HD pictures are.

Steven

[cstv]

true, BBC probably won't make their broadcasts incompatible with sky, but why should people pay for Sky when they'd be able to get the BBC stuff (which is what a lot of people want) as part of the licence fee?

I'm not sure Eastenders will be one of the first, Gary. Purely because it would actually require some investment, unlike wildlife and factual stuff. Sadly you're probably right about Eurovision. There really would be no reason at all though...

Spring 2006 would be just in time for the next series of "Spring Watch", some of which would work perfectly in HD! Then there's the summer's sporting lineup as already mentioned.

mark.

[Alan Roberts]

I can't add anything else now. My sources are being very quiet. That tells me that there's something going on that bthey won't talk to me about, possibly because they know I'll pass it on here.

The first HD programmes would, indeed, be gardening, auction games (e.g. Flog It) and so on simply because they're very cheap to make. There's a lot of HD been/being shot, but not enought to make a channel full-time, for that you need a much better mix of genre than's been done right now. Eastenders would probably be the last to go, simply because of the intensity of the production, but tests have already been done on many other programmes and genres, with considerable success.

[Thordell]

Hi Def Gardener's World... sounds strange at first and then makes perfect sense!

mark.



I suppose its like making the first colour broadcast.... The Black and White Minstrel Show

[infocus]

I imagine that when the BBC launch HD, it'll be HD versions of the main channels. There's no point in stop-gap solutions in my opinion.
The only thing publicly said by the BBC since the story appears to be dismissive of it, but I just can't believe they are going to let Sky get away with such a coup in PR terms, especially after the pioneering work over the last decade or two.

Steven's thought is very interesting. I'd been assuming that when it did come it would be a new "BBC HD" channel, but on one hand "BBC 1 HD" makes a lot more sense - even "BBC 2 HD" as well? In that case it would presumably be very like the start of colour, with a gradual "phasing in" of HD programming onto the channel - just as with colour, until a decade or so later SD is almost forgotten, as with b/w now. It raises two interesting points. If one channel did go before the other, would it affect scheduling - a "BBC2" programme (eg wildlife), being scheduled on BBC1 - just because it was HD? Or may the first channel be BBC2, perhaps because more of their programmes are likely to be made in HD already?

Second point concerns the licence fee. When colour started a colour licence cost more than the b/w one - may the same thing happen with HD, and an increased cost be liable for an HD licence? In that case, I wonder if an "HD licence" would be necessary to receive the Sky services.......?

Ah well, it's interesting to speculate........ :)

[Alan Roberts]

I'm 100% certain that all those thoughts are occupying some minds in significant places as well. I know for certain that there are quite a lot of BBC staff trying to work out what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and how to get it paid for. You'll just have to wait.....

[zachxx]

I was talking to a BBC camerman last week. He was using the Sony Z1 and I noticed that he had it set to record in SD and not HDV.

He told me that the Z1 is now the standard camera for many programs at the BBC, replacing the PD150.

He also told me that the BBC had NO plans to start recording or transmitting in HD as there was not a consensus as to which standard to use (720/1080, etc)

[drgagx]

When editing for SD crt TVs have been used to evaluate output. Have the broadcasters worked out what they will use for evaluating HD edits for broadcasting, bearing in mind some HD viewers will have HD plasma screens and some HD lcd screens and probably none will have an HD crt TV?

[mooblie]

( ....and HD projectors!)

[Alan Roberts]

Those, and many others, are the things that are being discussed, as I mentioned a few postings ago. Trust me chaps, you'll have to wait for announcements.

[infocus]

Coming back to the possibility of "BBC1 HD" etc, there could be one huge advantage to some licence payers immediately, even for none HD originated material, and that is bypassing Freeview with all it's low bitrate artifacting, as visible on current high resolution screens with built in tuners. The quality difference between Freeview and DVD originated material on such displays is huge IMO, and even if it takes a while to ramp up true HD content, surely this "better than Freeview" quality (even whilst still SD) must be worth a lot? Alan?

But a lot depends on the forthcoming availability of "mid range" HD cameras - not as expensive as HDCAM, but far better than the Z1. Any opinions on timescales there?

[mooblie]

Coming back to the possibility of "BBC1 HD" etc, there could be one huge advantage to some licence payers immediately, even for none HD originated material, and that is bypassing Freeview with all it's low bitrate artifacting, as visible on current high resolution screens with built in tuners. The quality difference between Freeview and DVD originated material on such displays is huge IMO, and even if it takes a while to ramp up true HD content, surely this "better than Freeview" quality (even whilst still SD) must be worth a lot? Alan?


Agreed, but what broadcast mechanisms are you assuming/hoping for, infocus?

[StevenBagley]

Agreed, but what broadcast mechanisms are you assuming/hoping for, infocus?

It's going to be sat or cable for the foreseeable future. There is just no room on terrestrial frequencies.

Steven

[Alan Roberts]

Satellite is the first option, it can be done now, and we know that BBC has signed up with Astra for more channels.

HD origination for SD programmes does not automatically give better pictures, they can (in some circumastances) actually be worse. However, if the cameras are set up properly (and that's what I do for production companies) then the pictures can be quite a bit better. Typically, you get much more contrast captured, so highlights aren't burnt out and shadows not blocked in; also pictures look naturally sharp without having ringy edges. Of course, it's possible toi make pictures like that even in HD, simply by setting the controls in a silly way. I charge for getting it right.

The volume of production in HD is extraordinary, and you rarely get a direct clue just from the pictures. For example, would you have said that Murder Investigation Team was shot in HD but Hustle wasn't? It all depends on how you do it.

[infocus]

Agreed, but what broadcast mechanisms are you assuming/hoping for, infocus?
I'm carrying on from the original Guardian story, which assumes the additional satellite capacity that the BBC apparently has it will use for an HD channel. Presumably using a more advanced system than MPEG2 - H264?

What I'm really getting at is that this "pipe" may carry SD material far better to the home than Freeview, with less compression artifacts. Hence even such as the news (say, which I would assume to be near the bottom of the tree for HD origination) will benefit from the new pipe. Even if still firmly produced in SD, it will still look better via the "HD pipe" than via Freeview. The resolution will still obviously be SD, but it should show less artifacting...... shouldn't it?

[cstv]

infocus, i like your assumption that people learn from their mistakes... just because freeview doesn't look very good at low bitrates doesn't mean that HDTV is going to be broadcast at sensible bitrates. On the contrary; with HD being the new buzz word they'll be trying to squeeze as many HD capable channels into the bandwidth as possible! We are talking about a reasonable amount of bandwidth here though :D

That said, aren't BBC1 and 2 broadcast at slightly higher bitrates that the other channels on freeview anyway. I have noticed that BBC1 and 2 can survive with almost no freeview signal but channel 5 is all over the place if the signal strength drops below 50% on my Sagem box... bitrate's the only sensible explanation. And FTA sat uses higher bitrates than freeview anyway, right? so people could just get that instead.

anyway, it's a nice idea, and it would make sense to at least anounce the idea so that the manufacturers can get the boxes sorted properly with mpeg4 rather than mpeg2 and so people can make informed decisions about their purchases for the next 6-18 months. Obviously the dixons group wouldn't like that idea, so it probably won't happen. ;)

all this talk of BBC HD sat makes me even more temped to invest in a HTPC. That way whatever new broadcasting system they come up with the worst i'll have to do is get a new PCI card. I'm not interested in the Sky stuff so encryption won't be a problem. With the decreasing prices of flat panel displays it makes even more sense to use a PC.

[Alan Roberts]

Wait, wait, don't make too many assumptions.

The Astra deal is for satellite space, BBC says it's for future expansion, Astra has made a guess that it's for HD. BBC has said no such thing, I've poked usual sources and got non-commital and non-specific responses. That makes me think that something's in the wind, but we won't be told 'til they're ready.

Spending more bandwidth on SD would indeed make for better pictures. But, the BBC as an entity still believes that the public wants channels more than quality, so we're likely to get more channels than better quality unless a rethink's going on. And it just might be.

You can't make too many assumptions on Freeview quality based on signal strength alone. Channel 5 does not come from the same multiplex as BBC1/2, so will experience different transmission conditions. There could be more or less multipath, more or less co-channel interference, more or less adjacent channel interference and so on. All those affect the ability to decode. It could easily be that your aerial isn't exactly aligned, or may not be even the right group for all the multiplexes, so you could be getting signals from the back of the aerial as well as from the front, and so on.....

Anyway, I'd love to be able to assume that the BBC's deal with Astra is for channels to be filled with HD, but I can't until I get some confirmation. Until then, all this is just speculation.

[infocus]

That said, aren't BBC1 and 2 broadcast at slightly higher bitrates that the other channels on freeview anyway. I have noticed that BBC1 and 2 can survive with almost no freeview signal but channel 5 is all over the place if the signal strength drops below 50% on my Sagem box... bitrate's the only sensible explanation.
No - I suspect it's because BBC1 and BBC2 use 16QAM as the modulation system, whilst Ch 5 uses 64QAM. I don't intend to go into modulation theory in depth, but lets just say that 64QAM allows for 50% higher bitrates (and 50% more channels! ) for a given spectrum bandwidth. BUT, you don't get anything for nothing, and that comes at the cost of reliability in the presence of noise etc

[StevenBagley]

The volume of production in HD is extraordinary, and you rarely get a direct clue just from the pictures. For example, would you have said that Murder Investigation Team was shot in HD but Hustle wasn't? It all depends on how you do it.

And how good the viewer is at spotting film dirt ;) Which is the check I always use (all though BBC3 has been causing very similar artefacts on video stuff so it is not infallible). Also some episodes of Hustle looked so dire they could only be film :) I'd go out on a limb and say that '55 Degrees north' is also film.

I've never watched MIT so couldn't comment.

Actually, it's interesting that it is the faults that make it easy to distinguish the source of the material

As for freeview, BBC1 is at about 4.81Mbit/s constant bitrate and BBC2 about 2.5-3Mbit/s variable. Which is comparable to the rates of all the others. And of borderline quality...

Steven

[Alan Roberts]

Exactly right, Steven, it's the defects that give the clue as the the medium. My job as a consultant is to either eliminate defects or to mimic those of other media. It's now got to the stage that I can't tell whether stuff's shot 35mm or HD, if the 35mm's recent or the HD has been done to my recipe. And that has to be good for all of use, because stuff shot that way is a lot easier to code since there's no nasty video ringing (the dreaded black outlines).

[StevenBagley]

Exactly right, Steven, it's the defects that give the clue as the the medium. My job as a consultant is to either eliminate defects or to mimic those of other media. It's now got to the stage that I can't tell whether stuff's shot 35mm or HD, if the 35mm's recent or the HD has been done to my recipe. And that has to be good for all of use, because stuff shot that way is a lot easier to code since there's no nasty video ringing (the dreaded black outlines).

Which begs the question -- why are we seeing so much yukky Super16 stuff on TV, when HD is faster, cheaper and better quality ;)

(My guess -- film snobbery, although I can see exactly why Hustle use film because of all the speed ramps they do, but the majority of S16 stuff on TV could easily switch)

Steven

[Alan Roberts]

Quite so, it takes time for it all to happen. HD shooting is cheaper than super16 for drama, and documentaries, but is a bit more expensive for wildlife (because of the huge cut ratio). The major limitation on getting productions into HD now seems to be the availability of "grown up" HD editing and post-production. Nobody's willing to sacrifice any trick or facility, so it gets a bit expensive. Also, one series I know of that could have gone HD next time, isn't going to do so simply because there aren't enough days left between now and transmission time to do all the rendering (and they haven't even started shooting it yet).

Another limitation is the supply of cameras. Most HD production is on HDW750, there are lots of them around, but they're all busy making programmes already. It'll take a major step up in investment by the hire companies for us to get the next round of production into HD.

[Bruce]

As a supplier of kit and crews the thought of re-investing is daunting. Everyone wants it but does not want to pay for it! With the BBC saying that they want to be tapeless by 2010 the future of what kit to buy and more importantly to get a return on the outlay is a point to ponder on. DR Who series 1 was shot on Digibeta I am told - they had no budget for High Def shooting or post production.

[infocus]

........the thought of re-investing is daunting. Everyone wants it but does not want to pay for it! ..... DR Who series 1 was shot on Digibeta I am told - they had no budget for High Def shooting or post production.
I think it will eventually get to the stage where they will still only offer existing budgets, but insist that you either produce HD, or somebody who can gets the contract. I feel HD XDCAM can't come too soon now. Regarding Dr Who, given the overseas sales and the future market, I don't think the decision was sensible in the long term. I gather a second series is proposed - anybody know if that will be HD?

[StevenBagley]

Regarding Dr Who, given the overseas sales and the future market, I don't think the decision was sensible in the long term. I gather a second series is proposed - anybody know if that will be HD?

It's identical to this past season.

However, Dr Who is an odd show in terms of going HD as it'd put the cost up in every department, the monsters need to be made with a lot more care and attention or they'll look cheap in HD, the same with the sets. The model FX work would need to be shot on 35mm instead of Super16. And more importantly the CGI will take four times as long to render. The budget just wasn't there to pay for all that. (The claims of the budget being £1m+ per episode are completely fictional, it's nearer half that). And considering that the show was up to the wire as it was for finishing stuff, there just wasn't time either to do it in HD.

However, I rather imagine S3 in 2007 will be a very different story. Although with the amount of promist filtration on the front of the camera they might as well stick with Digibeta, you are hardly likely to see any difference HD would make :)

[infocus]

.......the monsters need to be made with a lot more care and attention or they'll look cheap in HD, .......
*MADE*!!! Are you saying they aren't real!?! Have I spent all that time behind the sofa for nothing! ;) And surely the Tardis could be used to speed up rendering?

(But all your other points taken on board. Has a third series actually been spoken of already?)

[StevenBagley]

*MADE*!!! Are you saying they aren't real!?! Have I spent all that time behind the sofa for nothing! ;) And surely the Tardis could be used to speed up rendering?

:) It's the sofa you want to be afraid of, they are deadly... As this picture shows :)
http://images.gallifreyone.com/series/3e-8.gif

(But all your other points taken on board. Has a third series actually been spoken of already?)

Yes! Jane Tranter announced it (along with a second christmas special) at the press event for the finale. Although apparently no one had told the Producer Phil Collinson or Russell T. Davies about the second christmas special so it came as a bit of a shock to them both :) That's another 28 confirmed episodes (and BBC1 started trailing them within about an hour of the last season ending...)

Steven

[cstv]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/localtv/

this could explain the additional bandwidth purchase, and it's got nowt to do with HD... :(

discussion here. (http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=227321#post227321)

mark.

[MattDavis]

surely the Tardis could be used to speed up rendering?

What a totally brilliant idea. Sheer genius!

BTW, <anorak> when NHK (Japanese broadcasters) dipped their toes into HDTV production with 'The Ginger Tree', they found that their budget spiralled out of control as costume and set construction wasn't detailed enough for the new cameras.</anorak>

:rolleyes:

[RayL]

'The Ginger Tree' (1990) was a co-production with the BBC and Sony, who supplied the cameras. Lots of money was spent all round.

Ray Liffen

[tom_london_soundesigner]

the whole HD thing could have been done 20years ago, but the large corporations wanted to make people buy DVD etc 1st. Saying HD looks better than film is like saying a 5MP digital camera looks better than a 6x4.5 medium format slide. The reason HD is taking off now is nothing to do with quality of programmes and companies like Sony don't give a **** about compression artefacts. Yes, it is better than SD, but won't be as good as frame-less video (think along the lines of how MPEG-4 works). The HD "revolution" is just Sony wanting to make more money, as they did with CD over vinyl and we all know which sounds best.

[Alan Roberts]

Your cynicism is showing. It wasn't Sony that started all this, it was the Japanese government that insisted that NHK bought HDTV kit to do their royal wedding. That kicked Sony, Ikegami and Panasonic into making camera.

At risk of offending you (which I really don't want to do), your argument is wholly inaccurate and specious; I've worked in HDTV since 1976, and Sony weren't at all interested then, it was RCA who made the first camera I saw about 1980. NHK have pushed the development, Sony had to be pulled quite hard to get them into it. None of the manufacturers are charities, they make only what they think they can sell. HD sells well in the US simply because NTSC looks rubbish on a 48" back projector, and in Japan because it's fashionable to have the latest kit. It's nothing to do with dvds.

[MattDavis]

The reason HD is taking off now is nothing to do with quality of programmes

Amen to that, bro. But... HD is taking off now because everyone wants a 42" plasma TV in their 12' square living rooms.

... well I do. :D

But seriously, there's a sort of twiddle factor at work - the distance between viewer and screen vs quality perceived at Standard Definition. As screen technology gets bigger and people get effectively closer to their screens, so the quality gurgles noisily down the metaphorical toilet. In a cinema, sit further back. In your living room, get a big hammer and knock through, or increase the definition of your TV set.

I've hung around Dixons and looked at the quality of broadcast TV on the big sets and thought 'yuk'. Roll on HD.

After all, to see it is to want it.

[Alan Roberts]

Shooting in HD is a lot to do with image quality; that's how I make money, advising productions on how to get the best from HD kit. If you haven't seen it, don't judge it.

[SimonMW]

tom_london_soundesigner, CD may not sound as good as vinyl. However have you heard an SACD or a DVDA?

High def is something that has to happen. As digital projection becomes more common in cinemas, wouldn't you rather be able to watch the home release of the film with *exactly* the same picture quality and resolution as the one you watched in the cinema? Of course with technology the way it is the cinema guys will always find a way to be one step ahead of the rest of us, but you get the idea.

[MattDavis]

*exactly* the same picture quality and resolution as the one you watched in the cinema?

I'd rather hope it would be a LOT better than the quality of the UCI screens in Slough!

[infocus]

Now here's something strange! :)

Back in July Alan Roberts posted: "Here's what I got from one source, in reply to the question "is the Guardian report true or not?".

Quote:
HD Transmission
The BBC has no current plans to broadcast High Definition Television (HDTV) in the short-medium term where it would be hard to justify the necessary investment of licence fee revenue to initially serve a small number of licence fee payers. "

And I think we can assume Alans source is likely to be reasonably well placed! ;) So how do we explain remarks just pointed out to me, and made by none other than the BBCs DG Mark Thompson, at no less than his speech given to the Westminster Media Forum on 24 May 2005 - in response to the Green Paper. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_greenpaper.shtml - about 1/3 the way down.)

Quote "We want to offer free-to-air high definition television to the public on all digital platforms as soon as practical."

Which seems somewhat at odds with the "Building Public Value" statement, as regurgitated to Alan. So what do we make of this? My personal speculation is of an organisation caught on the hop by Skys announcement and very rapid implementation of it's own plans, and realising they can't ignore the situation, but not quite sure how best to implement their own services. In the meantime, sending out mixed messages can't be in anyones interest, can it?

Am I the only person surprised that that comment wasn't picked up on more widely? And what are the bets on the meaning of "as soon as practical"?

[SimonMW]

I think all we need to know is that it will be here eventually. It can't be a coincidence that a free satellite service will be launched in the near future. That strikes me as having high def written all over it.

[infocus]

I think all we need to know is that it will be here eventually.
Indeed - though it would be helpful to have "eventually" defined! ;) I just don't think it's very helpful for a "source" to be quoting to Alan "The BBC has no current plans to broadcast High Definition Television (HDTV) in the short-medium term where it would be hard to justify the necessary investment of licence fee revenue to initially serve a small number of licence fee payers. "
a month AFTER Mark Thompsons speech.

I'm looking for a DVD recorder at the moment and have just brought a Panasonic brochure home. In the displays section they state: "HDTV broadcasts of programmes with high-definition images will soon be the norm." Fairly decisive. It might all be sending the BBC into a bit of a spin, but they do at least seem aware now - I wonder what the people at ITV, Ch 4, even Ch5 are thinking about it?

[Alan Roberts]

My source was stating the official position, which I already knew. Mark Thompson's stating a set a desires without details on how and when. Those details will become known fairly soon, and, as ever, I'll pass on what I'm allowed to as soon as I get it.

The Beeb hasn't been caught on the hop, I've worked on HD for about 30 years now. We know how to do it, the issue has always been funding, since the command from the Governors was always that production money shopuld not be spent on features from which the licence payer cannot benefit, so HD production had to have co-production money. HD broadcasting has not been a front runner in Europe simply because we have a good SD system, broadcasting wide-screen digitally. Europe has least to gain from HD, so will not lead; the issue now is that displays and hardware are appearing on shops ahead of broadcasts, and that's a world-first, so the broadcasters (all of them) are being pushed by the high-street, rather than the other weay round.

[infocus]

My source was stating the official position, which I already knew. Mark Thompson's stating a set a desires without details on how and when.
I would have thought in most organisations that when the head expresses an opinion at variance with generally accepted previous corporate policy, the official position then gets modified to suit. For the head of an organisation to state a new policy, not in an off the cuff remark, but in quite a keynote speech, and for any organisation to then still maintain as official policy a contradictory stance seems to me extraordinary.
HD broadcasting has not been a front runner in Europe simply because we have a good SD system, broadcasting wide-screen digitally.
Good SD system? In essence maybe, but implemented in such a way that the bitrate is so low that quality problems are all too obvious. A shop salesman recently told me that they prefer not to use the Freeview tuners in current large plasmas to demo them in the shop, since they don't feel it shows them to good advantage. Which is apparently why it is so common to see such sets being sourced from DVD players, at least in the higher quality stores.

And on the other hand, in the UK we implemented a 2k system, with far less ruggedness than as used in the rest of Europe. At least that is intended to change come analogue switchoff. DVB in itself is very clever. It's implementation in the UK much less so.

[Alan Roberts]

I wasn't refering to terrestrial broadcasting alone, but to the format, of 576 active lines and 702 pixels mwith 4:2:0 subsampling, all considerably better than 525's values. SD digital broadcasting is actually done rather well on some of the satellite channels, with considerably more bit-rate than Freeview has available.

I readily agree that Freeview is over-constrained, this was one of my big disagreements with those who proposed it in the first place, digital broadcasting has the potential to deliver better pictures/sound, but the bean-counters decided that what we actually want is lots of mediocre channels instead. I have a 17-element yagi pointing at the top of CP mast from 12 miles away, and get 21mV of BBC1 analogue; pictures are noise-free. Yet I watch Freeview for two reasons; widescreen to fill a widescreen tele, and access to BBC3/4, Channel 5, ITV2/3, Radio 7 etc.

[Ray Maher]

I have yet to see a LCD television picture that comes anywhere near the quality of my Sony trinitron.

All I can see happening is that HD broadcasts will bring the picture quality
up to what I already have.

[cstv]

indeed... satellite is looking like the only way to get decent quality tv these days... it's a shame more people don't know that it doesn't have to involve the murdoch clan!

i have a sneeking suspiscion that DVB-T is going to fall through a gaping whole in the floor as viewing of HD sat broadcast becomes widespread and as the mobile operators introduce DVB-H (or systems to that effect). The only aparent advantages of T over S is the mobility of the receiver (although maybe not so much with 2k) and not needing a quite so directional antena. Since both of these advantages are improved upon with DVB-H, why bother with T at all...?

Another thing... does anyone have the slightest idea what NTL are planning to do when they are eventually nudged in the direction of HDTV? Their bitrate and network reliability record is barely up to delivering SD pictures so how would they cope with HD?

I assume C4 and C5 will both start broadcasting HD shortly after the BBC. At least for certain programmes and films. Some of the stuff they buy from the states must be HD originated (although the HD version will cost more) and i think they both use BBC's playout centre which is HD capable. It's just a case of having the money for the transponders on the sat.

mark.

[harlequin]

I assume C4 and C5 will both start broadcasting HD shortly after the BBC. At least for certain programmes and films. Some of the stuff they buy from the states must be HD originated (although the HD version will cost more) and i think they both use BBC's playout centre which is HD capable. It's just a case of having the money for the transponders on the sat.

mark.

HD versions available:

CSI
CSI miami
CSI new york

I have watched episodes from all of the above as HD recordings on my pc , available online if you know where to look.

Greys Anatomy
West Wing
Desperate Housewives
Lost

etc.

over 50% of USA shows are allegedly available in HDTV versions.

big pain is that scifi haven't moved to hdtv so

Stargate
Stargate atlantis
Battlestar galactica

etc

won't be hdtv soon.

[Alan Roberts]

Just because a programme is made in HD doesn't mean it's available in HD. The HD version will always cost more, so takeup depends on increased funding as well as the will to do it. Many programmes have been made for BBC, Channel4 and others (this is personal knowledge, I've worked on many), where the host broadcaster does not even own rights to the HD footage; this is the normal position when a co-producer pays for the on-cost of HD, they then own the HD rights.

[infocus]

i have a sneeking suspiscion that DVB-T is going to fall through a gaping whole in the floor as viewing of HD sat broadcast becomes widespread and as the mobile operators introduce DVB-H .........with DVB-H, why bother with T at all...
Exactly - though DVB-T is not the problem in itself, but rather the ONDigital/ITVDigital/Freeview way of implementing it, and it's the latter that is increasingly going to be seen as falling between stools. Not good enough quality for big screens, but not robust enough for mobile use, or even 14" TVs with their own aerial. The smaller end of the market is better catered for by DVB-H, the top end by HD - leaving Freeview (as currently implemented) looking outdated and irrelevant years before it's universal use is mandated in the UK. Great.

[Alan Roberts]

All true, if HD starts up quickly and sells well in the next 5 years. But if HD isn't a quick start, or is prohibitively expednsive for the general public (which it could well be), then Freeview remains the bulk broadcasting medium for quite a while yet.

[infocus]

.....if HD isn't a quick start, or is prohibitively expednsive for the general public
The latter needn't be the case though. There's been much talk about "Freesat" in these forums and elsewhere, and if that was TRANSMITTED HD (at least for the main channels) it could still be received and displayed as SD if the viewer wasn't willing to shell out for a new TV. The downconversion would, I suspect, still look far better than Freeview. Even channels with non-HD programmes may benefit, since they would have more bits to play with.

Perversely, I can see the minor channels (shopping etc) going HD before the big broadcasters if HDready displays start selling in large numbers. They've got the most to gain - being able to say to advertisers how good their products will look. And think how much easier shopping channels will find it to sell featured products if they can be shown with higher clarity. (Not necessarily a good thing. ;) )

[Alan Roberts]

But for Freesat to carry channels in HD, they'd have to be produced in HD, and that's over 95% of the cost of going to HD. So they'd be available for other delivery methods as well.

[infocus]

Hmmmm - worth taking a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4330272.stm .

Two quotes caught my eye:

"The BBC says it needs to increase the licence fee by 2.3% above inflation to fund its future plans. But what are those plans?
The corporation says it will need an extra £5.5bn over the next seven years to cover a range of services, from new local radio stations to investment in High Definition TV.

and

"The BBC is also keen to invest in high definition television (HDTV), which offers clear, lifelike pictures and sound on large-screen televisions. Sky is planning to launch its own HDTV service next year.

Mr Thompson pledged to deliver free-to-air HDTV on all BBC digital platforms "as soon as practical", which is expected to be by about 2010."

So, with all that very publicly on the BBCs own news website, can we gather that: - "The BBC has no current plans to broadcast High Definition Television (HDTV) in the short-medium term where it would be hard to justify the necessary investment of licence fee revenue to initially serve a small number of licence fee payers. " no longer represents their official position?

I shall be quite happy to pay my increased licence fee...... ;)

[infocus]

And more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4331702.stm

Quote: ".....- the BBC will be building new transmitters for digital terrestrial television and DAB digital radio, setting up a free satellite TV service, and investing in high definition television, so it is available to all, and not just those prepared to subscribe to Sky TV's channels. "

From the BBCs own website, I find all this very significant, especially the last phrase - "...it (HD) is available to all, and not just those prepared to subscribe to Sky TV's channels". We've heard lots of rumours in these forums, know that they are producing increasing amounts in HD, and it's hardly surprising news, but this is the first public confirmation of intent AFAIK.

[Alan Roberts]

Like I keep saying, be patient, it'll happen eventually. The only issue is when.

One of my sources is saying that Digibeta is being phased out for cature for production, so it'sDVCAM or HDV for SD, HDCAM or DCVProHD for HD with HDV as insert quality. I know that's not news to many of us, but I'm starting to see it as policy now, rather than as a comment on the inevitable.