Cable Forum - SD Why are we still bothering with SD?

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Virgin Media TV Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - SD : Why are we still bothering with SD? (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33694645)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

it's handy having some channels in SD for when the V+ box gets nearly full, I can record the SD version of a show to avoid guessing how critical critical is

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35608599)

I honestly don't think i know a single person who doesn't at least have a 720p capable TV in the living room, most have 1080p. TV's elsewhere in their houses is another matter though.

My Gran doesn't. Had my last TV not broken down I wouldn't either. I could afford one but I'm not in the business of buying things just because I can (I'm tight, truth be told!).

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

This is the kind of thread we should be comming back to in 10 years time when

95% of VM STB are HD capable
HD channels are compressed to Mpeg4 codec
HD channels are not sold as premium channels
SKY does not hold HD variants to themselves

Then if these conditions are met you can have the debate what is the point of the SYFY channel being available in SD!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

perhaps the question should be 'when will we be stopped being charged more for HD' ?

HD could be regarded as the 'standard' format for most mainstream channels for many viewers.

Yes i know HD is included 'free' for those channels available in the XL pack but as we all know nothing is actually free and part of the cost is absorbed into the price of that package.

And of course an actual fee still applies to Sky's premium channels (ie sport & movies). I cancelled the HD premium charge as i was finding it difficult to justify the cost for a few channels- that was before i cancelled Sky sports & movies altogether.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35608670)

My Gran doesn't. Had my last TV not broken down I wouldn't either. I could afford one but I'm not in the business of buying things just because I can (I'm tight, truth be told!).

Nor does my mum. She has a 4:3 CRT Sanyo set in her living room that must be 25 years old. It's connected to a Freeview PVR via the single SCART socket on its back, which was so mysterious and newfangled when the TV was new, we didn't know what it was supposed to be for!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

What I don't understand is why are the channels separate? Can't the device downscale the HD to SD, or switch or the broadcast switch bitrates?

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35608559)

Ok, here goes... :)

1) A HD channel takes typically 4 to 6 times the bandwidth of a SD channel. So changing all channels to HD would require far more bandwidth, even if the SD versions were dropped. That either means losing a load of channels, or introducing new expensive technologies (e.g. switched video; motorised dishes and more satellites)

2) The fact that many TVs are SD-only isn't a problem if they have an HD STB that can downscale. However, LOTS of people still have SD-only STBs. Are you willing to pay for new STBs for them?

3) HD production and broacasting is more expensive, and requires new equipment. Are you willing to pay for all the minor broadcasters to upgrade?

4) Interest in HD simply isn't that great. Although 73% of the UK population have a HD-ready TV, only 49% actually have a HD source (source).
And many of those who could watch HD, don't. As an example only 5.7% of ITV viewing last week was HD.

Think you have summed it up rather well in this post SP!

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

I find that some HD channels are better than others I've seen some poor HD channels where standard has looked better.

I find the BBC puts out some good HD

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by v0id (Post 35608598)

I'm not going to get rid of a perfectly fine television just because it's not HD.
I'll 'upgrade' when it breaks and becomes too expensive to repair compared to the cost of a new one

Which is exactly why 3D has not failed either although people are proposing it has. I've only just bought a 3D set so until now could not view it.... ...simples :)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Logistically, if downsampling HD+SD boxes were rolled out to everyone, they could recover some channel space by eliminating the SD version of HD channels.

The question being... what is the channel space worth, compared to replacing old SD boxes.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

im the other way why are we bothering with +1s with TiVo and v+ boxes theres no need

---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhatter67 (Post 35608696)

in 10 years well be wanting super HD most will be owning 4k tvs

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

There has been occasion where the +1 variants have been handy whilst flicking through channels.
I don't sit down each week with a marker pen and tick off the programs I want to watch from the TV Times! - maybe I should, but I more often than not find an interesting program by channel hopping, and so if I have missed the start, the +1 is handy.

(Glad Carl is not here to read that else he would crucify me for using the Tivo incorrectly!)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 35608701)

Can't the device downscale the HD to SD, or switch or the broadcast switch bitrates?

HD boxes can downscale, but SD ones can't.

Switching bitrates would be a massive change to the technology - basically getting rid of broadcast entirely. I expect it will happen eventually though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matth (Post 35608713)

The question being... what is the channel space worth, compared to replacing old SD boxes.

There is no pressing need to replace the SD boxes. VM already have enough space free for current plans.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35608559)

Well, some interesting points there. I have to say I don't quite understand the compensation argument, no-one suggested that Kodak should compensate anyone who owned an old camera when they said they weren't going to make film any more. No-one suggested that the makers of HD DVD devices should pay compensation to owners when they lost out to Blu Ray in the format wars and loads of other examples of similar that have occurred over the years!
I still stick to my original assertion, that this is a case of when this will happen, not if. I realise it's not going to be imminent, but I'm just saying I'd like to see it happen in the next, say, 4 to 5 years rather than the 15 to 20 which unfortunately I believe is the more likely scenario.
Lastly, when I watched the Community Shield yesterday, I watched it on 113 rather than 103. I've always wanted to be in the top 5.7% of the population for something, looks like I've finally achieved my goal!:D

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?

I only have HD for the wife who will go out of her way to watch it, I don't see the point in it myself so don't record / watch HD stuff.

I can see a time when it'll all be HD but I'm in no hurry for it to happen.