Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Gosh yes, especially the old 405 line monochrome versions. Such beautiful beasties. If only they still worked...

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

The trouble with linear UHD channels is that they take up a heck of a lot of bandwidth. Probably why there aren't many of them around and no great desire to introduce them. If space is to be released for these bandwidth hungry monsters, it might be time to start the process of removing the SD simulcast channels, if only to free up some space.

Wrong..... Isnt trolling someone who wants to cause problems??



Im just stating my opinion.. I LIKE SD..... Im not trying to cause any problems (If you notice I put a :) in my message)


I dont have a probem with those who like HD......

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Good grief two old minds think alike for once.:Yikes::eeek:

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Need to get rid of some channels to free up bandwidth.

Start by getting rid of the myriad of +1 channels - never saw the point of them, if you want to watch 2 programmes at any one time record them, if you have missed something and realise it then use catch-up.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I think you're right, at one time the plus one channels served a good purpose before the advent of PVR's. Surely the bandwidth would be better used towards launching hd channels. It still amazes me that so many channels still haven't got an hd counterpart. So many channels have absolutely terrible SD quality, makes it painful to watch.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Our TV is a 6yr old Panasonic 37" Plasma. My wife only watches the Freeview stuff which I guess (cos I'm not bothered to check) is mainly SD quality?

On the few occasions I've glanced at the TV - usually to make snide comments about the program being shown - it looks pretty good viewing, and the wife & daughter have no complaints.

I'd take a wild guess though, that if we exchanged the TV for a 60" generic standard resolution piece of junk costing £299 the picture would be abysmal.

Not everyone understands that bigger isn't necessarily better when it comes to TV's

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

The best picture I ever saw was an HD Sony CRT (like https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Trinit...-/272844629359 ).

Modern technologies don't, IMO, display colour as well as CRT. Plasma comes close, but it's not quite right.

Don't get me wrong, all the sets in my house now use LCD/LED displays, and all give excellent pictures, I just prefer the colour given by CRT.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Until BARB figures show a significant decline in the +1 audience, the broadcasters will continue to operate them. Sure, the availability of multiple tuner PVRs and catch-up will reduce demand over time but not in the short term.

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

If there was a shortage of bandwidth for launching new HD channels that would be a good point but there isn't a shortage at this point in time. There's a possibility that some channels will never operate in HD but a decision based on cost rather than bandwidth availability.

There probably isn't the bandwidth to launch a myriad of linear UHD channels with the current infrastructure but, again, no real demand for the bandwidth as broadcasters are baulking at the cost.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

More modern technologies such as OLED and HDR should change that.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I still have my Plasma, I'm hoping it keeps going for a few more years yet.

One of the problems with HD take-up is that you get charged extra for some of it (at least on Sky, not sure about VM these days).
For example, to get HD Sports I would have to upgrade to Box Sets, which I just dont want.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Isn't Sky Sports cheaper to watch on Now tv than on satellite or cable? And it's shown in 720p HD.

Thank you Stu for not being afraid to agree with me ... I dont think me or you is trying to cause trouble or anything for Paul :)

Just our opinions :)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

I never had a plasma, but I've heard quite a few people say that they wish they were still available as they have a better picture than LCD/LED. I think they use more electricity though.

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

In short answer a lot of elderly people still only have SD TVs. Also I’m terrified of HD only channels since sky will lick their lips and add more HD charges

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Vince, chill mate, you're beginning to sound like Dave...........;)

Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
 

Not really no Skysports cost a average of £25p/m on sky and cable whereas on nowtv it's £33.99p/m

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

And vm won't?
At least both SKY and BT are honest about their HD charges and don't say "HD at no extra cost" and hide it in the cost of the package.