Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear attack?
 

There's a thread in another forum about the online BBC News being delayed by two minutes. Someone said that it didn't really matter, but another made a tongue in cheek remark that it would do if the 4 minute warning was given out!

The delay was said to be down to how the internet works and it was pointed out that satellite transmissions are slightly delayed too because of the time it takes for the signal to get into space and back again.

This made me wonder if Virgin Media TV has a lesser delay on the line fed HD channels because the satellites up and downlink times are cut out of the distribution chain. Conversely the delay is probably longer for SD channels as these are fed by satellite.

So, if a nuclear attack looks imminent, would Virgin Media customers be advised to tune into an HD news channel to get their full 4 minutes worth!!!

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Listen to the radio? Live and no delay.

Am sure if something like that happened it would interrupt on every single main channel.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Probably. It's easy enough to find out. Just flick between HD and SD versions of a channel and see which is ahead.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

But by the time it's changed channel and tuned into it, the delay will probably have passed!

People with two similar type boxes could try it out, but these aren't likely to be in the same room.

Now if only I knew someone with access to a number of boxes next to each other where, say, BBC News SD and BBC News HD could be tuned in next to each other :monkey:

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Boooooooooooooooooom..................:D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

It would depend upon how you were listening to the radio. Satellite, online and DAB all have inherent delays, along with all digital platforms as they encode the signal.

I suppose the best would be good old fashioned analogue radio.

All hypothetical of course, I doubt that many of us would be taking off our inner doors and making a den under the dining room table as the Government recommend if this was ever announced :D

It would be covered at least by BBC1, ITV & Radio 4 as the 2010 Broadcasting Act allows the Government to take over these frequencies.

In such an event, they would broadcast for one hour after the attack informing people what had happened and giving advice upon what to do.

Thereafter, this message would be repeated once an hour, with any updates, to try and conserve the remaining power that people still had, which is why no entertainment would be provided either.

They have now stated that Digital Switch Over has lessened the effectiveness of all the above!!!

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

LOL, it'd take me longer than 4 mins to find the screwdriver!

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Seriously, though. How many of us are watching TV 24/7? Surely, this is a non story?

If nuclear warneads are heading towards us, even with 4 minutes, or 4 hours notice, what the hell can we do?

Drawing up a will? Who would you leave your estate to if we are all going to be annihalated?

Back to normality, please. :sleeping:

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

So, you've got 4mins to live and you're worrying about the definition of the channel????

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Pretty much what I was thinking ... someone has odd priorities :dozey:

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

No, it's a light hearted look at how to get your full 4 minutes. The point being that the HD signals are (probably) received first on VM boxes on the HD channels.

---------- Post added at 06:32 ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 ----------

In reality, I think that people would be panicking, praying or hugging their loved ones as nothing else will matter to them.

I even suspect that many of the people designated to carry out various tasks in this eventuality would abandon their posts to try and be with their loved ones as the time comes.

Apparently, this is what CNN will play if an impending end of the world is confirmed:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JnfAr_YSxs

Some of the comments are quite funny :D

---------- Post added at 06:34 ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 ----------

LMAO at this!!!

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

If the bombs are on there way all you can do is stick your head between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye :)

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

I would think the first warning we'll get is all the TV and Radio stations go off air simultaneously quickly followed by all electrical power as EMPs take out everything electrical that isn't hardened including all mobile phones.

That's assuming you haven't already gone into orbit with most of your surroundings or been fried to a crisp.

Funnily enough we had a power cut a few days ago and the first thing I checked was to put the radio on battery and see if R4 was still on the air. Maybe it's having lived through an era when a nuclear exchange was a very real threat.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Just make sure you change your underpants, don't want someone to find you with skid marks all over them after the bomb hits.........:D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

And the award for most pointless thread goes to.........:D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Just flick between them using the LastCh button. It's easy to tell which is ahead, especially on the news channels that have a ticker.

I've just checked a few, and in every case the SD channel is ahead (7 seconds ahead in the case of Channel 4). I suspect the MPEG4 encoding processing delay is the biggest factor. ITV HD, which is still MPEG2 in my region, is only very slightly behind the SD version.

Maybe not entirely pointless. I recall a similar thread many years ago that was started by someone who was into real-time gambling. He liked analogue TV because it had the least delay.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Agreed, SD channels are ahead of HD channels.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Off topic in a way but .... If it was possible to get a full 4 minute warning I would love to hear what people would do.

Besides kissing my husband I hope I would have a large cream cake handy that I could consume without worrying about the calories.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

I thought that when i saw it last night...... some people just post crap for the sake of posting....

The next thread from him will be, how do you butter your toast or tie your shoe laces! lol

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Personally, I would rather not know and die in ignorant bliss as 4 minutes is not enough time for anything

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Not what our lass says to me lol

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

:D:D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

The only people that will get a 4 minute warning are the party apparatchiks and their rich friends. Rest of us will die in blissful ignorance. (Probably still watching Jeremy Kyle)

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

The selfish part of me would want my hubby and son's with me and the unselfish part of me would want my eldest to be with his one true love his fiancée as I know that is what and whom he would want.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Cheers for that SP, so my theory has been disproved and the SD channels are the most up to date because of other factors.

Interesting that it could actually be of importance to gamblers.[COLOR="Silver"]



---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

Me too, the 4 minute warning is totally pointless.

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

❤

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

I figured encoding would make a difference but wasn't sure how it works out. Although SD has less information, I wondered if it would take longer due to being a higher definition source re-encoded on the fly to lower resolution/bitrate and codec type or something similar.


That would have made the SD slower so obviously not the case but interested to know how the SD/HD channels are actually done and if it all relies on digital hardware or if any old analogue stuff is used.


In the future the answer to which is faster could potentially change according to hardware encoding/decoding and broadcasting specs. 4k could potentially get to someone quicker than SD.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

The answer is "it varies". But I think it's all digital these days.

Advanced codecs take longer to encode because they work on many video frames in parallel. The allows them to find common patterns across mutiple frames, and so increase the compression. But the more frames they scan, the more they have to buffer, so the delay increases. It's unlikely to ever get quicker, as this would reduce the compression or compromise picture quality.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Think I would rather have the extra delay before I find out I had just blown the mortgage payment on the 2:30 at Kempton :D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

You never know, over the years they've managed to increase compression efficiencies on Freeview to squeeze in more channels into the same amount of capacity.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Ha ha, wouldn't it be useful if the bookie was using a two minute delayed system and you weren't 🤗

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

On a slightly related note, a couple of milliseconds can make a difference (and a lot of money).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-millions.html

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

In which case, down 8 pints and make sure you know where your towel is.

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

Thanks for info.


Makes perfect sense. Key frames and only the differences between frames simplifies what happens a lot and knowing how encoding software can make multiple passes of the same data to get best quality, it's amazing how good some of the on the fly stuff is.


As for fitting more channels in freeview, they can just lower the bitrate of channels to fit more in. Some paid channels in the past looked terrible because they compressed it way too much.


The milliseconds between trading exchanges was a big thing due to the money involved. I vaguely remember a trading scam that relied on the small latency delays of connections between exchanges some years back. Maybe im thinking of some Ocean eleven movie instead :D

Re: Is it better to watch an HD news channel in the event of an imminent nuclear atta
 

They do lower the bit rate to fit more channels onto Freeview, but have improved encoding technology in the past, so hopefully this will continue.

I agree that some of the pictures are shocking though, which is why I think it's better to get Freesat. If I didn't use pay TV i'd get a PVR for both to get the best of both worlds. Having said that most Freeview channels are now on Freesat, so I might just use Freesat as it has more bandwidth available and, therefore, better picture quality.

https://www.tvbeurope.com/production...or-uk-freeview

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

Unfortunately, I think with some of the leaders in the world at this point in time, that the threat is once again increasing.