Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2011) Vol. III.

[george.bailey]

Originally Posted by HD Boy

Plans can change,

Found this guardian article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...freeview-ofcom

I don't get it. I thought 5HD had already launched, how hard can it be to get it done on Freeview?

I want more BBC HD channels personally. Axe 3/4 and have 1/2/News as HD maybe? Probably not a popular idea though.

[HD Boy]

Originally Posted by george.bailey

I don't get it. I thought 5HD had already launched, how hard can it be to get it done on Freeview ?

I have already said what i think the reason is for that.

---------- Post added at 21:45 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

Originally Posted by george.bailey

I want more BBC HD channels personally. Axe 3/4 and have 1/2/News as HD maybe? Probably not a popular idea though.

This is a likely option

BBC One HD , BBC Two HD , BBC HD (focused around BBC Three , BBC Four , Some kids programs and maybe some News in HD also)

[george.bailey]

Originally Posted by HD Boy

BBC One HD , BBC Two HD , BBC HD (focused around BBC Three , BBC Four , Some kids programs and maybe some News in HD also)

I'd be happy with that.

[zantarous]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

Ah, thought it might be. I was watching something with that charming eccentric old steeplejack in it on YeSTERDAY and it was pillarboxed with wrong aspect ratio, had to throw the TiVo into 4:3 mode and fiddle with the TV's zoom controls to get it right. You'd think the broadcaster would notice massive technical mistakes like that.

I think it is more broadcast related as other stations that have 4:3 material seem to appear fine, CBS action were showing TNG in the correct 4:3 as is Horror with their Highlander showings.

[toady]

Originally Posted by george.bailey

I don't get it. I thought 5HD had already launched, how hard can it be to get it done on Freeview?

I want more BBC HD channels personally. Axe 3/4 and have 1/2/News as HD maybe? Probably not a popular idea though.

I'd rather have more choice in SD rather than losing channels just so we can have more HD, still don't see the point of HD News channels.

[HD Boy]

I have said on this page what i think will happen.

Also BBC News will be showing in HD on BBC One HD and BBC Two HD later next year.

So there is no point in a BBC News HD channel.

BBC aren't going to get given the spot like last time, I imagine no-one will use/get it.

[HD Boy]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

BBC aren't going to get given the spot like last time, I imagine no-one will use/get it.

Considering ofcom has said the spare capacity will be handed back to the BBC.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post5367.html

Which they can't afford to run.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by m419

Like I said before,

CBS Drama
BET
BET+1
The Vault
Dance Nation TV
MTV Classics
MTV Music
Scuzz
Sky Atlantic
Sky Atlantic HD
Universal HD
TCM2
ITV2HD
ITV3HD
ITV4HD
Nickelodeon HD
Fox News
Sky News HD
Aljazeera
Deutsche Welle
Travel Channel
Fashion TV
Style Network
Hellenic TV

They added CBS Action,Sony tv and NDTV a very wise choice. Now they just have to add the above to meet everyones requirements.

l suspect quite a few of these will arrive next year.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by m419

BET
BET+1

I don't know why anyone would want to watch those.

BET butcher near enough every TV show they air.

What they did to the wire was ridiculous. They cut out huge story lines because they weren't focused on the black characters. The season around the ports near enough the entire port storyline was cut because it didn't involve black characters.

The world has no place for "affirmative racism" and that channel epitomises it.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by HDFootyMan

A typical HD channel takes up around x4 the bandwidth of a SD channnel. Even if you closed all the SD channels, its doubtful there would be enough bandwidth for a HD version of every SD channel - unless you start reducing the bitrate of those HD channels (in which case they become HD-lite).

I am aware of that and indeed made mention of it and the requirement to increase bandwidth or use a more efficient delivery mechanism further up the thread. However, eventually all TV will be HD* and 3D will be the next big thing, followed no doubt by an even higher definition standard, so the infrastructure will have to be able to facilitate this by a number of possible means including:-

• Better use of the existing bandwidth
• Expanding the bandwidth of the existing infrastructure (as is already being done for broadband)
• Improved delivery mechanisms (such as IPTV)
• FDDH - Fibre to the Home as opposed to co-ax from the street cabinet (see Fibre to the x)

Remember when 10Mb/s broadband was 'da bomb' on VM? Remember when a V.90/V.92 56kb/s modem was 'light speed' over a pair of twisted copper wires even if you only achieved 50kb/s or 52kb/s?

*Are there any stragglers which are still not widescreen?

---------- Post added at 08:54 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------

<SPOOF>

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

Yeah it's odd eh? Generally no-one uses vinyl any more, but you wouldn't know it from the couple of broken record types on CF.

There's an alternative to vinyl? Not that 8-track or compact cassette magnetic tape rubbish! They're no good at all as the magnetic mount on my CB radio antenna keeps erasing them.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

In many cases because they haven't bothered to calibrate their brand spanking new HD TV sets, it has to be said

You have to calibrate them? You geek types take this stuff far too seriously. Mine works fine right out of the box and I wasn't conned into buying one o' they fancy HDMI cables neither. Nope, mine works fine with the SCART cable from my VCR although I have to connect the VCR to the TV via the RF co-ax cable now.

Never mind the quality, feel the width (of my wallet, that is)!

</SPOOF>

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Media Boy

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post5288.html

You see Arthur, if you spent more time here and less time over there you'd have the facts, the complete facts and nothing but the facts and in a timely fashion too.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On 15 September 2010, BSkyB announced that it would close Bravo as well as sister channel Bravo 2. The Bravo channels closed on 1 January 2011, with its most popular programmes moved to other Sky channels ...

So it refers to January of this year, not last year as some are mistakenly saying, and not January of next year or this coming year however you might care to phrase it. I think that we've established that now though.

[HD Boy]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

I am aware of that and indeed made mention of it and the requirement to increase bandwidth or use a more efficient delivery mechanism further up the thread. However, eventually all TV will be HD* and 3D will be the next big thing, followed no doubt by an even higher definition standard, so the infrastructure will have to be able to facilitate this by a number of possible means including:-

• Better use of the existing bandwidth
• Expanding the bandwidth of the existing infrastructure (as is already being done for broadband)
• Improved delivery mechanisms (such as IPTV)
• FDDH - Fibre to the Home as opposed to co-ax from the street cabinet (see Fibre to the x)

I am not sure about 3D being the next big thing.

Virgin Media are expanding bandwith for HD channels to 80 HD channels by Dec 2013. That will increase even more than that when they switch to MPEG4 which they will likely do in 4 or 5 years when everyone is on the TiVo platform.

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

I was happier when there were fewer BBC channels, because the bar was higher. It wasn't a case of cramming spare slots with whatever cheap-to-produce reality trash people would sit and get dumber to, it was more like "if the quality isn't reasonably high, it isn't getting aired". The way the BBC is now in terms of TV, I'd be happy with BBC1, BBC2, BBC 1 HD and BBC 2 HD as long as they cut the right corners (i.e. weaker programs) in order to thin the herd and keep the best programming.

The defence for retaining the BBC as a publicly funded, non-commercial entity has always been about quality. The problem is that the BBC feel that they have to compete for audiences and, unfortunately, audiences apparently want tat! The News of the World and other media that are the subject of the Levinson Enquiry supplied what there was demand for. If nobody wanted to know who's phoning Hugh Grant late at night and what's in Alan Partridge's refuse bin then the more serious infringements might not have occurred.

What were the NotW readers reading about and watching on TV when stories such as the DTI brokering deals to sell Super-gun components to Iraq or, more recently, a cabinet minister bringing his 'friend' to MoD meetings with foreign governments and overseas 'suppliers' were being reported? That is reality TV not Pricey Kate mentoring future captains of industry. The problem is that a large portion of the public need to know what they don't want to know but want to know what they don't need to know.

Maybe the Nanny State should force the population to watch a certain number of hours of quality BBC programming each week!

Even BBC English has suffered on the BBC News channel and prime-time programmes such as Breakfast. The constructs of sentences both on the spoken and ticker versions of the news are terrible and, if you were to take them as they are presented, often mean something very different to what is intended.

If the BBC need to make cuts to stay within the Licence Fee budget it should aim to deliver quality not quantity.

I was going to post a quip the other day about saving money by making all of those expensive natural history series at BBC Bristol instead of 'in the field'. After all, we already know that they fabricate the sound-effect tracks there anyway. They use (Bird's) custard in rubber gloves for birds taking off! Then I saw on Have I got News for You last night that they have been using footage from a wildlife park in The Netherlands to show polar bears being born 'in the wild'. Scandalous! Apparently it's a bit more Richard Attenborough than David Attenborough these days.

---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

From both as I have a 7 month old who loves the channel and the other 2 (8 and 9 year old's loved the channel growing up).
Well the 8 year old still does as he is Autistic and has a learning age of 4, The school that he is at lets all the Autistic kids watch it it as it is a good learning platform for them?

Ah yes, the 'smartening up' division of the BBC which, once you've reached adulthood, transfers you into the incapable hands of the 'dumbing down' division.

(John Craven's) Newsround - the first news programme for children in the world and I still find myself watching it before Pointless starts. Happy Birthday NS and Happy Anniversary to John. Quality!

[HD Boy]

They could have saved money by not wasting £22 million on The Voice

That 22 million is only for The rights to The Voice for 2 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-X-Factor.html

Then add the money for The presenter and The judges and it is even more money wasted.

That money could be have been a lot better spent.