Page 1 of BBC to launch HD channel

as reported in the guardian today
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2171871,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=4
.
.
.
.
Hang on don`t they already broadcast a HD channel (160ish) on Sky?

Yeah,they do.
Perhaps the difference is that this one will be an `official` HD channel,mirroring it`s SD programming ?
The current HD channel is a mixture of repeats combined with the occasional (very occasional..) programme that mirrors BBC1/2.

On a broader note,I`m seriously thinking of ditching HD channels.
The SD picture through HDMI is so good that the difference between SD and HD is minimal.
So why bother paying extra ?
I`d be quite happy to keep my HD box`s benefits (HDMI,big recording capacity) but ditch the actual HD programming.

I suspect the difference in HD and SD is somewhat reduced by over compression in order to fit it all in the available bandwidth.

I wonder if my freeview TV card will work with HD, or whether I`ll need a new one. :(

Editor
DVD REVIEWER

"The Green Belt policy is a Labour Policy, and we intend to Build on it"
John Prescott

I think you`ll need a new one RJS, if I remember correctly. Some kind of HD decoder thingamybob.

Quote:
I suspect the difference in HD and SD is somewhat reduced by over compression in order to fit it all in the available bandwidth

I`m not that technically minded,so god knows. :/
I do know there was a marked improvement in SD when I switched from SKY+ (Scart) to HD box (HDMI).
Allegedly,this will be because the HDMI processing in my telly will be better than the scart processing.
Again,god knows.
Bottom line,SD quality is superb.
So much so that I can watch whole football matches in SD,thinking I`m watching it on HD.
No sound issues on SD either,whereas there is with HD.
The sound keeps momentarily cutting out on HD.
According to another forum it`s called `clipping` and quite a few report it.

HD was used to make a bad product acceptable (Plasma/LCD flat screens) a good SD feed into a good CRT is a much better picture, the HD LCD/Plasma is a case of the kings clothes in my opinion.

Quote:
a good SD feed into a good CRT is a much better picture

I couldn`t agree more fella. For someone so technically minded, we still have yet to replace our Sony 32" CRT, as the pic from our Sky Digital box is absolutely superb. Our friend has an LG 42" LCD, which looks inferior by comparison. This obviously has something to do with the extra 10" or so, but still, the quality from our TV still knocks spots off it by a long way. The Lord of the Rings, Return of the King on C4 the other evening was quoted by our 11 yr old as, (YES peeps, an 11YEAR OLD), as good as the DVD, albeit filling a 1:85:1 ratio rather than 2:40:1 as old Pete Jackson intended it :)

Sky Digital even now, is as brilliant as ever. Even HD suffers from the dreaded blocking effect on large areas of colour. Having seen Blu Ray also, i feel that is the way to go, but TV programmers stlll have a long way to go before they convince us to ditch the Sky + and go HD. At the mo i cannot see the justification in outlay....

Long live CRT!!! Blimey, as a techie, i never thought i would EVER say that!!! :)

ytseW[at]reweiveR/DaveKDneon.gif">ytseW[at]reweiveR/DaveKDneon.gif" class="forumImage" />

CH4 announced last week (19th Sep) they would be in HD on Sky from December.
Ré the CRT `debate`, with the latest LCD/plasmas, the difference in SD is nothing like it used to be. I`ve seen SD broadcasts on LCD and plasma that are easily as good as anything I`ve seen on CRT....

Ste

Quote:
I`ve seen SD broadcasts on LCD and plasma that are easily as good as anything I`ve seen on CRT....
No you haven`t,unless the tube in the CRT was burnt out or it was switched off....

Mr Dwyer

Quote:
No you haven`tErm, I have. I used to say the same but the last year or so has made a big difference. (I`m not talking about big screens though - where the weaknesses are magnified).
Pointless debate......

Ste