Discussion:
HD is not HD
(too old to reply)
Brian Gaff
2009-12-05 09:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Taking my cue from a discussion elsewhere, I wonder how many people will be
sold HD tvs with freeview tuner built in this Christmas, only to find that
when HD freeview comes on, they will need yet another box to get the actual
HD?
This is the situation because its taken so long to finalise the spec, that
all current chipsets are incapabable of resolving the new transmissions
even if software was altered.



This of course does not affect freesat, but then, this is a whole other mess
of similar proportions, as only a few boxes get this, unless of course you
subscribe to Sky and get their HD service in which case its OK.


Its hard to see how they could have made it more complicated if they had
actually tried.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: ***@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark
2009-12-08 09:16:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:20:02 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
Post by Brian Gaff
Taking my cue from a discussion elsewhere, I wonder how many people will be
sold HD tvs with freeview tuner built in this Christmas, only to find that
when HD freeview comes on, they will need yet another box to get the actual
HD?
This is the situation because its taken so long to finalise the spec, that
all current chipsets are incapabable of resolving the new transmissions
even if software was altered.
This of course does not affect freesat, but then, this is a whole other mess
of similar proportions, as only a few boxes get this, unless of course you
subscribe to Sky and get their HD service in which case its OK.
Its hard to see how they could have made it more complicated if they had
actually tried.
This is a very good reason not to buy any TV right now.

(There's rarely anything worth watching anyway).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
Brian Gaff
2009-12-09 08:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Sadly you are probably right. The same budget into far more channels
obviously equals more repeats, and a diluted crop of new material.

Maybe people might start toalking to their neighbours instead of flopping
in front of the drugged stupour inducing passive entertainment of the tv.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Post by Mark
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:20:02 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
Post by Brian Gaff
Taking my cue from a discussion elsewhere, I wonder how many people will be
sold HD tvs with freeview tuner built in this Christmas, only to find that
when HD freeview comes on, they will need yet another box to get the actual
HD?
This is the situation because its taken so long to finalise the spec, that
all current chipsets are incapabable of resolving the new transmissions
even if software was altered.
This of course does not affect freesat, but then, this is a whole other mess
of similar proportions, as only a few boxes get this, unless of course you
subscribe to Sky and get their HD service in which case its OK.
Its hard to see how they could have made it more complicated if they had
actually tried.
This is a very good reason not to buy any TV right now.
(There's rarely anything worth watching anyway).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
Loading...