News Nice to see the BBC spending our money wisely

[cHodAX]

Super HD, 7680x4320 pixels. Utter madness and of zero use to the domestic customer who pays the licence fee. I wonder where they are finding the millions to fund this shit? Another cut in the original drama budget no doubt.

Digital TV - News - BBC tests super HD live broadcast - Digital Spy

 

[ECA]

Better value than another remake of pride and prejudice imo.

 

[Ch3tan]

That's very cool, and hardly a waste of licence monies. You'd also need to know the cost before making such a statement Cho. Which there is no information for yet.

Will be great for future media releases when we have more pixels in the home.

 

[Job]

This is getting like phone cameras, I 've lost count of the amount of 1080p
HD movies I've seen that aren't as good as an ordinary DVD.
It's the bit rate and the quality of the conversion that matters not the pixels!
For anything less than 60 inches it's pointless, and the human eye is only 4000
x4000 anyway.

 

[cHodAX]

Better value than another remake of pride and prejudice imo.

I won't argue with that, cannot understand the whole remake mentality to be honest. When you make something brilliant once it should usually stand the test of time.

 

[cHodAX]

That's very cool, and hardly a waste of licence monies. You'd also need to know the cost before making such a statement Cho. Which there is no information for yet.

Will be great for future media releases when we have more pixels in the home.

It is a minimum of 10 years away from being available for consumers, looking at the broadcast bandwidth required I would say it is actually more like 20 years from being available. No one has a TV that can use it so why the fuck is licence payer money funding the R&D? It's not as if we will own the patents either, so there is no money to be made from us developing this stuff.

Oh and as for the more pixels arguement, bollocks!

You don't even start to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p sat (6 feet or more away from the screen) until you jump to 37inches of screen space, 1080p looks fantastic on screens up to 100inches. Please tell me why ANY home is going to need 7680x4320 when probably less than 5% of the population would even have room for a screen that big.

No sorry, it is all diminishing returns. The human eye can only differentiate between resolutions to a certain point, 1080p at 48/60fps is perfect for what we need and the size of screens our home can accomodate. From a technological standpoint it is pure nonsense as well, 25gbps is an insane amount of bandwidth for one broadcast channel.

 

[ST^]

This is getting like phone cameras, I 've lost count of the amount of 1080p HD movies I've seen that aren't as good as an ordinary DVD.
It's the bit rate and the quality of the conversion that matters not the pixels!
For anything less than 60 inches it's pointless, and the human eye is only 4000
x4000 anyway.

I have quite a few blu-rays and all of them shit on DVD quality, and then some. Even Sky HD broadcast is far better than DVD.

 

[cHodAX]

I have quite a few blu-rays and all of them shit on DVD quality, and then some. Even Sky HD broadcast is far better than DVD.

You are mostly right, there are few shocking Blu-ray versions out though, some of the ones with alot of film grain look horrible as well because the extra definition makes the grain look really harsh under certain circumstances.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

The beeb has always researched ahead and to a degree encouraged experimentation. Not sure why this feels like breaking news to you Cho

For example, the Beeb were testing Hi Def long before it was even considered for part of the mainstream.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Better value than another remake of pride and prejudice imo.

Maybe they should make this?

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance-now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! Quirk Classics: Amazon.co.uk: Jane Austen, Seth Grahame-Smith: Books

 

[cHodAX]

HD was always going to be adopted though as the CRT technology required was already achievable. Super HD is more than a decade away from being mainstream, have you any idea how hard it would be to produce sheets with 28 million transistors? Let us put it this way, you couldn't even make the screen for less that £10,000. It has x14 more than a 1080p screen.

Then we aren't even getting started with the signalling issues. Cabling would need to be able to handle 25gbps sustained for hours on end. CPU power to decode that resolution at that bitrate would be astronomical, the heat it would give off could melt the sun!

More importantly though, why the BBC? Private companies will profit from the tech so why aren't they paying for the development?

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Roo: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2011)

 

[Ch3tan]

More importantly though, why the BBC? Private companies will profit from the tech so why aren't they paying for the development?

Once again, nowhere does it state that the beeb are paying anything, or that they are doing anything but running tests and hoping to use the tech. Their R&D team are the one's running the tests.

You are making massive assumptions.

 

[cHodAX]

Once again, nowhere does it state that the beeb are paying anything, or that they are doing anything but running tests and hoping to use the tech. Their R&D team are the one's running the tests.

You are making massive assumptions.

You are joking right? The cost of sending teams to Japan to liase with NK, the cost of the equipment to record, encode, transmit, recieve, decode and display the video. The cost of salary for doing all that, the cost of salary and equipment for developing the technology. The cost of hosting the event to show the video off.

Where is the payoff for the taxpayer? Really.

In the other political thread you are constantly going on about public money being wasted and now you are arguing against my stand when it is obvious that this project is of zero benefit to the licence payer either now or in the future. We are paying to develop the system which will then be taken up by private enterprise for profit and the taxpayer gets nothing. It seems like you have pulled a 180 for the sake of an arguement.

 

[Ch3tan]

It depends entirely if this is being funded by the BBC or BBC worldwide. You don't know, and the article reveals little, you are still making assumptions.

 

[cHodAX]

It depends entirely if this is being funded by the BBC or BBC worldwide. You don't know, and the article reveals little, you are still making assumptions.

Semantics, BBC Worldwide ceases to operate without licence payer funded content. They might be a for-profit business but they do it off the back of the licence fee, oh and the R&D department is not a spin-off from what information I can find it is a central part of the BBC itself.

The country is up to it's ears in shit, every penny the BBC get should be going towards content for the licence payer and it blatently is not. All this ontop of BBC radio stations for countries who don't contribute to the running costs, a worldwide TV news service with the same issues. The BBC's priorities are all wrong, they what to be everything for everyman and that is not in their public service remit.

 

[ECA]

From the sounds of it - the main development has been at NHK and not the beeb.
Don't let that stop the frothing though

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Roo: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2011)

lol

Oooh Natalie Portman

 

[cHodAX]

She needs to get naked more.

 

[georgie]

Goes without saying really, Cho.

 

[Exioce]

Read the book. Is fun for a while, then it begins to feel a bit lazy. Swapped it for the original at that point.

Also,

and the human eye is only 4000x4000 anyway.

Reeeeeaaaaaaally?

 

[Bahumat]

Maybe they should make this?

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance-now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! Quirk Classics: Amazon.co.uk: Jane Austen, Seth Grahame-Smith: Books

I did, it was pretty crap

 

[GReaper]

The country is up to it's ears in shit, every penny the BBC get should be going towards content for the licence payer and it blatently is not. All this ontop of BBC radio stations for countries who don't contribute to the running costs, a worldwide TV news service with the same issues. The BBC's priorities are all wrong, they what to be everything for everyman and that is not in their public service remit.

Without the R&D department we could end up with a BBC which is always playing catch up instead of innovating.

There is a potential for this technology, both in future commercial usage and benefit to the British public in the long run. Of course it won't be viable for home users for a long time, but just because you don't get a direct benefit from what BBC R&D is doing doesn't mean that it's entirely useless for others.