Why are there still standard definition channels?*

Yep.Same in most European countries.

 

When the Australian Open was on 7 was broadcasting in normal definition and 7TWO, which was doing the less interesting matches, was in High Def.

 

They stopped 7mate. It wasn't on this year. Beside's, it's the AFL I watch and they still broadcast it in SD.

 

It's ridiculous the deal 7 makes with Foxtel. The Indians got a better deal for Manhattan.

The government forced everyone to go digital and when we did we couldn't take advantage of High Def.

 

With regards to this sort of thing, I know its first world problems but this country's backwards.

 

But how many older people in one stoplight towns watch the Metal Show?

 

Less bandwidth. They probably involve channels for which viewing numbers don't translate into revenues justifying HD, which consumes more. Same reason the SQ on XM-Sirius has declined. Squeeze in more channels but lose some fidelity= more dough.
Jose: how's that?

 

The story of digital television in Australia is a very sad tale of manipulation by the vested interests of the commercial networks and incompetence of the government in framing the legislation that brought it in. I remember Four Corners doing a great show on it prior to the launch in 2000. Basically two of the three commercial networks, Nine and Ten wanted additional bandwidth so they could broadcast high definition whereas the Seven network did not want high definition due to the expense required in updating their infrastructure to accommodate it. But the catch was, Nine and Ten did not really want to broadcast in high definition per se, they wanted the bandwidth to prevent other players from coming into the broadcast market given that digital broadcasting could be done using much less spectrum than analogue broadcasting. So by telling the legislators that they required a full channel bandwidth allocation to accommodate hi-def, they convinced the government to prevent new players from entering the market, at the time specifically Fairfax media.

So the upshot was that the broadcasters were allocated a full analogue channel of bandwidth and the government's legislation stipulated that the main channel was to be broadcast in standard definition and simulcast in high definition. All of the benefits of digital broadcasting such as multiple camera angles (trialled at a Bathurst 1000 event) and regular hi-def broadcasting were just ploys by the networks to get as much bandwidth for themselves as possible for possible future multi-channelling (now standard).

A number of years later, the networks lobbied the government to remove the simulcasting stipulation given most of the population had some way of receiving a digital signal. So of course, what went first? High definition sports events because the networks were more interested in using their bandwidth to cram more channels into the spectrum that they had been allocated. And the legislation still stipulates that major sports events have to be shown on the main primary channel whereas the networks primary channel is still only standard definition. So the high def channels get used for broadcasting up-converted 4:3 standard def content whereas all of the marquee shows are broadcast in standard def on the main channel. To further rub salt into the wound, the networks further compressed the bandwidth of their stations so we could be presented with the joys of 24 hour shopping channels and advertorials. So what Australians end up with is a pathetic joke of a broadcasting system that is still primarily based around standard def while a lot of the world is already looking at moving from high def to 4k broadcasting. To complicate matters, we went with our own unique system using a hybrid of the European and US DVB systems and mandated MPEG2 compression that is now being rapidly replaced by MPEG4 though most current TVs, PVRs and set top boxes available for sale locally are MPEG4 compatible.

A little anecdote about high definition broadcasting in Australia. My cousin rang Channel Seven last year asking if the AFL Grand Final was going to be broadcast in hi-def and was told no. Now my cousin who doesn't mind a bit of an argument began questioning why and the person speaking to him, unable to come up with a suitable response, told him that hi-def was "elitist". That is the contempt that the general population is held in by the commercial networks. They don't give a stuff about what's best for the consumer, they are concerned about what's best for them. That they are now having their bread cut and being undermined by on-line content is their just desserts for the utter contempt in which they hold the Australian public. When they go to negotiate the next round of media rights, the respective major sports codes should demand that their product be broadcast in high definition as part of any agreement.

Similarly, it was utterly ridiculous that when the cricket tests run overtime, Channel Nine switch it across to GO! so as not to impede the beginning of the Six O'Clock News. So for most of the day it's in standard definition and then switched across to hi-def until play is completed for the day. Make sense of that!!!

If the government had any cahounas, they would legislate that the networks make their high def channel the primary channel but there's no way any government is going to upset the broadcasters that wield so much power. So as a nation we are left with with a sub-standard broadcasting system based around standard definition and cramming as many channels into the allocated spectrum effectively being controlled by the ******** (feel free to insert your own adjective) commercial networks who treat the public with utter contempt.

 

Great post, very informative. My memory's hazy but did channel's 10 and 9 broadcast the AFL in HD when they had the rights? Foxtel broadcast in HD and upscale (is that the word for it?) when they simulcast the channel 7 game? I'm watching a Premier League match on Foxtel as I type this and the picture is terrific.

 

The Metal Show is likely one of those shows which is considered sub channel type fare. Such programming usually is SD as it tends to be on sub channels. Which often are SD. Occasionally you do get a station which runs only one sub channel and runs 720p HD on that channel. Sub channels are extra revenue for stations which needed it to cover the astronomically high costs of the DTV conversion in the USA.

 

Channel's 9 & 10 did broadcast the Grand Final in HD when they had the rights because they had to simulcast the main channel in hi-def as part of the then legislation. Today, all AFL matches are captured in HD but they are down-rezzed on Channel 7. Foxtel don't up-convert it, Channel Seven down-convert it. At least SBS simulcast the A-League matches on their primary and hi-def channels. Ditto with basketball on Channel 10. So the stupid thing is that top tier sports are broadcast in SD in Australia while the secondary sports are shown in HD on sub-channels!! Figure that one out.

Even in standard definition, you can generally tell the shows that were made or captured in hi-def because the picture is still better than that captured by an older SD camera. The stupid thing is pretty much everything made these days is done so in HD, we just don't get to see most if it in that format. To actually make a production in SD today is cutting your own throat because it makes it harder to re-sell them for international markets.

As Bill said in Post 32 above, SD is used because it requires less bandwidth to broadcast so the networks can cram more channels of utter garbage into their spectrum allocation and bring in more advertising revenue. The thing is though, in a comparatively small market the size of Australia, as a manufacturer or retailer, how do you select what channels out of the many available you actually advertise on?

If you saw what HD looked like before it was compressed into either broadcast or Foxtel data stream, i.e. what was seen in the studio, you would be blown away by the quality. It would make 4k seem like an utter nonsense because you would be wondering what benefit it would bring.

 

Do you work in that field mate?

 

This guy right here.

We have many other places to spend our money, than on a new TV. We won't be buying a new TV until we absolutely need one. I think I just broke out my last 'spare' TV, when my 12 year old, 27" tube TV died a couple of months ago. I had a working 19" in the garage.

Next TV that dies will finally be replaced with a modern HD flatscreen.

 

Not in broadcasting myself but sell products engineered to achieve the best possible image in areas where image accuracy is critical. We sell products bought by the production facilities used to do their colour timing and post-production grading. Also, products used in studios for large imaging free from mullions and joins.

 

Hi, for the uninitiated, what are "mullions and joins," please? I Googled the term and went to a page with bewildering terminology-- mullion, joint, schedule. elevation, miter-- more questions than answers!

 

I don't have a HD TV and I notice that the Golf is now definitely targeting the wide-screen viewing audience. I regularly see putts on the telly that have either the hole, or the person putting (or both) off picture!

 

Do we know for a fact it's shot in standard def? What are you watching the show on?

According to Wikipedia, That Metal Show has been in HD for the last couple of years. My bet is that VH1 Classic wasn't able to find enough cable systems willing to carry their channel in HD, so they just delivered a standard-def signal even when they had programming shot in HD. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

In tiled displays like videowalls where multiple panels are employed to form a single large image such as in control rooms, visualisation systems, TV studios, digital signage, etc, mullions/joins refer to the visible "join" in the image between panels. These types of display are not seamless i.e. they're not a single homogenous image.

Such as:



In comparison, a seamless display will form an image across a single homogenous surface with no visible joins such as this:

 

Pizzas I highly prefer cut into squares, actually! And though I lived in Chicago a long time I like my pizza CRISPY thank you very much (was gonna say "New York Style" but I just saw an ad for a place like that and the slices were all limp, ugh, stomach cramps no thank you).

No ice either! Went to Europe with a friend, no ice, loved it. He was aghast and annoyed-he'd keep asking for ice and the drinks would come without. Here in L'Amerique I always ask for no ice but it usually still comes with.

 

Well, if they actually still have a CRT (!!) TV then they have some kind of adaptor, and it wouldn't matter, the HD could still display. Unless someone wants to contend that the cable companies care so much about those customers that they keep SD for them…ha ha ha, as though they give a cr@p about anyone. Besides, I could care less about all those people!

As for those with older LCD/etc, those are usually 720p anyway.

I guess maybe the SD is still there so the cable companies can stick it to you by up charging you for high definition?

But that doesn't really address why something like That Metal Show is in standard def only. They complain about it…but maybe those complaints are only on old episodes by now? Maybe Vidiot is right, U-Verse just doesn't want to spend the bandwidth, they gotta deliver home shopping in 3D 4k instead.

 

I thought That Metal Show on VH1 was in HD. Am I seeing things?

My only gripe is with Sundance Channel and Fox Movie Network.
You'd think Redford and Murdoch would be up in arms about their channels in SD.
Sometimes Sundance looks so poor I change the channel.

God bless The Movie Channel.
Some of the best looking 1080i movies I've seen on cable.

Amazon also had some great looking - supposedly 1080p - movies. And the sound quality blew Netflix away.

 

Shopping channels do not demand HD but they are available in HD anyway.

 

A lot of people still have CRT TVs which can only be in 4:3 format. HD is 16:9, so it would get squished on a 4:3.

 

Ya know, that assertion seems so sensible and believable. And yet, I don't know ANYONE, even poor or elderly people, who have a CRT any more. So I wonder what the numbers really are. Anyone have access to EIA data or such about that?

 

Technically, it wouldn't be squished, but rather letterboxed. So you'd see the whole image, undistorted geometrically with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Personally, I'll be glad whenever we have all HD content, but I'm not hopeful. If Comcast and Time Warner do merge, I expect cable TV to really suck then. Without any competition, there will be no impetus for improvement. Sad, really...

BTW, old TV shows that were shot on film should look good on HD sets, provided they're shown in their correct aspect ratio. I have the Star Trek (original) series on Blu-ray disc, and they are absolutely stunning.