RTÉ TWO HD - What A Waste!

Rick_ · 19-11-2012 10:19PM #1

Looking through the schedule for the next fortnight, there seems to be only one or two programmes a day in HD. I mean, why make a HD channel when they have so little HD content? Shouldn't they have waited until they had secured HD rights for most/all their imported programming and films at least before launching RTÉ TWO HD which is only really worth getting the HD upgrade for sports content?

STB · 19-11-2012 10:33PM

Paddy C wrote: »

Looking through the schedule for the next fortnight, there seems to be only one or two programmes a day in HD. I mean, why make a HD channel when they have so little HD content? Shouldn't they have waited until they had secured HD rights for most/all their imported programming and films at least before launching RTÉ TWO HD which is only really worth getting the HD upgrade for sports content?

A dedicated Standard definition channel could never support HD....:)

Thats the thing about broadcasting Paddy you can not do things in reverse!

Little by little. And certainly not a waste.

Richard · 19-11-2012 11:21PM

STB wrote: »

A dedicated Standard definition channel could never support HD....:)

Thats the thing about broadcasting Paddy you can not do things in reverse!

Little by little. And certainly not a waste.

I agree. It's not as if there are loads of channels begging to be on Saorview.

liamtech · 20-11-2012 12:53AM

Richard wrote: »

I agree. It's not as if there are loads of channels begging to be on Saorview.

In all honesty you have to remember that SD upscaled by saorview and broadcast as HD, is way better then SD - I know that its not as good as Native HD... But RTE2HD always looks sharper and clearer than any of the SD stations currently on offer

GullibleOne · 20-11-2012 02:45PM

liamtech wrote: »

In all honesty you have to remember that SD upscaled by saorview and broadcast as HD, is way better then SD - I know that its not as good as Native HD... But RTE2HD always looks sharper and clearer than any of the SD stations currently on offer

so it is not even 'real' HD on any programme?

20-11-2012 02:48PM

GullibleOne wrote: »

so it is not even 'real' HD on any programme?

No, the SD programming is upscaled to HD. There is some real HD content but not a whole lot.

Tony · 20-11-2012 03:34PM

Its also a good way to make sure everyone bought a HD rather than an SD box and negated the need to have a separate RTE 2 SD feed.

swoofer · 20-11-2012 11:05PM

and i can remember when the rte picture on one and 2 was woeful, like living in a new country now, apart benda and co.

formerly scottish paddy · 21-11-2012 07:14PM

If you're old enough you'll remember that when colour "started" there were few programmes in colour but gradually the number increased until it was a "total" service.

GullibleOne · 21-11-2012 07:29PM

formerly scottish paddy wrote: »

If you're old enough you'll remember that when colour "started" there were few programmes in colour but gradually the number increased until it was a "total" service.

there was an advert that said "remember if you have a colour tv you must have a colour licence"

munchkin_utd · 21-11-2012 07:36PM

there is worse than what RTE is doing.

In germany all the private tv channels (akin to ITV) make you pay 100 quid a year for the priviledge of the HD channels and the amount of native HD content is similar to RTE, i.e. theres shag all of it to justify actually having it

At least RTE2 HD is free.

APM · 21-11-2012 07:39PM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

there is worse than what RTE is doing.

In germany all the private tv channels (akin to ITV) make you pay 100 quid a year for the priviledge of the HD channels and the amount of native HD content is similar to RTE, i.e. theres shag all of it to justify actually having it

At least RTE2 HD is free.

If your a Sky Subscriber they charge €180 a year extra for the luxury of HD too

lertsnim · 21-11-2012 07:59PM

Upscaled SD is better than the SD alternative. The SD channels on Saorview look incredibly soft.

21-11-2012 09:21PM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

there is worse than what RTE is doing.

In germany all the private tv channels (akin to ITV) make you pay 100 quid a year for the priviledge of the HD channels and the amount of native HD content is similar to RTE, i.e. theres shag all of it to justify actually having it

At least RTE2 HD is free.

Is that HD+? They also prevent you from skipping adverts in programmes you have recorded.

lertsnim wrote: »

Upscaled SD is better than the SD alternative. The SD channels on Saorview look incredibly soft.

That's partially due to the 544x576 screen resolution.

STB · 21-11-2012 11:07PM

Karsini wrote: »

No, the SD programming is upscaled to HD. There is some real HD content but not a whole lot.

Even so the average quality of the broadcast output on the stat mux is 1200KB/s on RTE2HD compared to 300KB/S on the SD channels.

Noticable. Tv3 looks kack which makes me think that encoders they are using are very intelligent hardware, matching the content.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-11-2012 11:57PM

RTE spent 20 years simulcasting on 405 and 625 line. Even when they started 405 was more or less obsolete and most people rented TV's rather than buying them.

Lets hope they show some Christmas movies in HD

Technique · 22-11-2012 12:07AM

STB wrote: »

Even so the average quality of the broadcast output on the stat mux is 1200KB/s on RTE2HD compared to 300KB/S on the SD channels.

Noticable. Tv3 looks kack which makes me think that encoders they are using are very intelligent hardware, matching the content.

I was watching Chelsea/Juventus on ITV HD last night. Turned over to TV3 to see how Celtic were doing and couldn't believe how soft the picture was. Even my 8 year old asked what was wrong with the TV.

Man City / Real Madrid was excellent quality on RTE 2 tonight. Was that in native HD?

lertsnim · 22-11-2012 12:16AM

Karsini wrote: »

That's partially due to the 544x576 screen resolution.

Yes

STB · 22-11-2012 12:24AM

Technique wrote: »

I was watching Chelsea/Juventus on ITV HD last night. Turned over to TV3 to see how Celtic were doing and couldn't believe how soft the picture was. Even my 8 year old asked what was wrong with the TV.

Man City / Real Madrid was excellent quality on RTE 2 tonight. Was that in native HD?

Man City game was in HD.

RTENL have set a min bit band rate on RTE2HD which appears to be about the 750KB/S mark. During HD output that runs up another 500KB/S and everything else on the mux is squeezed as a result.

Stinicker · 22-11-2012 02:29AM

Technique wrote: »

I was watching Chelsea/Juventus on ITV HD last night. Turned over to TV3 to see how Celtic were doing and couldn't believe how soft the picture was. Even my 8 year old asked what was wrong with the TV.

Man City / Real Madrid was excellent quality on RTE 2 tonight. Was that in native HD?

TV3 have rotten picture quality at the best of times.

Elfinknight · 22-11-2012 02:46AM

APM wrote: »

If your a Sky Subscriber they charge €180 a year extra for the luxury of HD too

RTE2HD comes with.the standard package as do BBCHD and BBC1HD. Anything else u are corect

snaps · 22-11-2012 07:30AM

Technique wrote: »

I was watching Chelsea/Juventus on ITV HD last night. Turned over to TV3 to see how Celtic were doing and couldn't believe how soft the picture was. Even my 8 year old asked what was wrong with the TV.

Man City / Real Madrid was excellent quality on RTE 2 tonight. Was that in native HD?

There was a huge difference alright on Tuesday night between the 2 channels. The celtic match was so bad compared to the Chelski game i couldnt watch it.

lawhec · 22-11-2012 11:15AM

STB wrote: »

Even so the average quality of the broadcast output on the stat mux is 1200KB/s on RTE2HD compared to 300KB/S on the SD channels.

Noticable. Tv3 looks kack which makes me think that encoders they are using are very intelligent hardware, matching the content.

Those figures don't look right, they should be both at least 4-5 times those values.

I'd hate to see a 1440x1080 1080i HD programme running on an average bit rate of 1.2Mbps :eek:

The use of 544x576 seems to be a deliberate ploy by RTÉNL to minimise artifacting at the expense of picture sharpening. The resolution is OK for 4:3 material, but suffers for 16:9 broadcasts as the pixel ration gets close to 2:1 i.e. 2 times wider than it is tall.

Also sports content demands a higher bit rate to keep a consistent picture quality compared to say talking heads in a news interview because of the extra detail required and the fast moving cameras putting more detail into the I frames each frame, for example in a soccer match there would be the constant panning of the camera, details like the blades of grass, small features on players' kits, individuals in the stands etc. all of which punish the stat-muxs. ITV in the past, especially on Freeview, has been notorious for its very poor picture quality for matches; the pitches being smudges of no more than a handful of shades of green with major artifacting to go with it.

lertsnim · 22-11-2012 11:32AM

Elfinknight wrote: »

RTE2HD comes with.the standard package as do BBCHD and BBC1HD. Anything else u are corect

BBC HD and BBC One HD require no package of any kind

JonathonS · 22-11-2012 12:26PM

STB wrote: »

Tv3 looks kack

I watched the Champions League on TV3 last week, terrible quality. RTE2 HD is worth it for the sports coverage alone.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-11-2012 01:40PM

lertsnim wrote: »

BBC HD and BBC One HD require no package of any kind

With a FTA receiver you can also get
BBC 1 HD (Several regions inc. NI)
BBC HD
Channel 4 HD
ITV1 HD (Several regions - but not UTV - yet)
NHK World HD
(Russia Today HD) - coming soon

Back on topic.

BBC have been getting a bit of stick about the bitrate on Satellite vs. terrestrial for their HD
Not sure if the same applies to saorsat vs. saorview.

wil · 22-11-2012 02:52PM

Funny how a few years ago people could view any movie/sport/event on a 12inch portable without major complaint, now no matter what drivel, for many it is only watchable so long as it is in HD.
Since when did the quality of content become irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT7hcWFu7q4

(the irrelephant contradiction of a utube contribution vividly illustrates why life is so much more colourful and bewildering than reality)

mike65 · 22-11-2012 03:06PM

Karsini wrote: »

That's partially due to the 544x576 screen resolution.

STB wrote: »

Man City game was in HD.

RTENL have set a min bit band rate on RTE2HD which appears to be about the 750KB/S mark. During HD output that runs up another 500KB/S and everything else on the mux is squeezed as a result.

Are we stuck with the dismal SD resolution until MUX 2 is fired up then?

Capt'n Midnight · 22-11-2012 04:14PM

wil wrote: »

Funny how a few years ago people could view any movie/sport/event on a 12inch portable without major complaint, now no matter what drivel, for many it is only watchable so long as it is in HD.
Since when did the quality of content become irrelevant.

Lets not forget that sometimes having too much resolution can be a problem.

Like the problems with the early days of sound. Actors with funny voices and noisy stages and sets. Now it's ropey special effects and CGI that don't stand up to close inspection, and make up can't hide all the blemishes for presenters and porn actors.

watty · 22-11-2012 04:23PM

Satellite has more space so can use 720 x 576 or 1920 x 1080. Cheaper channels run 544 x 576 or 1440 x 1080
Terrestrial has less space and is thus 544 x 576 (about equivalent to PAL) or 1440 x 1080. The 1440 x 1080 WS is roughly animorphic WS. 1920 x 1080 is "square pixel" HD.

Square pixel SD 4:3 would be 768 x 576 and WS 1024 x 576

Ordinary digital TV is only meant to replace a good analogue TV signal, not be better. Hence 544 x 576. DAB on the other hand is only for more stations. It could be as good as FM, but in UK and Ireland is much poorer due to worse coverage and a bit rate HALF of what it should be.

It's the RTE Radio on DTT that's really rubbish quality.

Note that composite PAL has "artefacts" that make it seem sharper at times. RGB looks softer but has no artefacts.

I don't expect the SD or HD to have any higher resolution. Complain about the so called "Digital Dividend" that sacrifices part of the TV band and the greed to make the channels transmission cheap rather than have three multiplexes instead of two.

dharn · 22-11-2012 04:25PM

porn actors ? in HD.... tell us more

RTÉ TWO HD - What A Waste!

Comments