davieG Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Don't expect it anytime soon. BBC The London Olympics has just showcased the world's first live broadcast of the latest viewing technology - super hi vision, with pictures 16 times as sharp as HDTV and multi-channel surround-sound. The BBC's media correspondent Torin Douglas considers its benefits and finds out what viewers think of it. Ever since the first Olympic radio transmissions from Paris in 1924, broadcasters have used the Games to demonstrate the latest next-generation technology. The 1948 London Games were the first to be televised in people's homes. The 1964 Games in Tokyo pioneered colour TV. And in 1984 the Los Angeles Games were the first to be broadcast in High Definition, which eventually reached UK homes more than 20 years later. Back in 1948, the BBC's head of television outside broadcasts showed viewers on-screen how it was done. "Here at the Empire Pool are the cameras set up to watch the aquatic events and the boxing," he said. "The cameras are extremely complicated and use miniature valves developed for radar and other secret purposes during the war." Now, 64 years later, Olympic swimmers in London are again being televised using the latest technology. Super hi vision, developed by the Japanese broadcaster NHK, provides ultra high definition pictures - 16 times as sharp as high definition images, which themselves are four times as clear as standard TV pictures. The sound is much better too. HD surround-sound uses 5.1 channels and is very impressive. Super hi vision uses 22.2. I joined 120 viewers who had booked to see the system's first live broadcast, on a special 300-inch, cinema-size screen at the BBC's Broadcasting House in London. The morning's swimming heats from the Olympic Aquatic Centre were also transmitted to viewing theatres in the BBC's Pacific Quay headquarters in Glasgow, the National Media Museum in Bradford and venues in Tokyo, Fukushima and Washington DC. 'Testing bed' Tim Plyming, who leads the BBC's Olympic trials of the system, says they are building on the history of innovation at the event. "The scale of the Olympics is a great testing bed," he explains. "Most of the big leaps in technology that we've known - from black and white to colour and from standard definition to high definition, and now to ultra high definition - have all had their home at the Olympic Games." Plyming says the picture is so clear it is like looking through a glass wall into the stadium or aquatic centre. Other broadcasters claim it is a truly immersive experience that feels just like being there. Some licence payers have questioned whether it is a good use of the BBC's budget. "Spending money and resources on super hi vision just for prestige is a disgrace at a time when the BBC is cutting back," commented one on the BBC website. But others disagreed. "If it wasn't for the visionaries in broadcasting and video technology we would still be watching 405 line black and white television," declared one correspondent. So what did my fellow viewers make of it? Quite simply, they were bowled over. "The sound was fantastic and the picture was amazing, so clear" said one London woman. "Amazing," agreed another: "You really do feel like you're in the stadium, in the atmosphere."'Long wait' A French man told me he had been in the Aquatic Centre on Saturday and the comparison was very good. "You seem to be there," he said. I agree. If you can't get a ticket, this experience really is the next best thing. And there are still a few tickets available - free of charge - between now and the end of the Olympics. Screenings in London and Glasgow can be booked through the BBC ticketing website, while screenings in Bradford can be booked through the National Media Museum. You can also watch some of the 1948 Olympic broadcasts and see one of the original cameras in an exhibition of Olympics TV technology at Broadcasting House. But don't expect to find super hi vision on the high street soon. HD took more than 20 years to progress from the Los Angeles Olympics into UK homes, and the latest next-generation technology will not be available domestically for some years. And apart from the likely cost, who has room for a 300-inch screen?
MooseBreath Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 I desperately want this technology now, because I have been successfully conned by those evil marketeers. We all know this kind of technology has been available forever, but the evil corporations are releasing it in dribs and stabs to maximise their profit. Pure evil, what a disgrace.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 I'm not sure I can see 16 times sharper than HD.
Legend_in_blue Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Televised HD broadcasts are only 720p anyway so you only get blown away with a decent display and bluray player when running at 1080p.
Webbo Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 And to think I was perfectly happy with a non-HD TV. Oh what a fool I am.
ozleicester Posted 1 August 2012 Posted 1 August 2012 Cant wait.... just imagine me watching the Thai stream from KP Stadium in, mega, ultra, sooper dooper HD... Ping Pow Konchesky passes to Gagalher.... and ill be able to see it all... granted its only one frame every 17 seconds.. but im drooling at the thought. ps what a waste of money.. if you buy into this HD sh!t you deserve to be fleeced at the shop.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 August 2012 Posted 1 August 2012 Not sure my eyes are that good. Enjoying the HDTV I got at Christmas though, especially with the surround sound and Bluray. I think the sound makes it.
Phube Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Any one who has seen a Pixar Bluray compared with a standard DVD version and can't see the difference is basically blind and should just stick to a 14in B&W CRT TV! DVD: Bluray:
Parafox Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Any one who has seen a Pixar Bluray compared with a standard DVD version and can't see the difference is basically blind and should just stick to a 14in B&W CRT TV! DVD: Bluray: Aren't they promo pics for Blu-Ray and therefore could've been computer enhanced for effect?
Phube Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Aren't they promo pics for Blu-Ray and therefore could've been computer enhanced for effect? Nope, they're from an independent Pixar fan site. And trust me, that IS the difference. I only have a 720p TV and Pixar's Blurays are stunning. My dad has a 1080p and on it they are ridiculous!
danny. Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Haha, how can people not tell the difference between SD and HD? DVDs look absolutely awful, I have no idea how people watch DVDs still, esp on >42" screens
Raw Dykes Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Haha, how can people not tell the difference between SD and HD? DVDs look absolutely awful, I have no idea how people watch DVDs still, esp on >42" screens I can tell the difference, but I honestly couldn't care less. DVDs don't look even a bit awful! That's ridiculous. It wasn't long ago when everyone was perfectly happy watching VHS tapes. Will you be saying Super hi vision looks absolutely awful in a few years when they gazump you with Ultra HD or whatever they call their next con? All this HD bollocks is the emperor's new clothes.
Phube Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 I can tell the difference, but I honestly couldn't care less. DVDs don't look even a bit awful! That's ridiculous. It wasn't long ago when everyone was perfectly happy watching VHS tapes. Will you be saying Super hi vision looks absolutely awful in a few years when they gazump you with Ultra HD or whatever they call their next con? All this HD bollocks is the emperor's new clothes. I believe they call it progress! Everyone was fine with walking, then horses, then trains, then cars. The next big thing in personal transport will make cars look stupid... but we're not there yet? Every one was happy with grammaphones, then record players, then cassettes, then CD's, finally digital. I'm sure we were all happy listening to 90mins of music (on both sides) before having to change, but now it just wont cut it! VHS was fine, because (barring Betamax) it was the best we had then... But now - imaging having to rewind your videos to watch them again...
Raw Dykes Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 I believe they call it progress! Everyone was fine with walking, then horses, then trains, then cars. The next big thing in personal transport will make cars look stupid... but we're not there yet? Every one was happy with grammaphones, then record players, then cassettes, then CD's, finally digital. I'm sure we were all happy listening to 90mins of music (on both sides) before having to change, but now it just wont cut it! VHS was fine, because (barring Betamax) it was the best we had then... But now - imaging having to rewind your videos to watch them again... I think you've made some good points. Of course, cars and trains are much better than horses, and mp3s are far more practical than vinyl, but a slightly clearer picture is just an excuse to rip people off. I suppose it is progress, but since it's such a tiny improvement on something that was good already, without mentioning that it's very expensive, I don't think it's worth it. It's like the water companies deciding to add a dye to water to make it prettier and forcing everyone to re-plumb their houses so the pipes can handle the dye, and then a few years later, they want to add a flavour to it and make you get new pipes again. The thing that annoys me is that, like the switch over to digital, they'll get you over the barrel, forcing you to buy a new bit of kit that you didn't want, and force you to throw away the old one, that you were perfectly happy with. You can't even sell it on because the signal's changed and it's completely obsolete. All because they've managed to make the picture slightly sharper. How many people were crying out for this a few years ago when DVD was the best you could get? After HD signal replaces standard digital, they'll try to do the same again with 3D or super HD. I don't mind at all if you're never forced into buying a new telly when your old one's fine. I did think of the rewinding thing just after I wrote my last comment. That is a big plus. What I mean is, if the picture quality on DVDs was no better than VHS, I wouldn't care. The next big thing in personal transport will make cars look stupid That's the thing. I don't think HD makes the standard signal or DVDs look stupid at all. There's little difference. My point is, there are plenty of things that we know could and should be improved. For example, transport could be a lot quicker and more efficient. Whereas some things are fine as they are, such as tv picture quality.
Jon the Hat Posted 8 August 2012 Posted 8 August 2012 Dvd pictures look a bit crap if you play them on an HDTV without a decent upscaling Blu-Ray player.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.