Capturing MUSIC VIDEOS...any suggestions??

[fible]

:confused:

I'm just getting into this sort of thing so I'm a newbie to this.
I'd like to capture music videos from some old VHS tapes I've accumulated over the years. Should I capture one music video at a time or maybe say in blocks of 5-6 clips at a time. Space is not a problem since I've set aside an 80GB 7200rpm (NTFS) hard disk for capturing. The end result is that I want to create an SVCD with bookmarks/chapters for each clip so that any clip can be played at anytime simply by choosing the "chapter".

Any suggestions or advice on this? I want the highest quality possible both audio & video. I guess to gain quality you sacrifice the amount of video a CD-R disk can hold but, that's fine...quality is the priority.

Cheers!

[dar1us]

Should I capture one music video at a time or maybe say in blocks of 5-6 clips at a time.

Capture all of the videos in one go, then use something like VirtualDub or avisynth if you can be bothered, dub will suffice.

The end result is that I want to create an SVCD with bookmarks/chapters for each clip so that any clip can be played at anytime simply by choosing the "chapter".

Why not make each individual video an individual music video with chapters every 30 seconds or so, this will be cooler. You could even go as far as to make a menu.

I guess to gain quality you sacrifice the amount of video a CD-R disk can hold but, that's fine...quality is the priority.

Kind of, but the most important quality loss will be from the capture itself. VHS is hardly a good source and most music videos are broadcast interlaced on UK tv, I think it is a rule by bSKYb (satellite).

Results are usually appauling. Though do some reasearch on a good capture card, then give it a go.

I think SVCD is a little extreme for VHS captured music videos, VCD will be much more harmless and easier to create. You could even do xVCD or something. This can be something like 1600kbps per music video. This will be realistically nice and will also do everything else you want.

You may need to do a lot of post-processing like de-noising for good results.

Cheers!

Good luck.

-dar1us

[Swan]

Originally posted by fible
:confused:

I'm just getting into this sort of thing so I'm a newbie to this.
I'd like to capture music videos from some old VHS tapes I've accumulated over the years.
Ahh, my favorite hobby. It's a lot of fun and one plays the videos much more than when they're hidden in a cupboard on an old VHS tape.

Originally posted by fible

Should I capture one music video at a time or maybe say in blocks of 5-6 clips at a time. Space is not a problem since I've set aside an 80GB 7200rpm (NTFS) hard disk for capturing.

Capture them one by one if you have a "regular" capture card. The audio levels may be different and you should adjust them before capturing each video. If you're using a DV device to capture, you can't as easily adjust the levels, so in that case, capture them all and edit out the stuff you don't want in VirtualDub, or similar software, later.
If you're going to capture in Mpeg-format, editing will be a bit more complicated. But it's possible.

Originally posted by fible

The end result is that I want to create an SVCD with bookmarks/chapters for each clip so that any clip can be played at anytime simply by choosing the "chapter".

It's easiest to do this if each video is its own separate clip.
If you capture all the videos in one go, so you have one file, and you want a chapter to start at the precise start of each video, you need to make sure the first frame in every video is an i-frame, an Mpeg keyframe. This can be set in most Mpeg-2 encoders, but it's much, much easier to create chapters with separate video clips when authoring the SVCD. I recommend VCDEasy for the authoring. It's great. http://www.vcdeasy.org


Originally posted by fible

Any suggestions or advice on this? I want the highest quality possible both audio & video.

If your sources are as old as mine (from 1988 up to 1996), and used quality tapes and a video that was not "el cheapo", but not state-of-the-art either, you will have quite a noisy source and you're bound to see blocking on your SVCDs. Quite a bit of it too, even when using the highest qualty settings in TMPGEnc. So don't expect too much. But TMPGEnc is what I use and I recommend it, as it's easy to mask the junk at the bottom of the video that always appear on video captured from VHS.

Originally posted by fible

I guess to gain quality you sacrifice the amount of video a CD-R disk can hold but, that's fine...quality is the priority.

To make discs that look as good as the original VHS tape, I think you need to make DVDs instead of SVCD.
An SVCD can not match the quality of the video on the VHS tape, because there simply isn't enough bits (the bitrate in SVCD is 2520 kbps/s) to handle noisy old VHS very well. You will see blocking.

Perhaps some advanced noise filtering can help the situation, but I don't have the hang of it myself. Also, whenever I tinker with filtering, some of the stuff I want to keep gets filtered out too. :-)

An SVCD will look more like the VHS tape, in terms of sharpness and detail in the picture than a VCD from the same source, in my view. But a VCD will have less obvious blocking artifacts.
Also, interlace is preserved in SVCD, which makes anything that moves in the videos look much natural when viewed on a TV than a VCD, which is not interlaced (so movement looks kind of sluggish and odd).

That's my personal opinion, you should try and see what you prefer (blurry picture with little blocking and odd-looking movement due to the lack of interlace support) or relatively speaking sharp image with some (sometimes much) blocking and nice movement.

[fccHandler]

[My two cents]

I've been archiving my music videos for years, and I am also very picky about quality. I agree with most everything that Swan said, but over time I've concluded that VCD and SVCD are really bad choices for music videos. In my experience, music videos tend to represent the worst-case scenario for compression because of the excessive amounts of rockin', dancin', groovin', flashin' lights, motion, etc. :p

The problem is even worse with VCD and SVCD because of the hard limit on maximum bitrate, thus with many music videos blockiness is unavoidable without some heavy-duty filtering. To me, this amount of filtering to minimize blockiness tends to blur or otherwise degrade the video even more.

I've gotten my best results with DivX "1-pass quality based," and XviD "1-pass quantizer" because in these modes there is no limit on the maximum bitrate (though file sizes are difficult to predict). With proper care the results can look every bit as good as the original VHS.

However, if you must play your archives on a standalone, then DivX isn't an option for you unless you have one of the new DVD players that can decode DivX. Even then, I suspect that these players have limits on the maximum bitrate that they can support, so your "1-pass quality based" encodes may still be unplayable.

If as you say, quality is the priority, my advice is to avoid VCD and SVCD like the plague and get into making DVD.

[/My two cents]

[Swan]

In my experience, music videos tend to represent the worst-case scenario for compression because of the excessive amounts of rockin', dancin', groovin', flashin' lights, motion, etc
You hit the nail on the head, fccHandler .
:)
Music videos always have many, many of the things that low bitrate (VCD, SVCD) Mpeg-compression cannot deal with very well (constantly rapid scene changes, much movement in each frame, etc).
And to top it off, VHS, which adds noise..
I can get more than decent SVCDs from videos I capture straight from the satellite receiver, but the SVCDs from VHS videos look just barely "OK"..
It's far from top quality (which I want). Nowhere near it. I always see blockiness here and there. So, I've ordered a DVD writer, because standalone playability is important to me, as well as image and audio quality. :)

[dar1us]

For extreme rocking and getting down nasty, video wise - try capturing Dirrty, Christina A...(dont ask me to spell it:)).

That is useful to see how your card handles it, mine didn't do too well at all. Never mind.

With satellite channels for music not using much bandwidth (unlike BBC and other big corp's), the quality is even worse. I heard that the res is 544x576 (sometimes) and bitrates upwards of 1.5mbps. Ouch!

-dar1us

[dar1us]

SWAN, you said.Capture them one by one if you have a "regular" capture card. The audio levels may be different and you should adjust them before capturing each video.

Why not just split them afterwards because most videos run straight after the previous one, then use auto gain utils like besweet?

-dar1us

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by dar1us
I heard that the res is 544x576 (sometimes) and bitrates upwards of 1.5mbps. Ouch!
Interesting! I actually measured the horizontal resolution of my digital cable feed by counting the blocks (in a particularly blocky video I had captured) and arrived at the same number. I could make out 34 visible blocks counting across, and 34 x 16 = 544.

[dar1us]

Some channels broadcast at something like 6mbps+ (dvd quality basically) at full PAL res. Thankyou beeb:)

The movie channels are apparently 544x576.

Something REALLY cool if you have SKY Digital. As of the beginning of the summer, ALL SKY DIGITAL channels (except sky news - what a shame) will be broadcast in anamorphic widescreen. DOnt worry if you have a 4:3, you can always change it, sure everyone with sky knew that:) (seriously).

-dar1us

[Swan]

This is off-topic (not directly related to the original post), but an interesting subject. :)

I also have DVB (via Canal Digital, which is one of two DVB providers we have here in Sweden).
VH1 (the European edition) and MTV are the two music stations I can capture from.
I also see blocking on music videos, Christina Aguilera is one where blocking is very visible. Try capturing "Pump Up The Jam" by Technotronic, though. I've never seen more blocking than in that one.:)

I often wonder if the problem is that there is a too low video bitrate on - especially VH1 - (since the movie channels look smashing) or if the problem is the material. Or if it's a combination.
We all know that Mpeg-2 compression deals best with progressive source material.
Movies are made from progressive film, music videos are often genuinely interlaced or has been badly transferred from NTSC to PAL (creating blended fields; what a nightmare for the Mpeg-2 encoders).
In movies, there are not so many constant scene changes and rapid action as in music videos. Perhaps that's why the movie channels look better than the music channels? But also, there is variation in bitrate (picture quality) between stations in the same "family".
The picture quality is much better on "Discovery Europe" than on its siblings "Discovery Sci-Trek" and "Discovery Travel and Adventure", for example.

I doubt that the resolutions are as low as 544x576, though.
If one looks at the excerpts from the DVB specification that can be found the web, the same resolutions are used as is allowed on DVD (720 x 576, 352 x 576, etc). The resolutions must comply with the Mpeg-2 Profile standards and 544x576 doesn't.
Here's some info: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/public_html/research/future-net/digital-video/mpeg2.html

The really crappy looking stations, like free-to-air Bulgarian "CKAT TV" probably use a low resolution, like 352 x 576 and a low bitrate too. But I don't think any of the top stations like BBC Prime, Discovery, Animal Planet and so fourth, go below 720 x 576 and 6000 in bitrate.

Back to the subject.. :)
Why not just split them afterwards because most videos run straight after the previous one, then use auto gain utils like besweet?
I'm not really good at explaining this, but... The loudness level, the perceived level of loudness, can be changed afterwards by filtering. Normalization means bringing the levels up to the highest peak found in the source material.
But when the highest peak is at -12 DB or something, normalization doesn't really do much for you.

Bringing the levels up in post-processing is not the same thing as getting the levels peaking at a good and safe level during capturing.
With levels of, say -12 DB as I am getting from the DV device I use, I am not sampling the full dynamic range and also, one gets the equivalence of hiss, I believe it is called "quantization errors".

To simplify; it's like standing in front of a 4 meter high bookshelf, filled with a variety of candy, one kind on each shelf. I want to take a bite of all of them, from bottom to top. I'm only 1.71 meters tall and unless I use a ladder or something to stand on, I won't be able to grab any of the candy on the top shelves. And in no way can I recreate the candy at the top, by using the candy I was able to retrieve from the shelves I could reach.

/Maria

[cjv]

Originally posted by Swan
To simplify; it's like standing in front of a 4 meter high bookshelf, filled with a variety of candy, one kind on each shelf. I want to take a bite of all of them, from bottom to top. I'm only 1.71 meters tall and unless I use a ladder or something to stand on, I won't be able to grab any of the candy on the top shelves. And in no way can I recreate the candy at the top, by using the candy I was able to retrieve from the shelves I could reach.

/Maria
:) I like this analogy.

cjv

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Swan
I doubt that the resolutions are as low as 544x576, though.
If one looks at the excerpts from the DVB specification that can be found the web, the same resolutions are used as is allowed on DVD (720 x 576, 352 x 576, etc). The resolutions must comply with the Mpeg-2 Profile standards and 544x576 doesn't.
Sorry I'm still off-topic, but I just can't resist. ;)

I don't interpret the info in your link to say that only those resolutions are allowed, it just says that they are the most typical. The MPEG-2 Profile has little to do with it, as MP@ML supports all resolutions up to 720 x 576.

But a quick search on google led me to a page (http://www.dvdrhelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php) which states "The MTV/VH1 Channels on Astra 1G, are using 544 X 576," and lists 544 as a valid resolution for DVB in Europe. (From what I can see, it also seems to be valid in the U.S.A.)

This brings up another OT question: Armed with this knowledge, is there any point in capturing my NTSC digital cable at 720 x 480 (as I was doing before), or should I switch to 544 x 480 ("native" resolution)?

[Herske]

I also have DVB (via Canal Digital, which is one of two DVB providers we have here in Sweden).
VH1 (the European edition) and MTV are the two music stations I can capture from. I also see blocking on music videos, Christina Aguilera is one where blocking is very visible. Try capturing "Pump Up The Jam" by Technotronic, though. I've never seen more blocking than in that one.


MTV Networks on Astra and Hotbird are 544x576. Bitrate is kinda low.

The best channels (image quality wise ) on CD are C+ (Gul, etc etc): 704x576 at 15 Mbps.
Kiosks (PPV, 5 Euros/movie) are dreadful, 352x576 at 4Mbps.


I often wonder if the problem is that there is a too low video bitrate on - especially VH1 - (since the movie channels look smashing) or if the problem is the material. Or if it's a combination.

If you're talking about any MTV Networks channel : it's the bitrate.

I doubt that the resolutions are as low as 544x576, though.
If one looks at the excerpts from the DVB specification that can be found the web, the same resolutions are used as is allowed on DVD (720 x 576, 352 x 576, etc). The resolutions must comply with the Mpeg-2 Profile standards and 544x576 doesn't.

Nope: any resolution between 352x288 and 704x576 is legal for DVB (of course, mod 16).

Just like this, any SR between 1 and 45 000 MSym is legal for DVB.


The really crappy looking stations, like free-to-air Bulgarian "CKAT TV" probably use a low resolution, like 352 x 576 and a low bitrate too. But I don't think any of the top stations like BBC Prime, Discovery, Animal Planet and so fourth, go below 720 x 576 and 6000 in bitrate.


Well, BBC Prime is not at all a top station; lots of supposedly good channels go well below 720x576; examples: CD PPV channell (all 22 of them) and many more scattered on other satellites.

[Swan]

More off topic stuff coming through.. :)

@Herske
MTV Networks on Astra and Hotbird are 544x576. Bitrate is kinda low.
Awkay. I am watching VH1 Europe and MTV Europe on Thor (Canal digital). I have also seen it from Sirius (Viasat) and they look the same.
I didn't know Vh1 and MTV broadcast digitally on Hotbird and Astra too.

Nope: any resolution between 352x288 and 704x576 is legal for DVB (of course, mod 16).
So DVB doesn't follow the Mpeg-2 specification?
Doesn't comply with the Main Profile at Main Level, like DVD? Interesting!
This goes against what I have read.

Does DVB have its own Mpeg-2 levels and profiles?
I've been trying to find out more, but since the DVB spec seems to cost money, if you've found it or a compressed version of it somewhere, I'd love to read it.

Peter Symes, whose "Video Compression Demystified" is another great book has an article here: http://www.broadcastpapers.com/editing/GVGTheNewMPEGs02.htm
that suggests DVB *does* use the Main Level Main Profile.

The MPEG committee decided on a structure of profiles and levels. Profiles define the tools and syntactical elements that may be used; levels define the permissible ranges of parameters. Various combinations of profile and level are provided to allow practical subsets to be implemented in a standard manner, as shown in Figure 1. For standard definition television we generally use Main Profile at Main Level (MP@ML) or the studio 4:2:2 Profile at Main Level (4:2:2@ML). For high-definition television we use the same profiles at High Level (MP@HL and 4:2:2@HL).

Well, BBC Prime is not at all a top station; lots of supposedly good channels go well below 720x576; examples: CD PPV channell (all 22 of them) and many more scattered on other satellites.
I have seen BBC Prime from Thor and Sirius and in my view it looks good on both.

@fccHandler

The MPEG-2 Profile has little to do with it, as MP@ML supports all resolutions up to 720 x 576.
If DVB is MPEG 2 Main Profile @Main Level (MP@ML) compliant, then
looking into that (via the "Mpeg Hand book" by John Watkinson),
I do not see any level that contains a "544 resolution".
For PAL, it's :
352 x 288 for Main Level, main profile
720 x 576 for Main Level, main profile
1920 x 1152 high level, high profile

But a quick search on google led me to a page which states "The MTV/VH1 Channels on Astra 1G, are using 544 X 576," and lists 544 as a valid resolution for DVB in Europe. (From what I can see, it also seems to be valid in the U.S.A.)
I'm not dissing DVDrhelp ;), but I'd like to see this from a more reliable source (a technical document from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.) Or someone who's read it, understood it and written in a condensed way about it. :)

This brings up another OT question: Armed with this knowledge, is there any point in capturing my NTSC digital cable at 720 x 480 (as I was doing before), or should I switch to 544 x 480 ("native" resolution)?
If I were you I'd continue to capture in full resolution and let the encoder or video editor resize the video. From what I understand, it's not a good idea to let the hardware do the resizing "on the fly"

/Swan

[Herske]

Swan:

I've read ISO 138182 chapter 8 (describing profiles and levels) : all restrictions are given as upper bounds.

Anyway, I've also gone quickly through A001R6 ( "Implementation guidelines for the use of mpeg-2 systems, video [..] in satellite application".

Page 22, 5.1.4.

The encoded picture shall have a full screen luminance resolution (horizontal x vertical) of one of the following values:

720x576
544x576
480x576
352x576
352x288


Allowed aspect ratios: 4:3, 16:9, 2.21:1

Despite this, several channels broadcast at 528x576 and 704x576.

This brings up another OT question: Armed with this knowledge, is there any point in capturing my NTSC digital cable at 720 x 480 (as I was doing before), or should I switch to 544 x 480 ("native" resolution)?

Switch to the "real" resolution, there's no use in capping at 720 is the provider is broadcasting at 544. You will not gain any more detail, you'll use more space, more cpu power, etc etc.

[dar1us]

I think the topic is answered so I am sure that anything a little off topic isn't going to be screamed over...

... A little:P


Nice reading, lots of good links to useful articles, so with the original conclusion, channels over DVB-S can be broadcast at 544x576.

What is BBC prime, you Europeans seem to all have the same channels. UK TV is basically completly independant, the 60 million in the UK and the (5 million?) people in Ireland have this entirely different set of channels. We do have loads of asian (indian and the odd Jap?Chinese networks, like SONY_TV Asia...)) channels and middle eastern ones like Al Jazeera (the one that always seems to show the Bin Laden vids).

How many channels do you have avalible on Canal Digital, we have something like 400. Wide variety, but all the SKY Owned ones (noone be perdantic, I know many other small networks are run by sky (Bravo...?), they are all about to go 16:9 or more:), I cant wait. No more 4:3, only problem is that most american meterial on TV 2001 or older seems to be in full frame (trek (not enterprise) and many other shows... grr).

So what is BBC prime? We just have BBC 1, BBC2, BBC 3(choice), BBC 4, BBC News 24, CBBC, CBebies (last 2 are kiddies - Childrens BBC) and obviously, the only decent radio network I have ever come across during my travels.

-dar1us

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Swan
I've been trying to find out more, but since the DVB spec seems to cost money, if you've found it or a compressed version of it somewhere, I'd love to read it.
I really don't know anything about the DVB spec, but I do have a link to some portions of the MPEG-2 spec (http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp?page=1&s=iso/iec). Profiles and levels are described in Annex E of 13818-2 (video). Hope you have a strong stomach. ;)

[Swan]

@fccHandler and Herske:
Thank you both for all the information.
I find this very interesting and also confusing.
What I don't understand is how can DVB broadcasts be Mpeg-2 Main Profile, Main Level-compliant, yet use resolutions not mentioned in that spec?

I consider "The Mpeg Handbook" a great source of info and it lists all the profiles and levels (or so I thought). I will look into this further, but you have provided very interesting info. I have a strong stomach (it thrives on Indian take-away) so a little Mpeg-2 technical documentation wont hurt it. :)

Herske, do you have a download location for "A001R6 ( "Implementation guidelines for the use of mpeg-2 systems, video [..] in satellite application"." ?

@dar1us:

What is BBC prime, you Europeans seem to all have the same channels.
BBC Prime is a channel aimed at Europe, it's the TV equivalence of BBC World Service, I guess. The programs on BBC Prime comes from BBC1 and BBC2, it's like a digest of the two. But BBC Prime does not show foreign or domestic programs that the BBC has licensed for broadcast in the UK only. It's only material that the BBC have produced themselves.
Also, a lot of classic BBC shows are shown. I especially like the "Fast Show" which is on tonight :).

This is how they present themselves on their web site:
BBC Prime brings great British entertainment into your home 24 hours a day.
International viewers can watch a diverse mix of the very best from the BBC - from award-winning comedy and drama to ground-breaking documentaries and BBC Learning, plus music, lifestyle and children's programmes, not forgetting the wealth of celebrity interviews.

BBC Prime is widely available throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa through cable and satellite operators.

You can see the schedules here:
http://www.bbcprime.com

How many channels do you have avalible on Canal Digital, we have something like 400
I cannot count them, but it's many. The ones that are really interesting are probably not more than 20.
There are two DVB providers in Sweden: Canal Digital, which is owned by Telenor and Viasat, which is part of the late Jan Stenbeck-conglomerate, which also owns several TV channels. :)
Canal Digital offers the most channels and is the best bang for the buck. Viasat has its main trump card in TV3, which is a Stenbeck-owned channel. You can only get TV3 via Viasat. Likewise, there are stations you can only get via Canal Digital, such as Kanal 5 and the Swedish national SVT1 and SVT2. It's a mess and it's not doing the customers any good.

Anyway, Canal Digital's web site (http://www.canaldigital.se/channels/)shows the majority of the channels I subscribe to. I pay 169 SEK (19,89 USD) a month and I have the "Family pack" subscription. That is, I get most of the stations on the list to the right (under "kanaler" on the web page) except the movie channels (CANAL+, CANAL+ BLÅ, CANAL+ GUL, CANAL+ ZAP) and not Discovery Civilisation, Discovery Sci-Trek and Discovery Travel & Adventure. Other channels that cost extra is MuTV (Manchester United's channel)and Private Gold (porn). Besides the listed stations, we also have several radio stations. Perhaps it counts to 400 stations, radio and all, but I doubt it. I'd love to be able to watch many of the stations in Sky's selection.

We get 16:9 transmissions on several stations, SVT1, SVT2, TV4 and of course the movie channel Canal+ Blå also often broadcast in 16:9 format.

There is a third way to watch DVB in Sweden, a terrestrial digital TV network, funded, owned and controlled by the Swedish state, via a state-owned company called Terracom. The whole thing is badly run, Terracom's at the brink of bancrupsy and the whole project should be a huge embarassment to the goverment, but it just keeps pumping money into it.
It's a project no one really asked for and no one wants (but the goverment) and which is costing the tax payers a lot of money.
It is a financial disaster called Boxer/Senda. :)

Compare the amount of stations you get versus Canal Digital/Viasat here: http://www.algonet.se/~hemelect/page5.html
For 149 SEK a month you get 11 stations that you can only get via DVB.
The rest is stuff you can get via regular terrestrial broadcasts and one station is utter crap ("MediTV" is not a station in my eyes, it's a channel that shows people's SMS messages on the TV)
For 169 SEK on Canal Digital, you get much, much more.

UK TV is basically completly independant, the 60 million in the UK and the (5 million?) people in Ireland have this entirely different set of channels.
Yes, but that's probably because Sky completely owns the market. There is just one provider in the UK, isn't it? And they control their customers with an iron grip, forcing them to use "Sky-approved" digital receivers, to an even higher extent than Viasat and Canal Digital.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Swan
What I don't understand is how can DVB broadcasts be Mpeg-2 Main Profile, Main Level-compliant, yet use resolutions not mentioned in that spec?
Again, I don't know much about the DVB spec, but I'll use the DVD spec as an analogy. Think of them as sets, with MP@ML as a large circle, and DVD as a smaller circle within the larger circle. (I'd draw it but this text format is kind of restrictive.) :p

The MPEG spec isn't specific to DVD or DVB; it covers a much broader range of possible applications. The profiles and levels enforce workable constraints on the bitstreams, and by extension, the minimum capabilities of a compliant decoder for each given profile/level. The constraints on bitrate and resolution are simply in terms of upper limits. You don't need to conform to any specific resolution to be MP@ML compliant, you just have to use a resolution that doesn't go above the maximum allowed.

The DVD spec, being a subset of MPEG-2 MP@ML, places its own additional restrictions on specific resolutions. Continuing the analogy, one can say that all DVDs are MP@ML compliant, but not all MP@ML streams are DVD compliant.

I assume the DVB spec is a similar subset of MP@ML with its own set of restrictions, but I also would like to see that A001R6 document that Herske mentioned...

[dar1us]

Of course, DVB-t, we have had it since 1998 I believe, licence holders OnDigital, ITV Digital and now Freeview. Freeview is decent, it is completely free, but only has 50 or so channels, boxes are standard DVB-t ones, costing about 80 GBP (115 USD).

BOTH On Digital and ITV Digital have gone bankrupt, but I jest that Freeview is hear to stay for a bit. It came out in October/November, there are already 1.2 million customers (not subscribers because... it is free!).

I dont bother getting DVB-t, everything apart from local stations is included on SKY Digital, who I hasten to add are IMHO a cracking service. With new shows being aired, we have caught up with the USA on enterprise now I think, the only problem is that Paramount cant get their act together and have their 2 months off, 2 weeks off kind of broadcast schedule. They are a little too keen to release an episode. Every monday overhere, rain or shine (except when no episode is avalible:)). We also habe the likes of Alias and 24 series 2 (both of them). All together a good network but I really cant wait for the 16:9 changeover this summer, complete, except SKY News which is avalible throughout europe I think, I dont like it. BBC News 24 all the way baby;).

The SKY digiboxes (as they call them) seem to work fine now. Whether they control us or not, for just 7.99 GBP (11 USD) they give you some decent programming, though I have to pay more because the movie channels rule. The network is BritishSkyBroadcasting [BSkyB] and yes, it does a lot of controlling, but the only bit that annoys me is making Videogaurd CAMS illegal. What the hell?!!?! They are a huge company and have too much power and manage to easily persuade laws in their favor.

-dar1us

Addition, overviewing the websites, BBC Prime looks kinda interesting, though we have seen all of the shows already, Johnathen Creek is one to watch out for, though the new series really sucks.

One thing I noticed about BBC Prime, is how the website could be talking about the USA, little things like 20:00 CET, we never ever see the timezone quoted. But anyways, I am sure that you use it to find out what is comming up in the latest EastEnders (man I hate that programm) and Gardener's World (for the 'budding' horticulturalist. hope you get the pun:)).

Canal, one thing that I picked up on that was that shows (movies is what I was noticing) are aired a lot later, we had Matrix on terrestrial about a year and a half ago, may be a little bit sooner, that isn't Digital Terrest, it is analogue. Matrix on SKY Digital Movie channels about 2 and a half years ago. Harry Potter this christmas and Lord of the Rings last christmas (on Sky Movies also).

I see on the channel list that SKY News is avalible, though I dont like it, I heard that is quite popular in the US (on sat) and Europe I take it. Do you have specific versions or is it the same as the UK version. We have things like CNN Europe but I guess us brits like to stick to our own networks because the annoying computer graphics as seen in the American news channels are pretty annoying. Especially the 5 mins of weather, just telling you the tempratures... READ THE PAPER:). We have a much more indepth analysis of the weather, 5 mins on one country. GOOOOO MET OFFICE.UK (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/)

[Herske]

Swan & fccHandler:

The latest version of the standard is here (http://pda.etsi.org/pda/home.asp?wki_id=7603). You must register with ETSI (free of charge).

The revision of the standard I had here is a bit older than the one available at ETSI; in the new version you'll find the relevant information I quoted above at page 24, 5.1.4.

[fccHandler]

Wow, there it is in black & white (it's on page 29 for NTSC folks). Now I'm sure my digital cable's resolution is 544. Thanks so much for the link Herske. I think I will take your advice and capture my digital stations at 544 from now on. :D

[kindred]

Originally posted by fccHandler
Sorry I'm still off-topic, but I just can't resist. ;)
But a quick search on google led me to a page (http://www.dvdrhelp.com/forum/userguides/94382.php) which states "The MTV/VH1 Channels on Astra 1G, are using 544 X 576," and lists 544 as a valid resolution for DVB in Europe. (From what I can see, it also seems to be valid in the U.S.A.)


Whats really odd, is that MTV and its other channels on Sky Digital (Astra 2A/B/D etc) are broadcast at 528x576 - and seem to be the only ones that do this. Not sure if there's a reason why.

[Swan]

To Herske and fccHandler: A billion thanks!
I downloaded tr_102154v010101p.pdf and saw what you guys saw.
Now the biggest question is why? Why does some stations use too low bitrates and resolutions below 720 x 576?
Do they pay extra for a higher bitrate?
Shouldn't we consumers be asking for getting better picture quality?
Where to complain? :)

Darius1: Interesting comments about the situation in the U.K.
I have read that terrestrial DVB was a disaster in the U.K. too, but that it was sold to some sucker company that is still keeping it alive, thinking it will pay off in the end. I also have read that Sweden and the U.K. are the only two countries in Europe who have terrestrial DVB. Perhaps the flop could have been avoided if a common European standard would have been worked out, where all countries take part in the development and shape of DVB-T, as opposed everyone developing their own, proprietary DVB-T system.

I am opposed to any limitations posed on me by any provider of a service, be it DVB or something else.
A DVB provider who controls what receiver I can and cannot use and in addition has monopoly on the market is not a good thing.
I have experienced this first hand, when I wanted to subscribe to some of Viasat's channels. You had to prove to them that you had an "approved" CAM-module, or else they wouldn't sell you a subscription. I will experience it the day I stop subscribing to Canal Digital too.
The DVB receiver will not work without a card with a valid subscription. Isn't that horrible? I paid for the DVB receiver, yet the day I stop subscribing to Canal Digital, I can't use the receiver to watch free-2-air stations, if I want to! And why is that? Because three years ago, when I bought the receiver, Canal Digital acted just like BskyB: they demanded that I, the customer, bought an "approved" receiver or else I couldn't subscribe to their services. :O
Both Canal Digital and Viasat have loosened their restrictions in the last year, whereas it seems BskyB is getting tougher on the customers.

In the early days of satellite TV, there was a vision of all channels being "European", meaning they were aimed at the entire European market. It was not meant to be as it is now, that so many channels would be specifically aimed at one country or region and in particular, it was never intended that people from other regions should not be able to view it. Those were the days of Music Box, Sky (the channel) and Super Channel.

I wish the big market players in DVB would have kept that vision, so people as myself could subscribe to channels from BSkyB, for example. I would also like to see several Danish DVB channels in Canal Digital's selection, but am not allowed to. Canal Digital won't sell a subscription for stations aimed at the Danish market to someone in Sweden. It's so stupid.

I think I have the same Sky News as you, but I can't be sure of course.
About the movies on the Canal + channels. They show movies that are pretty new, can't complain too much about that. Matrix was first shown over two years ago on Canal +. They sometimes show the top movies on the pay per view channels first (they're called Kiosk 1 through 22), for a month or so, then they show up on the Canal+ channels. Think "Lord of the Ring" was shown during last Christmas.

[Zhnujm]

Originally posted by Swan

Now the biggest question is why? Why does some stations use too low bitrates and resolutions below 720 x 576?
Do they pay extra for a higher bitrate?
Shouldn't we consumers be asking for getting better picture quality?
Where to complain? :)


thats easy:
lower bitrate = more channels per transponder = we dont have to rent more sat bandwidth = cheaper.

[Herske]

Glad to help; also, the rest of the standard is available at ETSI.


Now the biggest question is why? Why does some stations use too low bitrates and resolutions below 720 x 576?

Cost. Transponder bandwidth is expensive, and extremely expensive on Astra (due to excellent coverage and power); also, the quality seems alright for 90% of the consumers who are not interested in these technical details.

UK's OnDigital went bankrupt due to huge contracts for football; they couldn't pay. Other aspects such as lower bandwidth, picture quality, signal availability mattered much less.

Both Senda and OnDigital were DVB-T compatible.

I wish the big market players in DVB would have kept that vision, so people as myself could subscribe to channels from BSkyB, for example

I'm afraid this will not happen too soon. It's all about copyright : Sky doesn't have a licence to broadcast (and sell subs legally) anywhere outside UK. They could buy such a licence but it is much more expensive.

This is because of Hollywood's copyright policies: they are the main content provider and they decided that the rights will be sold per country.

That's why no provider is willing to pay extra the rights for broadcasting outside their own national markets.

[dar1us]

The problem about getting sky in other countries (the french love it I heard) is that the ratings are different and that some kids may be able to see whatever. Ratings meen jack in the UK these days, films are overrated (classed, not quality). They have no idea how mature the kids of today are, mature in the sense of being able to take sensless violence. It should be much more aimed at parental disgression, instead the parents have NO say whatsoever. They advertise that the BBFC (british board of film classification) gives you the chance to make the right choice (the parents are 'you'). It gives them no choice at all. It is too old a system, we were the first country in the world to introduce censorship, but anything, bar errections [I guess we are all grown-up enough to not giggle at that word, the word alone is hardly obscene, I saw it once in national press!!] is allowed these days, only the producers cut films to make them more appealing to the BBFC for their lower intended rating-obviously so more people see the picture. Of course the copywrite issues are important, it would cost SKY a SMALL fortune just to buy the broadcast rights to pump the latest film throughout europe. You can subscribe to SKY within europe (I use this word often, usually not including the UK as we are the distant weirdo cousins of you euro boys), you need a friend or relative to put it in their name (address) then enjoy the benefits of it. You can legally buy digiboxes (our sat recievers nickname) in most EU countries, I know that france has them, it is difficult, but not impossible. What is sad is when people build a motorised system for their camper vans and go travelling the world, with the aid of TV, kinda spoils it, surely a good DVD player is enough for any man. TV really just spoils it.

Less of the ratings, more of DVB. I always thought we were quite good on Digital Television in the UK, there are something like 10 million (more probably) digital viewers in the UK, 1 in 4 homes has SKY Digital. I read that Sweeden was pretty hot on it too at www.digitalspy.co.uk (cracking site), I felt quite ashamed (of my nation) to read that we wouldn't be the first country in the world to switch off digital broadcast (definatly europe, but i think the world - japan?), but no, you scandinavians have to come and spoil it for us. Cheers;). Atleast out government are giving good support to the whole thing, they want us to be the first digital nation, I guess so we can gloat after it had been many many years since the british empire, which we all pine for, but know will never return because you cant just take countries these days. Pah!

Sorry, all of that text was pretty condensed, I cant be bothered to sieft (sp?) though it all looking for good places for paragraph breaks. Sorry.


Hope this has been enlightening.


dar1us

[cjv]

Originally posted by dar1us
errections
He, he. :D

cjv

[dar1us]

There's always one:)

I kinda expected it to be you.

S-Video capable SKY DigiBox (GDS 310/2) arriving very soon. Party time:) Expect some potentially kick ass shots:)


dar1us