Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
satellite compared to Freeview?  It looks dreadful on Freesat.  But
are all the ITV1 regions the same bit rate?  I ask this because I'm
sure when flicking through the other regions, some pictures were
better than others.  And in case you didn't know yet, yes, I did find
Astra 2D :-)

Marky P.

That's the main (IMO) disadvantage of freesat - ITV is poor. I only watch HD 
broadcasts on Satellite, everything else on freeview. Luck me. One of my 
daughters has Sky and she says the same. What a choker - all that dosh for 
rubbish.

-- 
John the West Ham fan C.E.T.
housetrained@hotmail.com
<><

"Marky P"  wrote in message 
news:erj6941hu0log1as8ie710ibqoc7ooabs7@4ax.com...
> Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
> satellite compared to Freeview?  It looks dreadful on Freesat.  But
> are all the ITV1 regions the same bit rate?  I ask this because I'm
> sure when flicking through the other regions, some pictures were
> better than others.  And in case you didn't know yet, yes, I did find
> Astra 2D :-)
>
> Marky P.
>

On 01/08/2008 19:04, Marky P wrote:

> Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
> satellite compared to Freeview?  

Not only the bitrate, but also the resolution (544x576 or similar on sat)

> It looks dreadful on Freesat.  But
> are all the ITV1 regions the same bit rate?  

Dunno, probably. Apparently it's not in OFCOMs terms that ITV have to 
transmit at standard resolution on sat (but it is on terrestrial) so 
they save a few quid.

Marky P  wrote:
: Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
: satellite compared to Freeview?

No - except that ITV were never keen on going on satellite in the first place
and, in fact, did not do so for a few years. When they were finally forced 
to by advertisers they did not spend enough on enough transponders. Their 
picture resolution on DSAT is lower than DTT as well!

Of course their original attempt to possibly "punish" Sky viewers is now 
backfiring badly with their involvement in Freesat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:10:50 +0100, "housetrained"
 wrote:

>That's the main (IMO) disadvantage of freesat - ITV is poor. I only watch HD 
>broadcasts on Satellite, everything else on freeview. Luck me. One of my 
>daughters has Sky and she says the same. What a choker - all that dosh for 
>rubbish.

Lucky my telly has both Freesat & Freeview tuners then :-)

Marky P.

Marky P wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:10:50 +0100, "housetrained"
>  wrote:
> 
>> That's the main (IMO) disadvantage of freesat - ITV is poor. I only watch HD 
>> broadcasts on Satellite, everything else on freeview. Luck me. One of my 
>> daughters has Sky and she says the same. What a choker - all that dosh for 
>> rubbish.
> 
> Lucky my telly has both Freesat & Freeview tuners then :-)

Can you arrange the tuning so for instance BBC 1 and 2 are taken from 
satellite and are assigned LCNs 1 and 2, but ITV and C4 from DTT with LCNs 3 
and 4  ?
I assume not, because as with Sky's platform, Freesat don't seem to allow LCNs 
to be changed or edited ?

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:11:01 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Marky P wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:10:50 +0100, "housetrained"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> That's the main (IMO) disadvantage of freesat - ITV is poor. I only watch HD 
>>> broadcasts on Satellite, everything else on freeview. Luck me. One of my 
>>> daughters has Sky and she says the same. What a choker - all that dosh for 
>>> rubbish.
>> 
>> Lucky my telly has both Freesat & Freeview tuners then :-)
>
>Can you arrange the tuning so for instance BBC 1 and 2 are taken from 
>satellite and are assigned LCNs 1 and 2, but ITV and C4 from DTT with LCNs 3 
>and 4  ?
>I assume not, because as with Sky's platform, Freesat don't seem to allow LCNs 
>to be changed or edited ?

It's unlikely.  I'll check the manual.  Thing is, the different
platforms have to be selected from a pull-down menu (DVB, Feesat,
Analogue, Other Sat).

Marky P.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
 wrote:

>Marky P  wrote:
>: Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
>: satellite compared to Freeview?
>
>No - except that ITV were never keen on going on satellite in the first place
>and, in fact, did not do so for a few years. When they were finally forced 
>to by advertisers they did not spend enough on enough transponders. Their 
>picture resolution on DSAT is lower than DTT as well!
>
>Of course their original attempt to possibly "punish" Sky viewers is now 
>backfiring badly with their involvement in Freesat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if and when ITV HD appears on Freesat, is this going to be a
special "low D" HD?

"zumoz"  wrote in message 
news:lqq894l8s2hl95vju6g690ffscie0jipu2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
>  wrote:
>
>>Marky P  wrote:
>>: Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
>>: satellite compared to Freeview?
>>
>>No - except that ITV were never keen on going on satellite in the first 
>>place
>>and, in fact, did not do so for a few years. When they were finally forced
>>to by advertisers they did not spend enough on enough transponders. Their
>>picture resolution on DSAT is lower than DTT as well!
>>
>>Of course their original attempt to possibly "punish" Sky viewers is now
>>backfiring badly with their involvement in Freesat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> So if and when ITV HD appears on Freesat, is this going to be a
> special "low D" HD?
>




bbc does that already - using 1440 x 1080 instead of 1920x1080




-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:58:27 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
 wrote:

>
>"zumoz"  wrote in message 
>news:lqq894l8s2hl95vju6g690ffscie0jipu2@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Marky P  wrote:
>>>: Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
>>>: satellite compared to Freeview?
>>>
>>>No - except that ITV were never keen on going on satellite in the first 
>>>place
>>>and, in fact, did not do so for a few years. When they were finally forced
>>>to by advertisers they did not spend enough on enough transponders. Their
>>>picture resolution on DSAT is lower than DTT as well!
>>>
>>>Of course their original attempt to possibly "punish" Sky viewers is now
>>>backfiring badly with their involvement in Freesat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> So if and when ITV HD appears on Freesat, is this going to be a
>> special "low D" HD?
>>
>
>bbc does that already - using 1440 x 1080 instead of 1920x1080

The Aussies seem to manage HD on their "Freeview" - 1920x1080 on DTT
on 3 or 4 channels. Though whether it is needed for Neighbours and
Home & Away is a moot point.

They don't have the multiplicity of channels that we have of course.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:02:35 +0100, zumoz  wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:58:27 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"zumoz"  wrote in message 
>>news:lqq894l8s2hl95vju6g690ffscie0jipu2@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Marky P  wrote:
>>>>: Is there any particular reason to why the bit rate of ITV1 is lower on
>>>>: satellite compared to Freeview?
>>>>
>>>>No - except that ITV were never keen on going on satellite in the first 
>>>>place
>>>>and, in fact, did not do so for a few years. When they were finally forced
>>>>to by advertisers they did not spend enough on enough transponders. Their
>>>>picture resolution on DSAT is lower than DTT as well!
>>>>
>>>>Of course their original attempt to possibly "punish" Sky viewers is now
>>>>backfiring badly with their involvement in Freesat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> So if and when ITV HD appears on Freesat, is this going to be a
>>> special "low D" HD?
>>>
>>
>>bbc does that already - using 1440 x 1080 instead of 1920x1080
>
>The Aussies seem to manage HD on their "Freeview" - 1920x1080 on DTT
>on 3 or 4 channels. Though whether it is needed for Neighbours and
>Home & Away is a moot point.
>
>They don't have the multiplicity of channels that we have of course.

They don't need telly in Oz, not with all that sunshine & surf :-)

Marky P.