Top Gear NOT in High Def

Just DV Cameras, as far as I know.
 
With Top Gear, in addition to the added expense of vision post production in HD, there's also the cost of audio, which I think is 5.1 surround in HD broadcasts.

Not necessarily 5.1, afaik, it just has to be ac3, which i already is, only 2.0 ;-)
 
Who really cares? I'm perfectly happy with the quality of VUK's rips.

Half of HD is a scam to get everyone onboard with digital TV so that the studios can screw around with your electronics anyway.
 
Some notes I kept from a videography forum:

They use Digibeta with SDI cards installed to do the filming of the cars outside along with a lot of different filters and lights.
They use sony HD 900s sometimes, but not with the progressive scan feature as I can assure you its not that great!
The stig laps/ and star in the car cameras are just normal digibetas, with pd150s filming inside the car to show the stig/ celebrities face. Then we stick mini single chip cams to the sides of cars which record to DVCam.

Some of this is old data anyway, as I know they invested in some remote head cameras a while back (those are high quality 'lipstick' cams) but I did find some pictures of the crew using a F900 at the 'ring - for the Sabine Transit segment.

So, once HDV cameras come down in price enough to be 'expendable' for the shoot (like the new $900 Canon) we might be seeing TopGear in HD sooner than later.
 
Half of HD is a scam to get everyone onboard with digital TV so that the studios can screw around with your electronics anyway.

AH, come on. Everybody who has seen a proper HD movie on a good set will love it. Even my Girlfriend (not that fond of tech stuff) notices it. We were watching some movie 2 weeks ago, and she was like "Aww, its not in HD... (looking disappointed...)"
Its pretty much the same thing as back in time when they introduced colour on TVs... You wanna go any watch black and white stuff?
 
HD is not a scam when you see PROPER, and i mean PROPER HD. If you want an example of proper HD, look at Apples High Definition trailers. I download those and feed them through to my Sony Bravia which makes full use of the 1080p picture, and even though its a compressed download, the quality is bloody astounding. Everything i've seen on Sky HD so far is weak in comparison. The only thing i've seen that even gets anywhere near that quality is Planet Earth and perhaps Torchwood.

The thing that is a scam is the range of crap TVs you see in high street stores which claim to be HD but are really not. At this stage, you've really got to know everything about HD before you can actually find a TV that does it properly. My Sony Bravia does proper 1080p at the native resolution, no up-scaling or any of that cack.
 
Last edited:
How was the introduction of colour TV at all the scam that HD is?

Well, I doubt you'll find lots of people that agree with your view on HD in general. I can only assume that you have bad eyesight or that you are referring to the way the early adopters got ripped off again pricewise/connection-wise (non hdcp compliant TVs or receivers that can't passthrough hdcp)..
And HD is just the next step. You should understand, after all this is a car forum, and cars need to get better just as TVs need to, so: more power/better handling = more pixels/larger screen. Whats wrong about that? Can't afford one? ;-)
 
How is HD a scam? IMHO, the difference between SD and HD is massive (on a proper setup).
I know. Anyone who says HD isn't a revolution plainly hasn't seen a proper setup or is... well, blind.
 
I think the general consensus is that, in the uk at least, HD is too expensive. It's not worth it for what is, in reality, not that big a deal. Yes it's nice but most people are perfectly happy with the quality you can get already at the moment.
 
Well, I doubt you'll find lots of people that agree with your view on HD in general. I can only assume that you have bad eyesight
My eyes are just fine...with my glasses ;)

Really, they are.

I'm sure HD makes for a clearer picture. Personally, I can't bring myself to care about that; I'm perfectly satisfied with the picture quality of existing televisions and with VUK's 350MB rips (for example).

...or that you are referring to the way the early adopters got ripped off again pricewise/connection-wise (non hdcp compliant TVs or receivers that can't passthrough hdcp)..
Yes and no, but you still missed my point.

Yes; early adopters do really get screwed by Hollywood constantly changing the spec because the magic DRM they thought would work suddenly doesn't anymore.

No, because the scam aspect is to get everyone to convert to a digital signal. Yes, there are benefits to digital transmission, but do they outweigh the potential for abuse? With digital transmission, they can sent bits to mean anything, something that cannot be (easily) done with analogue signals. The MPAA has publicly said things about wanting to control your personal electronics; for example, having them go "dark" and disabling certain features (recording, for example) for certain times, channels or shows...on your personal property! It can't very well be done with analogue signals (although, they have tried and failed spectacularly).

How would they do this? Well, the same way they made a scam out of DVDs. Wrap it up in some weak encryption (if at all), call it DRM, and -- TA-DA! -- it's now illegal to do anything the studios don't give you permission to do (again, with your own personal property) because of their bought-and-paid-for DMCA. Then, they wrench over the electronics industry, extortionately forcing them to make devices to Hollywood's restrictive specifications.

Put it all together and you have yourself a well-mannered market place fixed economy.
 
Last edited:
In the UK we are in the process of going through full on digital switch over. For the most part people have only just gone from 4:3 to 16:9 tv's. I think HD is just a step too far for the 'majority' of the population.

Yes it does look spectacular - a lot better than SD WHEN done properly - but I just don't think a better quality picture is that important to your average joe sitting on a sofa vegging in front of their favourite shows.
 
For Americans and Japanese HD does make a very real difference because standard NTSC is so bad, PAL already has a higher resolution so the difference from normal viewing distance is not as noticeable. Of course if you watch on a PC monitor from a metre away you are going to notice the difference.

For Europeans watching on TV the quality would have been improved more by ramping up the frequency to 100Hz rather than adding a higher resolution which the brain cannot process.
 
I just bought a 60hz 40 inch Sony LCD for my room here at University. I use it as a pc monitor as we speak... And I must say, 100 hz grills your head. Makes everything look like an italian porn movie from the 80's.
 
I thought LCDs didn't have Hz?
 
They do have them, as the US use 60 and europe 50. Its in the "HD ready" specification, that a TV has to be able to do 720p/1080i in both 50 and 60 Hz

Due to the different tech stuff behind it, a 50Hz image on a LCD doesn't look as "shaky" as on a CRT. SO it just doesn't matter.

On the other hand, there are some High End Displays in development, that double the Hz, and process a lot and are said to look better...
 
You probably mistyped. Interlaced formats (assuming 50/60hz carriers) are better for sports / fast action. Progressive formats would show strobing in the zoom-pans. I don't really see the need for HD for TopGear. It would be nice, but it adds a lot more complexity for a very small increase in numerical quality.
No, it's the other way around. Sports in interlaced produce combing because the odd and even frames don't quite match up. And the faster something's going, the more pronounced the effect is.

Top Gear in 1080p would be just heavenly... I'm not holding my breath for it to arrive before at least 2008, though. It's a shame. I don't care about the whole flagship-show-licence-fee-nobody-has-HDTVs-yet arguments... I'm a HD junkie and I'd LOVE it :D
 
Top