Reduced to 10,000 because of the cricket on the other side of the North stand, which somewhat ironically, was completely washed out by the weather anyway.

As far as HD not looking much different to SD, you need to look at your set up



Changing the contrast, colour, Brighness and sharpness (even the back light for those TV's that have them) makes a massive difference to the quality of the picture. Most people dont realise and just leave it at the factory settings meaning they dont see HD in its full quality.

As for the games its self, if you go the big screen will stay on the correct channel all the time meaning you dont have to reach for the remote. Also the 1st half, although on BBC1, will not be shown in HD. The BBC have yet to show a game in HD and I cant see them doing it in the near future. Even the final last year just looked like upscaled SD.

That attendances for the CC regular rounds are embarrassingly low.

Only the CC Final itself generates a decent attendance.

Feel free to list a litany of excuses like... it was pouring with rain, it was cold, it's in the afternoon, it's on the BBC (despite almost everyone hating the BBC's coverage), it's due to the amateur RL masses not being able to attend because they are all playing on a Saturday... in order to back up any claim that the CC hasn't lost it's appeal during the regular rounds.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Well it's on BBC One HD. So they're lying for a start!

It's a well known fact that older Sky+ boxes allow your television to upscale the picture while the Sky+ HD box takes responsibility for upscaling the picture. Sky+ HD boxes set the picture to 1080i... HD channels are therefore output at 1080i, but they also output non-HD broadcasts or SD channels at 1080i which is unnecessary and results in a downgraded picture on all non-HD channels, hence the difference in SD picture quality between the two boxes.

If you want to watch a SD channel, it's best to watch it using an older Sky or Sky+ box.

Sky ain't stupid - by operating in this manner, the Sky+ HD box gives the comparative impression of just how much better HD is over SD when in reality, it's better but not that much better.

HTH

So is everything else thats on BBC1... It's called a simulcast.

Not everything shown on BBC is filmed or sent in HD. All they do is slightly upscale it but it doesnt look too different. Sky are the same. The Madrid masters has been on SkySports for the last week but hasnt been shown in HD once.

Oh, and while we are at it (and since we havve moved massively OT), why does American made HD content for sports look so much better than the UK stuff? Football on CBS looks loads better than the soccer shown on Sky over here and I watched a golf docu on ESPN a few weeks back and it looked amazing. Baseball from ComCast always looks brilliant too. I just dont get how compared to ours when it's supposed to be filmed by the same quality of camera.

[uComparative attendances V Wigan at Headingley with no reduced capacity of 10,000[/u

2008: Challenge Cup: 10,129
2008: Regular SL Round: 18,769
2008: SL Play Off: 13,212

2007: Challenge Cup: 8,582
2007: Regular SL Round: 16,465
2007: SL Play Off: 16,112

I think there's definitely an evidential trend there.

My point stands.

Just before you start doing the whole...

thing...

Several times I've put on BBC One HD and been greeted with a card with a timer on it saying that the programme I was watching wasn't broadcast-able in HD. So clearly, they have the facility to not just show the same thing on both channels.

I understand what you're saying though!



Since we're now fully O/T and this a HD thread... here's something that I've never understood...

1) If they're filming something with proper HD cameras, surly they've got to downgrade the quality to broadcast it for people not paying for HD. Which I understand for ££ reason (because mugs like me pay extra for HD) but it does still annoy me ethically. As a business, they should be wanting to be the best they can be at all times, not film something then downgrade it if you don't pay more.

2) How can they show films that weren't filmed with HD cameras, and claim that it's in "Full HD"?!

I'm not entering that debate. If I did I'd be joining your 'No' campaign.

I was merely answering Soprano's question.

^^^

This, is only when local news is on. BBC one HD is just 1 broadcast sent to the whole nation. As there are many different local broadcasts for the news it just turns off the feed for half an hour and gives you a countdown. ITV1hd on the other hand have a few different HD broadcast centres. Ours is Manchester which is why when calendar is on 103, we see Granada on 178.





Firstly, they cant send you through a 1080i feed if your set top box and/or TV doesnt accomodate it. You will find nearly all the stuff filmed in HD is shown in HD now. They "downgrade" because the majority of the country at the moment are still HD-less so they need to. Remember, it's not even 5 years old in the UK and Sky are still adding channels year on year. We do have the 2nd highest amount of HD channels in the world at the moment though so we are heading in the right direction.

Movies have been filmed in "HD" since the 60's. It's only since the 90's though when it's become commercially affordable to have a platform to watch this way.

All commercial films Movies are filmed in 1080p now though and when they come out on bluray they are at this quality. They dont show them on TV this way though because the diffrence between 1080p and 1080i is massive and the cost for the bandwidth just isnt worth it at the moment.

I think it was the second time the superior system lost out. I had a Phillips 2000 video in 79/80 which was way ahead of its time (double play time, no tape hiss or tracking problems).When the Phillips lost out in the distribution race I went for the Betamax as next best for quality only to find I had to eventually get a VHS in the end with so many Rugby recordings left on out of date tapes.

At least I never had an 8 track system!

Excellent! Thanks. Actually answered my question there. Appreciate that. Learn something new every day.

All new customers are now being given the SKY+HD boxes whether they take a HD package or not. They're no longer rolling out the old boxes.

Clever barstewards.

I got home from Wigan (how, I still don't know as the M62 was being ravaged by a blizzard and my Brother-in-laws Ford Capri wasn't designed for those conditions), after the JP final in '84. I put on the tape my Dad had recorded and settled down to watch the "highlights" that the BBC used to edit and transmit on the fly as the game was actually going on. They managed to play the same 5 minutes of part of the first half twice.
Anything we have had since then has been an improvement.

Indeed, despite the superior functioning of the older boxes. This is why I've still kept my old Sky+ box and my previous even more superior Panasonic non-Sky+ box which I was allowed to select from an independent installer as opposed to having to accept an inferior quality Amstrad or Pace model from one of Sky's mob of installers.

Might come in handy if this Sky+ HD box ever breaks down. I certainly won't be shelling out for another if it does, nor will I bend over and be shafted for one of their overpriced insurance packages. They leave me alone now after I informed them that my installation isn't a standard one

I know that but the wording of your reply was the most appropriate one to respond to whilst indirectly targeting others



If CC attendances were so healthy during the regular rounds and people were that interested in them, there would have been no need for the RFL and the clubs to give away freebies to all season ticket holders for the initial round of SL club entry in order to boost flagging CC attendances and interest.

Just thinking the same. Every time I go to the States and sit in a bar (which is every time I go to the Sates) and watch football or NBA the quality blows me away. There is no motion blur and they use close up a lot - particularly for football. Maybe they only install plasma TV's in bars?

I'm on my fourth in 18 months. Luckily the Sky man lives round the corner and felt guilty replacing my box with re-furbished models (none lasted the 1 month warranty they come with), and he gave me a new one last time which I think is a new design. It's pretty compact compared to the others with a bigger hard disc, and has been faultless so far - no re-boots required since I got it 6 months ago.

On the HD debate in general, I had a really good 32" CRT TV and the picture was fabulous. I got a 40" Sony - and a good one - and the picture was nowhere near as good on normal transmission. HD allows you to have as good a picture as you used to have, but on a bigger screen. Having said that, I don't really mind the difference. If a program is good it's good in any definition. And you can't polish a .... well, you know what I mean.

Are plasma TV's supposedly superior? I've no idea but I do have a 42" plasma (Panasonic Viera) and even when viewing in HD, motion blur remains an irritant before settling down as the action slows down. I also have to wait a second or so for blades of grass to appear focused in HD clarity during a stoppage in play.

No because the quality in general transfers to our TV's over here.

I agree though as I am the same when im over. As you know im a big football of the US version fan and I get Gamepass HD over here. It's streamed over at up to 3meg/sec and when I hook it up to the LCD (especially the CBS broadcasts) that does blow me away. The colours and the deffinition are all amazing. Even when you are over there and are watching regular shows on CBS like the price is right ect.. it looks so good. Maybe it is a lot to do with the lighting but the quality difference is there to see.

Don't get me started on the need to reboot! I have to do that several times a week otherwise every HD channel comes up with a message about poor signal strength which is absolute bollox.

I don't know for sure. I've heard for sports that they respond faster, and I can believe it watching my 40" LCD. I think LCD TV's have a lot of technology to try and reduce motion blur and ghost images. I genuinely don't know why US sports looks so much better than ours, but it does. NFL looks stunning compared to the UK transmisions I've seen on Sky.

Funny that their old NTSC TV broadcasts were absolute cack, and now their HD is so good. I've seen regular stuff there as well and I agree, it's all tremendous picture quality. All they need to do now is work out a way to remove the adverts and it might even be watchable.

Apart from those regions who have not switched over yet.