compressed? wow, and I thought it used a lossless codec giving better than Blu-ray results
compressed? really? I bet people didn't know that
of course they're compressed, all digital TV is compressed. UK HD has a higher bitrate than US TV but we use h.264 where as the majority of US use MPEG2 so even if ours was the same bitrate or slightly less it would still look better
@Maff: blu-ray codecs will always look better than broadcast h.264. This has nothing to do with UK vs. US codecs in use. Bragging that one has 24 HD channels when the topic is about Blu sales is meaningless. End of story.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Yes, surely if that figure includes PS3s the sales are dismal?
And FYI, I have 24 HD channels, but no Blu Ray.
Surely not.
BTW, I has a sekret.... your HD channels are compressed.
compressed?
wow, and I thought it used a lossless codec giving better than Blu-ray results
compressed? really?
I bet people didn't know that
of course they're compressed, all digital TV is compressed. UK HD has a higher bitrate than US TV but we use h.264 where as the majority of US use MPEG2 so even if ours was the same bitrate or slightly less it would still look better
@Maff: blu-ray codecs will always look better than broadcast h.264. This has nothing to do with UK vs. US codecs in use. Bragging that one has 24 HD channels when the topic is about Blu sales is meaningless. End of story.