|
|
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
|
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Mark Carver wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf Thanks. With engineering and playout being outsourced, it's amazing that the BBC still has its own R&D department: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/index.shtml -- Dave Farrance |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf As the Freesat is supposed to start very soon as all this work been done and in place? -- Regards, David Please reply to News Group |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf So Freesat is to be an American venture? I'm assuming that from the spelling of 'programme'. Bill |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf They are "collaborating with other organisations to help them implement the specification. For example: : : : BSkyB, to ensure compatibility with their system. " This is irony right? AFAICT the very last thing B$kyB will want is the slightest possibility that it will work with their [[intentionally] proprietary] system. Has $ky come up with CAMs for CI receivers in eight years - no. Are C4 and C5 still encoded on $ky after six years - yes. Do $ky charge $$$$ more to content providers who don't encode or encrypt? - guess |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf They are "collaborating with other organisations to help them implement the specification. For example: BSkyB, to ensure compatibility with their system. This is irony right? AFAICT the very last thing B$kyB will want is the slightest possibility that it will work with their [[intentionally] proprietary] system. Compatible as in non-disruptive. See the intro: "The new freesat data must not affect the millions of Sky receivers already in use." -- Dave Farrance |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Dave Farrance wrote:
Mark Carver wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf Thanks. With engineering and playout being outsourced, it's amazing that the BBC still has its own R&D department: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/index.shtml Last I heard even that was being carved up :-( They really don't know what jewels they have! Richard |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Mark Carver wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf Where does that source stem from? I can't find the handouts on the main R & D publications page. Richard |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Dickie mint wrote:
Mark Carver wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf Where does that source stem from? I can't find the handouts on the main R & D publications page. Richard Belay that, I was being really thick! It's all on http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts.shtml and it's something I missed out on. I take it you went? Richard |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Dickie mint wrote:
It's all on http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts.shtml and it's something I missed out on. I take it you went? No actually I didn't, a couple of my contacts did. If I'd known in advance about it, I would have gone. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:46:12 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote: It's all on http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts.shtml and it's something I missed out on. I take it you went? No actually I didn't, a couple of my contacts did. If I'd known in advance about it, I would have gone. We didn't even bloody know about it. I found out by chance on Tuesday. Communication is our business, eh? |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Mark Carver wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf I'm somewhat out of date on this, but what's the latest talk/rumours with regards to Channel 4 and Channel 5 and their various offshoot channels going Free To Air? I was under the possibly erroneous impression that C4's contract with Sky didn't have that much longer to run - the contract that encompasses both the FTV encryption of C4 and FilmFour and also places More4 and E4 within the Sky basic subscription package. I suppose that if the C4 and C5 channels were to go FTA then they'd need to swap on to Astra 2D to ensure their satellite footprint was more tightly focussed on the UK - and I haven't heard even so much as a rumour about this. Is there space on Astra 2D for more channels, or could another satellite provide the required tighter footprint? |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:46:12 +0000, Mark Carver wrote: It's all on http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts.shtml and it's something I missed out on. I take it you went? No actually I didn't, a couple of my contacts did. If I'd known in advance about it, I would have gone. We didn't even bloody know about it. I found out by chance on Tuesday. Communication is our business, eh? I didn't find out until signs went up on the day, and I work in TC! But, as the opening hours were 9-5, it was only ever any good for office and managerial types. In line with every other BBC internal event and exhibition, they didn't plan for people who work even slightly odd hours, or those who had fixed programme commitments during the days of operation, or whatever else. Or maybe they just didn't give a stuff. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
charles wrote:
It just sounds like any other Research Dept Open Day. They were intended for those outside the BBC - nowadays possibly seeking funding for future work. Well, working for a major manufacturer of both broadcast and consumer electronic equipment, I had no notice at all of this event, and nor did any of my immediate colleagues. Our inboxes (real and virtual) are normally filled with invitations to similar events from other organisations and bodies. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article ,
Mark Carver wrote: charles wrote: It just sounds like any other Research Dept Open Day. They were intended for those outside the BBC - nowadays possibly seeking funding for future work. Well, working for a major manufacturer of both broadcast and consumer electronic equipment, I had no notice at all of this event, and nor did any of my immediate colleagues. Our inboxes (real and virtual) are normally filled with invitations to similar events from other organisations and bodies. could be a plot to get nobody to come and then say "because of no public interest, it isn't needed and can be closed." -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
I think the intention is to privatise by stealth and then it will be no
more and the Government can use the licence fee for nuclear weapons or spin doctors. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Dickie mint" wrote in message ... Dave Farrance wrote: Mark Carver wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/fot/handouts/06_freesat.pdf Thanks. With engineering and playout being outsourced, it's amazing that the BBC still has its own R&D department: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/index.shtml Last I heard even that was being carved up :-( They really don't know what jewels they have! Richard |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
charles wrote:
It just sounds like any other Research Dept Open Day. They were intended for those outside the BBC - nowadays possibly seeking funding for future work. Well, working for a major manufacturer of both broadcast and consumer electronic equipment, I had no notice at all of this event, and nor did any of my immediate colleagues. Our inboxes (real and virtual) are normally filled with invitations to similar events from other organisations and bodies. could be a plot to get nobody to come and then say "because of no public interest, it isn't needed and can be closed." It was a full, even Humphrey Lyttelton attended ;-) Advertised on the BBC website. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Mizter T wrote:
: I'm somewhat out of date on this, but what's the latest talk/rumours : with regards to Channel 4 and Channel 5 and their various offshoot : channels going Free To Air? Channel 4's contract with Sky for encryption runs until Autumn 2008 sometime. However they will need a transponder on Astra 2D to move to. Confusingly, while all other C4 channels are uplinked by Arquiva, C4-HD is uplinked by Sky itself on a BSkyB leased transponder. Channel 5 "suppports Freesat" but "needs to be encrypted due to programmme rights issues"....make of that what you can! : a rumour about this. Is there space on Astra 2D for more channels, or : could another satellite provide the required tighter footprint? Yes they will need to move to Astra 2D. No!! There is not space on that satellite without some encrypted channels using it to agree to move elsewhere (which would be Sky helping Freesat!) |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Brian McIlwrath" wrote in message ... Mizter T wrote: : I'm somewhat out of date on this, but what's the latest talk/rumours : with regards to Channel 4 and Channel 5 and their various offshoot : channels going Free To Air? Channel 4's contract with Sky for encryption runs until Autumn 2008 sometime. However they will need a transponder on Astra 2D to move to. Confusingly, while all other C4 channels are uplinked by Arquiva, C4-HD is uplinked by Sky itself on a BSkyB leased transponder. Channel 5 "suppports Freesat" but "needs to be encrypted due to programmme rights issues"....make of that what you can! : a rumour about this. Is there space on Astra 2D for more channels, or : could another satellite provide the required tighter footprint? Yes they will need to move to Astra 2D. No!! There is not space on that satellite without some encrypted channels using it to agree to move elsewhere (which would be Sky helping Freesat!) Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. "Programme rights issues" don't seem to bother BBC/ITV. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Brian W wrote:
Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, current broadcasting legislation simply doesn't allow the scenario you suggest, and I'm fairly sure it could not be adjusted to do so either. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Brian W wrote:
: Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and : FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, : they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and : therefore move to 2D The PSB requirement only applies terrestrially. :Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 Incorrect! Sky rent transponders from SES (the satellite operators) on VERY long term deals and only SES can request (but cannot force) channels to switch satellites. : are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. : "Programme rights issues" don't seem to bother BBC/ITV. They are on 2D of course. Even so they are thought to pay a lot more for programme rights now as well - the speculation was that, when the BBC went FTA, that they ended up paying more than they ever paid to Sky for encryption. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... Brian W wrote: Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, Which is an inconsistency because the powers that be use DSAT as a get-out for not providing PSB TV signals at Sandsend near Whitby. Bill |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Bill Wright wrote:
Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, Which is an inconsistency because the powers that be use DSAT as a get-out for not providing PSB TV signals at Sandsend near Whitby. The new band-plan for post ASO digital services has many relays operating with 2 watts ERP output. After the Sandsend nonsense it make me wonder how many of these relays will be built. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On Jan 29, 10:29 am, "m.t6" wrote:
Bill Wright wrote: D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, Which is an inconsistency because the powers that be use DSAT as a get-out for not providing PSB TV signals at Sandsend near Whitby. The new band-plan for post ASO digital services has many relays operating with 2 watts ERP output. After the Sandsend nonsense it make me wonder how many of these relays will be built. Well, none will be *built*, apart from the supposed 'greenfield' SFN sites promised up England's east coast. However, you're right to ask, I really do wonder if all 1154 existing sites will actually be converted to DTT ? |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
m.t6 wrote in message ... Bill Wright wrote: Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, Which is an inconsistency because the powers that be use DSAT as a get-out for not providing PSB TV signals at Sandsend near Whitby. The new band-plan for post ASO digital services has many relays operating with 2 watts ERP output. After the Sandsend nonsense it make me wonder how many of these relays will be built. I think they will quietly abandon most of them. Bill |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Bill Wright wrote:
Many Sky Box Office channels are on 2D, along with the Disney channels and FX +2. Sky may not have a choice, as Ch 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster, they are likely to be required to un-encrypt (possibly before October) and therefore move to 2D, Sky will have to accomodate this. More4/+1 and E4/+1 are already on 2D, using the same transponder as Film4. D-Sat is not seen as a 'public service' broadcast platform, Which is an inconsistency because the powers that be use DSAT as a get-out for not providing PSB TV signals at Sandsend near Whitby. The new band-plan for post ASO digital services has many relays operating with 2 watts ERP output. After the Sandsend nonsense it make me wonder how many of these relays will be built. I think they will quietly abandon most of them. Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article , M.t6 wrote:
Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some financially competitive means. With another little bit of that justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained? Rod. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On Jan 29, 12:16 pm, "m.t6" wrote:
Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. What Ofcom say is that BBC, ITV, and C4 must remain available to at least the same number of people currently served by analogue. That's 98.5% of the UK population. To that end, all 1154 tx sites need to be converted to DTT. As far as the engineering goes, the structures and aerials should be fine (albeit apart from the regular maintaince they already receive). The idea is that for the equipment hut, a brand new one will be prepared off site, along with new dual (analogue and digital) standard transposers. The entire huts will be swapped at each site ahaead of DSO, and it's then a relatively simple task on DSO night to readjust them to DTT working. The question is will the broadcasters be willing to pay for all of that, and will Ofcom stand firm ? The 'Whitby' saga suggests otherwise. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. . In article , M.t6 wrote: Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some financially competitive means. With another little bit of that justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained? Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv -- Max Demian |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote: Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv Interesting link ... """Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for Freeview customers.""" So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most costly? Mmmmm. I wonder what figure includes? Producing the signal source(s)? Presumably. Transmitter fees for relaying it across the UK? Presumably. But one would expect the former to be commensurate with FreeSat and the latter with analogue. What makes up the £5/payer.yr difference? Anyone know? |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article , Max Demian wrote:
Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some financially competitive means. With another little bit of that justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained? Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as* many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for* subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv This will certainly hamper any further attempts to make broadcast TV a subscription service, and hats off to him if that really was his purpose, however a licence isn't the only way of paying for a free-to-view service. I was thinking of the gradual change in the behaviour of the BBC over the years so that it is now difficult to see what extra value it offers us that the advertising funded channels don't. Rod. |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Brian McIlwrath
Mizter T wrote: : a rumour about this. Is there space on Astra 2D for more channels, or : could another satellite provide the required tighter footprint? Yes they will need to move to Astra 2D. No!! There is not space on that satellite [...] C4 rented some space from SES-Astra a while ago. http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?id=294 Not sure whether they're using it all yet. -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker, Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
"m.t6" wrote:
Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. The analogue relay sites near me seem to double as mobile phone sites (T-Mobile at Kewstoke, Orange at Hutton). Don't most of them? -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Free Sat FAQ: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/astefaq Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker, Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article ,
MJ Ray wrote: "m.t6" wrote: Your probably right Bill. In the end some of the analogue sites have been in use for 30 years and will need new equipment hut, antenna system and possibly a new structure. I doubt the broadcasters will be interested in providing a service for 500 people, when they can tell them to get Freesat or Sky instead. The analogue relay sites near me seem to double as mobile phone sites (T-Mobile at Kewstoke, Orange at Hutton). Don't most of them? but the rental for that facility won't pay to upgrade the sites for DTTV. -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian" wrote: Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv Interesting link ... """Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for Freeview customers.""" So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most costly? Mmmmm. I wonder what figure includes? Producing the signal source(s)? Presumably. Transmitter fees for relaying it across the UK? Presumably. But one would expect the former to be commensurate with FreeSat and the latter with analogue. What makes up the £5/payer.yr difference? Anyone know? If Equipment is being used for these figures, the £1/2M cost of the Regional equipment, plus the several million for Coding and Mux in TC and the Nations would contribute to this, and is high because it's new technology. And a small bit for training, etc. The analogue infrastructure is cheaper because it's old technology. Staffing costs must be added to this, although the extra staff, engineering-wise, for digital was only a handful. And most of these also get used for other channel C & M, for which the Beeb get a large amount! Exisiting engineers took on digital alongside analogue maintenance. However, in 2008, most of the BBC's technical infrastructure is now so old as to be surely written off and worth next to nothing. I'd like to know the 2008 figures. Richard |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article , Kay Robinson
scribeth thus On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:30:52 +0000, Java Jive sharpened a new quill and scratched: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:04:34 -0000, "Max Demian" wrote: Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv Interesting link ... """Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for Freeview customers.""" So the worst, most over-compressed, most interference-prone, of the platforms is also the more than twice as expensive as the next most costly? Mmmmm. Do you actually have an LCD TV or even live in an area where Freeview is available? From the comments I see you making in so many threads I find it hard to believe. I have Freeview, two LCD tellys, a PVR and two other recorders (one rather inferior) and have better more detailed pictures than I ever had on analogue. Sure there is the odd time when I get artifacts or the picture stops and restarts, only about once a day though. probably a transmitter fault or interference from a passing car or motorbike. BD (before digital) I suffered from regular interence from passing traffic, total breakdown of two or more of the four available channels, sometimes for an hour or two nd similar breakups. For the first time I'm thinking the Beeb are actually doing something usefull with my licence fee. Although I can't get HD content from them yet, I have a couple of their HD DVDs which, when played on my HD burner/player are absolutely mind-blowing. If the answer to my question is yes! Then I suggest you stop using a bent coathanger as an aerial or take up making model planes (or crochet and tatting) Kay (\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination. Kay.. As someone who used to be in the TV trade at one point then spent a bit of time at the other end as it were, the pictures that most everyone sees on DTV are very poor relation's of what's actually happening in the studios. These start at some 270 Megabits and get reduced to 2 or 4 for final consumption. I doubt you've seen a good analogue picture from a main TX with a good PAL decoder but it wipes the floor with what passes on freeview and more resembles what's coming out of the studio. Now HD is step in the right direction but we have a way to go with that as yet in the devices that present it and the way its distributed. I look forward to the day when I can junk my Analogue 4:3 B&O TV for some digital alternative that is truly "better" -- Tony Sayer |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article , Kay Robinson
scribeth thus On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:38:53 -0000, Roderick Stewart sharpened a new quill and scratched: In article , Max Demian wrote: Once upon a time broadcasting was a Public Service, not a business. That was the justification for financing it through a licence, rather than some financially competitive means. With another little bit of that justification eroded, I wonder how long the licence can be sustained? Greg Dyke has ensured its survival for a few more years by persuading as* many people as possible to buy DTT set top boxes without slots for* subscription cards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...ting.digitaltv This will certainly hamper any further attempts to make broadcast TV a subscription service, and hats off to him if that really was his purpose, however a licence isn't the only way of paying for a free-to-view service. I was thinking of the gradual change in the behaviour of the BBC over the years so that it is now difficult to see what extra value it offers us that the advertising funded channels don't. Rod. Given the content changes made to so many BBC progs over the years, and their adverts for what's on next etc. I've wondered if it's all preparation for going commercial sometime in the future. As to quality of service compared to commercial channels, with the exeption of sport (which I detest (should be played not watched)) Agreed:) they do far better than all the commercial channels put together. A recent excellent and easy to mention example was the series they did on 'Wainwright Walks'. Very entertaining and informative with breath-taking photography. Granada TV did a similar series of exactly the same walks (with the evr popular but over exiteable Fred Talbot) and I actually recorded both series and took the trouble to run them through the editor. The BBC series averaged 26 minutes of actual content per episode compared to the Granda version with an average of 16 minutes (mostly with views spoilt by Fred's constant arm waving.) So what did you make of Fred Dibnah then;?.. Having said that, the latest series of Ben Fogle's 'Extreme Dreams' is the worst example of a BBC programme I've ever watched, with over half the content consisting of shots of what's been on, what's to come, reshots of who the people are and what's left by Ben's constant chatter about how dangerous it all is. Definitely unwatchable. Kay (\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination. -- Tony Sayer |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:07:05 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote: Do you actually have an LCD TV or even live in an area where Freeview is available? Why are people so abusive these days? Common civility is not asking that much surely? I have ... better more detailed pictures than I ever had on analogue. As Tony has pointed out, the biggest problem is over-compression. It wasn't too bad when Freeview first started, but now it is appalling and totally unacceptable. Formerly, just about my favourite type of programme was Natural History/Wildlife documentaries. I was transfixed by all the Attenborough series, up to and including Planet Earth, by the time of which fortunately I had FreeSat. But nowadays, the only type of natural history shots Freeview can cope with are those that are static or nearly so. A still sunset or landscape looks fabulous, but the moment there is any sort of detailed movement, the picture just breaks up into squares. Add to that the modern style of showing us more of the scientists researching the animals, or even less justifiably the cameramen, than the actual wildlife, an occasional choice of irritating presenters/commentators such as Titchmarsh or Sean Pertwee, he of the voice from a horror movie, and these days I barely bother to even record natural history/wildlife programs on a time-shift basis, let alone with a view to keeping any recording more permanently. Alongside the chronic over-compression, there's the impulse interference which is rampant on this 80s estate from everyone's c-h systems, including, I admit, my own - I would be quite happy to get mine serviced/fixed if everyone else did, but there's little point in just one person doing it, at least until the c-h breaks down in other ways. Whereas analogue suffers some snow on video and crackling from audio from such interference, digital breaks up completely, accompanied by f*king loud 'gunfire' on audio, even to the point of occasional temporary 'No Signal' messages. If the answer to my question is yes! Then I suggest you stop using a bent coathanger as an aerial I did my aerial myself about two years ago with the help of the aerial pros here, and made a much better job of it than the CAI installers that I had originally paid £3-400 about five years previously. Signal levels are about double what they were. or take up making model planes (or crochet and tatting) I suggest you go back to an old-fashioned school where they beat out teenage insolence that would otherwise become a personal problem in later life. There, you've got me at it now. Much better just to plonk you ... |
BBC/ITV Freesat, another tiny drop of info...
In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
Given the content changes made to so many BBC progs over the years, and their adverts for what's on next etc. I've wondered if it's all preparation for going commercial sometime in the future. I don't think it's "preparation" in the sense that anyone is deliberatley planning for it, but if they're not careful that's the way it will go. The BBC needs to remember it's supposed to be a public service, not a business, and behave accordingly. If it doesn't give the licence-paying public anything different from what it already gets from the commercial stations, then what are they paying for? Rod. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com