Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Well, even my budget never heard of make tv when it has a memory stick of
pics plugged in, I'm told looks amazing, but when one hooks up an hd box its
less so. Blue ray apparently can come close but in all cases its movement
that lets it down I gather. It either jerks apparently randomly or smears.
Thank goodness I'm now too blind to give a fig.

Computer displays on the tv, don't seem to smear, so one tends to think its
the input signal processing that is bad or more likely a standard conversion
has screwed it up.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:03:09 -0600, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Some 'Full HD' TVs have a built-in library of photos, to show off the
screen. My Sony has. The detail in those pictures is fantastic,
stunning and makes full use of the pixel count. Having studied one up
close, switch to an HD broadcast and study that up close, too.

You will be annoyed at how poorly it exploits your expensive 1920 x
1080 screen, I guarantee it.

My 1920x1080 TV screen is also connected to a computer, which when not
being used for anything else displays one of the Windows 7 desktop
slideshows, normally one of the landscape themes (because I like
them), which I change from time to time.

Thus I am aware of what the screen is capable of, and while an
occasional shot in a TV programme will come close it never quite
matches it, and in any case it always looks rubbish as soon as
anything moves. I recall the HD demonstrations I saw at trade shows
like IBC several decades ago using Plumbicon cameras and CRT displays
being a lot better than what we now have to accept on broadcasts.

Rod.

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 02:17:39 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

It's almost enough to make you wonder if such people should have been
forcibly kicked into the near future by only broadcasting from the
relays in T2. I don't mean 'only in HD', but there would be no SD
duplicates of HD channels. There would be SD channels in T2.

It's a bit tricky to do that only on relays as you'd need to
re-mux and re-modulate which kinda breaks the definition of a relay.
It is bound to happen on the main stations (and thus the relays) in due
course (for some value of 'due', although I doubt it will be 10 years as
one poster has suggested).

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Well, you can bet your life that soon, they will say, the sd versions are a
waste as everyone has hd and take te duplicates off. That will in effect
mean all blind people will need to get hd boxes or tellies and no doubt lots
of others. The term everyone is banded about too much these days. Its like
the Gov saying that only online benefit claims will be allowed as everyone
has an internet connection.
Its rubbish of course!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:32:04 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 11:27:17 +0000
Scott wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:57:39 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

OK a while back I asked what bbc 1 leng was, well the talking
Goodmans box still calls it thatbut I've had confirmation that it is
indeed LON, so why its not said right must be down to the speech
synth in the box.
However no other station on Freeview identifies its region in this
way. I
can understand it on the sat feed, but it seems pointless on
Freeview unless there are now so many people who cannot tell which
transmitter is their right one its there to help them out!

Depends where you live. Mine is called 'BBC 1 Scot' :-)

Unnecessary it may be, but I can see some logic in distinguishing if
the two differ. As a matter of interest, I assume all of England
receives BBC 1 LON HD?

Mine, from Tacolneston, Norfolk, calls itself BBC 1 East. I don't
bother with HD, so can't answer that question.

Seems half the people think HD is brilliant and the other half can't
see much difference.

It's not that I can't see the difference. It's that I can't see the need,
for the majority of programs. You only watch drama for the "story" and
documentaries for the "information, why does the picture need to be
perfect?

OK, where there are six full muxes available and not a lot of people
queuing up to add channels to them, the HD channels don't take up usable
space

But I certainly think that it's wrong in the locations served by Freeview
Lite, to tell people who have to suffer this "poor" service that there
isn't space on two muxes for the 30 extra channels they are missing, but
there is space to put six channels on twice.

tim

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Its all a plot to get everyone onto Sat boxes and use UHF for mobile stuff.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

It's not that I can't see the difference. It's that I can't see the
need, for the majority of programs.

Come now, this isn't the USA.

You only watch drama for the "story" and documentaries for the
"information, why does the picture need to be perfect?

Both types of programme can have visuals that are a positive pleasure to
watch. "Ohh, just LOOK at that!" The sense of involvement is better as
well with HD.

But I certainly think that it's wrong in the locations served by Freeview
Lite, to tell people who have to suffer this "poor" service that there
isn't space on two muxes for the 30 extra channels they are missing, but
there is space to put six channels on twice.

It's almost enough to make you wonder if such people should have been
forcibly kicked into the near future by only broadcasting from the relays
in T2. I don't mean 'only in HD', but there would be no SD duplicates of
HD channels. There would be SD channels in T2.

Bill

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

So why was this not an automated thing like red button or whatever but
triggered at the transmitter?

One might have expected some data control bits were spare.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 31/12/2013 11:27, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:57:39 -0000, "Brian Gaff"

Unnecessary it may be, but I can see some logic in distinguishing if
the two differ.

It's handy if you end up receiving an adjacent region, and the weaker
version ends up on LCN 1 rather than 800+, you can see what's gone wrong,
(but of course not necessarily have the knowledge to put it right !)

As a matter of interest, I assume all of England
receives BBC 1 LON HD?

No. It's labelled as 'BBC ONE HD', and it's not the London version,
the regional opt out segments are filled with more or less this caption:-

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/yL4CkmWxMJM/hqdefault.jpg

So rather than viewers in the largest English region not having to switch
back to SD to see the local news, everyone in England
can feel unified in having to do so.


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

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Yes well the punters, including presenters probably know more about what
goes out where than the bods planning what goes out where do, if you get my
drift.
I expect it was decided over a pint down the local.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Scott
wrote:


They have missed a trick in not doing this at 11 pm on BBC Two. Viewers
in Scotland are exposed to Newsnight non-Scotland instead of being
forced to retune to Newsnight Scotland. Could prove useful in the
lead-up to the referendum for those who have already made up their minds
:-)

One amusing irony of the way the BBC organise sic themselves showed up a
few days ago.

During the morning they had a 'news' item about discovery of a van Dyke
painting by the people on the Antiques Roadshow. This was ended with
pointing out that we could watch a report on this during the AR show 'that
evening'.

Erm... not in Scotland via FreeView. We had the excitement of Scottish
Country Dancing and a prog about the countryside. No doubt we'll soon be
having a series on how to make shortbread... :-)

This did rather expose two things.

1) That the 'news' report was actually a trail. The AR people must have
known for many days to get this into the AR 'that evening'. So not 'news'
that morning.

2) No joined-up-planning. Trailing over the UK as 'news' something that
wasn't actually going to be broadcast via Freeview over a large part of
the
UK. Presumably no-one producing the news programs had a clue about
Scotland, and no-one spoke to anyone there to check.

Have the feeling that no one at the BBC in England know or care about
anything broadcast in Scotland.

Added irony: Apparently this 'discovery' was prompted by Fiona Bruce on
the
programme

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

tim..... wrote:

It's not that I can't see the difference. It's that I can't see the
need, for the majority of programs. You only watch drama for the
"story" and documentaries for the "information, why does the picture
need to be perfect?

Sorry, tim, but that's a ridiculous argument. Followed to its logical
conclusion you might as well advocate watching everything in 405-lines
black and white.

The better the picture, the more immersive is the experience. It makes
a big difference to my viewing enjoyment if the picture is blurry or
sharp, noisy or not, has a good contrast ratio or not, has realistic
colours or not.

Do you argue for mono sound, on the grounds that it, too, is only for
information?

--
SteveT

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

It's fortunate not everybody thinks like that. Just as well. If nobody
saw any point in improving anything, or just doing things well for the
sake of doing them well, then we might have decided a long time ago
that it was tiresome watching a flickering neon lamp through a
spinning disk and just given up the notion of television altogether.

Quite. In fact extend the argument further, and we'd all still be living in caves.

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

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 10:04:46 -0000
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

And the talking box does notcover hd. Bit pointless really as the
sound is the same except its apparently quieter on hd and the AD on
boxes that support it sounds too quiet to me.
Brian


Agreed about the low volume on HD, just another reason I don't bother
with it.

--
Davey.

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Brian Gaff wrote:
So why was this not an automated thing like red button or whatever but
triggered at the transmitter?

One might have expected some data control bits were spare.

The idea's been considered, but apparently the process would look too clunky.
Of course, no more clunky than manually changing, which is what everyone has
to do anyway !!


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