|
|
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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! Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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? |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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. -- Davey. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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. You and I must be in different categories. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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?
In article ,
Scott wrote: Seems half the people think HD is brilliant and the other half can't see much difference. You and I must be in different categories. I would have expected most people who have looked at it to be in a category "yes, it's obviously better, but not as much as I'd hoped". -- Richard |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: Seems half the people think HD is brilliant and the other half can't see much difference. You and I must be in different categories. I would have expected most people who have looked at it to be in a category "yes, it's obviously better, but not as much as I'd hoped". -- Richard +1 -- aa |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:27:57 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote: 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 Yes indeed, we used to have that in the old days :-) 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. 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 :-) |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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?
Richard Tobin wrote:
I would have expected most people who have looked at it to be in a category "yes, it's obviously better, but not as much as I'd hoped". I'm in that category. It ****es me off that loads of fine detail is "smoothed out" so the picture is much lower definition than the pixel count allows for. Presumably the smoothing is done to remove high frequency content and thus allow for a lower bandwidth. 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. -- SteveT |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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?
"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?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
... Richard Tobin wrote: I would have expected most people who have looked at it to be in a category "yes, it's obviously better, but not as much as I'd hoped". I'm in that category. It ****es me off that loads of fine detail is "smoothed out" so the picture is much lower definition than the pixel count allows for. Presumably the smoothing is done to remove high frequency content and thus allow for a lower bandwidth. 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. That could be the motion. Have you tried freezing an HD video (Blu-ray or HDD recorder/pause live TV)? -- Max Demian |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
On 31/12/2013 12:32, Davey wrote:
Mine, from Tacolneston, Norfolk, calls itself BBC 1 East. I don't bother with HD, so can't answer that question. Whereas here in Sandy Heath land, we get BBC1 East W Just looks odd... -- Fred |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Max Demian wrote:
That could be the motion. Have you tried freezing an HD video (Blu-ray or HDD recorder/pause live TV)? Yes. Nothing like as good as a pin-sharp 1920 x 1080 photo displayed on the same screen. -- SteveT |
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. 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?
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 21:59:22 -0000, "tim....."
wrote: 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? On that basis, you could ask why anything needs to be any good at all. 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. Happy new year. Rod. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
"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. You can't do that until there isn't a large supply of legacy TVs that can't do HD. And I don't mean HD "ready" screens. I mean PVRs. You can still buy, new, SD only PVRs as they cost less because you put a *much* smaller disk in them. It will be at least 10 years (IMHO) before it is "fair" to obsolete this equipment tim |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
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 -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Davey" wrote in message ... 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. -- Davey. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Probably depends on screen size and how good the display is.
Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "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. You and I must be in different categories. |
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. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
In article ,
Davey wrote: Agreed about the low volume on HD, just another reason I don't bother with it. Is it just my TV, or has the volume on the HD channels become much lower in the last day or so? It was always quieter than SD, but it seems to have got worse. -- Richard |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
|
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:52:46 +0000, Davey
wrote: 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. Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego high definition pictures. A friend of mine once said she would never again buy a quartz watch because you keep having to change the battery. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Scott wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:52:46 +0000, Davey wrote: 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. Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego high definition pictures. +1 The level difference between HD and SD channels is annoying, and I've got too much of a hangover to explain the reasons HD levels can end up in that state, but they do, and it's not ideal, but hardly a deal breaker to ditch HD. More annoying are level differences on the same channel between progs, continuity shouters, and promos, (as Jonny B mentions in his post) That's just sloppy operational practice. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:52:46 +0000, Davey wrote: 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. Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego high definition pictures. A friend of mine once said she would never again buy a quartz watch because you keep having to change the battery. Quite a reasonable objection as you have to pay through the nose for a battery every few years (even more for fitting) and probably lose any water resistance. Which is why I've bought a 'kinetic' one that charges its own battery (though no guarantee it will last any longer than a few years). -- Max Demian |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:16:03 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote: "Scott" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:52:46 +0000, Davey wrote: 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. Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego high definition pictures. A friend of mine once said she would never again buy a quartz watch because you keep having to change the battery. Quite a reasonable objection as you have to pay through the nose for a battery every few years (even more for fitting) and probably lose any water resistance. Which is why I've bought a 'kinetic' one that charges its own battery (though no guarantee it will last any longer than a few years). Within the context of the overall household budget, I don't see the cost of a battery as a major concern. However, we all have to make our own judgements, I suppose. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:40:07 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote: More annoying are level differences on the same channel between progs, continuity shouters, and promos, (as Jonny B mentions in his post) That's just sloppy operational practice. Talking of which, have you listened to Ch.5 continuity lately? I measured about a 12dB difference between programme and the sodding announcer blasting over the top at the end. I'd almost guess someone has switched out a comp./lim. accidentally somewhere. Talk about incompetence... Who does their TX these days? |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
tim..... 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. You can't do that until there isn't a large supply of legacy TVs that can't do HD. And I don't mean HD "ready" screens. I mean PVRs. You can still buy, new, SD only PVRs as they cost less because you put a *much* smaller disk in them. It will be at least 10 years (IMHO) before it is "fair" to obsolete this equipment I was only dreaming... Bill |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:40:07 +0000, Mark Carver wrote: More annoying are level differences on the same channel between progs, continuity shouters, and promos, (as Jonny B mentions in his post) That's just sloppy operational practice. Talking of which, have you listened to Ch.5 continuity lately? I measured about a 12dB difference between programme and the sodding announcer blasting over the top at the end. I'd almost guess someone has switched out a comp./lim. accidentally somewhere. Talk about incompetence... Who does their TX these days? It's still at Stephen Street W1 at what started life as Pearsons, I've lot track who runs the site now, Freemantle ? It's only C5 there, C5+1 and the C5 siblings are all done at Red Bee in W12 -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
Mark Carver wrote:
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. In the particular matter under discussion I agree. HD is a GOOD THING. However, as a general philosophical point, the principle that improvements are always worthwhile is not valid. Cost-benefit analysis might say that the improvement isn't worth the cost. For instance, converting a road to dual carriageway might not be worth doing. Also, if something is already so good that any 'improvements' are imperceptible then there's really no point. A good example would be whether I should have plastic surgery. Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com