|
|
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk... alan_m wrote: The UK public demand more channels rather than better (technical) quality channels so the broadcaster always squeezes more channels into the available bandwidth using more aggressive lossy algorithms. Maybe Mr Corbyn will have a referendum on quality vs quantity of freeview channels :-P After everyone has been issued with a 1977 calendar! |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:10:50 +0200, Martin wrote:
An online service such as Amazon or Netflix costs about half as much as the TV licence, so roll on the day when the only payment we have to make is for what we're actually watching. You still get more from the licence fee. How many 50% of the licence fee/channel are you willing to pay Define "more". You can't possible mean "more" in terms of quantity, because already between Amazon (the only one I currently subscribe to, and not entirely for the TV, so perhaps it wouldn't be fair to count it's full cost), Youtube, TED, and various other online sources, I have more audiovisual material than I could possibly watch, a great deal of it free. You could have two subscription services for less than the cost of the TV licence, or none at all and still have plenty to watch. If you mean "more" in the sense that the BBC offers programmes of a type that no other producer does, well that's certainly the ethic of public service broadcasting as I understand it, and without a doubt it's what the BBC used to do, but as time goes on there seem to be fewer examples of anything that couldn't be produced by anybody. If you've seen one crappy quiz show, or gardening or cookery show, or "celebrity documentary" where somebody presents a subject they don't know much about simply because they're already well known from something else, such as a crappy quiz show, you've seen them all. We don't need a public service broadcaster with a guaranteed income protected by criminal law just for those; any commercial broadcaster can churn them out by the skipload. The Proms are most often quoted as the programmes that nobody else could make, possibly because they're about the only thing left that could qualify for consideration, and in my case are probably the only thing that *might* entice me to pay a subscription if that were the only way they were available. But there are classical music subscription services already, Medici, and the Berlin Philharmonic to name a couple of examples, and plenty of free sources too, so the BBC is no longer alone even in this field. In the end, we generally get what we pay for, generally from whoever we pay for it, as long as we're not legally compelled to pay one organisation in order to be allowed to get it from somebody else. The protected status of the BBC might have been born out of noble intentions, but today it is an anachronism. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:52:54 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: Actually, I had a thought on this today. IF Arqiva gave the masses 'the best HD', it would pull the rug from Virgin, Sky and BT. Because they would have nothing better to sell, because the masses would be getting it better for free. There would no doubt be some idiot court case or petition handed to Ofcom to have the DTT bit rates slashed back to ****! So, perhaps, there is a reason DTT is rubbish quality.... the ill logic of driving profit! Perhaps that's why they also have corner logos on most broadcasts, and squish the end credits to one side and speed them up so they're too fast to read while some **** tells you half the plot of the following episode, or some other programme entirely, about 10dB louder than the music. The only way to see TV programmes nowadays free from any deliberate blemish is to pay for DVDs or watch them online. An online service such as Amazon or Netflix costs about half as much as the TV licence, so roll on the day when the only payment we have to make is for what we're actually watching. Rod. 'corner logos' are because some bright spark at each broadcaster thinks they 'must have a corporate identity', and also so its visible on any copies which turn up in the internet. See also the W1A sketch on corporate branding. 'credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to ensure the full credits go to air. e.g.. To send full credits (3') + promo later programmes (30") + tease next weeks episode (15") would take 1minute 45seconds longer than running the credits at 1.5 times normal speed, squeezed to allow promos. That means you can start the next programme earlier. '10dB louder' .... no actuall 'engineers' involved in Tx anymore! Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Martin" wrote in message
... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:56:50 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:52:54 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: Actually, I had a thought on this today. IF Arqiva gave the masses 'the best HD', it would pull the rug from Virgin, Sky and BT. Because they would have nothing better to sell, because the masses would be getting it better for free. There would no doubt be some idiot court case or petition handed to Ofcom to have the DTT bit rates slashed back to ****! So, perhaps, there is a reason DTT is rubbish quality.... the ill logic of driving profit! Perhaps that's why they also have corner logos on most broadcasts, and squish the end credits to one side and speed them up so they're too fast to read while some **** tells you half the plot of the following episode, or some other programme entirely, about 10dB louder than the music. The only way to see TV programmes nowadays free from any deliberate blemish is to pay for DVDs or watch them online. An online service such as Amazon or Netflix costs about half as much as the TV licence, so roll on the day when the only payment we have to make is for what we're actually watching. You still get more from the licence fee. Agreed. Emphasized. True dat. How many 50% of the licence fee/channel are you willing to pay -- Martin in Zuid Holland |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote: credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to ensure the full credits go to air. The squeezing does at least sometimes tend make the credits virtually unreadable. So I've been surprised that no copyright owners have threatened to take action. The contracts of performers, etc, may mandate the way their name appears in the credits. Presenting credits in a way that makes them hard (or impossible) to read may violate that. If so, interesting if no one has taken action. Maybe the reality is that the star names can still be read, and the media company doesn't care because they know the 'lesser' artists, etc, won't be able to afford to persue any complaint. 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 |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:10:50 +0200, Martin wrote: An online service such as Amazon or Netflix costs about half as much as the TV licence, so roll on the day when the only payment we have to make is for what we're actually watching. You still get more from the licence fee. How many 50% of the licence fee/channel are you willing to pay Define "more". You can't possible mean "more" in terms of quantity, because already between Amazon (the only one I currently subscribe to, and not entirely for the TV, so perhaps it wouldn't be fair to count it's full cost), Youtube, TED, and various other online sources, I have more audiovisual material than I could possibly watch, a great deal of it free. You could have two subscription services for less than the cost of the TV licence, or none at all and still have plenty to watch. If you want a series of niche programmes, then yes, those two subscription providers are right up your street. Good for you. Dont forget to cut all of your co-ax cables after you've signed your life over. But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! i.e. There has to be broadcasters offering a bit of everything for everyone. If you mean "more" in the sense that the BBC offers programmes of a type that no other producer does, well that's certainly the ethic of public service broadcasting as I understand it, and without a doubt it's what the BBC used to do, but as time goes on there seem to be fewer examples of anything that couldn't be produced by anybody. If you've seen one crappy quiz show, or gardening or cookery show, or "celebrity documentary" where somebody presents a subject they don't know much about simply because they're already well known from something else, such as a crappy quiz show, you've seen them all. We don't need a public service broadcaster with a guaranteed income protected by criminal law just for those; any commercial broadcaster can churn them out by the skipload. ALL of those things you mentioned in that paragraph.... they're no longer made by broadcasters. Ideas now come from independant production companies* who pitch ideas to broadcasters. Most broadcasters then take a f'ing age to respond to such ideas. Should an idea then get the go ahead, it has to be developed, and perhaps a pilot recorded, and ALL at the indies expense. Most indies have a niche field of expertise. Some do comedy. Some do sports. Some do (f)arty stuff. Some do panel quizzes. Some do docos. Et cetera. Its then up to the broadcasters to get the balance right. * Although ITV has recently gone on a panic buying spree, picking up as many indies as it can afford! The Proms are most often quoted as the programmes that nobody else could make, possibly because they're about the only thing left that could qualify for consideration, and in my case are probably the only thing that *might* entice me to pay a subscription if that were the only way they were available. But there are classical music subscription services already, Medici, and the Berlin Philharmonic to name a couple of examples, and plenty of free sources too, so the BBC is no longer alone even in this field. 'The Proms' is a programme anyone else could make. But thus far no-one else has bid for the rights. Its always been left to Auntie. But no doubt that who ever does cover it, would have to provide FULL FREE radio coverage of the whole season, and accessable TV coverage. Who else has the infrastructure to do that???? NONE of the other broadcasters. Remember, this has to be available for everyones Nan to listen to, and/or watch. In the end, we generally get what we pay for, generally from whoever we pay for it, as long as we're not legally compelled to pay one organisation in order to be allowed to get it from somebody else. The protected status of the BBC might have been born out of noble intentions, but today it is an anachronism. Well unplug the tv co-ax, cancel your TVL direct debit and cease whinging! Im quite happy to continue paying mine. Im quite happy to pay if it goes up too. Fool me? Or patriotic upholder of British values? Furthermore, The BBC is not just a broadcaster. It is also the governments emergency infrastructure. e.g If there were a MAJOR incident in Birmingham. You need an accessable means by which you can tell: - the rest of the country to avoid the midlands - anyone in the midlands to go home and await further information - all flights in/out of England are cancelled - anyone in the midlands which areas and roads are closed - anyone in the midlands which emergency contact numbers should be used - anyone in the emergency services to report for duty a.s.a.p. - get the home secretary on tv and radio simultaneously Sky News or the Huffington Post aint gonna be much use is it? And just you try and co-ordinate ITV and independant radio! It would be like hearding cats! The BBC IS the emergency information infrastructure for the government of the United Kingdom. There are BBC documents on protocols for such events. Yes, its all left over from the cold war. Should any disaster befall this green and pleasant isle, there needs to be some GUARANTEED means of allowing the government to communicate directly with the populous. Its 2015.... this country can not be left to flounder without some adequate means of information distribution. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote in message
o.uk... "Roderick Stewart" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:10:50 +0200, Martin wrote: An online service such as Amazon or Netflix costs about half as much as the TV licence, so roll on the day when the only payment we have to make is for what we're actually watching. You still get more from the licence fee. How many 50% of the licence fee/channel are you willing to pay Define "more". You can't possible mean "more" in terms of quantity, because already between Amazon (the only one I currently subscribe to, and not entirely for the TV, so perhaps it wouldn't be fair to count it's full cost), Youtube, TED, and various other online sources, I have more audiovisual material than I could possibly watch, a great deal of it free. You could have two subscription services for less than the cost of the TV licence, or none at all and still have plenty to watch. If you want a series of niche programmes, then yes, those two subscription providers are right up your street. Good for you. Dont forget to cut all of your co-ax cables after you've signed your life over. But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! i.e. There has to be broadcasters offering a bit of everything for everyone. If you mean "more" in the sense that the BBC offers programmes of a type that no other producer does, well that's certainly the ethic of public service broadcasting as I understand it, and without a doubt it's what the BBC used to do, but as time goes on there seem to be fewer examples of anything that couldn't be produced by anybody. If you've seen one crappy quiz show, or gardening or cookery show, or "celebrity documentary" where somebody presents a subject they don't know much about simply because they're already well known from something else, such as a crappy quiz show, you've seen them all. We don't need a public service broadcaster with a guaranteed income protected by criminal law just for those; any commercial broadcaster can churn them out by the skipload. ALL of those things you mentioned in that paragraph.... they're no longer made by broadcasters. Ideas now come from independant production companies* who pitch ideas to broadcasters. Most broadcasters then take a f'ing age to respond to such ideas. Should an idea then get the go ahead, it has to be developed, and perhaps a pilot recorded, and ALL at the indies expense. Most indies have a niche field of expertise. Some do comedy. Some do sports. Some do (f)arty stuff. Some do panel quizzes. Some do docos. Et cetera. Its then up to the broadcasters to get the balance right. * Although ITV has recently gone on a panic buying spree, picking up as many indies as it can afford! The Proms are most often quoted as the programmes that nobody else could make, possibly because they're about the only thing left that could qualify for consideration, and in my case are probably the only thing that *might* entice me to pay a subscription if that were the only way they were available. But there are classical music subscription services already, Medici, and the Berlin Philharmonic to name a couple of examples, and plenty of free sources too, so the BBC is no longer alone even in this field. 'The Proms' is a programme anyone else could make. But thus far no-one else has bid for the rights. Its always been left to Auntie. But no doubt that who ever does cover it, would have to provide FULL FREE radio coverage of the whole season, and accessable TV coverage. Who else has the infrastructure to do that???? NONE of the other broadcasters. Remember, this has to be available for everyones Nan to listen to, and/or watch. In the end, we generally get what we pay for, generally from whoever we pay for it, as long as we're not legally compelled to pay one organisation in order to be allowed to get it from somebody else. The protected status of the BBC might have been born out of noble intentions, but today it is an anachronism. Well unplug the tv co-ax, cancel your TVL direct debit and cease whinging! Im quite happy to continue paying mine. Im quite happy to pay if it goes up too. Fool me? Or patriotic upholder of British values? Furthermore, The BBC is not just a broadcaster. It is also the governments emergency infrastructure. e.g If there were a MAJOR incident in Birmingham. You need an accessable means by which you can tell: - the rest of the country to avoid the midlands - anyone in the midlands to go home and await further information - all flights in/out of England are cancelled - anyone in the midlands which areas and roads are closed - anyone in the midlands which emergency contact numbers should be used - anyone in the emergency services to report for duty a.s.a.p. - get the home secretary on tv and radio simultaneously Sky News or the Huffington Post aint gonna be much use is it? And just you try and co-ordinate ITV and independant radio! It would be like hearding cats! The BBC IS the emergency information infrastructure for the government of the United Kingdom. There are BBC documents on protocols for such events. Yes, its all left over from the cold war. Should any disaster befall this green and pleasant isle, there needs to be some GUARANTEED means of allowing the government to communicate directly with the populous. Its 2015.... this country can not be left to flounder without some adequate means of information distribution. In fact Rod, whilst you're at it, you could save yourself further money by ceasing to pay National Insurance contributions and taxes, and opting out of the NHS. I mean, you're paying for treatments of people you've never met, who have things you never will. Its just as rediculous as paying a broadcaster to make programmes you have negative interest in. Subscription health care services are widely available at a wide range of prices. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On 15/08/2015 21:42, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
To remove this Sony added a frame store and called it DMC. Nothing to do with a popular American rap crew of the time Id like to add, but Dynamic Motion Control. AIUI the rap group chose the name after hearing the expression used in an edit suite ! -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... On 15/08/2015 21:42, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote: To remove this Sony added a frame store and called it DMC. Nothing to do with a popular American rap crew of the time Id like to add, but Dynamic Motion Control. AIUI the rap group chose the name after hearing the expression used in an edit suite ! -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. Er, just no. DJ Run, Jam Master Jay, and DMC. The DMC came from his real name, Darryl McDaniels. Wikipedia has a very good page on the legendary crew. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... In article , _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote: credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to ensure the full credits go to air. The squeezing does at least sometimes tend make the credits virtually unreadable. So I've been surprised that no copyright owners have threatened to take action. The contracts of performers, etc, may mandate the way their name appears in the credits. Presenting credits in a way that makes them hard (or impossible) to read may violate that. If so, interesting if no one has taken action. Maybe the reality is that the star names can still be read, and the media company doesn't care because they know the 'lesser' artists, etc, won't be able to afford to persue any complaint. But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be sped up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served. 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 |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:34:33 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote: Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, and that in any case you should have no obligation to prove your innocence in the face of a presumption of guilt, it shouldn't be necessary to cut any cables. I certainly wouldn't vandalise any of my own property in case somebody *might* think I was doing something illegal with it. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:34:33 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, and that in any case you should have no obligation to prove your innocence in the face of a presumption of guilt, it shouldn't be necessary to cut any cables. I certainly wouldn't vandalise any of my own property in case somebody *might* think I was doing something illegal with it. Rod. Lets put it another way, I, and probably including lots of other legitimate licence fee payers, do not want you to continue receiving BBC services once you have ceased paying your LF. Whether you invite the LF inspectors in for tea and biscuits are tell them where to shove their court case, Im not really fussed. But fact remains, the LF is NOT compulsory. Other services ARE available by other means. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Friday, 14 August 2015 12:03:44 UTC+1, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
Snippity snip snip delete (well, seems thats what the cool kids do) 4K ....over Freeview? One hopes you are 'having a laugh'. Seriously. Consider that this stuff originates at 12Gb/s. Tweleve gigabits of data, per second. In comparison, present HD originates at just under 1.5Gb/s. And to compress this enough so that its transmittable over freeview, you would have to dispense with so much information that you would render 'UHD' pointless. You could use a whole DVB-T2 multiplex and the H.265 codec. It would arguably be a better redition of 4K than the current HD Freeview is of 2K. Yes, you could. But it would contain f.all detail. I don't think you understand how video compression works. In a [typical] video stream there will be areas of the pictures which are the same as neighbouring ones and / or the same from frame to frame. It is these that are compressed, NOT the fine detail. Even simple [and lossless] run length encoding will result in a substantial reduction in the file size for an image. MP3 compression of audio from original CD to 128kbps results in compression of around 91%. Purists say you can tell the difference and so for a while I abjured it, however even though I have quite good ears, I can't tell the difference. Obviously if one is able to compress in two dimensions and time one will achieve much higher compression with relatively little loss. So the method described above of using a [single] full [satellite] transponder and H..265 compression will result in a very good result at 4k resolution for most all content. I actually laughed out loud at my monitor when I read your first sentence! sarcasm n decades* working in live television, and n+1 decades programming computers in up to sixteen different laguages. I really do not have the slightest clue. /sarcasm My dear chap, I am very well aware of the constructs employed in standards deployed by the moving picture experts group. Ground zero for it was the technique employed in a jpg picture, and then applying that over a time period. Yes, when turning down the bitrate for a video stream, the first items to be sacrificed ARE the non-moving areas*. Keep turning down the bit rate, as has to be done for DTT, and very soon you start to afffect the detail contained within anything moving. In fact, whilst an object is moving, its detail is lost. Only once the 'thing' stops moving is its detail restored. (Again, this is detail lost because of compression, NOT motion blur.) Its restored quickly. So much so that if you're not paying particulat attention to the moving this, you miss the instant when a vauge fuzzy shape becomes a pitch, with its skid marks and divots. Thus, grass on any field based sport shown on DTT turns to VHS mush whilst the camera is tracking play. Certainly on BT Sport. Less so on [satellite] BBC HD during the World Cup. Only when the camera becomes still is any detail added to the pictch. * What goes against your suggestion was a 'reality' programme on ITV32 a couple of years back. Which showed a QR code at the top of the screen constantly. This would link to chat rooms and a website. The QR code was stationary, and on screen during the entire programme. i.e. It was present on every frame and did not move. No-ones phone could recognise it because the transmission chain crushed all the detail out of it. It was a stationary item, compressed to grey mush. HD? No 'definition'. I digress. If you saw such programmes at source quality, and then compared the DTT off air signal, you would understand just how much detail Arqiva are removing from the national viewing pleasure. To get a 12Gb/s signal out over DTT, you are going to have to drop a vast amount of detail. Take a football match being covered in 4K. (Ive seen some.) Now get your main gantry camera to frame on a stationary wide angle* facing across the pitch. *As wide as the lens will go. Not pointing at anything in particular. Such is the detail in that picture you can make out individual facial expressions of people in the crowd in the opposite stand (usually around 100metres away). Its a fair wager that detail will _never_ be present in any "Freeview 4K".. You are probably right about Freeview, but as discussed using a full transponder on satellite should get satisfactory results. Instead of wasting so much bandwidth on such guff, why not just turn up the bandwidth for present HD channels, and make Freeview better quality than Sky satellite or BT TV??? i.e. Make HD.... the best HD. FOR FREE. Bear in mind CD audio is sampled at 44.1KHz. The entire broadcast world uses 48KHz sample rates for everything. So that CD has already lost the very high frequencies. Anything above 22KHz to be precise. i.e. frequencies only dogs can hear... Then compressing that in to a 128Kb/s mp3 file..... Any sound supervisor worth their salt CAN recognise an mp3. There are several who refuse to use mp3 files in their programmes, insisting on .wav source files. If you take a 96Kb/s mp3 file, its easy to hear how bad it is. 128Kb/s is only just a little above that. i.e. That file is only just above the point where audio is defeningly obvious how bad it is. H265 is H264 tweaked. The macroblock size is increased (the grid which the encoder chops the picture in to), and they rejigged the colour space. Thats it. Its really not worth getting all moist about h265 as being the best thing since the Altair 8800. Its not some amazing soloution that will allow cinema quality pictures to pushed down a dial up connection. Just like that 128Kb/s mp3 file, its h264, but just above the point where the masses can tell its crap. I bothered to check - my MP3's are 192kbps and I can rarely, if ever, tell them from an actual CD. By contrast soon after CD's came out (1986/7) I was often driving up the M6 when Radio Stoke ran its 'latest CDs' program on a Friday evening. Not all the tracks played were CD, but even though the vinyl had been played on best professional decks, encoded, transmitted, received, decoded and played on my [BMW] car radio through fairly average speakers, whilst driving along at er 70mph, I could easily tell the difference between tracks played on CD and tracks played on vinyl before the DJ announced them. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:12:37 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote: But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. A balance of cookery, DIY and quizzes? Really? And who decides what sort of "balance" the news and current affairs should have? All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! The accepted standard for weather forecasts in the UK doesn't seem to be terribly high. There have been many occasions when I've believed the BBC weather forecast and gone out without a coat or brolly and been soaked. I'm sure the BBC can't be the only ones who can do the job to this level of accuracy. i.e. There has to be broadcasters offering a bit of everything for everyone. I agree, there should be something for everyone, and for the sake of "balance", not all from the same viewpoint, but doesn't a mix of lots of different services amount to exactly this? We seem to manage without a public service newspaper or a public service book or magazine publisher, just lots of different ones, so why is it essential to have a public service broadcaster? In the days when there was one broadcaster, there had to be a way of making sure it maintained a balance all by itself, but it's not the 1950s any more. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:12:37 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. A balance of cookery, DIY and quizzes? Really? Thats the job of the individual channel controllers. Yes, its a job. Actual people do it. Although they have come in for a lot of flak this last twelve months. And who decides what sort of "balance" the news and current affairs should have? That would be the news editor. Again, this job exists. Someone does it. Each channel will have their own slant on how to report the news. e.g. ITV is more cheeky/cheap/cheerful RT is 'trying' to be more independantly objective, but with a Russian slant CCTV, Chinese POV. Do you complain about RTs Russian slant, and unceasing berating of the USA? No. But its about as balance as the BBC. All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! The accepted standard for weather forecasts in the UK doesn't seem to be terribly high. There have been many occasions when I've believed the BBC weather forecast and gone out without a coat or brolly and been soaked. I'm sure the BBC can't be the only ones who can do the job to this level of accuracy. I wasnt refering to the actual forecast. More to the sort of community based information. e.g.. Dont use this bypass unless you have a submarine. I cant get in to x/y/x because the road is closeD, can someone rescue my mum? Can anyone help the a/b/c/ museum, its flooding. Independant stations seem to be stuck in 1996, yet all with the identical playlist. What good is internet "radio" (HA!) for this? The BBC has hundreds of local stations across this island of ours, all working for the community, thanks to the LF. i.e. There has to be broadcasters offering a bit of everything for everyone. I agree, there should be something for everyone, and for the sake of "balance", not all from the same viewpoint, but doesn't a mix of lots of different services amount to exactly this? We seem to manage without a public service newspaper or a public service book or magazine publisher, just lots of different ones, so why is it essential to have a public service broadcaster? In the days when there was one broadcaster, there had to be a way of making sure it maintained a balance all by itself, but it's not the 1950s any more. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:34:33 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, .. indeed they haven't, but I understsnd that HMRC can make a forced entry if they believe there to be contraband on the premises. The two have been know to work together. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:12:37 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. A balance of cookery, DIY and quizzes? Really? And who decides what sort of "balance" the news and current affairs should have? All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! The accepted standard for weather forecasts in the UK doesn't seem to be terribly high. There have been many occasions when I've believed the BBC weather forecast and gone out without a coat or brolly and been soaked. I'm sure the BBC can't be the only ones who can do the job to this level of accuracy. The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On 15/08/2015 00:47, Andy Furniss wrote:
I am curious what bitrate you think is enough for HD? Well, DVDs run at 3-10mbit usually. That's MPEG2, so we can halve that for broadcast with the better CODEC - say 1.5-5mbit. But the picture is ~twice the resolution each way, so we want 4 times more. So 6-20mbit should be OK. Another 4-fold for 4k, and we need 24-80... Andy |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk... On 15/08/2015 00:47, Andy Furniss wrote: I am curious what bitrate you think is enough for HD? Well, DVDs run at 3-10mbit usually. That's MPEG2, so we can halve that for broadcast with the better CODEC - say 1.5-5mbit. But the picture is ~twice the resolution each way, so we want 4 times more. So 6-20mbit should be OK. Another 4-fold for 4k, and we need 24-80... EIGHT. Not four. 4K = four times the resolution, but eight times the data rate (because its progressive scan, as opposed to interlaced) Andy |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:50:25 +0100, Charles Hope
wrote: In article , Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:12:37 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. A balance of cookery, DIY and quizzes? Really? And who decides what sort of "balance" the news and current affairs should have? All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! The accepted standard for weather forecasts in the UK doesn't seem to be terribly high. There have been many occasions when I've believed the BBC weather forecast and gone out without a coat or brolly and been soaked. I'm sure the BBC can't be the only ones who can do the job to this level of accuracy. The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office. Yes. As well as the forecasts available online from the Met Office I use those from Metcheck. Available free he https://www.metcheck.com/UK/today.asp Metcheck is a privately-owned organisation that operates globally. Someimes its forecast are better for my location and sometimes the Met Office does better. I think local geography is a factor. https://www.metcheck.com/OTHER/about.asp -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message Which makes me wonder what "paused" means/does in the world of analogue kit. I may well be that taking photos of paused images is only ever going to get one field as the kit sending the signal is repeating the same field over and over. Depends on the kit concerned. Some had an option switch. This would select whether your freeze/slow motion was field based or frame based. Field based would send the present field to both fields on the display. Frame based would send the present frame (both parts of it) to the display. Interesting, thanks for this and all the snipped info. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:17:28 +0100, Andy Furniss [email protected] wrote: Looking at that image and reading your site I think what I would call de-interlacing differs from what you would. Yes. I think that is becoming clear ... I consider any processing to display interlaced content on a progressive display as de-interlacing. It may be that it is very simple like line doubling fields and a bit of filtering to compensate for the different spatial position of the fields, but it's still processing that is needed and wouldn't be if a native interlaced display were being driven. Doing line doubling hurts resolution just weaving fields together is good for res with static portions of the frame but artifacts on motion. Being clever and adding edge interpolation/motion detection to get the best of both is what "advanced" de-interlacers do. I have to say that I prefer my own definitions ... I don't see how anything can truly be called de-interlacing unless electronically it combines the content of *two or more successive* fields to produce an image that is different from what it would have been had the lines of each field been drawn on the screen in the appropriate place as received. As we both seem to acknowledge, there are other things that an LCD does, such as buffering and scaling, which are necessary for it to display content correctly, but as long as it is only electronically processing *one* field at a time, and not electronically combining it with the content of, temporally speaking, neighbouring fields, before drawing it on the screen, I don't think it makes any sense to call that de-interlacing. If you were going to use that definition, you'd more less have to say that a CRT de-interlaces as well, and the definition of the word thus becomes too wide and general to be useful. I think it's fair enough to take that position, though I, having read various papers on de-interlacing where bob and weave are explicitly mentioned as "types of" de-interlacing, will still think of them as such. Judging by the arm shot your TV looks like it's doing fields - I accept what you write about the pairs not matching, but that could be additional processing that's nothing to do with interlacing. But the *simplest* and *cheapest*, and therefore most probably correct, of the many possible explanations is that it is simply drawing the fields on the screen pretty much as received. Possibly - it seems that the first cheap consumer chips were 1996, so maybe your TVs didn't have them. The actual chip I found referred to in a paper on de-interlacing also did 100Hz frame creation (which IIRC later big CRTs used) as a side effect of being able to do motion compensated deint. From your descriptions and others' I think it likely that modern LCDs do more processing than they did at the time of the original demonstration, either by default or via menu options, and I probably ought to update some of the wording of the page accordingly, but at the time I never saw any evidence of more complex processing for either of the two LCDs used in it. I would say for some years TVs have also had high Hz frame interpolation/creation of some sort. Usually an option and historically not always that good. My 5 yo TV is not so good with 24/25p (so i would turn it off). For 50Hz extreme motion I can see it as an improvement but it's not so much better I would really care whether it's on or off. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message o.uk... _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote: Take a football match being covered in 4K. (Ive seen some.) Now get your main gantry camera to frame on a stationary wide angle* facing across the pitch. *As wide as the lens will go. Not pointing at anything in particular. Such is the detail in that picture you can make out individual facial expressions of people in the crowd in the opposite stand (usually around 100metres away). Its a fair wager that detail will _never_ be present in any "Freeview 4K". Instead of wasting so much bandwidth on such guff, why not just turn up the bandwidth for present HD channels, and make Freeview better quality than Sky satellite or BT TV??? I am curious what bitrate you think is enough for HD? I dont know. I really cant be arsed to carry out loads of tests. But I do know that when I watch Freeview HD, I got annoyed! ....yes I know what the doctor will tell me! I get annoyed because it looks so, well, ****! And this '****' is sold as "HD". Its a bleedin' con! Well I must admit having looked at the rates on the main HD mux 22.45 - 23.45 Saturday night and they were really much lower than they used to be :-( MOTD was on BBC1 HD and it maxed out at 7.5 mbit! The highest I saw for BBC3 IIRC was 9mbit and it wasn't like there was no space - the nulls min was 7mbit and max 12 for the whole hour monitored. This is nothing like a previous test I found that I did in 2012 - there were also 5 HD channels on then (as C4 had the spare for the paralympics). Then all 5 were going up to 14/15 mbit. I know Film 4+1 SD is on now as well, but that maxed at 1.3mbit min 0.7. What a pointless waste - broadcasting nulls - or maybe lack of adaptability as 2x red button are listed on the web as being on the mux, but were not running at the time of the test. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote: credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to ensure the full credits go to air. The squeezing does at least sometimes tend make the credits virtually unreadable. So I've been surprised that no copyright owners have threatened to take action. The contracts of performers, etc, may mandate the way their name appears in the credits. Presenting credits in a way that makes them hard (or impossible) to read may violate that. If so, interesting if no one has taken action. Maybe the reality is that the star names can still be read, and the media company doesn't care because they know the 'lesser' artists, etc, won't be able to afford to persue any complaint. But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be sped up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served. It would depend on what a court took "show" to mean in the event of an annoyed artist, etc, taking action. Squeezing down the credits to one pixel for one frame might not be felt to mean "show" in terms of the legal meanings of words in contracts. Seems to me quite reasonable for a court to so decide, and to require the text to be readable by viewers with normal eyesight, etc, but it would be a matter for a court. 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 |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:34:56 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote: I wasnt refering to the actual forecast. More to the sort of community based information. e.g.. Dont use this bypass unless you have a submarine. I cant get in to x/y/x because the road is closeD, can someone rescue my mum? Can anyone help the a/b/c/ museum, its flooding. Independant stations seem to be stuck in 1996, yet all with the identical playlist. What good is internet "radio" (HA!) for this? The BBC has hundreds of local stations across this island of ours, all working for the community, thanks to the LF. There are hundreds of independent local stations too, and if the sort of information you describe is what their listeners want, then they will have an incentive to provide it. Internet "radio" provides an alternative outlet for all these stations, including the ones too far away for their radio signals to reach, and in addition thousands more - literally thousands - that don't use radio signals at all. I couldn't even count them all. Just considering one tiny sub-genre of all these, the ones broadcasting baroque or ancient music with no announcements (because that's what I happen to like on my bedside radio while I'm reading, so it's the one I happen to know about) I can assure you that they absolutely don't all use the same playlist. I've heard plenty of music I've never heard anywhere else, and occasionally something new has led me to make purchases of more music by the same composers, the details on the little screen on the front of the radio showing just how unnecessary a traditional presenter is for certain types of broadcast. I haven't checked all the other five, six or seven thousand stations (or however many there are), but I guess the situation must be the same with a significant number of them. The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. You may feel nostalgic for the good old days when the BBC was all there was, and then became the example of excellence that everybody else followed (and trust me, I feel this too - many years ago I worked for the BBC as my first job, having read about this noble institution since my schooldays and nurtured an ambition to join it one day), but this is not the way history is going now. If the BBC thinks it still deserves special treatment, then it will have to demonstrate that it is still special, and frankly I become less convinced every day. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:53:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office. Yes. Indeed. You can get weather "apps" for your phone from both the BBC and the Met Office. IMHO the presentation of the BBC one looks neater, but the weather predicted by both of them is equally wrong. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:48:22 +0100, Charles Hope
wrote: Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, . indeed they haven't, but I understsnd that HMRC can make a forced entry if they believe there to be contraband on the premises. The two have been know to work together. If they broke into my house, they would find neither contraband nor any unlicenced TV set. Where should I send the bill for repairs? Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:12:56 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote: Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, and that in any case you should have no obligation to prove your innocence in the face of a presumption of guilt, it shouldn't be necessary to cut any cables. I certainly wouldn't vandalise any of my own property in case somebody *might* think I was doing something illegal with it. Rod. Lets put it another way, I, and probably including lots of other legitimate licence fee payers, do not want you to continue receiving BBC services once you have ceased paying your LF. I have no intention of ceasing to pay my TV licence as long as it remains a legal requirement. This doesn't stop me having strong opinions about the fact that it is a legal requirement, but I realise that if it's a legal requirement for me, it's "fair" in the sense that it's a legal requirement for everybody else too, and that I stand no chance of changing it all by myself just by breaking the law. Whether you invite the LF inspectors in for tea and biscuits are tell them where to shove their court case, Im not really fussed. But fact remains, the LF is NOT compulsory. Other services ARE available by other means. True, other services are, but other *broadcast* services are not. We still have the absurdity of having to pay the BBC to be allowed to watch other broadcasts that the BBC has nothing to do with. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote: The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, Yes, that seems quite likely. However... and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief. It seems clear to me that: A) The BBC iplayer and website is popular and has to keep being upgraded to cope with the demand. So popular that the commercial press owners, etc, routinely moan about it being "unfair" competition. TBH I doubt they'd do that if it was "insignificant". B) That there are many internet radio and TV stations, etc. And that many people now use these. But I've not seen any assessable figures for the idea that the BBC is "becoming an ever more insignificant part" of internet radio/TV for people in the UK. The term "insignificant" seems doubtful. The reality may well be that some never use it, whilst others use it a lot. But what the overall figures and trends are, I don't know. So maybe you can point to some given what you say? 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 |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
I've encountered people with Freeview HD receivers selecting channels 1 to 4 even when I've pointed out to them that the same programmes are available in HD on channels 101 to 104, and they are apparently quite happy with what they are watching. Maybe they just can't be bothered to type the extra digits, or don't see any advantage. You can lead a horse to water but you can't get milk out of a blind bat. Bill |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:03:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, Yes, that seems quite likely. However... and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief. I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey on this, but even the most casual general observation of the way ordinary people are spending their time in front of screens and in the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what they are watching and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC. I remember when the BBC was the only source of *any* broadcasting in this country. Then we acquired a second television channel, then a third and a fourth, and somewhere during that time a number of independent radio stations appeared. Then somebody invented the internet, and that technology and its availability were gradually improved until it too could be used for entertainment purposes. The result is that once the BBC was the only broadcast entertainment service there was, but now it's one amongst thousands of others. I remember all this because I was there - it has all happened within my lifetime and shows no sign of stopping. This may not count as detailed evidence, but I think it shows a dramatic change in the significance of the BBC amongst all the other related services that are available to us now, those other services having climbed to their present ubiquitous status from absolute nonexistance. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:56:23 +0200, Martin wrote:
Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, . indeed they haven't, but I understsnd that HMRC can make a forced entry if they believe there to be contraband on the premises. The two have been know to work together. If they broke into my house, they would find neither contraband nor any unlicenced TV set. because you haven't ditched your TV licence. Indeed. And neither have I ever been involved in the handling of contraband, so it's difficult to imagine how they could generate a plausible suspicion that I had. Where should I send the bill for repairs? HMRC don't pay for repairs, they have no legal obligation to pay for repairs. Interesting. Do you happen to know who does? We've all seen lots of those gung-ho documentaries about officials, usually the cops, smashing doors down, but never anything about what happens afterwards, particularly if they smash the door of an innocent householder. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:52:55 +0200, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:37:40 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:53:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote: The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office. Yes. Indeed. You can get weather "apps" for your phone from both the BBC and the Met Office. IMHO the presentation of the BBC one looks neater, but the weather predicted by both of them is equally wrong. because they all get their information from the same sources, including the Met Office. The areas covered by the Met Office/BBC are too large for everybody to get an accurate weather forecast all the time. And "accurate" is frequently misunderstood in the context of weather forecasts. A forecast is for an area. If a forecast is for rain that means that rain is expected to fall *somewhere in that area*. It does not mean that there will be rain in the whole of the area. Metcheck forecasts include probabilities. For example the Metcheck forecast for this evening for where I live: "0.0mm" of rain predicted but a "20%" risk of rain Tomorrow afternoon: "3.0mm" of rain predicted but a "5%" risk of rain Tomorrow evening: "0.0mm" of rain predicted but a "25%" risk of rain Try Meteox.com -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:15:27 +0200, Martin wrote:
Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to receive television programmes. Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house, . indeed they haven't, but I understsnd that HMRC can make a forced entry if they believe there to be contraband on the premises. The two have been know to work together. If they broke into my house, they would find neither contraband nor any unlicenced TV set. because you haven't ditched your TV licence. Indeed. And neither have I ever been involved in the handling of contraband, so it's difficult to imagine how they could generate a plausible suspicion that I had. Where should I send the bill for repairs? HMRC don't pay for repairs, they have no legal obligation to pay for repairs. Interesting. Do you happen to know who does? We've all seen lots of those gung-ho documentaries about officials, usually the cops, smashing doors down, but never anything about what happens afterwards, particularly if they smash the door of an innocent householder. A relative received a payment to cover the cost of the replacement of a window broken by the police. A neighbour thought the relative was ill. I did know of somebody, who had all the wooden paneling ripped out of his yacht by what in those days was C&E. He received no compensation despite the search yielding nothing illegal Sometimes I feel we may have more to fear from the forces of law and order than from the criminals against whom those forces are supposed to protect us. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:03:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote: The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, Yes, that seems quite likely. However... and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief. I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey on this, but even the most casual general observation of the way ordinary people are spending their time in front of screens and in the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what they are watching and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC. OK, that tells us your statement was just your belief based on selected cases whose actual statistical significance is dubious. i.e OSAF. Might have been better if you'd made plain it was simply your guess or belief. I asked, because I do wonder what the stats may be, and how they are changing. I'm not even sure who could tell without either a serious survey or asking the ISPs who carry a large enough fraction of the traffic. There would also, of course, be the question of what "significance" might be in the context. Some kinds of content/access might be more "significant" than others. So it may not simply be a person-hour count. I remember when the BBC was the only source of *any* broadcasting in this country. Then we acquired a second television channel, then a third and a fourth, and somewhere during that time a number of independent radio stations appeared. Then somebody invented the internet, and that technology and its availability were gradually improved until it too could be used for entertainment purposes. The result is that once the BBC was the only broadcast entertainment service there was, but now it's one amongst thousands of others. I remember all this because I was there - it has all happened within my lifetime and shows no sign of stopping. This may not count as detailed evidence, but I think it shows a dramatic change in the significance of the BBC amongst all the other related services that are available to us now, those other services having climbed to their present ubiquitous status from absolute nonexistance. I'd agree that it means that the BBC now get somewhat less than 100 percent. Which is a very different statement than your earlier one! I'd have said that many millions of people still watch/listen to the BBC on a daily basis. That doesn't seem to me anywhere near "insignificant", particularly given the range and types of content provided. But reliable figures across all delivery methods would be nice. 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 |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:06:56 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote: I've encountered people with Freeview HD receivers selecting channels 1 to 4 even when I've pointed out to them that the same programmes are available in HD on channels 101 to 104, and they are apparently quite happy with what they are watching. Maybe they just can't be bothered to type the extra digits, or don't see any advantage. You can lead a horse to water but you can't get milk out of a blind bat. Sorry Bill, that's only a half "truth". Just to set the record straight: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/all_about_bats.html -- Johnny B Good |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:50:25 +0100, Charles Hope wrote: In article , Roderick Stewart wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:12:37 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote: But to output a stream of BALANCED content for the UK populous, accessable by EVERYONE (technically illiterate Nans included), you MUST have FTA tv channels. A balance of cookery, DIY and quizzes? Really? And who decides what sort of "balance" the news and current affairs should have? All of these subscription services that are popping up at the moment have some sort of niche. Each of them is very good at one sort of thing. None of them offer a comprehensive balance. And Id be really grateful if you could tell me which subscription service will offer me up to the minute information when the great british summer weather dumps 20cm of rain in my locality in 30minutes! The accepted standard for weather forecasts in the UK doesn't seem to be terribly high. There have been many occasions when I've believed the BBC weather forecast and gone out without a coat or brolly and been soaked. I'm sure the BBC can't be the only ones who can do the job to this level of accuracy. The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office. Not 100%, there are some free lancers like Paul Hudson. Most of the regional presenters are non-Met Office. For many years, Weather Quest who are based at the University of East Anglia covered Look East and Radio Norfolk. However, that contract was 'insourced' to London weather hub in 2012. Do feel this damaged the accuracy, weatherquest were much quicker at responding to changes in the weather. http://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/ne...folk_1_1674658 James |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On 17/08/2015 17:55, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:06:56 +0100, Bill Wright wrote: Roderick Stewart wrote: I've encountered people with Freeview HD receivers selecting channels 1 to 4 even when I've pointed out to them that the same programmes are available in HD on channels 101 to 104, and they are apparently quite happy with what they are watching. Maybe they just can't be bothered to type the extra digits, or don't see any advantage. You can lead a horse to water but you can't get milk out of a blind bat. Sorry Bill, that's only a half "truth". Just to set the record straight: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/all_about_bats.html It's at least 3/4 true. I'm sure baby bats can get milk from their mothers, but I'd like to see you do it! Andy |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:47:45 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief. I probably don't have what you'd count as "detailed evidence" in the form of graphs and charts, as I haven't carried out an actual survey on this, but even the most casual general observation of the way ordinary people are spending their time in front of screens and in the presence of loudspeakers will make it clear that much of what they are watching and listening to now has nothing to do with the BBC. OK, that tells us your statement was just your belief based on selected cases whose actual statistical significance is dubious. i.e OSAF. Might have been better if you'd made plain it was simply your guess or belief. It's a little more than "just my belief" that the BBC was once the only source of broadcast material in the UK but is now one amongst many. My inability to provide exact statistical numbers doesn't alter this fundamental fact. If you're unable to accept the truth unless it's accompanied by numbers, I'm sure they can be found. Although I couldn't give you an exact statistical breakdown of who is using all these extra sources that didn't exist when the BBC began, it's pretty clear that *somebody* must be using them or it wouldn't have been worth anybody's trouble and expense to provide them. Given that their number has gone from "zero" to "lots" within my lifetime, it seems equally clear which way their future is most likely to go. This may not count as the mathematical proof you seem to require, but I usually find commonsense a pretty good guide. Rod. |
4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
The Proms are most often quoted as the programmes that nobody else
could make, possibly because they're about the only thing left that could qualify for consideration, and in my case are probably the only thing that *might* entice me to pay a subscription if that were the only way they were available. But there are classical music subscription services already, Medici, and the Berlin Philharmonic to name a couple of examples, and plenty of free sources too, so the BBC is no longer alone even in this field. Rod. In fact I went to see the Turangalīla Symphony by Messiaen last week and although the place wasn't packed due I suppose to it being a midweek night, what was very gratifying was to see the number of young people there and they were very engrossed in the work all leaning very much over the balcony lots of pointing to the various instruments, and hushed conversations between them. I think they were amazed that such a work used a very early electronic instrument! There were a couple of young teenage girls next to me said they had to drag their dad down from Sheffield and one of them said at the end, "that were reet fantastic that were, never knew that these 'ere classics could be that interesting":). For that in my mind, the BBC deserves the licence fee alone!...... -- Tony Sayer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com