4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...

If the average viewers of BBC1 and BBC2 are 60 and 62 years old
respectively, as the BBC claims, it indicates a lack of young viewers.

How does that work then, Martin?

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart scribeth thus
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.

All as it might be Rod, but its still difficult to get good Internet
coverage in the car unlike good old fM:!....

--
Tony Sayer

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
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.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and the
BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

....which your response to my query then made clear was simply you producing
OSAF.

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.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

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?
 

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:28:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
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.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and
the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

...which your response to my query then made clear was simply you
producing OSAF.

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.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

Rod's original claim was that he didn't need conventional TV anymore
because there was enough material on the web from Netflix and Amazon.
It's why I asked Rod if he still has a TV licence.

Fair enough. I was only dealing with the specific assertion about the BBC
becoming an "ever more insignificant part" of internet provision.

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?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:28:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
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.

Yes. But that is quite different to your earlier assertion about


On 17 Aug in uk.tech.digital-tv, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and
the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.

...which your response to my query then made clear was simply you
producing OSAF.

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.

You seem to want to argue about something else that I didn't challenge.

Rod's original claim was that he didn't need conventional TV anymore
because there was enough material on the web from Netflix and Amazon.
It's why I asked Rod if he still has a TV licence.

Fair enough. I was only dealing with the specific assertion about the BBC
becoming an "ever more insignificant part" of internet provision.

Jim


Basically, Rod cant stand Auntie, no matter what.
Which is why in previous posts Ive suggested he cease paying his licence fee
with immediate effect, cut all co-ax cables in to the house (except that for
internet delivery) so as to ensure he can no longer receive any BBC
programming, cease paying NI, opt out of the NHS too, and get an Apple car
radio (which doesnt actually have a radio, so he cant recieve BBC radio
stations).

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so. One
party would win, but both parties would loose.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
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.

Is NOT a legal requirement.
+ lets not forget you wouldnt let in any investigators, so you're quite
safe. Arnt you.

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.

Which are also available by other means.


Rod.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
_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 :-(

Yup.
Once all the analogue transmitters had been off for a while they turned down
the bit rates.



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?
 

On 17/08/2015 17:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
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 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.

https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/
may be a good start, compared to total traffic at the exchanges:
https://www.linx.net/pubtools/trafficstats.html
http://www.lonap.net/mrtg/lonap-total.html

They did publish traffic graphs at some point too.

This won't give you relative to other media producers though.

--
Deanna Earley , )

(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
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.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so.
One party would win, but both parties would loose.

It depends on what is meant by "no-one's interest".

It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to club
together to bring a test case. That way they could share the court and
legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence such a case might
well be in their interest *if* they could carry it though.

The problem I suspect is that the large broadcasters, etc, feel confident
that no-one will challenge them. And they may well be correct given that
actors, writers, etc, tend to be hired as independent workers. It has been
commented in the past that the English legal system is "the best money can
buy" and there is some truth in that. So this may be simply another example
of where those with money and power can exploit 'divide and rule'.

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?
 

In article , Deanna Earley
wrote:
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.

https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/ may be a good start, compared
to total traffic at the exchanges:
https://www.linx.net/pubtools/trafficstats.html
http://www.lonap.net/mrtg/lonap-total.html

They did publish traffic graphs at some point too.

This won't give you relative to other media producers though.

Thanks for the above. FWIW though I have spoken to BBC people about this in
the past and had got some info. The problem, alas, is as you say. That
getting comparable and reliable values for the bulk of other media sources
is hard. Too "commercially sensitive" to provide openly, so they prefer to
cherry-pick details that make them look good. And in the UK some possibly
large sources are also ISPs. etc.

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?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
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.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so.
One party would win, but both parties would loose.

It depends on what is meant by "no-one's interest".

It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to club
together to bring a test case. That way they could share the court and
legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence such a case might
well be in their interest *if* they could carry it though.

The problem I suspect is that the large broadcasters, etc, feel confident
that no-one will challenge them. And they may well be correct given that
actors, writers, etc, tend to be hired as independent workers. It has been
commented in the past that the English legal system is "the best money can
buy" and there is some truth in that. So this may be simply another
example
of where those with money and power can exploit 'divide and rule'.



Dont doubt it.
But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters would find some new way
to screw them over.
i.e. Both parties lose.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing.
Nor is speeding them up..... which has been going on for a very very long
time.
Its just squeezing is far more noticable than speeding up.

No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps.
This doesnt match UK TV standards.
So all they do is speed up the film to match!
Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter than they are in the US.
So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Bear in mind its only the main channels who do the squeezing and speeding.
'Film' (or 'movie' if youre 'murican') channels neither speed up nor
squeeze.
So the credits are as is.

And, Im guessing its the same as TV.
The only people who read film credits (on the majority), are the people who
work in or around the film industry.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to
club together to bring a test case. That way they could share the
court and legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence
such a case might well be in their interest *if* they could carry it
though.


Dont doubt it. But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters
would find some new way to screw them over. i.e. Both parties lose.

Well I assume the logical target of any lawsuit would be the specific
broadcaster chosen to use as an example. No skin off the studio's nose
either way.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing. Nor is speeding them up..... which has
been going on for a very very long time. Its just squeezing is far more
noticable than speeding up.

In general it doesn't bother me. But on occasion I would have wanted to
check some detail that is rendered invisible. And of course the credits
aren't just there for the general public like me. They are adverts for
others in the biz to see.


No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into their
contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order, time on
screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be cheaper than
cash. 8-]


And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps. This doesnt match UK TV standards. So all they do
is speed up the film to match! Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter
than they are in the US. So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Given you're a freelancer in the biz I'd have thought you would also be
aware that isn't the only way this is handled. Or am I missing something?

Sometimes I notice pitch errors due to this. But I also notice at other
times regular jerking as frames are repeated. And IIUC people also adopt
other methods.


And, Im guessing its the same as TV. The only people who read film
credits (on the majority), are the people who work in or around the
film industry.

Yes, and I guess that's who the credits are aimed at. But I presume the
idea is that they can see them *whenever* the film is aired. No idea what
the contracts say, though. However I doubt those who 'lose credit' are
really happy about it. May be just another way the biz dumps on those it
can dump on.

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, 3 Aug 2015 22:50:51 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:50:51 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.


No need to apologise.

The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s
Transfers top out at 12-13Mb/s
To quote a lyric, and thats just the way it is. ....not faulty.


I have a colleague who works for a known ISP.
Aparently an industry practice is for ISPs to intentionally turn down data
rates for domestic ADSL connections.
If they start to get complants they turn them back up marginally..... then,
bizarely, they get 'thanks' for fixing the 'problem'.

This colleague of mine exercised this once upon a friend of theirs who had
really annoyed them.
Found their broadband account (conveniently with the same provider), and
turned the bit rate down to less than dial up.
10minutes later an angry text message + apology arrived!
Bit rate was then turned up to the maximum available.


Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to
club together to bring a test case. That way they could share the
court and legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence
such a case might well be in their interest *if* they could carry it
though.


Dont doubt it. But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters
would find some new way to screw them over. i.e. Both parties lose.

Well I assume the logical target of any lawsuit would be the specific
broadcaster chosen to use as an example. No skin off the studio's nose
either way.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing. Nor is speeding them up..... which has
been going on for a very very long time. Its just squeezing is far more
noticable than speeding up.

In general it doesn't bother me. But on occasion I would have wanted to
check some detail that is rendered invisible. And of course the credits
aren't just there for the general public like me. They are adverts for
others in the biz to see.


No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into
their
contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order, time on
screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be cheaper
than
cash. 8-]


True.
But this is all for placement in 'the film'.
Film contracts cant be extended to TV transmissions.... it would be
impracticable.
Imaging you make a film now, and you try to set down conditions for TV
broadcasts of it hence forth.
No broadcaster would want to go near your film because of the snake pit of
requisits surrounding it.

Film types tend to see TV as 'bubble gum'. A cheap neccesary evil.


And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps. This doesnt match UK TV standards. So all they do
is speed up the film to match! Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter
than they are in the US. So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Given you're a freelancer in the biz I'd have thought you would also be
aware that isn't the only way this is handled. Or am I missing something?

Sometimes I notice pitch errors due to this. But I also notice at other
times regular jerking as frames are repeated. And IIUC people also adopt
other methods.

Yes, there is the netflix method. F.****e!

Watch an episode of Buffy for a clear example of no frame rate conversion.
All they do is drop a couple of frames every few seconds, resulting in
terrible motion hops.
And not to mention they dont bother to correct the colourspace from NTSC...
why it looks green.

Netflix is great, if youve got zero technical standards.




And, Im guessing its the same as TV. The only people who read film
credits (on the majority), are the people who work in or around the
film industry.

Yes, and I guess that's who the credits are aimed at. But I presume the
idea is that they can see them *whenever* the film is aired. No idea what
the contracts say, though. However I doubt those who 'lose credit' are
really happy about it. May be just another way the biz dumps on those it
can dump on.

What you said.


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?
 

In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into
their contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order,
time on screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be
cheaper than cash. 8-]


True. But this is all for placement in 'the film'. Film contracts cant
be extended to TV transmissions....

They can - if the media company require it. And indeed, the contracts
between the media company and the actors, etc, might/could require them to
do so. So it will depend on the details of the contractual chain and how a
court would view it.

It seems reasonable that any such contract between an actor and the media
company would be for how the result appears when the resulting film is
shown. That could apply to TV just as much to a range of cinemas.

it would be impracticable. Imaging you make a film now, and you try to
set down conditions for TV broadcasts of it hence forth. No broadcaster
would want to go near your film because of the snake pit of requisits
surrounding it.

I note your opinion, but suspect it would simply be an excuse trotted out
by the media company. Might not stand up.

I doubt we'll know one way or the other, though, as the large media
companies would simply ignore anyone not big enough to sue them. That's
probably the real root of any "impracticality" I suspect.

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 22/08/2015 13:38, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.

If they're getting 12Mb/s then it's already on a 21CN connection.
20CN is only up to 8Mb/s.
Also, not all exchanges have 21CN yet :(

--
Deanna Earley , )

(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
k...
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.


.....not bothered in the slightest by the sly methods employed by ISPs at
all?

Yet, contrary to my saying '....is fast enough for my present
requirements.', you still tell me I should go away and ask for 'moar
internetz'.

To quote Catherine Tate's 'Lauren Cooper', "I AINT EVEN BOVVERED THOUGH!"




--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into
their contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order,
time on screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be
cheaper than cash. 8-]


True. But this is all for placement in 'the film'. Film contracts cant
be extended to TV transmissions....

They can - if the media company require it. And indeed, the contracts
between the media company and the actors, etc, might/could require them to
do so. So it will depend on the details of the contractual chain and how a
court would view it.

It seems reasonable that any such contract between an actor and the media
company would be for how the result appears when the resulting film is
shown. That could apply to TV just as much to a range of cinemas.

it would be impracticable. Imaging you make a film now, and you try to
set down conditions for TV broadcasts of it hence forth. No broadcaster
would want to go near your film because of the snake pit of requisits
surrounding it.

I note your opinion, but suspect it would simply be an excuse trotted out
by the media company. Might not stand up.


By 'media company' are you referring you 'broadcaster'??

If so, imagine Disney vs ITV ....doubt the broadcaster would ignore it.
If not, then which do you refer to in the use of 'media company'?


I doubt we'll know one way or the other, though, as the large media
companies would simply ignore anyone not big enough to sue them. That's
probably the real root of any "impracticality" I suspect.


As Ive written before, no film channel, subscription service, by whatever
means, does anything with the end credits.
ALL of them allow the end credits to run in full, untouched.... because
theyre a film channel.
They dont need to crash out of the film to get to the 10pm news, or promo
tomorrows big footy match.
So no-one has any grievancies there.... unless DTT compression crushes all
the detail, removing legibility from it.

Its ONLY terrestrial/traditional channels who do this.
And they, on the whole, only transmit a few films a year. (When compared to
a film channel.)




So youve produced and distributed this film which has a plethora of
conditions attached to its TV transmission rights.
Supposing it actually did quite well in the cinemas.
One year later, various 'premium' film channels start to show it.
But they're not bothered, as they should credits in full.

Two years later, unless Rod has his way, terrestrial channels then have the
option to show it.
Do you honestly think ITV, CH4, CH5 (HA HAAAA!), or BBC would go near it?
Unlikely they would.
Its likely they'd just pick another film to show.

Film producer loses. ....and then the royalties loss too.
There again, how can you show you've lost the financial benefit of something
you never had?! (rhetorical question)


Unless you, Jim, actually represent the actors guild, or Equity, then it too
is highly unlikely there will be any such court case this century.

As Ive already written, if there were, and the film producers/actors won,
then broadcasters would find some new means of screwing the film industry
over.
Its a balance of power.



Just off the top of my head, hows about my tv channel shows your film (with
interleaved adverts), and then crashes out of it as the credits start, so we
can push on to show a promo for Britains Tastiest Village, more adverts, and
then round 5 of Live Monkey Tennis from Carlisle.
Four hours later, at 2am, we then show the credits for your film in full,
untouched, and at the correct speed.
Whats the problem?
We've shown your credits in full, and untouched.
Never said anything about an unbroken sequence in your infinitely tight
conditions did you now?


Hold on. I didnt write that para above just to be facetious.
My point, again, is that broadcasters will just find some new way to screw
the film studios back.
Again, film studios may win to begin with.
But in the end, no-one wins.

Thus, whats the point of any such court case.
Leave it as is, then both parties win.




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?
 

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
I note your opinion, but suspect it would simply be an excuse trotted
out by the media company. Might not stand up.


By 'media company' are you referring you 'broadcaster'??

No. The company who made the film in question. When doing so, they would
have made contracts with the actors, etc.

If so, imagine Disney vs ITV ....doubt the broadcaster would ignore it.
If not, then which do you refer to in the use of 'media company'?

See above to clarify your misapprehension.


I doubt we'll know one way or the other, though, as the large media
companies would simply ignore anyone not big enough to sue them.
That's probably the real root of any "impracticality" I suspect.


As Ive written before, no film channel, subscription service, by
whatever means, does anything with the end credits. ALL of them allow
the end credits to run in full, untouched.... because theyre a film
channel.

But would a 1-pixel 1-frame 'showing' be regarded in court as an actual
'showing of the credits'? You don't know the answer to that with any more
certainty than myself because it hasn't been tested. But it seems at least
likely they'd say it *wasn't* actually fulfiling the clear purpose of the
credits as indicated in the original contracts. Thus there will be some
minimum requirements in terms of scaling, speed, etc, if these depart from
the default size and speed.


Unless you, Jim, actually represent the actors guild, or Equity, then it
too is highly unlikely there will be any such court case this century.

Erm, I've already said I expect it is unlikely because those most affected
are least able to afford to go to court to seek a ruling. They lack the
cash, and would probably fear blacklisting. Understandable enough for
people faced with big aggressive companies who might also determine how
easily they can get any future employment.

As Ive already written, if there were, and the film producers/actors
won, then broadcasters would find some new means of screwing the film
industry over. Its a balance of power.

Again, I think I already accepted that.

But none of that changes my basic point above.

[snip]

Thus, whats the point of any such court case. Leave it as is, then both
parties win.

Not so. One party 'wins'. The others lack the cash and strength to argue.
That's common enough in UK situations.

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?
 

In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

....not bothered in the slightest by the sly methods employed by
ISPs at all?

Yet, contrary to my saying '....is fast enough for my present
requirements.', you still tell me I should go away and ask for
'moar internetz'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

On Monday, 24 August 2015 15:58:46 UTC+1, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

....not bothered in the slightest by the sly methods employed by
ISPs at all?

Yet, contrary to my saying '....is fast enough for my present
requirements.', you still tell me I should go away and ask for
'moar internetz'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

Indeed - used to get ~13Mbps from exchange 1.3km away as the crow flies, 1.8km walk, probably 2km of thin corroded GPO wire. Now get 30+ from a cabinet at most a few hundred metres away and could get max of 76Mbps if I wanted to pay more.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

In article , R.
Mark Clayton scribeth thus
On Monday, 24 August 2015 15:58:46 UTC+1, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

....not bothered in the slightest by the sly methods employed by
ISPs at all?

Yet, contrary to my saying '....is fast enough for my present
requirements.', you still tell me I should go away and ask for
'moar internetz'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

Indeed - used to get ~13Mbps from exchange 1.3km away as the crow flies, 1.8km
walk, probably 2km of thin corroded GPO wire. Now get 30+ from a cabinet at
most a few hundred metres away and could get max of 76Mbps if I wanted to pay
more.

Get a 100 here from a cab some hundreds of metres away and could get 150
if I wanted it..


... all over a bit of co-ax;)....
--
Tony Sayer

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:56:00 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.

No need to apologise.

I wasn't.

The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s
Transfers top out at 12-13Mb/s
To quote a lyric, and thats just the way it is. ....not faulty.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

I have a colleague who works for a known ISP.
Aparently an industry practice is for ISPs to intentionally turn down data
rates for domestic ADSL connections.
If they start to get complants they turn them back up marginally..... then,
bizarely, they get 'thanks' for fixing the 'problem'.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

[snip the pointless story]

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:56:00 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.

No need to apologise.

I wasn't.

Yes you did.
"I'm sorry but............"

Where was your comma?



The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s
Transfers top out at 12-13Mb/s
To quote a lyric, and thats just the way it is. ....not faulty.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

No. Not exaggerating.
I could go out my front door, throw a handy pebble and smash an exchange
window without leaving the property.

And if I really must:
SNR 8.0 dB - not much noise there then
Attenuation 12.5 dB - that will be a short length of wire
Sync speed 14335 kb/s - meh




I have a colleague who works for a known ISP.
Aparently an industry practice is for ISPs to intentionally turn down
data
rates for domestic ADSL connections.
If they start to get complants they turn them back up marginally.....
then,
bizarely, they get 'thanks' for fixing the 'problem'.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

Thats a metaphorical mighty handbag you're holding there.

Where abouts precisely in that parahraph did I employ the words "sync speed"
?

I wrote "....intentionally turn down data rates...".
That is, throttle your bandwidth. Which we know they all do.

My point was that they _intentionally_ throttle EVERYONE'S bandwidth down
until they begin to get complaints.
Doing so defines a lower limit to which their customers find acceptable.

As I have written previously, I am quite happy with my 12Mb/s connection.
No matter what everyone else writes or boasts, no matter how bizarre you
find it, I do not need, nor want for, an increased broadband speed at this
time.
I'm very well aware some may find this utterly inconceivable. That someone
does not want faster internet.
But hey, I'm cool with it.




[snip the pointless story]


/pointless post

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:21:50 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

No need to apologise.

I wasn't.

Yes you did.
"I'm sorry but............"

The words may say that and you may infer what you like, but it wasn't
an apology. Or do I need to spell it out?

The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s
Transfers top out at 12-13Mb/s
To quote a lyric, and thats just the way it is. ....not faulty.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

No. Not exaggerating.
I could go out my front door, throw a handy pebble and smash an exchange
window without leaving the property.

And if I really must:
SNR 8.0 dB - not much noise there then

That's a margin and it's rather high for a 'perfect' short cable.
Your lack of understanding is showing again.

Attenuation 12.5 dB - that will be a short length of wire

At least you got that right.

Sync speed 14335 kb/s - meh

Once you fix your SNR margin for whatever reason it's wrong, then this
will improve.

Here is one of mine:
Sync 19019
SNR 3.8
Attenuation 29
and that's on a mile of cable.

Are you still convinced yours is faultless?
Something is wrong - the exchange equipment, the line or your router.
You should be getting 20k+ easily.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

Thats a metaphorical mighty handbag you're holding there.

Where abouts precisely in that parahraph did I employ the words "sync speed" ?

How about:

"The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s"

Er, that is the sync. speed, as you well know. Stop playing games.

My point was that they _intentionally_ throttle EVERYONE'S bandwidth down
until they begin to get complaints.
Doing so defines a lower limit to which their customers find acceptable.

What do they throttle it down to then? Mine is throttled down to the speed
that the line supports. If the sync. speed changes for whatever reason, the
throttle speed changes to match.
How many samples are you basing your claim on? One?

As I have written previously, I am quite happy with my 12Mb/s connection.

That's irrelevant as to whether your circuit is performing properly or not.
You claim it is. I'm telling you it isn't. You refuse to believe reality.
I don't really care whether you find it acceptable or not, but I do care
about your ignorant, arrogant attitude and refusal to accept that you can
possibly be wrong about something.