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