Eurovision sound and picture

Agamemnon wrote:

I just read an article which mentioned that EBU's Danish director,
Bjørn Erichsen (who was apparently present at some ESC-related press
conference), pointed out to a Swiss reporter (who was upset and
fuming about DJ Bobo not qualifying for the final) that Switzerland
themselves gave 12 points to Serbia, 10 to Turkey, 8 points to
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 7 to Albania, and so on. The question he posed
was that if Eastern European songs are supposedly no good, why on
Earth do the Swiss vote for them?

Because they think they will not win so its safe to vote for them.
The Swiss hate the French and Germans and all their other neighbours
so they don't want any of them to win either. It's like the Scots not
wanting England to win the world cup or at any sport.

I find it strange that so many countries, including Switzerland, whine
about Eastern countries, but still decided themselves that Serbia is the
"safe choice". Only five countries (out of 41) didn't give Serbia any
points.

And no, I didn't personally like Serbia's song, but it's just
Eurovision. To put things in some perspective, we Finns had to wait for
40 years to win the damn thing, and our highest position before that was
6th. We also came in the last position 6 times (and the second from last
3 times.) You guys have won it 5 times and come in the second place 15
times. Serbia has won it never before in its current form, and once
before as a part of Yugoslavia - 17 years ago.

Perhaps it's time to let the Eastern side win as the West can't come up
with good enough acts. For instance, Georgia's song was modern ethno
pop: like a fusion of Björk and Madonna, and it went to the 12th
position. Hungary sent growling blues and got 9th (the accent was a bit
thick but the voice of the singer was great, and you don't often hear
blues in Eurovision, so points for that.) You guys sent a ****-take
gayish airline joke song with lots of sexual innuendo, but why vote for
that when there was that totally insane Ukraine, if you like ****-takes.
We sent a mediocre darkish goth-influenced rock piece with somewhat
silly negative lyrics, delivered by a singer that made angry faces.
Belgium and Sweden went retro. Denmark had a bland draq queen. Most of
the rock songs - expect perhaps for Andorra's punk rock attempt - lacked
spark. Mediterranean countries sent something that mediterranean
countries nearly always do. Switzerland's song started good (movie
soundtrack-alike) but the chorus was unremarkable, and the whole vampire
concept was a bit silly. Ireland came up with a folk song that was like
any other Irish folk song ever made, etc. etc.

An Eurovision entry needs to have some spark in it to get noticed.
Instead of going 70s funk/disco with afros and rainbow colors - like
Belgium did - make it more modern, in the Jamiroquai style. Instead of
delivering an entirely ordinary folk song in entirely ordinary way, like
the Irish did, spice it up with some modern sounds and a hypnotic
performance, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keS5CgpBT0

On EscToday.com, someone suggested that the ESC should be split into
wholly separate Eastern and Western contests. Perhaps so. But then at
least I'm going to take the same position as this writer:

--- 8 ---

Darko S. [38353]
Sun 13 May 2007 17:41:14

The "Western" Eurovision, should it ever happen, will probably be the
most boring two hours I'd have to sit through. We'd get five different
Scooches, two tired disco tunes aimed at nobody, a 25 year old song from
Portugal and Malta and a habitually classy entry from Germany and maybe,
just maybe, Iceland. If Silvia enters again. It's not the death of
Eurovision, it's the death of Western pop (Netherlands anyone?)

The Easterners gave the contest the kiss of life and new blood. The
Westerners still dream of days with orchestra and the
j'aime-j'aime-la-vie Schlager Grand Prix. If there's two Eurovisions, I
know which one I'd watch.

--- 8 ---

--
znark

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an
aspect ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

--
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b

On 14 May, 17:55, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message

The entire broadcast on BBC1 looked like it had a Gaussian blur of radius
1 inflicted on it before transmission.

Waht does that mean?

Agamemnon wants you to think that he's more knowledgeable than he
really is.

If anything, the BBC's HD sourced SD pictures are usually a little too
sharp with a little aliasing present at times. On most content, this
is more visually pleasing than "correct" low pass filtering

Cheers,
David.

What recording program and equipment are you using to show bit-rates
etc and allow tailoring of recording method?

the dog from that film you saw wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
It's a bit late to comment, but watching on Freeview...


There seemed to be a lip-sync problem throughout. Even the presenters.

The low bitrate audio link used to get Terry's commentary back to the
UK was embarrassingly poor quality for such a high profile show.

The HD sourced pictures were very clear and sharp, but the content
(detailed moving areas, flashing lights etc) was a nightmare for MPEG
and it contained some of the most pixellated artefacted scenes I've
ever seen on BBC One.



the swedish 720p 50fps looked very nice - and as a bonus you got to hear the
lordi performance at the start without terry talking over it.
i do like his comments, but only before and after songs - not during.


All I remember is the 6th entry's lead singer (I think it was). She had
great legs. Karoline someone.

"Jukka Aho" wrote in message
i.fi...
Agamemnon wrote:

I just read an article which mentioned that EBU's Danish director,
Bjørn Erichsen (who was apparently present at some ESC-related press
conference), pointed out to a Swiss reporter (who was upset and
fuming about DJ Bobo not qualifying for the final) that Switzerland
themselves gave 12 points to Serbia, 10 to Turkey, 8 points to
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 7 to Albania, and so on. The question he posed
was that if Eastern European songs are supposedly no good, why on
Earth do the Swiss vote for them?

Because they think they will not win so its safe to vote for them.
The Swiss hate the French and Germans and all their other neighbours
so they don't want any of them to win either. It's like the Scots not
wanting England to win the world cup or at any sport.

I find it strange that so many countries, including Switzerland, whine
about Eastern countries, but still decided themselves that Serbia is the
"safe choice". Only five countries (out of 41) didn't give Serbia any
points.

And no, I didn't personally like Serbia's song, but it's just Eurovision.
To put things in some perspective, we Finns had to wait for 40 years to
win the damn thing, and our highest position before that was 6th. We also
came in the last position 6 times (and the second from last 3 times.) You
guys have won it 5 times and come in the second place 15 times. Serbia has
won it never before in its current form, and once before as a part of
Yugoslavia - 17 years ago.

Perhaps it's time to let the Eastern side win as the West can't come up
with good enough acts. For instance, Georgia's song was modern ethno pop:
like a fusion of Björk and Madonna, and it went to the 12th position.
Hungary sent growling blues and got 9th (the accent was a bit thick but
the voice of the singer was great, and you don't often hear blues in
Eurovision, so points for that.) You guys sent a ****-take gayish airline
joke song with lots of sexual innuendo, but why vote for that when there
was that totally insane Ukraine, if you like ****-takes. We sent a
mediocre darkish goth-influenced rock piece with somewhat silly negative
lyrics, delivered by a singer that made angry faces. Belgium and Sweden
went retro. Denmark had a bland draq queen. Most of the rock songs -
expect perhaps for Andorra's punk rock attempt - lacked spark.
Mediterranean countries sent something that mediterranean countries nearly
always do. Switzerland's song started good (movie soundtrack-alike) but
the chorus was unremarkable, and the whole vampire concept was a bit
silly. Ireland came up with a folk song that was like any other Irish folk
song ever made, etc. etc.

An Eurovision entry needs to have some spark in it to get noticed. Instead
of going 70s funk/disco with afros and rainbow colors - like Belgium did -
make it more modern, in the Jamiroquai style. Instead of delivering an
entirely ordinary folk song in entirely ordinary way, like the Irish did,
spice it up with some modern sounds and a hypnotic performance, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keS5CgpBT0

On EscToday.com, someone suggested that the ESC should be split into
wholly separate Eastern and Western contests. Perhaps so. But then at
least I'm going to take the same position as this writer:


Yes you could have the Americans run the Western big and
the Russians run the Eastern side.
And perhaps lob missiles at each other ar the end.


--- 8 ---

Darko S. [38353]
Sun 13 May 2007 17:41:14

The "Western" Eurovision, should it ever happen, will probably be the most
boring two hours I'd have to sit through. We'd get five different
Scooches, two tired disco tunes aimed at nobody, a 25 year old song from
Portugal and Malta and a habitually classy entry from Germany and maybe,
just maybe, Iceland. If Silvia enters again. It's not the death of
Eurovision, it's the death of Western pop (Netherlands anyone?)

The Easterners gave the contest the kiss of life and new blood. The
Westerners still dream of days with orchestra and the j'aime-j'aime-la-vie
Schlager Grand Prix. If there's two Eurovisions, I know which one I'd
watch.

--- 8 ---

--
znark

wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 May, 17:55, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message

The entire broadcast on BBC1 looked like it had a Gaussian blur of
radius
1 inflicted on it before transmission.

Waht does that mean?

Agamemnon wants you to think that he's more knowledgeable than he
really is.

If anything, the BBC's HD sourced SD pictures are usually a little too
sharp with a little aliasing present at times. On most content, this
is more visually pleasing than "correct" low pass filtering

I thoght the picture was OK too.


Cheers,
David.

"Russell W. Barnes" [email protected] wrote in message
om...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

Of course if you are concerned about bandwith you might consider
using a more efficient aspect ratio than16:9. 4:3 would be much
better and indeed round would be the optimum shape according
to any scientific study.
Indeed millions of years or evolution have also arrived at the same
conclusion: Round is the most efficient shape for the appature of the
eye,
the pupil.

Just out of interest, why have film or TV screens never followed the
'golden mean' (based on the Fibbonachi series), producing a rectangle so
pleasing on the human eye, as in architecture? This would give an aspect
ratio of 4.83:3 (based on a golden ratio of 1.61:1 approximately).

It was little real evidence that it is "pleasing on the human eye"` it
certaintly
would not fit on the retina as well as a circle for example.
Apparently we only discovered we liked it a couple of hundred of
years ago and then all the pretensious art world magically loved it too.
(ass-lickers).
The cinemas are low wide buildings so a big screen is gonna be low and wide.
It's not rocket science, its 'how the director intended' ;O)


--
Regds,

Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b

"Dave W" wrote in message
oups.com...
What recording program and equipment are you using to show bit-rates
etc and allow tailoring of recording method?


VirtualDub-MPEG2, Xvid realtime profile codec for recording H.263, no audio
compression, DivX for final processing.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 May, 17:55, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message

The entire broadcast on BBC1 looked like it had a Gaussian blur of
radius
1 inflicted on it before transmission.

Waht does that mean?

Agamemnon wants you to think that he's more knowledgeable than he
really is.

Twaddle.


If anything, the BBC's HD sourced SD pictures are usually a little too
sharp with a little aliasing present at times. On most content, this
is more visually pleasing than "correct" low pass filtering

The picture from the Eurovision was substantially less sharper than Doctor
Who which is filmed in SD. The BBC applied a Gaussian blur to the
Eurovision, and it did the same with the coverage of the Athens 2004 Olympic
games and with everything it takes from a foreign broadcaster. The low bit
rates that are being used by SD DTT simply cannot cope with the information
on these images or anything with flashing lights or fast motion.


Cheers,
David.