BBC begins fresh Freeview HD TV trial

See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/

Or the original:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...ne/27/hd.shtml

"This is a big step forward in enabling the introduction of
full HD terrestrial on Freeview by the end of 2009."

13 month ago the was little but paper:
""DVB-T2 Call for Technologies.
Responses are requested by 04 June 2007"

All the doomsday talk that we have had to listen to
for the past year

And now we have a draft DVB-T2 standard and
working DVB-T2 electronics - in real tests.

Bravo - BBC.


Lars :-)

"Dennis Becker" wrote in message
...
See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/

Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG **** then
it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Dennis Becker" wrote in message
...
See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/

Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG ****
then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.



HD with DOG **** is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
interference.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Dennis Becker" wrote in message
...
See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/

Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG ****
then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.

HD with DOG **** is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
interference.

What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
symptom of a bigger problem of your own.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

On 30 Jun, 09:56, Robin Faichney wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"

wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Dennis Becker" wrote in message
...
See report at:http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/

Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG ****
then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.

HD with DOG **** is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
interference.

What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
symptom of a bigger problem of your own.

While I agree the overall viewing experience is better on BBC HD than
on BBC One, the "problem" I have is that it would be even better
without the DOG, I'm forced to pay for it via the license fee, will be
forced to donate spectrum to have it broadcast (if it appears on
terrestrial), and will be forced to listen to complete bull****
answers if I ever waste my time complaining.

It's interesting that some arguably "high brow" broadcasters in the
USA, while often giving in and having DOGs, have tried very hard to
make them almost invisible. I'm thinking of Discovery HD theater,
where the DOG is quite visible around programme junctions, but DOG
vanishes for much of the rest of the time.

Does the BBC even go that far? Does it heck.

Cheers,
David.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:32 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
wrote:

What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
symptom of a bigger problem of your own.

Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
are going I won't be watching anything!

The normal response to a feature of the environment that doesn't
change and is of no real significance is to quite quickly become
unaware of it. Of course "significance" is subjective, but I think you
could probably ignore it if you really wanted to. Those who find any
DOG whatsoever to make any channel unwatchable all seem to have
ideological objections. I believe their ideology is all that makes
DOGs significant to them, that without it they'd find the channels
with less obtrusive DOGs such as BBC HD, at least, entirely watchable,
and they'd get a lot more enjoyment from TV. Of course their ideology
might be more important to them than mere TV enjoyment. In fact, it
must be. Good luck to them.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:22:59 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
can't ignore them.

Sorry, I never heard of that before.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 10:44:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Becker" wrote in message
...
See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06..._dvbt2_trials/
Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG ****
then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
HD with DOG **** is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
interference.
What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
symptom of a bigger problem of your own.

Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
are going I won't be watching anything!

Steve


I bought a film on DVD with a DOG (that used another part of the
screen within the logo) on it and could only watch about 5 minutes of
it before handing it to the local second-hand DVD shop in disgust.

Who knows, if it's okay on tv then watch out for the future of DVDs!

Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 14:22:
In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
can't ignore them.

Steve


Funnily enough it's perfectly normal! Give a person a photograph and
they'll be looking at the minutae in the background.

It didn't work for the director for the Channel 4 Gimme Shelter series
logo shoot I assisted on though. It was a time-lapse affair and had
to last into the night when the logo was then floodlit onto the side
of the Royal Opera House. In semi-darkness I pointed and said "Isn't
that a carrier bag on the side of the Opera House flapping in the wind
in full light?" Everey time I see it, it's as plain as an orange dot
on a piece of glass, to a pigeon.