BBC HD critised in The Independent

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:01 -0000, "Graham." wrote:

When I worked for Granada Rentals, it was received wisdom amongst
all of the service (close your ears Paul) engineers, that Hitachi had
knobbled the luminance bandwidth on standard play on the first dual
speed model we offered, so long play didn't look as bad in comparison.
You could pull out a diode and restore full SP quality.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in
the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

That certainly applied to ICL 2900 series mainframes.
However in that case the 'concept' was that you were paying for computing
power, not just buying some hardware, and the total package included
hardware, software and on-site engineering support.
ICL were selling several different power ranges of computer, and worked out
that instead of manufacturing several different internals, they could just
produce one set of boards and then set the power rating internally.

I think IBM and Cray worked on similar principles - you paid to have the
wick turned up.

It does my head in sometimes working out if this is reasonable (buying a
certain amount of power) or a con (hang on - I've already paid for this
hardware).

You will probably find the same principle applied to modern automobile
engines. For example the 160 bhp and 180 bhp engines may well be identical
apart from the programming of the ECU.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:44:53 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in
the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

That certainly applied to ICL 2900 series mainframes.
However in that case the 'concept' was that you were paying for computing
power, not just buying some hardware, and the total package included
hardware, software and on-site engineering support.
ICL were selling several different power ranges of computer, and worked out
that instead of manufacturing several different internals, they could just
produce one set of boards and then set the power rating internally.

I think IBM and Cray worked on similar principles - you paid to have the
wick turned up.

It does my head in sometimes working out if this is reasonable (buying a
certain amount of power) or a con (hang on - I've already paid for this
hardware).

It is still widespread today. A lot of high-end suppliers provide CoD (capacity
on demand) services. This entails a server having many more processors
built in than are used / licensed by the client. If you want more, you just
get the supplier in (or even do it over the 'net) to enable more and your
account gets billed the requisite amount. The box doesn't change, just the
amount of it you're permitted to use. Likewise some top-end software is licensed
on a per-CPU basis. So the same binary and the same level of support will cost
more, or less, depending on the power of the server it runs on.

wrote in message
...

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.

I regret to say that is quite possible that is what they have decided.

I don't have any inside info, only going by what seems to be going on
elsewhere, but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only. I have in mind the Italian, French and Belgian broadcasters
who still operate FTA sat services but are introducing packages that need a
specific decoder box and card available free to a national address.

On Italian satellite (SD) television Mediaset Canale 5 is setting the
trend, the previously FTA sat service has had the bit rate significantly
reduced at the same time as a full bit rate encrypted version has started on
an adjacent channel but needs their specific Tivu decoder box and a free
viewing card. I suspect that the other services of RAI and Mediaset on
these transponders will go the same way and the FTA services be terminated
eventually.

It is said that Germany will not go encrypted on satellite because their
audience has traditionally been FTA via either cable or satellite with
little terrestrial broadcasting. Stations that have tried going encrypted
have had to reverse the move. However the Mediaset example calls this into
question because the Italian audience was also equally split FTA
satellite/terrestrial and yet (AIUT) following the digital switch over (just
happening) terrestrial is encrypted and the full sat package requires a Tivu
decoder.

So if these changes are happening in Europe where transponder space doesn't
seem to be a problem, but because of pressure from rights holders, then
perhaps that will happen here too. Could the BBC re launch its services
on satellite as an encrypted HD package, but with free viewing card with
your TV licence to keep them happy ?

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform, and though this may
well be because Sky made the better commercial offer, and there may not be
room on the FTA transponders, the issues with rights holders and FTA HD
might well have come into the equation.

As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

Roger R

On 11 Dec, 11:13, "Roger R"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.

I regret to say that is quite possible that is what they have decided.

I don't have any inside info, only going by what seems to be going on
elsewhere, but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only.

This is exactly what I've been hearing.

*I have in mind the Italian, French and Belgian broadcasters
who still operate FTA sat services but are introducing packages that need a
specific decoder box and card available free to a national address.

On Italian satellite (SD) television Mediaset Canale 5 *is setting the
trend, the previously FTA sat service has had the bit rate significantly
reduced at the same time as a full bit rate encrypted version has started on
an adjacent channel but needs their specific Tivu decoder box and a free
viewing card. * I suspect that the other services of RAI and Mediaset on
these transponders will go the same way and the FTA services be terminated
eventually.

It is said that Germany will not go encrypted on satellite because their
audience has traditionally been FTA via either cable or satellite with
little terrestrial broadcasting. Stations that have tried going encrypted
have had to reverse the move.

HD+ (for Germany) launched properly at the start of November. It
features rather strong encryption on HD versions of SD FTA channels. I
have no idea how it's doing. What I've heard (no idea if it's true) is
that this may start a migration of higher value content from the free-
to-air/state television broadcasters to the freeish-to-view private/
commercial broadcasters. Things like recent movies and top-tier
American shows will move out of the reach of FTA channels.

* However the Mediaset example calls this into
question because the Italian audience was also equally split FTA
satellite/terrestrial and yet (AIUT) following the digital switch over (just
happening) terrestrial is encrypted and the full sat package requires a Tivu
decoder.

So if these changes are happening in Europe where transponder space doesn't
seem to be a problem, but because of pressure from rights holders, then
perhaps that will happen here too. * Could the BBC *re launch its services
on satellite as an encrypted HD package, but with free viewing card with
your TV licence to keep them happy ?

Do all Freesat boxes have CI slots? My Humax HDR does - and I can't
imagine who uses them now because it's a pain in non-Freesat mode. So
maybe they're there ready for a BBC/PSB CAM! Even so, CI modules are
out of date because the output is in-the-clear; it would probably need
to be CI+ now (as with HD+ going forward) - but hopefully (again, like
HD+) there'd be a first generation of CI modules available for people
with existing kit.

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform, and though this may
well be because Sky made the better commercial offer, and there may not be
room on the FTA transponders, the issues with rights holders and FTA HD
might well have come into the equation.

As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

Well, it's fine for the BBC if it's only showing its "own" content -
but if CH4, five, and others never join them on the platform, it's a
bit pointless.

We might end up with a worse case scenario - the rest of Europe uses a
competitive non-proprietary FTV model, while our "free" broadcasters
are stuck behind Sky's system and on the piecemeal roll out of
Freeview HD with inadequate bandwidth.

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

I hope we've both got it all wrong! :-)

Cheers,
David.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:26:52 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:01 GMT, Chris J Dixon
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image. Often, when it's a 'busy' image it's
better to have only the subject in sharp focus. I have a copy of the
BBC film 'Galapogas' in both HD and SD and the SD version is better to
watch because the fussy background has less definition, whereas the HD
version makes the background as sharp as the subject.

The position there seems to be that the background is more detailed than
the subject so that a lower resolution representation has more effect,
from the viewer's POV, on the background than on the subject. A higher
resolution will give an image that is closer to the original as seen
through the camera lens.

HD will give a more accurate representation than will SD.

You have described a case in which a film 'Galapogas' looks better to
you personally in a lower resolution version. Fair enough.

As our eyes
naturally focus onto the sharper part of the image (where there is a
difference) our brains process the main content and are not distracted
for whatever goes on in the background. This is a basic technique in
photography and has the advantage that less light is needed because
the apeture is open wider.

Depth of Field is described he
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...h-of-field.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...mls/depth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Depth of Field can be small (subject in focus, everything else blurred)
or large (everthing equally sharp).

Chris J Dixon (above) quotes the BBC's head of HD who believes that "HD
is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture depth".

Assuming proportionately equal compression in transmission the only
difference between SD and HD is picture sharpness[1]. Any differences in
visual apearance are related directly to sharpness, aka definition or
resolution.

[1] I'm assuming that HD TV transmissions have the same number of bits
per pixel as SD.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Kay Robinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:01 GMT, Chris J Dixon
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image.

I thought depth of field was dependent on the lens on the camera (so smaller
aperture = more depth).

Assuming the content was recorded just once (presumably on HD equipment),
how can HD and SD have different background depth? If the HD image has a
background equally as sharp as the subject, that must be the case on SD too?

--
Bartc