Complaints about the BBC's HD service rumble on

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:43 -0000, Agamemnon wrote:

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...

"We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they
could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old
encoders at the higher bitrate," a spokesperson told BBC News.

BUT NOT AT THE BITRATES THAT THE BBC ARE NOW USING. Another lying piece of
****.

To be fair - the announcement does use the 21st century's favourite weasel-
word: "could" produce pictures .... Which they hope we'll all take to mean
"does" or "will" rather than it's contemproary meaning (from marketing
misuse) of "never".

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:43 -0000, Agamemnon wrote:

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...

"We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they
could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old
encoders at the higher bitrate," a spokesperson told BBC News.

BUT NOT AT THE BITRATES THAT THE BBC ARE NOW USING. Another lying
piece of ****.

To be fair - the announcement does use the 21st century's favourite
weasel- word: "could" produce pictures .... Which they hope we'll all
take to mean "does" or "will" rather than it's contemproary meaning
(from marketing misuse) of "never".

I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19 Dec, 17:08, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
* *pete wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:43 -0000, Agamemnon wrote:

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...

"We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they
could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old
encoders at the higher bitrate," a spokesperson told BBC News.

BUT NOT AT THE BITRATES THAT THE BBC ARE NOW USING. Another lying
piece of ****.
To be fair - the announcement does use the 21st century's favourite
weasel- word: "could" produce pictures .... *Which they hope we'll all
take to mean "does" or "will" rather than it's contemproary meaning
(from marketing misuse) of "never".

I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm

On Dec 19, 7:02*pm, DVDfever wrote:
On 19 Dec, 17:08, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:



In article ,
* *pete wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:43 -0000, Agamemnon wrote:

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...

"We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they
could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old
encoders at the higher bitrate," a spokesperson told BBC News.

BUT NOT AT THE BITRATES THAT THE BBC ARE NOW USING. Another lying
piece of ****.
To be fair - the announcement does use the 21st century's favourite
weasel- word: "could" produce pictures .... *Which they hope we'll all
take to mean "does" or "will" rather than it's contemproary meaning
(from marketing misuse) of "never".

I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm

Ahh, Telewest
Those were the days!

In article ,
DVDfever wrote:
I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm

It's interesting that they say it has sixteen times the resolution of normal
HDTV, and then say it is 7680x4320, effectively equivalent to 4320 scanning
lines, whereas my arithmetic says 4320 divided by 1080 isn't sixteen at all,
but about four.

I guess they're just quoting the total number of pixels (again) rather than
the actual resolution, even though they don't seem to be troubled by the
dishonesty of *calling* it the resolution, presumably because it makes the
numbers seem more impressive to those who don't understand what they mean.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article en.co.uk,
says...

In article ,
DVDfever wrote:
I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm

It's interesting that they say it has sixteen times the resolution of normal
HDTV, and then say it is 7680x4320, effectively equivalent to 4320 scanning
lines, whereas my arithmetic says 4320 divided by 1080 isn't sixteen at all,
but about four.


About? 4320/4 is EXACTLY 1080! And 7680/4 is 1920 - exactly.

So its four times the horizontal resolution and four times the vertical
resolution and four times four is - SIXTEEN! (Exactly!)

I guess they're just quoting the total number of pixels (again) rather than
the actual resolution, even though they don't seem to be troubled by the
dishonesty of *calling* it the resolution, presumably because it makes the
numbers seem more impressive to those who don't understand what they mean.


Well yes, there are 16 times as many pixels - would you expect anything
else?

Or is there something about your argument I'm misunderstanding here?

--

Terry

Terry Casey wrote:

About? 4320/4 is EXACTLY 1080! And 7680/4 is 1920 - exactly.

So its four times the horizontal resolution and four times the vertical
resolution and four times four is - SIXTEEN! (Exactly!)

.... and it will of course require 16 times the bandwidth. That'll be
interesting

Andy

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:27:37 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

About? 4320/4 is EXACTLY 1080! And 7680/4 is 1920 - exactly.

So its four times the horizontal resolution and four times the vertical
resolution and four times four is - SIXTEEN! (Exactly!)

Well I suppose it depends on how you define resolution, but I'd say
that was 4 times the resolution, not 16 (just like a 12 megapixel
camera is not twice as good as a 6 megapixel camera)
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article
,
DVDfever wrote:
I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers
have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm


I would hope in the future we would get away from the strange to me at least
16x9 ratio
Think this might have been done probably due to limitations of the CRT. I
would like to see the cinema screen ratio used in the future.
Yes I know the movie screens vary but is the normal w/s 2:1? Going up to
2.5:1 for the epic style films?
Regards
David

On 20 Dec, 13:24, "David" wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
thisbit.myzen.co.uk...

In article
,
DVDfever wrote:
I expect they'll announce Super HD shortly - after all the set makers
have
to be kept busy - and the whole sorry thing will repeat...

They already have Ultra HD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5335870.stm

I would hope in the future we would get away from the strange to me at least
16x9 ratio
Think this might have been done probably due to limitations of the CRT. * *I
would like to see the cinema screen ratio used in the future.
Yes I know the movie screens vary but is the normal w/s *2:1? * Going up to
2.5:1 for the epic style films?

Most are around 2.35:1 or 2.40:1, although some are wider. However,
16:9 gives the best compromise for a TV as it fits inbetween 4:3 and
2.33:1 (which is the closest to the most widely used).

On Click they showed a 4:3 image 'approximated' (partly stretched)
across a 21:9 TV and it was hideous. They're also too unfeasible for
the average home. I wouldn't want one as it would push my AV rack onto
the floor.