BBC HD Test CardS

"Alan" wrote in message ...

In message , charles
wrote

did you see "Avatar" in 3D?


I seen it twice. Once in normal 2D on DVD and once in IMAX 3D. 3D did
nothing for the film and in many of the CGI parts of the film with fast
movement the 3D didn't work very well at all.

The film itself is Starship Troopers meets Dancing with Wolves with the
acting skills and dialogue of the former. Poor acting and a rip-off
script saved by millions spent on CGI.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk




--------------

Avatar was dire. Easily Cameroon's worst film.

Alan wrote:
In message , Davey
wrote
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:06:25 +0100
the dog from that film you saw wrote:

never mind imax - didn't you ever go to one of those cinema 180
things at a theme park with car chase, rollercoaster and water skiing
grainy 1070s footage?


They had movie film that long ago?

Maybe they did. The reason we know so little about certain periods in
history, such as the dark ages, is because someone wiped all the tapes
during that time

All the ingredients for still photography were available in medieval
times. All it needed was the idea.

Bill

Mike Henry wrote:
Point of order - it's what that particular system of transmitting 3D - the
crappy Sky way; the *halve-the-resolution* way - looks like on a 2D TV.

Half the horizontal resolution, but not half the visual content, as the
left and right images will be different. Detail lacking in one half of
the screen may be present in the other half.

More significant IMO will be the bit rate used by BBC HD for 3D, and at
the moment the 3D demo "Third Light" is running at a much lower rate
than that of the German Sky 3D demo - though I don't doubt that the BBC
have a more efficient encoder. :-)

--
John L

John Legon wrote:

More significant IMO will be the bit rate used by BBC HD for 3D, and at
the moment the 3D demo "Third Light" is running at a much lower rate
than that of the German Sky 3D demo

I've not caught the 3D sequence on the HD Preview yet, The file sizes of
the recording of this week's "The Apprentice" were 5.6GB on BBC1 HD and
6.8GB on BBC HD.

This is a TS recording so includes the red button and EPG streams as
well as the audio/video streams, it also includes 2 minutes buffer
before/after the programme.

But the bitrates are approximately 11.8mbps vs 14.3mbps

Andy Burns wrote:
John Legon wrote:

More significant IMO will be the bit rate used by BBC HD for 3D, and at
the moment the 3D demo "Third Light" is running at a much lower rate
than that of the German Sky 3D demo

I've not caught the 3D sequence on the HD Preview yet, The file sizes of
the recording of this week's "The Apprentice" were 5.6GB on BBC1 HD and
6.8GB on BBC HD.

This is a TS recording so includes the red button and EPG streams as
well as the audio/video streams, it also includes 2 minutes buffer
before/after the programme.

But the bitrates are approximately 11.8mbps vs 14.3mbps

My measurements of bit-rates are not based upon file sizes but are the
figures reported for the video streams by the software I use, namely
Media Player Classic and dgavcindex. I can't vouch for the absolute
accuracy of the results but they seem consistent, and show the BBC 3D
demo running at around 12 Mb/s on average as compared to 17.5 Mb/s for
Sky 3D.

--
John L

Light of Aria wrote:


"Alan" wrote in message ...
In message , charles
wrote

did you see "Avatar" in 3D?


I seen it twice. Once in normal 2D on DVD and once in IMAX 3D. 3D did
nothing for the film and in many of the CGI parts of the film with fast
movement the 3D didn't work very well at all.

The film itself is Starship Troopers meets Dancing with Wolves with the
acting skills and dialogue of the former. Poor acting and a rip-off
script saved by millions spent on CGI.

A friend of mine called it, Dances with Smurfs, quite accurate I think.

--
Adrian

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Maybe they did. The reason we know so little about certain periods in
history, such as the dark ages, is because someone wiped all the tapes
during that time

All the ingredients for still photography were available in medieval
times. All it needed was the idea.

They'd have had to wait a few hundred years for somewhere to plug in their
battery chargers though...

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

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
Alan wrote:
In message , Davey
wrote
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:06:25 +0100
the dog from that film you saw wrote:

never mind imax - didn't you ever go to one of those cinema 180
things at a theme park with car chase, rollercoaster and water skiing
grainy 1070s footage?


They had movie film that long ago?

Maybe they did. The reason we know so little about certain periods in
history, such as the dark ages, is because someone wiped all the tapes
during that time

All the ingredients for still photography were available in medieval
times. All it needed was the idea.

Bill

Why stop there all thats needed for future amazing thing is here
already;!..
--
Times Eldest Son..

tony sayer wrote:

All the ingredients for still photography were available in medieval
times. All it needed was the idea.

Bill

Why stop there all thats needed for future amazing thing is here
already;!..
Photography is a special case, because it is an extremely simple
technology needing only a shaped piece of glass and something that
reacts to light. It was known since time immoral that certain substances
and things could be used to make contact pictures of leaves etc and that
the resulting image could be 'fixed'.

Bill

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:48:56 +0100
Bill Wright wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

All the ingredients for still photography were available in
medieval times. All it needed was the idea.

Bill

Why stop there all thats needed for future amazing thing is here
already;!..
Photography is a special case, because it is an extremely simple
technology needing only a shaped piece of glass and something that
reacts to light. It was known since time immoral that certain
substances and things could be used to make contact pictures of
leaves etc and that the resulting image could be 'fixed'.

Bill

That may or may not be true, but it does not change the fact that
moving films did not exist in the 1070s, which was the original
accidental claim.

Besides, there must be hundreds of inventions where the necessary stuff
existed for years, but all it needed was the concept. I don't agree that
photography was a special case. Think frogs' legs and electricity, for
example.
--
Davey.