4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

In article , Deanna Earley
wrote:
I asked, because I do wonder what the stats may be, and how they are
changing. I'm not even sure who could tell without either a serious
survey or asking the ISPs who carry a large enough fraction of the
traffic.

https://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/ may be a good start, compared
to total traffic at the exchanges:
https://www.linx.net/pubtools/trafficstats.html
http://www.lonap.net/mrtg/lonap-total.html

They did publish traffic graphs at some point too.

This won't give you relative to other media producers though.

Thanks for the above. FWIW though I have spoken to BBC people about this in
the past and had got some info. The problem, alas, is as you say. That
getting comparable and reliable values for the bulk of other media sources
is hard. Too "commercially sensitive" to provide openly, so they prefer to
cherry-pick details that make them look good. And in the UK some possibly
large sources are also ISPs. etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the
credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be
sped up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served.

It would depend on what a court took "show" to mean in the event of an
annoyed artist, etc, taking action. Squeezing down the credits to one
pixel for one frame might not be felt to mean "show" in terms of the
legal meanings of words in contracts. Seems to me quite reasonable for
a court to so decide, and to require the text to be readable by
viewers with normal eyesight, etc, but it would be a matter for a
court.


Well, it hasnt happened yet. And it would be no-one's interest to do so.
One party would win, but both parties would loose.

It depends on what is meant by "no-one's interest".

It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to club
together to bring a test case. That way they could share the court and
legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence such a case might
well be in their interest *if* they could carry it though.

The problem I suspect is that the large broadcasters, etc, feel confident
that no-one will challenge them. And they may well be correct given that
actors, writers, etc, tend to be hired as independent workers. It has been
commented in the past that the English legal system is "the best money can
buy" and there is some truth in that. So this may be simply another
example
of where those with money and power can exploit 'divide and rule'.



Dont doubt it.
But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters would find some new way
to screw them over.
i.e. Both parties lose.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing.
Nor is speeding them up..... which has been going on for a very very long
time.
Its just squeezing is far more noticable than speeding up.

No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps.
This doesnt match UK TV standards.
So all they do is speed up the film to match!
Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter than they are in the US.
So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Bear in mind its only the main channels who do the squeezing and speeding.
'Film' (or 'movie' if youre 'murican') channels neither speed up nor
squeeze.
So the credits are as is.

And, Im guessing its the same as TV.
The only people who read film credits (on the majority), are the people who
work in or around the film industry.

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to
club together to bring a test case. That way they could share the
court and legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence
such a case might well be in their interest *if* they could carry it
though.


Dont doubt it. But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters
would find some new way to screw them over. i.e. Both parties lose.

Well I assume the logical target of any lawsuit would be the specific
broadcaster chosen to use as an example. No skin off the studio's nose
either way.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing. Nor is speeding them up..... which has
been going on for a very very long time. Its just squeezing is far more
noticable than speeding up.

In general it doesn't bother me. But on occasion I would have wanted to
check some detail that is rendered invisible. And of course the credits
aren't just there for the general public like me. They are adverts for
others in the biz to see.


No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into their
contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order, time on
screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be cheaper than
cash. 8-]


And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps. This doesnt match UK TV standards. So all they do
is speed up the film to match! Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter
than they are in the US. So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Given you're a freelancer in the biz I'd have thought you would also be
aware that isn't the only way this is handled. Or am I missing something?

Sometimes I notice pitch errors due to this. But I also notice at other
times regular jerking as frames are repeated. And IIUC people also adopt
other methods.


And, Im guessing its the same as TV. The only people who read film
credits (on the majority), are the people who work in or around the
film industry.

Yes, and I guess that's who the credits are aimed at. But I presume the
idea is that they can see them *whenever* the film is aired. No idea what
the contracts say, though. However I doubt those who 'lose credit' are
really happy about it. May be just another way the biz dumps on those it
can dump on.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:50:51 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:50:51 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)

Your cable is faulty then.

No, its not faulty.
Its been tested. No faults.

I'm sorry but it is (or your modem/router is, or has set an excessively
high SNR margin). Whether BT Opensore classify it as a fault is a
different matter.


No need to apologise.

The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s
Transfers top out at 12-13Mb/s
To quote a lyric, and thats just the way it is. ....not faulty.


I have a colleague who works for a known ISP.
Aparently an industry practice is for ISPs to intentionally turn down data
rates for domestic ADSL connections.
If they start to get complants they turn them back up marginally..... then,
bizarely, they get 'thanks' for fixing the 'problem'.

This colleague of mine exercised this once upon a friend of theirs who had
really annoyed them.
Found their broadband account (conveniently with the same provider), and
turned the bit rate down to less than dial up.
10minutes later an angry text message + apology arrived!
Bit rate was then turned up to the maximum available.


Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
It might well prove to the advantage of a groups of actors, etc, to
club together to bring a test case. That way they could share the
court and legal costs, but all benefit if the case succeeds. Hence
such a case might well be in their interest *if* they could carry it
though.


Dont doubt it. But if actors/film studio did win, then broadcasters
would find some new way to screw them over. i.e. Both parties lose.

Well I assume the logical target of any lawsuit would be the specific
broadcaster chosen to use as an example. No skin off the studio's nose
either way.


Credit squeezing is no bad thing. Nor is speeding them up..... which has
been going on for a very very long time. Its just squeezing is far more
noticable than speeding up.

In general it doesn't bother me. But on occasion I would have wanted to
check some detail that is rendered invisible. And of course the credits
aren't just there for the general public like me. They are adverts for
others in the biz to see.


No actor/studio is going to complain 'my name was not on screen for long
enough'.

I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into
their
contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order, time on
screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be cheaper
than
cash. 8-]


True.
But this is all for placement in 'the film'.
Film contracts cant be extended to TV transmissions.... it would be
impracticable.
Imaging you make a film now, and you try to set down conditions for TV
broadcasts of it hence forth.
No broadcaster would want to go near your film because of the snake pit of
requisits surrounding it.

Film types tend to see TV as 'bubble gum'. A cheap neccesary evil.


And, what no-one has porbably noticed..... films, as we know, are
distributed at 24fps. This doesnt match UK TV standards. So all they do
is speed up the film to match! Films on UK TV are fractionally shorter
than they are in the US. So the whole thing is faster anyway!

Given you're a freelancer in the biz I'd have thought you would also be
aware that isn't the only way this is handled. Or am I missing something?

Sometimes I notice pitch errors due to this. But I also notice at other
times regular jerking as frames are repeated. And IIUC people also adopt
other methods.

Yes, there is the netflix method. F.****e!

Watch an episode of Buffy for a clear example of no frame rate conversion.
All they do is drop a couple of frames every few seconds, resulting in
terrible motion hops.
And not to mention they dont bother to correct the colourspace from NTSC...
why it looks green.

Netflix is great, if youve got zero technical standards.




And, Im guessing its the same as TV. The only people who read film
credits (on the majority), are the people who work in or around the
film industry.

Yes, and I guess that's who the credits are aimed at. But I presume the
idea is that they can see them *whenever* the film is aired. No idea what
the contracts say, though. However I doubt those who 'lose credit' are
really happy about it. May be just another way the biz dumps on those it
can dump on.

What you said.


Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
I thought various actors, etc, had requirements for this written into
their contracts when the do films. Size of name, placing in order,
time on screen, etc. And for a studio, offerring 'end credit' would be
cheaper than cash. 8-]


True. But this is all for placement in 'the film'. Film contracts cant
be extended to TV transmissions....

They can - if the media company require it. And indeed, the contracts
between the media company and the actors, etc, might/could require them to
do so. So it will depend on the details of the contractual chain and how a
court would view it.

It seems reasonable that any such contract between an actor and the media
company would be for how the result appears when the resulting film is
shown. That could apply to TV just as much to a range of cinemas.

it would be impracticable. Imaging you make a film now, and you try to
set down conditions for TV broadcasts of it hence forth. No broadcaster
would want to go near your film because of the snake pit of requisits
surrounding it.

I note your opinion, but suspect it would simply be an excuse trotted out
by the media company. Might not stand up.

I doubt we'll know one way or the other, though, as the large media
companies would simply ignore anyone not big enough to sue them. That's
probably the real root of any "impracticality" I suspect.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 22/08/2015 13:38, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.

If they're getting 12Mb/s then it's already on a 21CN connection.
20CN is only up to 8Mb/s.
Also, not all exchanges have 21CN yet

--
Deanna Earley , )

(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
k...
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

Yes, I could complain to my ISP.
But TBH, 12Mb/s is fast enough for my present requirements.

Ask them for ADSL2+ which will give you 24Mbps.


.....not bothered in the slightest by the sly methods employed by ISPs at
all?

Yet, contrary to my saying '....is fast enough for my present
requirements.', you still tell me I should go away and ask for 'moar
internetz'.

To quote Catherine Tate's 'Lauren Cooper', "I AINT EVEN BOVVERED THOUGH!"




--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ