4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.


By 'media company' are you referring you 'broadcaster'??

If so, imagine Disney vs ITV ....doubt the broadcaster would ignore it.
If not, then which do you refer to in the use of 'media company'?


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.


As Ive written before, no film channel, subscription service, by whatever
means, does anything with the end credits.
ALL of them allow the end credits to run in full, untouched.... because
theyre a film channel.
They dont need to crash out of the film to get to the 10pm news, or promo
tomorrows big footy match.
So no-one has any grievancies there.... unless DTT compression crushes all
the detail, removing legibility from it.

Its ONLY terrestrial/traditional channels who do this.
And they, on the whole, only transmit a few films a year. (When compared to
a film channel.)




So youve produced and distributed this film which has a plethora of
conditions attached to its TV transmission rights.
Supposing it actually did quite well in the cinemas.
One year later, various 'premium' film channels start to show it.
But they're not bothered, as they should credits in full.

Two years later, unless Rod has his way, terrestrial channels then have the
option to show it.
Do you honestly think ITV, CH4, CH5 (HA HAAAA!), or BBC would go near it?
Unlikely they would.
Its likely they'd just pick another film to show.

Film producer loses. ....and then the royalties loss too.
There again, how can you show you've lost the financial benefit of something
you never had?! (rhetorical question)


Unless you, Jim, actually represent the actors guild, or Equity, then it too
is highly unlikely there will be any such court case this century.

As Ive already written, if there were, and the film producers/actors won,
then broadcasters would find some new means of screwing the film industry
over.
Its a balance of power.



Just off the top of my head, hows about my tv channel shows your film (with
interleaved adverts), and then crashes out of it as the credits start, so we
can push on to show a promo for Britains Tastiest Village, more adverts, and
then round 5 of Live Monkey Tennis from Carlisle.
Four hours later, at 2am, we then show the credits for your film in full,
untouched, and at the correct speed.
Whats the problem?
We've shown your credits in full, and untouched.
Never said anything about an unbroken sequence in your infinitely tight
conditions did you now?


Hold on. I didnt write that para above just to be facetious.
My point, again, is that broadcasters will just find some new way to screw
the film studios back.
Again, film studios may win to begin with.
But in the end, no-one wins.

Thus, whats the point of any such court case.
Leave it as is, then both parties win.




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


By 'media company' are you referring you 'broadcaster'??

No. The company who made the film in question. When doing so, they would
have made contracts with the actors, etc.

If so, imagine Disney vs ITV ....doubt the broadcaster would ignore it.
If not, then which do you refer to in the use of 'media company'?

See above to clarify your misapprehension.


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.


As Ive written before, no film channel, subscription service, by
whatever means, does anything with the end credits. ALL of them allow
the end credits to run in full, untouched.... because theyre a film
channel.

But would a 1-pixel 1-frame 'showing' be regarded in court as an actual
'showing of the credits'? You don't know the answer to that with any more
certainty than myself because it hasn't been tested. But it seems at least
likely they'd say it *wasn't* actually fulfiling the clear purpose of the
credits as indicated in the original contracts. Thus there will be some
minimum requirements in terms of scaling, speed, etc, if these depart from
the default size and speed.


Unless you, Jim, actually represent the actors guild, or Equity, then it
too is highly unlikely there will be any such court case this century.

Erm, I've already said I expect it is unlikely because those most affected
are least able to afford to go to court to seek a ruling. They lack the
cash, and would probably fear blacklisting. Understandable enough for
people faced with big aggressive companies who might also determine how
easily they can get any future employment.

As Ive already written, if there were, and the film producers/actors
won, then broadcasters would find some new means of screwing the film
industry over. Its a balance of power.

Again, I think I already accepted that.

But none of that changes my basic point above.

[snip]

Thus, whats the point of any such court case. Leave it as is, then both
parties win.

Not so. One party 'wins'. The others lack the cash and strength to argue.
That's common enough in UK situations.

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:

....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'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

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

On Monday, 24 August 2015 15:58:46 UTC+1, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

....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'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

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

Indeed - used to get ~13Mbps from exchange 1.3km away as the crow flies, 1.8km walk, probably 2km of thin corroded GPO wire. Now get 30+ from a cabinet at most a few hundred metres away and could get max of 76Mbps if I wanted to pay more.

In article , R.
Mark Clayton scribeth thus
On Monday, 24 August 2015 15:58:46 UTC+1, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , /dev/null
(_Unknown_Freelancer_) wrote:

....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'.

No, I'm suggesting you ask them for more robust service, ADSL2+ is
better than ADSL2 in signal stability and robustness, right out to 6km
from the exchage.

ADSL2+ also gives you the possibility of higher upload speeds.

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

Indeed - used to get ~13Mbps from exchange 1.3km away as the crow flies, 1.8km
walk, probably 2km of thin corroded GPO wire. Now get 30+ from a cabinet at
most a few hundred metres away and could get max of 76Mbps if I wanted to pay
more.

Get a 100 here from a cab some hundreds of metres away and could get 150
if I wanted it..


... all over a bit of co-ax....
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:56:00 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ 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.

I wasn't.

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.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

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'.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

[snip the pointless story]

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:56:00 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ 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.

I wasn't.

Yes you did.
"I'm sorry but............"

Where was your comma?



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.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

No. Not exaggerating.
I could go out my front door, throw a handy pebble and smash an exchange
window without leaving the property.

And if I really must:
SNR 8.0 dB - not much noise there then
Attenuation 12.5 dB - that will be a short length of wire
Sync speed 14335 kb/s - meh




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'.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

Thats a metaphorical mighty handbag you're holding there.

Where abouts precisely in that parahraph did I employ the words "sync speed"
?

I wrote "....intentionally turn down data rates...".
That is, throttle your bandwidth. Which we know they all do.

My point was that they _intentionally_ throttle EVERYONE'S bandwidth down
until they begin to get complaints.
Doing so defines a lower limit to which their customers find acceptable.

As I have written previously, I am quite happy with my 12Mb/s connection.
No matter what everyone else writes or boasts, no matter how bizarre you
find it, I do not need, nor want for, an increased broadband speed at this
time.
I'm very well aware some may find this utterly inconceivable. That someone
does not want faster internet.
But hey, I'm cool with it.




[snip the pointless story]


/pointless post

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:21:50 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

No need to apologise.

I wasn't.

Yes you did.
"I'm sorry but............"

The words may say that and you may infer what you like, but it wasn't
an apology. Or do I need to spell it out?

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.

Your understanding is flawed. Or you are exaggerating about being
'next door' to the exchange.
Why don't you provide some evidence like your line attenuation and
SNR margin figures?

No. Not exaggerating.
I could go out my front door, throw a handy pebble and smash an exchange
window without leaving the property.

And if I really must:
SNR 8.0 dB - not much noise there then

That's a margin and it's rather high for a 'perfect' short cable.
Your lack of understanding is showing again.

Attenuation 12.5 dB - that will be a short length of wire

At least you got that right.

Sync speed 14335 kb/s - meh

Once you fix your SNR margin for whatever reason it's wrong, then this
will improve.

Here is one of mine:
Sync 19019
SNR 3.8
Attenuation 29
and that's on a mile of cable.

Are you still convinced yours is faultless?
Something is wrong - the exchange equipment, the line or your router.
You should be getting 20k+ easily.

And how exactly can the ISP affect the sync speed of the router? This
is outside their realm of control. You are clearly beyond the boundaries
of your knowledge.

Thats a metaphorical mighty handbag you're holding there.

Where abouts precisely in that parahraph did I employ the words "sync speed" ?

How about:

"The ADSL2 modem syncs to 14Mb/s"

Er, that is the sync. speed, as you well know. Stop playing games.

My point was that they _intentionally_ throttle EVERYONE'S bandwidth down
until they begin to get complaints.
Doing so defines a lower limit to which their customers find acceptable.

What do they throttle it down to then? Mine is throttled down to the speed
that the line supports. If the sync. speed changes for whatever reason, the
throttle speed changes to match.
How many samples are you basing your claim on? One?

As I have written previously, I am quite happy with my 12Mb/s connection.

That's irrelevant as to whether your circuit is performing properly or not.
You claim it is. I'm telling you it isn't. You refuse to believe reality.
I don't really care whether you find it acceptable or not, but I do care
about your ignorant, arrogant attitude and refusal to accept that you can
possibly be wrong about something.