BBC iPlayer streaming version

Dom Robinson wrote:
In article , [email protected]
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article , [email protected]
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
[email protected] says...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Is it working for other people? It worked for me okay yesterday
with only a little bit of buffering going on, but today it seems
to be buffering for 30 seconds, plays for 3 or 4 seconds and goes
back to buffering again. It then stops altogether saying
"Something went wrong ... please try again."

Is it in HD? Did it make you cum?

No, not enough pixels for that.

Are you still deluding yourself that people won't adopt the HD
formats, Dom?

Not for UK TV output and DVDs, no.

So the 60% of households with an HD-ready display by 2011 will
decide to watch BBC1, ITV1, C4 and Five in SD rather than in HD even
though there's an HD version being transmitted then?

That's four years away. You think it'll still be happening by then?


HD will be massive in 4 years.


Admittedly, the general public is a strange beast, but surely not
that strange?


What was it, you thought they'd distribute films loaded onto USB
keyfobs and downloads would make HD discs unnecessary?

No, I never said that.


Yes you did:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....78a9d648ca01c6

"if it happens at all as cheap hard drives and downloaded films
(paid-for or otherwise) running from those hard drives to the TV
will negate the need for a disc-based format. Either way,
HDDVD and Bluray are doomed."

No, I said nothing about USB keyfobs. Where did you make that up from?


Hahahahahehehehehehohohohohohahahahahahahehehehehe .


How do you suggest the 25% of
households would manage that don't have a computer?

See above.

Right, I've provided the quote where you did say that people would
download HD and that would mean we won't need an HD disc format, so
now answer the question.

Try again.


Erm, here's how it goes: you're supposed to answer the question which you
haven't answered yet.


And do you not think the
45% or so of households with a computer that have dial-up would be
a bit miffed with the 3-week download of an HD movie? D'ya not
reckon it'll be a bit easier just to stick with discs for a bit?

I've answered why this isn't a problem before. You really should
check back my previous posts rather than attempt to misquote me. Go
on, off you pop.


How could you have provided an answer for how people without a
computer would be able to download an HD film??

You're posing the question about downloading HD films, which isn't the
question at all.


YOU brought up downloading HD films - I say people will buy them on disc.


Could your opinion be motivated by the fact that you forked out for
over 1,000 floppy disks, erm, sorry, DVDs,

I haven't. Where did you get that idea?

Your sig says you've got over 1100 DVDs. Did you steal a lot iof
them or something?

It doesn't mean I've got 1100 DVDs.


How many have you got then?


which is a format that'll eventually
be made obsolete by the HD formats?

It won't. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will go the way of DCC and DAT. I've
covered this before.

You will be proved wrong on this.

And I'm sure the manufacturers of DCC and DAT said the same thing at
the time. A guy at my local VCR rental store in the early-mid 90s
said, "Anyone thinking of buying a CD player should seriously
consider buying a CDi player".

Yeah, and they really took off, didn't they(!)

Just because you tell the public to want something doesn't mean they
want it.


HD is going to take over. End of.


DVDs are discounted to 3 for £20 within about 3 months, whereas the
HD equivalents (where available) are still expensive. Joe Punter
doesn't have the money or inclination to buy the HD formats when
he's got bigger problems paying his mortgage.

When Joe Punter has an HD-ready display then Joe Punter will start
buying HD format discs once they're cheap enough. DVDs will have
been through exactly the same process of being expensive and people
like you doubting them, then sales volume goes up and prices come
down and they enter the mainstream and start to nudge DVDs out. It's
bound to happen.

It won't. DVDs were enough to tempt Joe Punter away from VHS as a
film format because was ready for them. HD discs aren't different
enough and have come too soon.

"Once they're cheap enough" won't happen because they won't be viable
by then.


You're wrong, but you refuse to believe me, so there's no point in knocking
my head against a brick wall telling you how wrong you are.


To give you some idea about this person. Joe Punter:

1. watches a 4:3 or 14:9 analogue image stretched across his 16:9 TV
and thinks it looks normal.
2. believes what the Currys salesdroid tells him when he hears,
"Look at that television. Now, imagine it with cellophane on...
THAT'S analogue. Remove the cellophane... THAT's digital! See?"
3. thinks the cinema broadcasts films in NICAM stereo.
4. buys a HDTV and thinks it makes everything HD (just like he did
for widescreen TV).

Now, DAB, I can understand and comprehend all the HD jargon you
speak - and if there's anything I'm unsure of I'll ask or look it
up, but to the average Joe Punter he just thinks you're speaking
Japanese and he has about as much interest in watching a spot-on HD
picture as I have in watching football.

Here's how it'll go: Sales of HD discs will steadily increase over
time as more people have an HD display and more people have the
ability to playback HD discs, and as sales increase the price of HD
discs will fall due to economies of scale, which will lead to even
lower prices, which will lead to higher sales due to price
elasticity of demand, and you then have a "virtuous circle" where
prices continue to fall and sales volume continues to increase and
they reinforce one another, and over time one of the HD formats will
win out and people will stop buying new films on DVD and they'll buy
HD versions instead and over time DVD will stop being sold in the
shops.

It's too soon after DVD.


It's not.


Joe Punter just won't buy into it all. HD
needs to get a foothold NOW if it wants to make in-roads in the
marketplace, and it won't do while DVD dominates. By the time DVD's
old hat, HD discs will have long since gone and the world will have
moved onto something that it's actually ready for.


I've said how I think it'll happen, and there's no point in repeating myself
because you won't change your mind.


To be honest, arguing about it every few weeks on here is a waste of
time, because this is a long term gradual process that'll happen
over the next few years, and only time will show that I'm right.

Do you know who you sound like? Hitler.


Why, was he sure that hi-definition DVD formats would take over from DVD as
well?


Suffice it to say though that
I will be saving your amusing quotes to my hard drive so I can quote
them back to you in future.

Glad to hear that I'm your hobby. All I do with your posts is read
them, laugh, reply back and hit 'send'.


Snap.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Dom Robinson wrote:
In article , [email protected]
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article , [email protected]
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
Was thinking about this the other day, like most people I have a
dvd collection but I reckon 95% of the disks I'll never watch
again.

Now I've got a blu-ray PS3, but I can't see me replacing my
collection, I did that with my laserdiscs when DVDs came out.


Joe Punter just isn't ready for HD yet, and by the time he is
(about 10 years away, in terms of making it viable over here),
they'll be onto Super-HD or whatever's next and the current HD
equipment won't be up to the job. Joe Punter just cannot afford
that rate of change.


Typical Dom - makes oh so certain statements backed up by market
research from DomStats.com with a sample size of 1 for each survey.

Hear that sound? It's you throwing in the towel.


Hear that sound? It's me chuckling at Dom reckoning that he
understands how new technologies are taken up. Hehehehe. There I go
again, you see, chuckling away.

It beats any understanding you have, as you prove on a regular basis.


In your dreams fat boy.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Are you still deluding yourself that people won't adopt the HD
formats, Dom?

Not for UK TV output and DVDs, no.

So the 60% of households with an HD-ready display by 2011 will decide to*
watch BBC1, ITV1, C4 and Five in SD rather than in HD even though there's an*
HD version being transmitted then?

Admittedly, the general public is a strange beast, but surely not that*
strange?

You're assuming they care. Most members of the public don't seem to care about
TV picture quality at all. They never have, so why would yet another technical
innovation change this, particularly an expensive one?

The punters will only be able to *see* HD if *all* components of their systems
are upgraded, properly matched, and properly connected together, and since most
of them can't get it right for a simple thing like the shape of the picture, or
an RGB connection from source to display, the subtlety of a picture with a bit
more fine detail on some programmes will probably pass most of them by.

Even if some do care, they'll probably just assume that "HD-ready" means what
it says, and will be unaware that the physical pixel structure of the display
device has to match the electronic pixel structure of the signal fed to it for
best results, and that it can't be right for all sources.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Are you still deluding yourself that people won't adopt the HD
formats, Dom?

Not for UK TV output and DVDs, no.

So the 60% of households with an HD-ready display by 2011 will
decide to watch BBC1, ITV1, C4 and Five in SD rather than in HD even
though there's an HD version being transmitted then?

Admittedly, the general public is a strange beast, but surely not
that strange?

You're assuming they care. Most members of the public don't seem to
care about TV picture quality at all. They never have, so why would
yet another technical innovation change this, particularly an
expensive one?


It's not black and white in the way that you're making it out to be. In
reality, there will be a percentage of the general public that does care
about the picture quality of TV.

Just because some people use the wrong aspect ratio, why do you then jump to
the conclusion that "the public" doesn't care about quality? What about all
the people that use the right aspect ratio? Do they definitely care about
quality? No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.


The punters will only be able to *see* HD if *all* components of
their systems are upgraded, properly matched, and properly connected
together, and since most of them can't get it right for a simple
thing like the shape of the picture,


*Most* can't get the aspect ratio right? What utter ********.


or an RGB connection from source
to display, the subtlety of a picture with a bit more fine detail on
some programmes will probably pass most of them by.


I don't think it's as difficult to get HD-ready displays and HD set-top
boxes to work correctly with each other as you're making out.


Even if some do care, they'll probably just assume that "HD-ready"
means what it says,


Ah, right, yeah, that must be it - even those that claim to care are either
too stupid to do things right or they don't really care after all.

And on the subject of stupidity: returning to your witty thing:

Those that can, do.
Those that can't do, teach.
Those that can't teach, consult.

The "general public" are the people that usually "do", because the vast
majority of the public are not teachers or lecturers or consultants. And yet
here you are making out that the public - who you claim to be oh so
fantastic when it comes to working, because teachers/academics and
consultants apparently can't "do" - are too stupid to set the aspect ratio
of their TVs correctly.

The reality is as follows:

Academics and consultants will have a mean IQ level that is waaaaaaaaaaaaay
above average, and if they wanted to "do" they could if they wanted to. In
reality, academics do what they do because they very likely find it far more
interesting and stimulating and get far more job satisfaction than they
would get from normal jobs, and consultants do what they do because of the
higher pay they earn. And those that "do" usually aren't able to do what
academics and consultants can do.


and will be unaware that the physical pixel
structure of the display device has to match the electronic pixel
structure of the signal fed to it for best results, and that it can't
be right for all sources.


How on earth would you expect people who're laymen to understand this? How
good is your understanding of, say, brain surgery?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article , DAB sounds worse than FM
wrote:
You're assuming they care. Most members of the public don't seem to
care about TV picture quality at all. They never have, so why would
yet another technical innovation change this, particularly an
expensive one?

It's not black and white in the way that you're making it out to be. In*
reality, there will be a percentage of the general public that does care*
about the picture quality of TV.

Just because some people use the wrong aspect ratio, why do you then jump to*
the conclusion that "the public" doesn't care about quality? What about all*
the people that use the right aspect ratio? Do they definitely care about*
quality? No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

It's not "some people" that use the wrong aspect ratio, or any other picture
adjustment you care to name. In my experience it really does seem to be most of
them.

To be fair to them, it may not always be a lack of care, but in some cases just
sheer frustration that the equipment will not do what they want. DVDs and
broadcasts have several ways of dealing with widescreen, and signalling it
automatically, and TV sets have several ways of responding to the signals, and
it is sometimes impossible to find a fixed setup that will suit all material
without the user having to switch something manually.

Whatever the reason, I have seen with my own eyes many TV sets in many
different situations, and it is quite rare to find one that is correctly set
up. Also, it's quite common to see a modern TV set with SCART inputs being fed
with composite signals, or RF through the aerial socket, from devices that have
RGB outputs available, simply because that is the only arrangement that allows
armchair selection of sources without buying more equipment or cables. I have
sometimes pointed out to their owners that they could have better quality from
the same equipment simply by connecting it up properly, but mostly I don't
bother because I know that as long as they can see and hear the programme
without interruptions they are almost invariably happy with what they've got.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
You're assuming they care. Most members of the public don't seem to
care about TV picture quality at all. They never have, so why would
yet another technical innovation change this, particularly an
expensive one?

It's not black and white in the way that you're making it out to be.
In reality, there will be a percentage of the general public that
does care about the picture quality of TV.

Just because some people use the wrong aspect ratio, why do you then
jump to the conclusion that "the public" doesn't care about quality?
What about all the people that use the right aspect ratio? Do they
definitely care about quality? No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

It's not "some people" that use the wrong aspect ratio, or any other
picture adjustment you care to name. In my experience it really does
seem to be most of them.


Nonsense.


To be fair to them, it may not always be a lack of care, but in some
cases just sheer frustration that the equipment will not do what they
want. DVDs and broadcasts have several ways of dealing with
widescreen, and signalling it automatically, and TV sets have several
ways of responding to the signals, and it is sometimes impossible to
find a fixed setup that will suit all material without the user
having to switch something manually.

Whatever the reason, I have seen with my own eyes many TV sets in many
different situations, and it is quite rare to find one that is
correctly set up.


Define "correctly set up". If you mean "perfectly set up as a broadcast
engineer would set it up" then yeah, you will be right. But if you mean "it
is using the wrong aspect ratio" then it is pure ******** to suggest that it
is rare for people to be using the correct aspect ratio.


Also, it's quite common to see a modern TV set with
SCART inputs being fed with composite signals, or RF through the
aerial socket, from devices that have RGB outputs available, simply
because that is the only arrangement that allows armchair selection
of sources without buying more equipment or cables.


None of the above imply that the people that do this don't care about
picture quality, it just means that they don't understand how to do things
as you or I would and they want things to be as easy as possible, which is
perfectly natural.

The general public doesn't have a good understanding of the technicalities,
but that doesn't mean that they don't care about quality. The vast majority
simply won't understand the implications of doing X and not doing Y, but
people like yourself use the fact that they do X and not Y as some kind of
"evidence" that they don't care.

Basically, you make claims that don't logically follow.

For example, here's a set theory question, see if you can get the right
answer:

If all zorks are zogs, and some wonks are zogs. Which of the following is
true:

a. All wonks are zogs
b. Some zorks are wonks
d. there's insufficient information to tell whether a or b is correct.

Draw a Venn diagram with the 3 sets to find the answer.

Your logic is as follows:

Most people don't set their TVs up correctly, therefore they don't care
about the picture quality of TV.

That is such an illogical conclusion from the information available it's
unbelievable.


I have sometimes
pointed out to their owners that they could have better quality from
the same equipment simply by connecting it up properly, but mostly I
don't bother because I know that as long as they can see and hear the
programme without interruptions they are almost invariably happy with
what they've got.


More patronising ********.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:50 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
[email protected] wrote:

When Joe Punter has an HD-ready display then Joe Punter will start buying HD
format discs once they're cheap enough.

I think that's the key point. They have to become cheaper. A LOT
cheaper. People don't like the price of DVDs (even though they've
dropped significantly over the last few years) which is why piracy is
considered such a problem, and we have to suffer "Knock Off Nigel" and
unskippable "You wouldn't rape an OAP!" trailers on DVDs. I think
that if Joe Punter has the choice between forking out what he
considers to be too much for the HD DVD down at HMV, or downloading
the DVD quality version as a torrent, he'll go for the latter option.

On 18 Dec, 22:19, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:50 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"

[email protected] wrote:
When Joe Punter has an HD-ready display then Joe Punter will start buying HD
format discs once they're cheap enough.

I think that's the key point. They have to become cheaper. A LOT
cheaper.

Which won't happen in terms of it being viable. Since DVD was quite an
innovation on from VHS, the public just sees HD-DVD/Blu-ray as another
form of disc that plays films, and they've already got one. They might
get the idea that it's better but they see the prices and while they
waited long enough for DVD to come down in price before jumping in,
technology moves faster all the time and by the time they might even
think about being ready for an HD version, it'll be long dead in the
water as the lack of viability along the way will kill it off.

The manufacturers can't just keep throwing money as these two formats
in the hope that Joe Punter takes it up within five years as there
isn't time, and by then something better will have come along anyway
so if they need to, they'll go for that.

People don't like the price of DVDs (even though they've
dropped significantly over the last few years) which is why piracy is
considered such a problem, and we have to suffer "Knock Off Nigel" and
unskippable "You wouldn't rape an OAP!" trailers on DVDs.

I don't think piracy is as big a problem these days on DVDs now that
the prices of those have dropped. A pirate video of Evil Dead and ET
in the early 80s would do the rounds for months and months, but as
soon as a DVD's been out for 3 months, it's gone into the 3 for £20
bargain bins, if not cheaper, and whereas before I might've downloaded
a film and burnt it to disc or just watched it from the file, I'll
wait for that cheaper option. I'm not that fussed about even
downloading it while it's in the cinema before buying the cheap DVD, I
figure that I've waited 35 years to see the film anyway so another few
months won't make any difference.

I think
that if Joe Punter has the choice between forking out what he
considers to be too much for the HD DVD down at HMV, or downloading
the DVD quality version as a torrent, he'll go for the latter option.

And if he sees new HD DVDs at £15-22 while the regular version is
£10-15, or even cheaper when tied in with various deals at Tesco etc,
he'll go for the latter.

On 18 Dec, 10:53, "DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Are you still deluding yourself that people won't adopt the HD
formats, Dom?

Not for UK TV output and DVDs, no.

So the 60% of households with an HD-ready display by 2011 will
decide to watch BBC1, ITV1, C4 and Five in SD rather than in HD even
though there's an HD version being transmitted then?

Admittedly, the general public is a strange beast, but surely not
that strange?

You're assuming they care. Most members of the public don't seem to
care about TV picture quality at all. They never have, so why would
yet another technical innovation change this, particularly an
expensive one?

It's not black and white in the way that you're making it out to be. In
reality, there will be a percentage of the general public that does care
about the picture quality of TV.

Just because some people use the wrong aspect ratio, why do you then jump to
the conclusion that "the public" doesn't care about quality? What about all
the people that use the right aspect ratio? Do they definitely care about
quality? No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

You really should get out and talk to those things walking around
outside. They're called people. They worry about mortgages and school
fees and parking fines. TV is a very low consideration.

The punters will only be able to *see* HD if *all* components of
their systems are upgraded, properly matched, and properly connected
together, and since most of them can't get it right for a simple
thing like the shape of the picture,

*Most* can't get the aspect ratio right? What utter ********.

They don't care. One relative I know has Sky in the lounge and an
analogue TV in the kitchen, so as she goes between the two she leaves
the lounge TV on analogue, so the picture's all skewed on a 16:9 TV
and she thinks it looks normal. Switch it on Sky and she complains
because it's out of sync with the kitchen. This will be the same even
if the analogue signal is turned off and a Freeview box is added to
the kitchen TV. In fact, for her, that'll just make it worse.

or an RGB connection from source
to display, the subtlety of a picture with a bit more fine detail on
some programmes will probably pass most of them by.

I don't think it's as difficult to get HD-ready displays and HD set-top
boxes to work correctly with each other as you're making out.

Try explaining 21-pin SCART leads to relatives and see what response
you get. One of mine looked at me and said I may as well have been
talking Japanese, when it was a basic explanation on connecting one
up.

Even if some do care, they'll probably just assume that "HD-ready"
means what it says,

Ah, right, yeah, that must be it - even those that claim to care are either
too stupid to do things right or they don't really care after all.

I've told you this already. Joe Punter thinks "HD-Ready" will make non-
HD stuff into HD, like he thought a widescreen TV made all the
programmes widescreen.

and will be unaware that the physical pixel
structure of the display device has to match the electronic pixel
structure of the signal fed to it for best results, and that it can't
be right for all sources.

How on earth would you expect people who're laymen to understand this? How
good is your understanding of, say, brain surgery?

You've answered your own question about laymen and just proved his
point in the process. Well done, DAB(!)

In article , DAB sounds worse than FM
wrote:
It's not "some people" that use the wrong aspect ratio, or any other
picture adjustment you care to name. In my experience it really does
seem to be most of them.

Nonsense.

How do you know what my experience has led me to observe?

Whatever the reason, I have seen with my own eyes many TV sets in many
different situations, and it is quite rare to find one that is
correctly set up.

Define "correctly set up". If you mean "perfectly set up as a broadcast*
engineer would set it up" then yeah, you will be right. But if you mean "it*
is using the wrong aspect ratio" then it is pure ******** to suggest that it*
is rare for people to be using the correct aspect ratio.

I just mean brightness set so that black is displayed as black, not crushed
below black and not grey, and contrast is not so over-driven as to crush white
detail (or cause defocusing if it's a CRT), colour saturation is set to make
face tones look natural (if you can find a programme that's been shot to look
natural these days), and whatever shape it is, the complete picture is shown
without cropping and with the correct aspect ratio. That's not what I'd call a
complete engineering lineup, just basic adjustment of the main front panel
controls, and I don't see it very often on other people's TV sets.

Also, it's quite common to see a modern TV set with
SCART inputs being fed with composite signals, or RF through the
aerial socket, from devices that have RGB outputs available, simply
because that is the only arrangement that allows armchair selection
of sources without buying more equipment or cables.

None of the above imply that the people that do this don't care about*
picture quality, it just means that they don't understand how to do things*
as you or I would and they want things to be as easy as possible, which is*
perfectly natural.

Yes, it could just mean that they don't know how to connect and/or adjust
things correctly. I thought I'd said, or at least implied this.

Rod.