BBC HD critised in The Independent

Alan White wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:41:25 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I doubt they are going to change

But it was her article that upset so many people in the first place!!!

Indeed, but it is the closing paragraph of her blog posted last Friday
(Dec 11th) that has caused the most recent set of fireworks (and rightly
so):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...e_quality.html

On 14 Dec, 21:24, Andy Champ wrote:

Mike you may want to look at test signals on the actual screen as
broadcasts are usually 720 not 1080

They're not you know - all the UK-aimed HD broadcasts are 1080.

Cheers,
David.

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:05:08 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Indeed, but it is the closing paragraph of her blog posted last Friday
(Dec 11th) that has caused the most recent set of fireworks (and rightly
so):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...e_quality.html

Thanks, Mark, for that.

What a disgraceful shambles.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...


It is plain that HD is going the same way as SD.

We desperately need a regulator with teeth who will uncompromisingly
set meaningful standards of minimum quality for UK broadcasting.


What comes to my mind is radio with the BBC DAB system with its CD quality!

A shame that the EU do not force us to be the same quality as Europe, E.G..
the German HD TV that I have moved my dish to this morning to have a look.

Regards
David

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:37:10 -0000, "Chas Gill"
wrote:


"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:05:22 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:52:02 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

Remeber the 'millenium bug'? A good example of the lack of
basic common sense in those that rule that they could be conned into
spending billions of public money on something that, had they an ounce
of common sense, they should know wasn't going to happen, but hey,
they do know how to get their cut.

There may have been some people with the snouts in the trough, but the
Y2K problems in computer software and hardware were real.

Tosh! The only way that all the ails predicted to befall modern life
due to Y2K would have been resolved would be if programmers were
perfect. Apart from minor issues, that otherwise would have been lost
in day to day noise, nothing happened!

Well, they crucified the last guy that claimed he was perfect - and I
have neither met a perfect programmer nor seen any nailed to trees,
though most of those employed by the 'M' & 'A' companies, amongst
others, probably deserve to be!

Y2K was over-hyped from beginning to end, just like the "Commie" threat
before it and the "hot" threat today.

There certainly was some over-hyping. However, no knowledgeable person
ever claimed that a single Y2K problem in one piece of software on one
computer somewhere would cause the downfall of civilisation as we know
it. The impact of individual problems would vary. The major concern was
with the combined effect of a large number of individual problems
occurring at the same time. In about 1998 I gave an analogy: "A few
drops of rain will make you wet. A very large number of raindrops can
cause a devastating flood."

It took hundreds of thousands of programmers working over a period of
many months to perform a detailed search through the inside of every
piece of software looking for date-handling problems and fixing them.

Some date-handling problems did slip through the net and were fixed in
the first few days of 2000.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

I was involved with some of this stuff and the main reason it passed with
a whimper in our organisation - and I suspect many others - is because of
good corporate planning and execution of work to make sure it didn't.
There were those that said it was just a huge gravy train for the coders
and consultants but in truth the fact that the Y2K incident was a
non-event is testament to the good work that was done by the software
industry to make it so.

Chas

Having just re-read what I wrote yesterday I see that it didn't quite convey
what I meant(!). It DID, of course, pass with a whimper and DIDN'T turn out
to be the disaster everyone feared......... :-)

I seen quite a bit of code where the Y2K problem was not properly
fixed but just changed to push the problem into the future for someone
else to solve.

For example:
If year 79 then assume the date is 20xx
otherwise assume it is 19xx.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:50:14 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

I haven't bothered to read any of her other blogs, now I know why. I
would judge from this that she rose to her current position through
marketing or some other non-technical stream, and knows nothing at a
technical level. The enitre blog is marketing bull**** from start to
finish.

"No HD channel as a general rule will offer the same quality as
bluray, any more than standard definition television offers the same
quality as DVDs."

No, simply because the broadcasters throw away most of the information
that was originally captured by the camera. We have calculated here
that only about 1-3% of SD and 1% of HD data captured by the cameras
ever arrives at our TVs.

There is no reason in principle why we couldn't have near-DVD quality
SD just by ditching all the surplus channels that few people watch and
concentrating on quality rather quantity. Broadcasters themselves
would benefit, because they could concentrate their resources on
making fewer, better programmes. That is, assuming there is actually
anyone left who knows how to do so.

It is plain that HD is going the same way as SD.

I'm amused by the ads for Sky HD channels that are shown on Sky News on
Freeview. These demonstrate "HD quality" on the SD channel. It seems
bizarre but the pictures *are* of higher quality and clarity than normal
SD material. There is detail in the ads, but not too much. There is
movement, but it is slow-motion. The pictures seem to have been very
carefully constructed so that all the necessary detail and motion is
within the capacity of the SD bit-rate used.

We desperately need a regulator with teeth who will uncompromisingly
set meaningful standards of minimum quality for UK broadcasting.

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:05:08 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...e_quality.html

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:09:42 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:37:10 -0000, "Chas Gill"
wrote:


"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:05:22 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:52:02 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

Remeber the 'millenium bug'? A good example of the lack of
basic common sense in those that rule that they could be conned into
spending billions of public money on something that, had they an ounce
of common sense, they should know wasn't going to happen, but hey,
they do know how to get their cut.

There may have been some people with the snouts in the trough, but the
Y2K problems in computer software and hardware were real.

Tosh! The only way that all the ails predicted to befall modern life
due to Y2K would have been resolved would be if programmers were
perfect. Apart from minor issues, that otherwise would have been lost
in day to day noise, nothing happened!

Well, they crucified the last guy that claimed he was perfect - and I
have neither met a perfect programmer nor seen any nailed to trees,
though most of those employed by the 'M' & 'A' companies, amongst
others, probably deserve to be!

Y2K was over-hyped from beginning to end, just like the "Commie" threat
before it and the "hot" threat today.

There certainly was some over-hyping. However, no knowledgeable person
ever claimed that a single Y2K problem in one piece of software on one
computer somewhere would cause the downfall of civilisation as we know
it. The impact of individual problems would vary. The major concern was
with the combined effect of a large number of individual problems
occurring at the same time. In about 1998 I gave an analogy: "A few
drops of rain will make you wet. A very large number of raindrops can
cause a devastating flood."

It took hundreds of thousands of programmers working over a period of
many months to perform a detailed search through the inside of every
piece of software looking for date-handling problems and fixing them.

Some date-handling problems did slip through the net and were fixed in
the first few days of 2000.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

I was involved with some of this stuff and the main reason it passed with
a whimper in our organisation - and I suspect many others - is because of
good corporate planning and execution of work to make sure it didn't.
There were those that said it was just a huge gravy train for the coders
and consultants but in truth the fact that the Y2K incident was a
non-event is testament to the good work that was done by the software
industry to make it so.

Chas

Having just re-read what I wrote yesterday I see that it didn't quite convey
what I meant(!). It DID, of course, pass with a whimper and DIDN'T turn out
to be the disaster everyone feared......... :-)

I seen quite a bit of code where the Y2K problem was not properly
fixed but just changed to push the problem into the future for someone
else to solve.

For example:
If year 79 then assume the date is 20xx
otherwise assume it is 19xx.

That technique was used as a quick fix in, I think, MS Excel. I assume a
longer term fix has been made in later releases.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Alan White wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:41:25 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I doubt they are going to change

But it was her article that upset so many people in the first place!!!

Indeed, but it is the closing paragraph of her blog posted last Friday
(Dec 11th) that has caused the most recent set of fireworks (and rightly
so):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...re_quality.htm


I have just been demonstrating the virtues of my cheap and cheerful Bush
HDTV receiver to a couple of friends who are interested in buying one and
they immediately noticed the improvement in picture quality when switching
from the BBC's demo channel over to Luxe TV HD , although having said that
I'm now looking at a program with the title of 'OOglies' on BBC HD which
looks a really good, on the 'bright' scenes..

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , John Legon
wrote:

For 20/20 vision (resolution of one arc minute) I get the following
diagonal screen sizes in inches, per metre of viewing distance:

1280 x 720 -- 17 inches/metre

1366 x 768 -- 18 " "

1920 x 1080 -- 25 " "

So for a 720 line screen at a distance 4 metres, the diagonal would
indeed be 68 inches as you said...

Is that the visible diagonal or the manufacturer's quoted diagonal?

It's the theoretically calculated visible diagonal.

Also
17,18,25 are suspiciously round numbers - any chance of some more decimal
places please? :-) ta!

The numbers I wrote down are 16.82" , 17.95" , and 25.23"

At the moment for a viewing distance of 3m and a 1080 panel it's tell me
what... I should get a 75" panel to be able to see all of the picture?
That would look ridiculous in my rabbit hutch lounge, surely that
calculation is wrong somewhere...

Essentially (as I see it) if you have 20/20 vision and want to be able to
resolve or appreciate all the detail in a 1080 panel viewed at a distance of
3 metres, then the panel diagonal would have to measure 75 inches. If on
the other hand, you have a 32 inch panel with 1080 lines, you would need
to be sitting only about 1.3 metres away to be at the limit of pixel
visibility.

It seems to me that if the 32 inch panel was to be viewed at a distance of
say 2.6 metres, it might just as well have only 540 lines because your
eyesight wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
....

wrote:
On 14 Dec, 21:24, Andy Champ wrote:

Mike you may want to look at test signals on the actual screen as
broadcasts are usually 720 not 1080

They're not you know - all the UK-aimed HD broadcasts are 1080.



I'm surprised. I don't often see HD - and TBH it doesn't look like it.
But isn't that where we started?

Andy