Excellent article on BBC HD picture quality issue

Well, I really do not understand what is wrong with telling the truth, if
anyone actually knows what it is. I'm sure if it was explained about
bandwidth, the limitations and costs and how they need a lot of commercial
channels to pay for all this digital stuff, the public would understand
perfectly.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 12:59 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:
http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/

I certainly didn't know this bit:

"Strangely, the BBC continues to broadcast high-definition to the rest
of Europe at around 16Mbps in Full HD 1920x1080."

Unbelievable!

Looks like the Beeb have caught up with their own story too...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8415636.stm

What a crock.

I know I have official complained to 3 different parts of the BBC so it
must be me mentioned as the only one.
The rest of you must be telling lies.
LOL
OK I only joking, if not you then Danielle Nagler certainly is.


Nagler's definitely lying. I blame it on her boss though, Simon Nelson,
who happens to be the person who chose to use low bit rates on DAB, and he
lied about DAB's audio quality whenever he appeared on Feedback and other
Radio 4 programmes. So I'd imagine he'll have told her to lie, because
that's what he would do.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

Check that I haven't accused James "pathological liar" Cridland of being
biased towards DAB and biased against Internet radio: Tick Check that I've
deleted all racist and/or homophobic language: Tick Check that there are
no
funeral magazines and/or addresses of senior members of the DAB industry
included: Tick Check that I've observed Sean "My Personal Obsessive
Stalker" Inglis's (Usenet username: seani) "How Steve Must Behave on
Usenet
Rulebook (Totally Inapplicable to Other Users Edition)": Tick

Brian Gaff wrote:
Probably find the monitors they use at the beeb are not HD ones in any case.
You may laugh, but this is the BBC, the same one who sold all the family
silver and got rid of their engineers.

Brian

Never a truer word! For most of my BBC working life we generally had a
few very high quality monitors for picture checking, with lower quality
ones for monitoring. If you suspected a picture related problem you
dropped the source onto a quality monitor.

But then assessing "quality" and fault finding are generally best done
on scopes and measuring equipment. Test signals check vision circuits
far better than pictures. And digital equipment allows built in ones.

Picture or sound faults as experienced by viewers can be seen on any
screen, as can HD quality. After all the viewer will not be using a
many thousand pounds monitor, and it's what the viewer sees that needs
chasing.

Digital Equipment has it's own monitoring software which will raise an
alarm (if set to) to alert any engineer (if any!)of a problem.


Richard

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/

I certainly didn't know this bit:

"Strangely, the BBC continues to broadcast high-definition to the rest of
Europe at around 16Mbps in Full HD 1920x1080."

Unbelievable!


I agree totally, but nontheless one has to assume that the masses of viewer
complaints made on this issue, which are currently clogging up the BBC's forums
and comment sections, are merely a typical example of the brainless masses
instinctively jumping on yet another bandwagon and piling onto an easy target
for cheap kicks.

I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.

Most people wouldn't know high quality if it hit them on the head and then
smacked them in the face. Thus most of the current complainants have probably
never even seen the BBC HD channel, let alone genuinely noticed the dip in
picture quality.

In article , jamie powell
wrote:

Most people wouldn't know high quality if it hit them on the head and
then smacked them in the face.

A colleague of mine, after answering a call during the run up to the "Great
Wavelength Changes" of 1978, said "Jo Public wouldn't know the difference
between a kilohertz and a hard-boiled egg." Nothing seems to have changed
in 30 years. ;-(

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:17:09 -0000, charles
wrote:

In article , jamie powell
wrote:

Most people wouldn't know high quality if it hit them on the head and
then smacked them in the face.

A colleague of mine, after answering a call during the run up to the
"Great
Wavelength Changes" of 1978, said "Jo Public wouldn't know the difference
between a kilohertz and a hard-boiled egg." Nothing seems to have changed
in 30 years. ;-(


You can put salt on a Kilohertz. Hmm yummy!!

The question of HD quality broadcasts would be of more concern to the
general Public if the BBC schedules weren't so full of repeats. There is
no incentive for them to press the remote button to change over from Simon
Cowells publicity channel. Why should they watch a repeat even if it's in
a degraded HD.

--
http://www.madge.tk Madges Links
http://twitter.com/MadgeTwits Yes IKNOW.

On 16/12/2009 8:32 PM, jamie powell wrote:


I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.


Hardly surprising. You were only 4 years old at the time.

--
JohnT

In article ,
jamie powell wrote:
I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels
(watched at the time by a great majority of people on their main TV
sets) switched overnight from having a world-leading picture quality,
to a sub-VHS one.

That adds VHS to things you don't understand.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jamie powell wrote:
I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels
(watched at the time by a great majority of people on their main TV
sets) switched overnight from having a world-leading picture quality,
to a sub-VHS one.

That adds VHS to things you don't understand.

Oh, hi Plowfool. Didn't see you down there.

"JohnT" wrote in message
...
On 16/12/2009 8:32 PM, jamie powell wrote:


I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched
overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.


Hardly surprising. You were only 4 years old at the time.

I was 9.

In article , Paul Heslop wrote:

It was almost a whitewash though - lots of comments about what Danielle
Nagler thought on the matter and precious little about what people were
actually complaining about.


aye, but then they have their own jobs to protect :O)

It has been said that you will never convince somebody that a thing is true
as long as their job depends on it not being true.

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