Well, sorry, but I thought she was rubbish. No wonder BBC and HD in such a mess. We have a TV which is Freesat never hardly put BBC HD so you can see we think it little or no better quality than BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4. When we do put it on they have a logo on saying HD so you know it is HD! Also it was said HD coming to Freeview in a way that Joe Public does not know it needs a new box to be bought!
> Well, sorry, but I thought she was rubbish. > No wonder BBC and HD in such a mess. > We have a TV which is Freesat never hardly put BBC HD so you can see we > think it little or no better quality than BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4. > When we do put it on they have a logo on saying HD so you know it is HD! > Also it was said HD coming to Freeview in a way that Joe Public does not > know it needs a new box to be bought!
I was referring to me as being the messenger! It will be interesting to see what the response is to her comments. I wonder if they can squeeze the bitrate a bit more - after all, it won't affect picture quality, will it? ;-)
This was truly pathetic. I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood Warren in 1988(?) and it was superb. The twenty years since then have been a complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests fairly and squarely with this woman, She should go and be replaced by somebody who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something about it.
-- 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
> This was truly pathetic. I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood > Warren > in 1988(?) and it was superb. The twenty years since then have been > a > complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests > fairly > and squarely with this woman,
Actually, I suspect the responsibility doesn't lie with her, it lies with her boss, Simon Nelson, who happens to be the person who chose to use low bit rates for the BBC's radio stations on DAB as well. And he was the person who pulled a similar stunt on Radio 3 on DAB to the one that's happened on the HD channel, because in 2006 (IIRC), when he was the Controller in charge of digital radio, the BBC installed new audio encoders, and then they reduced the bit rate of Radio 3. They tried to justify doing this by saying that "internal listening tests" had shown that the quality was no worse at the lower bit rate with the newer encoders compared to what it was like at the previous higher bit rate with the older encoders. But actually the quality was dreadful, and much worse than beforehand. So there were loads of complaints from Radio 3 listeners, and in the end the BBC backed down and reverted Radio 3 to its original bit rate level.
> She should go and be replaced by somebody > who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something > about it.
I agree with that. I'd imagine she's got a degree in Media Studies...
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
Dumbing down will always result in misleading information. Brian
-- Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please!
> Well, sorry, but I thought she was rubbish. > No wonder BBC and HD in such a mess. > We have a TV which is Freesat never hardly put BBC HD so you can see we > think it little or no better quality than BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4. > When we do put it on they have a logo on saying HD so you know it is HD! > Also it was said HD coming to Freeview in a way that Joe Public does not > know it needs a new box to be bought!
No it won't affect picture quality cos those very clever experts will have improved the technology so much that we wont even have to bother to transmit anything at all!
Brian
-- Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Layman" <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> Well, sorry, but I thought she was rubbish. >> No wonder BBC and HD in such a mess. >> We have a TV which is Freesat never hardly put BBC HD so you can see we >> think it little or no better quality than BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4. >> When we do put it on they have a logo on saying HD so you know it is HD! >> Also it was said HD coming to Freeview in a way that Joe Public does not >> know it needs a new box to be bought!
> I was referring to me as being the messenger! It will be interesting to > see what the response is to her comments. I wonder if they can squeeze the > bitrate a bit more - after all, it won't affect picture quality, will it? > ;-)
PS, why was I reminded of 1960s Blue Peter when I listened to it? Here is one I prepared earlier. Its almost as bad as that Gadget show where they showed you a hd tv telling you to look at how good it was.. over standard res freeview.
Brian
-- Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Layman" <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> Well, sorry, but I thought she was rubbish. >> No wonder BBC and HD in such a mess. >> We have a TV which is Freesat never hardly put BBC HD so you can see we >> think it little or no better quality than BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4. >> When we do put it on they have a logo on saying HD so you know it is HD! >> Also it was said HD coming to Freeview in a way that Joe Public does not >> know it needs a new box to be bought!
> I was referring to me as being the messenger! It will be interesting to > see what the response is to her comments. I wonder if they can squeeze the > bitrate a bit more - after all, it won't affect picture quality, will it? > ;-)
They would never promote any engineer to channel management, it would be far too inconvenient.
Brian
-- Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Alan White" <alan.les...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
> This was truly pathetic. I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood Warren > in 1988(?) and it was superb. The twenty years since then have been a > complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests fairly > and squarely with this woman, She should go and be replaced by somebody > who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something > about it.
> -- > 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
-- Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk 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" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message news:7lp2rfF3cpe53U1@mid.individual.net...
>> This was truly pathetic. I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood Warren >> in 1988(?) and it was superb. The twenty years since then have been a >> complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests fairly >> and squarely with this woman,
> Actually, I suspect the responsibility doesn't lie with her, it lies with > her boss, Simon Nelson, who happens to be the person who chose to use low > bit rates for the BBC's radio stations on DAB as well. And he was the > person who pulled a similar stunt on Radio 3 on DAB to the one that's > happened on the HD channel, because in 2006 (IIRC), when he was the > Controller in charge of digital radio, the BBC installed new audio > encoders, and then they reduced the bit rate of Radio 3. They tried to > justify doing this by saying that "internal listening tests" had shown > that the quality was no worse at the lower bit rate with the newer > encoders compared to what it was like at the previous higher bit rate with > the older encoders. But actually the quality was dreadful, and much worse > than beforehand. So there were loads of complaints from Radio 3 listeners, > and in the end the BBC backed down and reverted Radio 3 to its original > bit rate level.
>> She should go and be replaced by somebody >> who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something >> about it.
> I agree with that. I'd imagine she's got a degree in Media Studies...
> 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
<bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >They would never promote any engineer to channel management, it would be >far too inconvenient.
One of the bigger mistakes the BBC has made in recent years was to abolish the post of Director of Engineering. The post holder had a seat on the BBC Board of Management, had international status and was in a position to ensure that the highest technical standards were maintained and that those standards were internationally recognised and respected.
Things can only get worse.
-- 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
Two viewers letters were read saying that after the bitrate was reduced by 40% the picture quality has drastically deteriorated and the pictures were not recognisable as HD and looked no better than SD and Danielle Nagler says this "there's no evidence that reducing the bitrate has an impact on picture quality or that there's an absolute relationship between bitrate and picture quality". What a downright funking LIE. Apart from the fact that the viewers letters count as evidence, the mathematical model used for MPEG or any other from of destructive compression is proof by itself that there is an impact on picture quality, since unless you change the model itself to a more efficient one, which the BBC's have not done since they are using the exact same decoders and processing settings as before, the only way to reduce the bitrate is to discard more picture information, and doing this has an absolute relationship to picture quality. The lower the average bitrate the lower the average picture quality. This will always be the case with any version of the MPEG sysytem.
MPEG-4 does NOT produce better HD pictures than MPEG-2 and never has done so since it's creation since at the bitrates requited to produce acceptable quality they are essentially exactly the same active code and model. Both codecs require at least 32 mbps to produce HD pictures without noticeable artefacts, (or 8 mbps for SD) and there is essentially no difference between them at this bit rate and practically no difference between them down to 20 mbps. At lower bitrates the picture quality and resolution noticeably degrades with viewing tests showing that MPEG-2 degrades faster than MPEG-4, thus Nagler's LIES are exposed once again.
The bitrates the BBC are using for HD now are almost exactly those needed for decent SD therefore the pictures will always look closer to SD quality on DVD than HD. Anything broadcast at below 20 mbps should be allowed to be classified as HD. That is the only way to stop the BBC marketing programmes which look no better than SD as HD.
Now she's saying that people who notice it the difference quality are hallucinating and that HD is for people who are deaf and blind because she doesn't believe that people with normal hearing and eyesight watching HD can tell the difference.
OH MY FUCK! Now she's saying that she doesn't want HD to have a crisp look to it. She wants it too look blurred and that is the road the BBC is going to go down! WHAT ON FUCK IS THE POINT OF MAKING PROGRAMMES IN HD IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO DELIBERATELY LOOK BLURRED ON THE BBC HD CHANNEL?
Now she's talking ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS. "What HD quality is about, is about more picture information and more picture depth. That can manifest itself in very crisp lines but it can also manifest as a richer more filmic picture." What kind of films has she been watching, 100th generation copies of films from the 1930s? What this psychopathic liar is saying is that BBC HD should be no better than BBC SD, and have DOG SHIT plastered on it to tell you that its HD, because that's the only way viewers will be able to tell the difference since quality wise it will be no different to SD or in some cases worse.
And if its looks CRAP now, what is it going to look like when it comes to Freeview at half the shitty low bitrare they are using now? And SD viewers have had to lose their interactive channels and have their picture quality degraded to pay for this rubbish?
She thinks all HD viewers are complete morons who have no idea what channel they are watching unless it is covered in DOG SHIT and can't even read the captions on their screen which come up when they change channel and can't even remember the decision they made a tenth of a second earlier to switch to a particular channel and what it was.
This ignorant compulsive liar should either be sacked or made to resign. She clearly has no idea of how HD works so how can she maintain any acceptable kind of standard of quality. She's nothing more than a paid apologist, a serial liar, with no commission power to make programmes and getting rid of her and her post of apologist will help reduce the burden on the BBC licence fee payer and pay for the extra bandwidth on satellite needed to broadcast HD programmes in the quality they should be transmitted at.
..was it that good?? The woman is Head of BBC HD and appears to have little clue what *high definition* actually means. "More depth" - ha! Maybe they're going to use smaller lens apertures, maybe she's talking about fewer digital artifacts of compression or maybe she's just a gobshite. HD = "richer more filmic picture". So HD means halving the frame rate?? That's what the BBC has done for years when it wanted that *film* look.
>I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood Warren >in 1988(?) and it was superb.
I saw a Sony demo in Basingstoke in the early 90s and it was of a quality that would, and did, distract passers by. Show the current HD and nobody would bat an eyelid.
>The twenty years since then have been a >complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests fairly >and squarely with this woman, She should go and be replaced by somebody >who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something >about it.
Fat chance! Bean counters and media types have taken over the asylum.
Meantime, let's test some statements against the BBC's values. Let's see now..
- Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.
.."there's no evidence that reducing the bit rate has an impact on picture quality"..apart from the people who have seen it?
- Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
..including the "There is a group of people who.."?
- We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
..in that order?..
HD in its current guise is, IMHO, marketing speak. So, people, go and buy your relatives plenty of HD kit for Christmas..you get "more picture information" and "more depth" than SD. What could be better?
> ..was it that good?? The woman is Head of BBC HD and appears to have > little clue what *high definition* actually means. "More depth" - > ha! > Maybe they're going to use smaller lens apertures, maybe she's > talking > about fewer digital artifacts of compression or maybe she's just a > gobshite.
> HD = "richer more filmic picture". So HD means halving the > frame rate?? That's what the BBC has done for years when it wanted > that *film* look.
>>I first saw HD demonstrated at Kingswood Warren >>in 1988(?) and it was superb.
> I saw a Sony demo in Basingstoke in the early 90s and it was of a > quality that would, and did, distract passers by. Show the current > HD > and nobody would bat an eyelid.
>>The twenty years since then have been a >>complete waste of time and resources and the responsibility rests >>fairly >>and squarely with this woman, She should go and be replaced by >>somebody >>who knows what they're talking about and is prepared to do something >>about it.
> Fat chance! Bean counters and media types have taken over the > asylum.
> Meantime, let's test some statements against the BBC's values. Let's > see now..
> - Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial > and honest.
> .."there's no evidence that reducing the bit rate has an impact on > picture quality"..apart from the people who have seen it?
Absolutely.
> - Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
> ..including the "There is a group of people who.."?
> - We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
> ..in that order?..
When they refer to "quality" they *only* mean the quality of the content - they're not bothered *at all* about the technical quality.
> HD in its current guise is, IMHO, marketing speak. So, people, go > and > buy your relatives plenty of HD kit for Christmas..you get "more > picture information" and "more depth" than SD. What could be better?
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
i liked the bit where the woman claimed that altering the bitrate didnt have any effect on picture quality - in which case why doesn't she turn it down to 2mbit? she tried to give the impression that the only people who cared about the quality were a bit weird.
-- Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand.... http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com you fight better when you have a bear!
> [snip] > The bitrates the BBC are using for HD now are almost exactly those needed > for decent SD therefore the pictures will always look closer to SD quality > on DVD than HD. Anything broadcast at below 20 mbps should be allowed to > be classified as HD. That is the only way to stop the BBC marketing > programmes which look no better than SD as HD.
In your enthusiasm you missed a 'not' out of the sentance beginning Anything... ok. sorry, every reader got what you meant.
> OH MY FUCK! Now she's saying that she doesn't want HD to have a crisp look > to it. She wants it too look blurred and that is the road the BBC is going > to go down! WHAT ON FUCK IS THE POINT OF MAKING PROGRAMMES IN HD IF THEY > ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO DELIBERATELY LOOK BLURRED ON THE BBC HD CHANNEL?
They probably like to call it 'soft'. It sounds a lot better and brings it nearer to what you can get with iPlayer, so the programme will look the same on whatever platform it is viewed. They don't want to get into a situation where one platform becomes widely known as superior quality, or there will be pressure to raise the others and that would have large cost implications for the business.
> [snip] > from the 1930s? What this psychopathic liar is saying is that BBC HD > should be no better than BBC SD, and have DOG SHIT plastered on it to tell > you that its HD, because that's the only way viewers will be able to tell > the difference since quality wise it will be no different to SD or in some > cases worse.
There might be something in that. Newspaper moguls and governments know that by telling the same lies over and over again people eventually come to believe them. There is also some psycho thing about self esteem. Many of those who paid a lot of money for a large HD Tv will assert the picture is better (noticing it says HD on it) rather than believe their own eyes and concede its little better than SD.
But then they didn't buy it for TV, they bought it for the cinema experience of blue ray DVD's.
> This ignorant compulsive liar should either be sacked or made to resign.
You clearly are not a regular listener to the 'feedback' programme on radio4 where various producers and other BBC heads are called to respond to listeners criticisms. Quite often there is substantive criticsm of a programme or content, but when the reponsible person is challenged there is not one word of regret, or even any recognition that there is an issue. Instead there is an assertive view that amounts to 'I've got this job and I'm going to do it my way, I know I'm right, and listeners can like it or lump it'.
Numerous listeners have written to say that the Feedback programme is a pointless exercise, simply a BBC public relations and promo spot.
So i don't think anything is going to be changing at the BBC in terms of broadcasting quality anytime soon.
You think these people limit their gobshittery to just technical matters? Oh well..it's a theory anyway..
>> - We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
>> ..in that order?..
>When they refer to "quality" they *only* mean the quality of the >content - they're not bothered *at all* about the technical quality.
What you say appears to be the reality but that 'BBC Value' is sufficiently vague as to not rule out technical quality too. In particular, it doesn't say '..delivering quality content..'.
Anyway..enough of such wishful thinking and back to unbridled cynicism..
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:03:20 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
<d...@removethisbitbtinternet.com> wrote: >she tried to give the impression that the only people who cared about the >quality were a bit weird.
Aren't they? I know of a guy (from 20 years ago) who refused to watch VHS tapes as the quality wasn't good enough. Didn't upset me - it never claimed to be top quality.
At the end of the day I am entertained by content not technical quality. But, it's when people say I'm receiving high technical quality and I disagree with them that I get pissed off. Would be the same for any product or service I receive though..
>You think these people limit their gobshittery to just technical >matters? Oh well..it's a theory anyway..
>>> - We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
>>> ..in that order?..
>>When they refer to "quality" they *only* mean the quality of the >>content - they're not bothered *at all* about the technical quality.
>What you say appears to be the reality but that 'BBC Value' is >sufficiently vague as to not rule out technical quality too. In >particular, it doesn't say '..delivering quality content..'.
>Anyway..enough of such wishful thinking and back to unbridled >cynicism..
But she didn't go as far as saying "stunning vibrant colours" (or did I miss it?). -- Ian
>> [snip] >> The bitrates the BBC are using for HD now are almost exactly those needed >> for decent SD therefore the pictures will always look closer to SD >> quality >> on DVD than HD. Anything broadcast at below 20 mbps should be allowed to >> be classified as HD. That is the only way to stop the BBC marketing >> programmes which look no better than SD as HD.
> In your enthusiasm you missed a 'not' out of the sentance beginning > Anything...
Yes. Thanks for pointing it out
Anything broadcast at below 20 mbps should not be allowed to be classified as HD.
> ok. sorry, every reader got what you meant.
>> OH MY FUCK! Now she's saying that she doesn't want HD to have a crisp >> look >> to it. She wants it too look blurred and that is the road the BBC is >> going >> to go down! WHAT ON FUCK IS THE POINT OF MAKING PROGRAMMES IN HD IF THEY >> ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO DELIBERATELY LOOK BLURRED ON THE BBC HD CHANNEL?
> They probably like to call it 'soft'. It sounds a lot better and brings > it > nearer to what you can get with iPlayer, so the programme will look the > same > on whatever platform it is viewed. They don't want to get into a > situation
LOL. The so called HD on iPlayer looks no better than SD I've recoded of my USB tuner and what's more it uses 98% of my porcessor power and still it can't play back without stuttering. This is despite the fact that I can play back 1080p movies on Windows Media Player with no stuttering at all and iPlayer is nowhere near 1080 lines.
> where one platform becomes widely known as superior quality, or there will > be pressure to raise the others and that would have large cost > implications > for the business.
>> [snip] >> from the 1930s? What this psychopathic liar is saying is that BBC HD >> should be no better than BBC SD, and have DOG SHIT plastered on it to >> tell >> you that its HD, because that's the only way viewers will be able to tell >> the difference since quality wise it will be no different to SD or in >> some >> cases worse.
> There might be something in that. > Newspaper moguls and governments know that by telling the same lies over > and > over again people eventually come to believe them. There is also some
The people running the BBC think they can brainwash us all.
> psycho thing about self esteem. Many of those who paid a lot of money > for > a large HD Tv will assert the picture is better (noticing it says HD on > it) > rather than believe their own eyes and concede its little better than SD.
> But then they didn't buy it for TV, they bought it for the cinema > experience > of blue ray DVD's.
>> This ignorant compulsive liar should either be sacked or made to resign.
> You clearly are not a regular listener to the 'feedback' programme on > radio4 > where various producers and other BBC heads are called to respond to > listeners criticisms. Quite often there is substantive criticsm of a > programme or content, but when the reponsible person is challenged there > is > not one word of regret, or even any recognition that there is an issue.
Yep. I've heard this from people running newspapers too.
> Instead there is an assertive view that amounts to 'I've got this job and > I'm going to do it my way, I know I'm right, and listeners can like it or > lump it'.
They think they are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's why nearly all the programmes the BBC make are self cantered crap.
> i liked the bit where the woman claimed that altering the bitrate > didnt have any effect on picture quality - in which case why doesn't > she turn it down to 2mbit? > she tried to give the impression that the only people who cared > about the quality were a bit weird.
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
> When they refer to "quality" they *only* mean the quality of the > content - they're not bothered *at all* about the technical quality.
Perhaps it's just me but I'm convinced the content quality of today's TV isn't what it was.
Where's the "Horizon" of which I recall one newspaper reviewer saying "It's all very well if you have a degree in science"? (or Equinox for that matter)
Where's "Tomorrow's World" to get the scientists and engineers of tomorrow interested?
Is Tony Robinson _really_ the modern equivalent of Sir Mortimer Wheeler?
Where's "Monty Python" or "The Two Ronnies"? (no, _not_ "Only gay in the village")
In article <lpadnZw_Uv6ec2rXnZ2dnUVZ8uSdn...@eclipse.net.uk>, Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>She's a fuckin dirty LIAR!
Without regression to the obscenities or the personal abuse, isn't this simply a matter for the Trade's Description Act? Your factual content should provide more than enough evidence for the prosecution...
Who will be called as the "expert witness" though? -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
|
