Thought it was the BBC running Freeview, but who ever it is why they not 
sorting out UK History, and such like, who broadcast with bands at each 
side.   OK so they have only got 4x3 programmes, BUT why bands top and 
bottom as well.
I turn these programmes off.

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

On 26/01/2008 10:52, David wrote:

> Thought it was the BBC running Freeview, 

The BBC are *one* member of the freeview consortium.

> why they not sorting out UK History, and such like

BBC also own 50% of UKTV channels (Virgin Media own the other half)

> OK so they have only got 4x3 programmes, BUT why bands top and 
> bottom as well.

I agree it's not a good idea, but ...

All these channels should have the ability to broadcasting in widescreen 
from 31st Jan, they do now broaddcast more recent material that is 
sourced in 16:9 (e.g. top gear, QI) so that should finally be shown in 
widescreen, hopefully they won't crop the older 4:3 material just to 
make it widescreen and will keep it in 4:3.

"David"  wrote in message 
news:shEmj.4656$HV6.3007@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Thought it was the BBC running Freeview, but who ever it is why they not 
> sorting out UK History, and such like, who broadcast with bands at each 
> side.   OK so they have only got 4x3 programmes, BUT why bands top and 
> bottom as well.
> I turn these programmes off.



until such time as they decide to air them 16:9 - that's why they were made 
with the small bands - for future proofing, stick your tv in 14:9 mode - 
assuming you don't have an awful tv that lacks such a thing.
then you'll lose the bands.


-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

"the dog from that film you saw"  wrote 
in
..., stick your tv in 14:9 mode -
> assuming you don't have an awful tv that lacks such a thing.
> then you'll lose the bands.
>

I do have a very good TV,.
Cost a lot of money, one of   (£1500), not changing it picture still as good 
as the day it was supplied.   Could not replace it with one with as good a 
picture, sorry LCD/Plasma fans, even though money is not the problem.

It is set to auto picture ratio and it switches perfectly between w/s 16x9 
and normal 4x3 on BBC/ITV etc.   So I'm surprised that UK History get away 
with being different.   Any way your 14x9 setting is not being done by it in 
Auto.   I can get what you say by useing the manual zoom features but it 
better to watch a different programme than mess about.

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

> until such time as they decide to air them 16:9 - that's why they were 
> made with the small bands

They are not made that way, dont think anyone makes letterboxed programmes 
now a days - perhaps in the early days of Super 16 film when there seemed to 
be a 15:9 LB variety around, before the full potential of Super 16 film was 
realised together with widescreen transmissions, as far as video goes IIRC 
its always been 4:3 or 16:9 FHA programmes put onto tape - but they are 16:9 
programmes but broadcast in 14:9 LB in a 4:3 screen, in simple terms.

Until they decide to broadcast 16:9 that what they'll look like.

"Dave H" <zen1*0*0*9*8*8@zen.codotuk> wrote in message 
news:479b37e1$0$8426$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> until such time as they decide to air them 16:9 - that's why they were 
>> made with the small bands
>
> They are not made that way, dont think anyone makes letterboxed programmes 
> now a days - perhaps in the early days of Super 16 film when there seemed 
> to be a 15:9 LB variety around, before the full potential of Super 16 film 
> was realised together with widescreen transmissions, as far as video goes 
> IIRC its always been 4:3 or 16:9 FHA programmes put onto tape - but they 
> are 16:9 programmes but broadcast in 14:9 LB in a 4:3 screen, in simple 
> terms.
>
> Until they decide to broadcast 16:9 that what they'll look like.
>



what i meant is, they used to shoot 14:9 and then crop it to 16:9 for 
digital broadcasts and leave it 14:9 on analogue - that was always the 
official bbc excuse too on points of view whenever anyone asked - i'm 
talking about pre digital broadcasts here - the days of analogue satellite 
and terrestrial only.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

In article <fIGmj.33583$a61.1830@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, David
 scribeth thus
>
>"the dog from that film you saw"  wrote 
>in
>..., stick your tv in 14:9 mode -
>> assuming you don't have an awful tv that lacks such a thing.
>> then you'll lose the bands.
>>
>
>I do have a very good TV,.
>Cost a lot of money, one of   (£1500), not changing it picture still as good 
>as the day it was supplied.  

And which set is this then?...


> Could not replace it with one with as good a 
>picture, sorry LCD/Plasma fans, even though money is not the problem.
>

;)..
-- 
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:V4l2QmK3D0mHFw2z@bancom.co.uk...
.
>
> And which set is this then?...
>
>
It is a Panasonic, like to know model number and serial number?

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

"David"  wrote in message 
news:fIGmj.33583$a61.1830@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> I do have a very good TV,.
> Cost a lot of money,

It doesn't always follow.

Bill

the dog from that film you saw wrote:

> 
> 
> what i meant is, they used to shoot 14:9

No, programmes have only ever been shot in 4:3 or anamorphic 16:9 - In 
some cases (Regional news IIRC) 16:9 output originated from a 4:3 camera 
fed through and aspect ratio converter.

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:w4qdnfGKsudnFgbanZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "David"  wrote in message 
> news:fIGmj.33583$a61.1830@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>> I do have a very good TV,.
>> Cost a lot of money,
>
> It doesn't always follow.
>
Very true, but in this one case it was.
Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "Dave H" <zen1*0*0*9*...@zen.codotuk> wrote:

> as far as video goes IIRC
> its always been 4:3 or 16:9 FHA programmes put onto tape - but they are 16:9
> programmes but broadcast in 14:9 LB in a 4:3 screen, in simple terms.
>
> Until they decide to broadcast 16:9 that what they'll look like.

I think if a 4:3 broadcaster buys a programme from the BBC, the
recording on the tape supplied by the BBC is pre-ARC'd into 14:9
letterbox. I've seen BBC programmes being shown in France, Germany and
other places in 14:9, and most EU countries do not use 14:9 at all
(quite right too), so they would never voluntarily ARC 16:9 FHA into
this format.
This probably applies to UKTV's copies too, so all their tapes will
need replacing for 16:9.

"David"  wrote in message 
news:sHMmj.304$Ij1.46@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
> news:w4qdnfGKsudnFgbanZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "David"  wrote in message 
>> news:fIGmj.33583$a61.1830@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>> I do have a very good TV,.
>>> Cost a lot of money,
>>
>> It doesn't always follow.
>>
> Very true, but in this one case it was.
> Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.

That must be getting a bit boring by now. Don't you feel like just snapping, 
"Oh for fuck's sake, why does everyone that comes here go on about the 
picture on the effing telly! Can't you talk about something more 
interesting?"

Or perhaps they introduce the topic in quite a subtle way, so that it 
doesn't irritate you. Maybe they wait until after you've made a cuppa and 
then they say something like, "I was round at our Fred's yesterday and he's 
got a new telly," and then, after a sip of tea, and as a very casual aside, 
"It's almost as good a picture as yours."

Bill

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:26:00 GMT, "David"  wrote:

>Very true, but in this one case it was.
>Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.

How do they know?

-- 
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

"the dog from that film you saw"
 wrote in message
news:600mrdF1odok7U1@mid.individual.net
: : "David"  wrote in message
: : news:shEmj.4656$HV6.3007@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
: : : Thought it was the BBC running Freeview, but who ever
: : : it is why they not sorting out UK History, and such
: : : like, who broadcast with bands at each side.   OK so
: : : they have only got 4x3 programmes, BUT why bands top
: : : and bottom as well.
: : : I turn these programmes off.
: :
: :
: :
: : until such time as they decide to air them 16:9 -
: : that's why they were made with the small bands - for
: : future proofing, stick your tv in 14:9 mode - assuming
: : you don't have an awful tv that lacks such a thing.
: : then you'll lose the bands.

Does it never occur to people that not all TV sets are widescreen..? What 
are those of us that don't wan't/can't afford bloody great 42" devices 
supposed to do..?

Personally I'd be quite happy with my little 14" portable if it weren't 
for losing bits of picture all over the place.


Ivor

On Jan 27, 9:18 am, Alan White  wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:26:00 GMT, "David"  wrote:
> >Very true, but in this one case it was.
> >Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.
>
> How do they know?
>

Also there's no such thing as a "good" picture from SD DVB. It's a
contradiction in terms. :p

In article ,
	jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:18 am, Alan White  wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:26:00 GMT, "David"  wrote:
>> >Very true, but in this one case it was.
>> >Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.
>>
>> How do they know?

> Also there's no such thing as a "good" picture from SD DVB. It's a
> contradiction in terms. :p

Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
15Mbps), it might be.

-- 
Paul Martin

In message , Paul Martin 
 writes
>In article ,
>       jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 9:18 am, Alan White  wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:26:00 GMT, "David"  wrote:
>>> >Very true, but in this one case it was.
>>> >Even now after a few years visitors allways remark on picture quaulity.
>>>
>>> How do they know?
>
>> Also there's no such thing as a "good" picture from SD DVB. It's a
>> contradiction in terms. :p
>
>Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
>15Mbps), it might be.

Dream on .... FWIW, I've seen HD-SDI realtime compressed to 35Mbit 
(HD-XDCAM) and it really is very very good. The chances of getting 
decent bitrates on anything digital in the UK are zero.
-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

On 26 Jan, 20:28, Peter Watson  wrote:
> No, programmes have only ever been shot in 4:3 or anamorphic 16:9 - In
> some cases (Regional news IIRC) 16:9 output originated from a 4:3 camera
> fed through and aspect ratio converter.

Didn't the BBC shoot a few programmes (including This Life) in 14:9
just to see if that ratio would be acceptable to people in the future
when stuff was actually shot in 16:9?

Mike.

>>Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
>>15Mbps), it might be.
>
> Dream on .... FWIW, I've seen HD-SDI realtime compressed to 35Mbit 
> (HD-XDCAM) and it really is very very good. The chances of getting decent 
> bitrates on anything digital in the UK are zero.

Hi Tony :)

I believe that $ky are trying to drop the bit rate of HD to 6MBit !!!!!

So what help is there for SD

Dave

In message <479cd22d$0$13938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Dave H 
<zen1*0*0*9*8*8@zen.codotuk> writes
>>>Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
>>>15Mbps), it might be.
>>
>> Dream on .... FWIW, I've seen HD-SDI realtime compressed to 35Mbit
>> (HD-XDCAM) and it really is very very good. The chances of getting decent
>> bitrates on anything digital in the UK are zero.
>
>Hi Tony :)
>
>I believe that $ky are trying to drop the bit rate of HD to 6MBit !!!!!
>
>So what help is there for SD

None whatsoever - although that 6MBit would at least be MPEG-4. HD in 
the UK is a complete waste of time and effort given crap bitrates ... we 
might as well have stuck with PAL.

We need a catastrophic detonation of one of the Astra birds (taking the 
rest out in the process) for anything to change - lowest common 
denominator and all that.
-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

In article <LUHmj.48231$ov2.12651@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, David
 scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
>news:V4l2QmK3D0mHFw2z@bancom.co.uk...
>.
>>
>> And which set is this then?...
>>
>>
>It is a Panasonic, like to know model number and serial number?
>

Yes please:)...

Well the serial number doesn't matter;!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:ixVrSKLwvNnHFwpe@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <LUHmj.48231$ov2.12651@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, David
>  scribeth thus
>>
>>"tony sayer"  wrote in message
>>news:V4l2QmK3D0mHFw2z@bancom.co.uk...
>>.
>>>
>>> And which set is this then?...
>>>
>>>
>>It is a Panasonic, like to know model number and serial number?
>>
>
> Yes please:)...
>
> Well the serial number doesn't matter;!...
> -- 

TX-32PF10
-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article <wo5nj.83106$KC3.58933@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, David
 scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
>news:ixVrSKLwvNnHFwpe@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <LUHmj.48231$ov2.12651@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, David
>>  scribeth thus
>>>
>>>"tony sayer"  wrote in message
>>>news:V4l2QmK3D0mHFw2z@bancom.co.uk...
>>>.
>>>>
>>>> And which set is this then?...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It is a Panasonic, like to know model number and serial number?
>>>
>>
>> Yes please:)...
>>
>> Well the serial number doesn't matter;!...
>> -- 
>
>TX-32PF10

ok this on analogue or T-DTV or S-DTV?...
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Tony Quinn
 scribeth thus
>In message <479cd22d$0$13938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Dave H 
><zen1*0*0*9*8*8@zen.codotuk> writes
>>>>Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
>>>>15Mbps), it might be.
>>>
>>> Dream on .... FWIW, I've seen HD-SDI realtime compressed to 35Mbit
>>> (HD-XDCAM) and it really is very very good. The chances of getting decent
>>> bitrates on anything digital in the UK are zero.
>>
>>Hi Tony :)
>>
>>I believe that $ky are trying to drop the bit rate of HD to 6MBit !!!!!
>>
>>So what help is there for SD
>
>None whatsoever - although that 6MBit would at least be MPEG-4. HD in 
>the UK is a complete waste of time and effort given crap bitrates ... we 
>might as well have stuck with PAL.

Agreed...

>
>We need a catastrophic detonation of one of the Astra birds (taking the 
>rest out in the process) for anything to change - lowest common 
>denominator and all that.

And agreed..

Whole thing is a cock up;(....
-- 
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:XzDGyTMosOnHFw$9@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <wo5nj.83106$KC3.58933@newsfe6-matter;!...
>>> -- 
>>
>>TX-32PF10
>
> ok this on analogue or T-DTV or S-DTV?...
> -- 

Not read the Subject of this topic?

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

tony sayer wrote:
> In article , Tony Quinn

>> None whatsoever - although that 6MBit would at least be MPEG-4. HD in 
>> the UK is a complete waste of time and effort given crap bitrates ... we 
>> might as well have stuck with PAL.
> 
> Agreed...
> 
>> We need a catastrophic detonation of one of the Astra birds (taking the 
>> rest out in the process) for anything to change - lowest common 
>> denominator and all that.
> 
> And agreed..
> 
> Whole thing is a cock up;(....

Well, more of a stitch up really.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Tony Quinn"  wrote in message 
news:dUFyFRcQrNnHFwsW@tqvideo.co.uk...
> In message <479cd22d$0$13938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Dave H We need a 
> catastrophic detonation of one of the Astra birds (taking the rest out in 
> the process) for anything to change - lowest common denominator and all 
> that.

Unfortunately this have been thought of. The satellites are too far apart.

Bill

"tony sayer"  wrote in message
news:VDuGucMftOnHFwd2@bancom.co.uk...
>
> >
> >We need a catastrophic detonation of one of the Astra birds (taking the
> >rest out in the process) for anything to change - lowest common
> >denominator and all that.
>

Solar flare ? Universal retribution ??

In article <307nj.83143$KC3.20570@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, David
 scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
>news:XzDGyTMosOnHFw$9@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <wo5nj.83106$KC3.58933@newsfe6-matter;!...
>>>> -- 
>>>
>>>TX-32PF10
>>
>> ok this on analogue or T-DTV or S-DTV?...
>> -- 
>
>Not read the Subject of this topic?
>

Yep found that .. wasn't downloaded for some reason!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:49:16 -0000, "Dave H"
<zen1*0*0*9*8*8@zen.codotuk> wrote:

>Hi Tony :)
>
>I believe that $ky are trying to drop the bit rate of HD to 6MBit !!!!!

At the moment it looks like they're giving their channels MORE bitrate
rather than less... so I can't imagine that happening until HD
encoders get a whole lot better.

--

> At the moment it looks like they're giving their channels MORE bitrate
> rather than less... so I can't imagine that happening until HD
> encoders get a whole lot better.

Its true, they want to drop to 6Mb, it causing one or two problems with a 
live studio show we're bidding for :)

Tony Quinn wrote:
[]
>>> Also there's no such thing as a "good" picture from SD DVB. It's a
>>> contradiction in terms. :p
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. If it was run at the full rate of DVB (around
>> 15Mbps), it might be.
>
> Dream on .... FWIW, I've seen HD-SDI realtime compressed to 35Mbit
> (HD-XDCAM) and it really is very very good. The chances of getting
> decent bitrates on anything digital in the UK are zero.

A lot of the time, I'm content with the quality of SD DVB: it's certainly 
capable of good quality when the picture is still, or only a small part of 
it is moving. (At least on the channels I watch - I don't watch the shopping 
ones, which I understand have very low bit rates, and some of the others 
too.) [Not knowing too much of the ins and outs of MPEG etc., I would 
_expect_ it to be a reasonable picture when still.]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298

Essex home for sale, £59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

Ivor Jones wrote:
[]
> Does it never occur to people that not all TV sets are widescreen..?
> What are those of us that don't wan't/can't afford bloody great 42"
> devices supposed to do..?
>
> Personally I'd be quite happy with my little 14" portable if it
> weren't for losing bits of picture all over the place.
[]
Well said that man!!!

Certainly material that was made in 4:3 should be broadcast in 4:3; via DTV 
(terrestrial or satellite), it can be mucked about in the box (or IDTV) as 
much as the viewer wishes, but I can see no justification for throwing away 
any of it.

And to follow on what I think the OP was saying: yes, there do seem to be 
some channels - UKTV History used to be about the worst of those I do watch, 
though I have hardly watched it since they replaced it with Dave on 
FreeView - which consistently get the instructions wrong that are encoded 
into what they broadcast; I find this so on two different setups (PVR with 
4:3 TV, and STB with small widescreen one). It's just Not Good Enough - but 
I don't suppose anything'll ever be done about it. when I say they get it 
wrong, I mean the picture is distorted much of the time, whichever set I'm 
viewing: I've set both receivers to give me undistorted whole images (so on 
the 4:3 it's letterbox when widescreen, and on the wide/short it's pillarbox 
when 4:3), but when the offending channels get it wrong, it's wrong. (And 
this is quite apart from what the programme creators do, when for example 
they have something that has a mix of material; it's almost as if the 
material is forced into one shape regardless.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298

Essex home for sale, £59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

In article <479e468b$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
	J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> And to follow on what I think the OP was saying: yes, there do seem to be 
> some channels - UKTV History used to be about the worst of those I do watch, 
> though I have hardly watched it since they replaced it with Dave on 
> FreeView - which consistently get the instructions wrong that are encoded 

Dave's pictures seem overly soft to me, especially on QI. In fact, the
effect is almost as if their encoder is set to 288 line mode.

-- 
Paul Martin

Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <479e468b$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
> 	J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> And to follow on what I think the OP was saying: yes, there do seem to be 
>> some channels - UKTV History used to be about the worst of those I do watch, 
>> though I have hardly watched it since they replaced it with Dave on 
>> FreeView - which consistently get the instructions wrong that are encoded 
> 
> Dave's pictures seem overly soft to me, especially on QI. In fact, the
> effect is almost as if their encoder is set to 288 line mode.

There was an edition of QI the other night, that looked like it had been 
standards converted to NTSC and back. Considering the channel comes out of the 
same playout centre as bog standard BBC 1 and 2, I really don't know how they 
manage to make almost everything they show look like crap ? I'll be interested 
to see what happens on Friday, when supposedly the channel goes to full blown 
16:9.



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

<snip>

> And to follow on what I think the OP was saying: yes, there do seem
> to be some channels - UKTV History used to be about the worst of
> those I do watch, though I have hardly watched it since they
> replaced it with Dave on FreeView ...

<snip>

UKTV History is still on Freeview (though its hours were reduced). 
Dave is the renamed/relaunched UKTV G2, which took over the UKTV 
Bright Ideas slot. If you can't find UKTV History, perhaps you need to 
rescan.

Both are due to go widescreen on 31 January, though whether they will
treat old 4:3 material correctly remains to be seen.

André Coutanche

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:17:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> I really don't know how they manage to make almost everything they show
> look like crap ?

Perhaps they were taking lessons from ITV(1). Everything they transmit seems
to be soft and fuzzy. It hurts my eyes (let alone my brain) to watch.

On Jan 29, 1:55 pm, Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78>
wrote:

> Perhaps they were taking lessons from ITV(1). Everything they transmit seems
> to be soft and fuzzy. It hurts my eyes (let alone my brain) to watch.

You have a brain?

On Jan 29, 1:55 pm, Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:17:26 +0000, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I really don't know how they manage to make almost everything they show
> > look like crap ?
>
> Perhaps they were taking lessons from ITV(1). Everything they transmit seems
> to be soft and fuzzy. It hurts my eyes (let alone my brain) to watch.

Yes, I've noticed that too [1]. It's only the ads that seem affected.
Looks a bit like 'ringing', which is quite an achievement on an all
digital playout and transmission system, especially as (for my region)
programme and commercial playout are co-sited in the same place.

[1] ITV Thames Valley (South) region

"Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
news:slrnfpssbd.bjt.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
> In article <479e468b$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>,
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> And to follow on what I think the OP was saying: yes, there do seem to be
>> some channels - UKTV History used to be about the worst of those I do 
>> watch,
>> though I have hardly watched it since they replaced it with Dave on
>> FreeView - which consistently get the instructions wrong that are encoded
>
> Dave's pictures seem overly soft to me, especially on QI. In fact, the
> effect is almost as if their encoder is set to 288 line mode.



when i see top of the pops 2 on dave it appears to have had a film effect 
added to it giving an apparent reduction in frame rate - is that a side 
effect of the above?


-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

Mike  wrote:

> On 26 Jan, 20:28, Peter Watson  wrote:
> > No, programmes have only ever been shot in 4:3 or anamorphic 16:9 - In
> > some cases (Regional news IIRC) 16:9 output originated from a 4:3 camera
> > fed through and aspect ratio converter.
> 
> Didn't the BBC shoot a few programmes (including This Life) in 14:9
> just to see if that ratio would be acceptable to people in the future
> when stuff was actually shot in 16:9?

A lot of shows from the mid-nineties from BBC/ITV that were shown in
14L12 on analogue are also shown in 14L12 on stations such as BBC4 when
they are repeated. Would they have chucked the 16F16 tapes away after
ARCing to 14L12?

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article ,
	Mark Carver wrote:
> Paul Martin wrote:

>> Dave's pictures seem overly soft to me, especially on QI. In fact, the
>> effect is almost as if their encoder is set to 288 line mode.

> There was an edition of QI the other night, that looked like it had
> been standards converted to NTSC and back. Considering the channel
> comes out of the same playout centre as bog standard BBC 1 and 2, I
> really don't know how they manage to make almost everything they show
> look like crap ? I'll be interested to see what happens on Friday,
> when supposedly the channel goes to full blown 16:9.

Thursday actually, and it was depressing to see QI and Buzzcocks in
14:9 still. Mock the Week was 16:9, but it was flickervisioned (as it
had been on BBC2). HIGNFY was in 16:9.

-- 
Paul Martin

On 31 Jan, 23:52, Paul Martin  wrote:
> Thursday actually, and it was depressing to see QI and Buzzcocks in
> 14:9 still. Mock the Week was 16:9, but it was flickervisioned (as it
> had been on BBC2). HIGNFY was in 16:9.

And frustratingly for those of us with 4:3 televisions, it was forced
into letterbox, just as C4/E4/More 4 insist on doing. Look, I'm a
luddite with a small, old television, and it's only a crappy panel
show - I *want* a centre cut-out!

wrote in message 
news:ebfdae8d-3e0b-4d14-b4e6-6ee6ba0b9645@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Jan, 23:52, Paul Martin  wrote:
>> Thursday actually, and it was depressing to see QI and Buzzcocks in
>> 14:9 still. Mock the Week was 16:9, but it was flickervisioned (as it
>> had been on BBC2). HIGNFY was in 16:9.
>
> And frustratingly for those of us with 4:3 televisions, it was forced
> into letterbox, just as C4/E4/More 4 insist on doing. Look, I'm a
> luddite with a small, old television, and it's only a crappy panel
> show - I *want* a centre cut-out!

It as been said earlier that UK on Freeview would change on the 31st. Jan. 
well I just checked now and the 4 black bands gone.  What I have at this 
moment on UK History is a picture which is filling the width of my W/S Tv 
but top and bottom of picture is cropped off.  Even the top of thier DOG 
gone!.
So yes a change seems to have happened but they still different to the BBC 
etc. in thier opperation, so I repeat my question, "Freeview no one in 
charge?"

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article ,
	myanalogueworld@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 23:52, Paul Martin  wrote:
>> Thursday actually, and it was depressing to see QI and Buzzcocks in
>> 14:9 still. Mock the Week was 16:9, but it was flickervisioned (as it
>> had been on BBC2). HIGNFY was in 16:9.

> And frustratingly for those of us with 4:3 televisions, it was forced
> into letterbox, just as C4/E4/More 4 insist on doing. Look, I'm a
> luddite with a small, old television, and it's only a crappy panel
> show - I *want* a centre cut-out!

That's a function of your set top box, not the broadcaster.

-- 
Paul Martin

Paul Martin wrote:
> In article ,

>> And frustratingly for those of us with 4:3 televisions, it was forced
>> into letterbox, just as C4/E4/More 4 insist on doing. Look, I'm a
>> luddite with a small, old television, and it's only a crappy panel
>> show - I *want* a centre cut-out!
> 
> That's a function of your set top box, not the broadcaster.

Yes, many DTT receivers will allow you to over-ride the broadcaster's AFD 
defined choice of letterbox, when feeding a 4:3 set. I was presently surprised 
to discover even the bargain-basement Digihome dual tuner PVR, (80 quid from 
Argos) allows 12F12(4:3 CCO), 14L12(14:9 letterbox), and 16L12(16:9 letterbox) 
by simple toggling of a remote control button. Very Nice.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 1 Feb, 20:59, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Yes, many DTT receivers will allow you to over-ride the broadcaster's AFD
> defined choice of letterbox, when feeding a 4:3 set. I was presently surprised
> to discover even the bargain-basement Digihome dual tuner PVR, (80 quid from
> Argos) allows 12F12(4:3 CCO), 14L12(14:9 letterbox), and 16L12(16:9 letterbox)
> by simple toggling of a remote control button. Very Nice.

Ah, I didn't know that. Well, it looks like I'm going to have to get
new digiboxes anyway, as bloody Freeview (if there is such an entity
rather than just a loosely-confederated bunch of disparate parties
with no strategic concept) have decided to "upgrade" Sutton Coldfield
and consequently make both my boxes redundant.
http://www.freeview.co.uk/help/getting-freeview/q24

I'm not best pleased ... and my wife is livid! They tell you to
upgrade and join the digital revolution - and when you do, that'll be
another 50 quid please.

I definitely feel the title of this thread got it right ...  :(

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:22:38 -0800 (PST),
myanalogueworld@googlemail.com wrote:

>Ah, I didn't know that. Well, it looks like I'm going to have to get
>new digiboxes anyway, as bloody Freeview (if there is such an entity
>rather than just a loosely-confederated bunch of disparate parties
>with no strategic concept) have decided to "upgrade" Sutton Coldfield
>and consequently make both my boxes redundant.
>http://www.freeview.co.uk/help/getting-freeview/q24

I wonder what the exact technical detail of that is? How on earth can
an upgrade in just one area cause apparently unsolvable problems with
such a select group of boxes? 

The explanation given on that page, "Unfortunately some older set-top
boxes are not compliant with the standard required for digital
switchover and will no longer work.  These boxes were designed before
the full standard for digital switchover had been worked out.  It is
not possible to upgrade these boxes and a new replacement set-top box
will be needed." seems like bullshit. Those three boxes are relatively
modern 'Freeview' design receivers - there will be tens, maybe
hundreds of different receivers that are "older" than those. 

What exactly is the problem, and why is it only a problem in that one
area?
--

Zero Tolerance wrote:
s that are "older" than those.
> 
> What exactly is the problem, and why is it only a problem in that one
> area?

As I understand it, the NIT table was split at Sutton Coldfield on Jan 15th.
The 'NIT' is a table that a DTT receiver requires when it does a re scan. As 
the DTT platform is at bursting point, the SC trial was to see what the effect 
would be if it has to be permanently split (necessary to add any further 
channels I believe) .

The boxes listed on that website failed. The manufacturers are at fault, 
because the receivers are not fully compliant with UK DVB-T spec.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in
message news:60rpfrF1rrffdU1@mid.individual.net
: : Zero Tolerance wrote:
: : s that are "older" than those.
: : :
: : : What exactly is the problem, and why is it only a
: : : problem in that one area?
: :
: : As I understand it, the NIT table was split at Sutton
: : Coldfield on Jan 15th. The 'NIT' is a table that a DTT
: : receiver requires when it does a re scan. As the DTT
: : platform is at bursting point, the SC trial was to see
: : what the effect would be if it has to be permanently
: : split (necessary to add any further channels I believe)
: : .
: :
: : The boxes listed on that website failed. The
: : manufacturers are at fault, because the receivers are
: : not fully compliant with UK DVB-T spec.

What I'd like to know is why my elderly On-Digital box works fine, but the 
Hauppauge USB stick I bought for the laptop won't receive ITV1..? It 
receives pretty much everything else I want, but not that channel. 
Strange.

Ivor

On 5 Feb, 18:50, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> As I understand it, the NIT table was split at Sutton Coldfield on Jan 15th.
> The 'NIT' is a table that a DTT receiver requires when it does a re scan. As
> the DTT platform is at bursting point, the SC trial was to see what the effect
> would be if it has to be permanently split (necessary to add any further
> channels I believe) .
>
> The boxes listed on that website failed. The manufacturers are at fault,
> because the receivers are not fully compliant with UK DVB-T spec.

So if I my box never did a rescan, it might carry on working - but
losing channels as they are reassigned? Clinging on to faint hope
here ...!