See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/

Or the original:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/06_june/27/hd.shtml

"This is a big step forward in enabling the introduction of
full HD terrestrial on Freeview by the end of 2009."
>
13 month ago the was little but paper:
""DVB-T2 Call for Technologies.
Responses are requested by 04 June 2007"
>
All the doomsday talk that we have had to listen to
for the past year   :(
>
And now we  have a draft DVB-T2 standard and
working  DVB-T2 electronics - in real tests.
>
Bravo - BBC.
>

Lars  :-)

"Dennis Becker"  wrote in message 
news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/

Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT then 
it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message 
news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message 
> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>
> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT 
> then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.



HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual 
interference.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
 wrote:

>"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message 
>news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message 
>> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>>
>> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT 
>> then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
>
>HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual 
>interference.

What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
symptom of a bigger problem of your own.
-- 
<http://www.robinfaichney.org/>

On 30 Jun, 09:56, Robin Faichney <ro...@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
>
>  wrote:
> >"Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> >news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> >> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message
> >>news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> See report at:http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>
> >> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT
> >> then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
>
> >HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
> >interference.
>
> What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
> on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
> enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
> some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
> one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
> but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
> symptom of a bigger problem of your own.

While I agree the overall viewing experience is better on BBC HD than
on BBC One, the "problem" I have is that it would be even better
without the DOG, I'm forced to pay for it via the license fee, will be
forced to donate spectrum to have it broadcast (if it appears on
terrestrial), and will be forced to listen to complete bullshit
answers if I ever waste my time complaining.

It's interesting that some arguably "high brow" broadcasters in the
USA, while often giving in and having DOGs, have tried very hard to
make them almost invisible. I'm thinking of Discovery HD theater,
where the DOG is quite visible around programme junctions, but DOG
vanishes for much of the rest of the time.

Does the BBC even go that far? Does it heck.

Cheers,
David.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
<robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
> wrote:
>
>>"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message 
>>news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>>>
>>> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT 
>>> then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
>>
>>HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual 
>>interference.
>
>What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
>on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
>enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
>some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
>one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
>but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
>symptom of a bigger problem of your own.

Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
are going I won't be watching anything!

Steve

-- 
EasyNN-plus. Build Neural Networks.  http://www.easynn.com 
SwingNN.     Forecast the Future.    http://www.swingnn.com
Neural Planner Software Ltd          http://www.NPSL1.com

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:32 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
 wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
><robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
>
>>What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
>>on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
>>enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
>>some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
>>one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
>>but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
>>symptom of a bigger problem of your own.
>
>Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
>C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
>are going I won't be watching anything!

The normal response to a feature of the environment that doesn't
change and is of no real significance is to quite quickly become
unaware of it. Of course "significance" is subjective, but I think you
could probably ignore it if you really wanted to. Those who find any
DOG whatsoever to make any channel unwatchable all seem to have
ideological objections. I believe their ideology is all that makes
DOGs significant to them, that without it they'd find the channels
with less obtrusive DOGs such as BBC HD, at least, entirely watchable,
and they'd get a lot more enjoyment from TV. Of course their ideology
might be more important to them than mere TV enjoyment. In fact, it
must be. Good luck to them.
-- 
<http://www.robinfaichney.org/>

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:41 +0100, Robin Faichney
<robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:32 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
> wrote:
>
>>Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>>distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
>>C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
>>are going I won't be watching anything!
>
>The normal response to a feature of the environment that doesn't
>change and is of no real significance is to quite quickly become
>unaware of it. Of course "significance" is subjective, but I think you
>could probably ignore it if you really wanted to. Those who find any
>DOG whatsoever to make any channel unwatchable all seem to have
>ideological objections. I believe their ideology is all that makes
>DOGs significant to them, that without it they'd find the channels
>with less obtrusive DOGs such as BBC HD, at least, entirely watchable,
>and they'd get a lot more enjoyment from TV. Of course their ideology
>might be more important to them than mere TV enjoyment. In fact, it
>must be. Good luck to them.

In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
can't ignore them.

Steve

-- 
EasyNN-plus. Build Neural Networks.  http://www.easynn.com 
SwingNN.     Forecast the Future.    http://www.swingnn.com
Neural Planner Software Ltd          http://www.NPSL1.com

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:22:59 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
 wrote:

>In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
>ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
>view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
>had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
>can't ignore them.

Sorry, I never heard of that before.
-- 
<http://www.robinfaichney.org/>

Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 10:44:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
> <robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> "Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message 
>>> news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> See report at: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>>>> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT 
>>>> then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
>>> HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual 
>>> interference.
>> What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at Wimbledon
>> on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect on my
>> enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I know
>> some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if the BBC3
>> one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention sometimes --
>> but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then IMHO that's just a
>> symptom of a bigger problem of your own.
> 
> Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
> distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
> C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
> are going I won't be watching anything!
> 
> Steve
> 

I bought a film on DVD with a DOG (that used another part of the 
screen within the logo) on it and could only watch about 5 minutes of 
it before handing it to the local second-hand DVD shop in disgust.

Who knows, if it's okay on tv then watch out for the future of DVDs!

Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 14:22:
> In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
> ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
> view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
> had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
> can't ignore them.
> 
> Steve
> 

Funnily enough it's perfectly normal!  Give a person a photograph and 
they'll be looking at the minutae in the background.

It didn't work for the director for the Channel 4 Gimme Shelter series 
logo shoot I assisted on though.  It was a time-lapse affair and had 
to last into the night when the logo was then floodlit onto the side 
of the Royal Opera House.  In semi-darkness I pointed and said "Isn't 
that a carrier bag on the side of the Opera House flapping in the wind 
in full light?"  Everey time I see it, it's as plain as an orange dot 
on a piece of glass, to a pigeon.

Richard Brooks wrote:
> Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 10:44:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
>> <robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:56:54 +0100, "Light of Aria"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>> news:4YSdnboGX6Z5uvjV4p2dnAA@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>>> See report at:
>>>>>> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>>>>> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG
>>>>> SHIT then it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.
>>>> HD with DOG shit is, IMHO, inferior to SD without corporate visual
>>>> interference.
>>> What is wrong with you people? I watched the Murray game at
>>> Wimbledon on BBC HD on Saturday. The DOG had absolutely no effect
>>> on my enjoyment whatsoever, which was greatly enhanced by the HD. I
>>> know some DOGs are more distracting than others -- I'd prefer if
>>> the BBC3 one wasn't animated, because it does catch my attention
>>> sometimes -- but if you have a problem with the BBC HD one, then
>>> IMHO that's just a symptom of a bigger problem of your own.
>>
>> Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>> distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
>> C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
>> are going I won't be watching anything!
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> I bought a film on DVD with a DOG (that used another part of the
> screen within the logo) on it and could only watch about 5 minutes of
> it before handing it to the local second-hand DVD shop in disgust.
>
> Who knows, if it's okay on tv then watch out for the future of DVDs!

You should have returned it to the shop where you bought it as unfit for 
pupose.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:34:04 +0100, Richard Brooks
 wrote:

>Stephen Wolstenholme said the following on 30/06/2008 10:44:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:19 +0100, Robin Faichney
>> <robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>> distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
>> C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
>> are going I won't be watching anything!
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>
>I bought a film on DVD with a DOG (that used another part of the 
>screen within the logo) on it and could only watch about 5 minutes of 
>it before handing it to the local second-hand DVD shop in disgust.
>
>Who knows, if it's okay on tv then watch out for the future of DVDs!

We had a DVD last night that had subtitles in Russian. No matter what
I did I could not get rid of them. It was sent back to the shop for a
refund. 

Steve

-- 
EasyNN-plus. Build Neural Networks.  http://www.easynn.com 
SwingNN.     Forecast the Future.    http://www.swingnn.com
Neural Planner Software Ltd          http://www.NPSL1.com

On 27 Jun., 19:48, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Dennis Becker"  wrote in message
>
> news:g433he$ste$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > See report at:http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/27/bbc_dvbt2_trials/
>
> Who are they trying to fool? If they continue to mark it with DOG SHIT then
> it's not HD and rendered totally unwatchable.

Why do you not pay any respect
to the subject line.  :-(  :-(

Lars :)

In article ,
  wrote:

>On 27 Jun., 19:48, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>[deleted]

>Why do you not pay any respect
>to the subject line.  :-(  :-(

Because he is a fanatic, and his crusade will always seem so important
that other people's arrangements are not worth considering.

-- Richard

-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> 
> We had a DVD last night that had subtitles in Russian. No matter what
> I did I could not get rid of them. It was sent back to the shop for a
> refund. 
> 

If you'd contacted the publisher you might have got a nice prezzy for 
reporting a pirate disc.

Andy

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:26:21 +0100, Andy Champ 
wrote:

>Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> 
>> We had a DVD last night that had subtitles in Russian. No matter what
>> I did I could not get rid of them. It was sent back to the shop for a
>> refund. 
>> 
>
>If you'd contacted the publisher you might have got a nice prezzy for 
>reporting a pirate disc.
>

I suspected that it was a poor copy but it was from Blockbuster. SFAIK
they don't intentionally hire or sell pirated discs.

Steve

-- 
EasyNN-plus. Build Neural Networks.  http://www.easynn.com 
SwingNN.     Forecast the Future.    http://www.swingnn.com
Neural Planner Software Ltd          http://www.NPSL1.com

"Stephen Wolstenholme"  wrote in message 
news:0tmh64p9bsknuteasdne33cal38ri2he19@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:41 +0100, Robin Faichney
> <robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:32 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>>>distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one on
>>>C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way things
>>>are going I won't be watching anything!
>>
>>The normal response to a feature of the environment that doesn't
>>change and is of no real significance is to quite quickly become
>>unaware of it. Of course "significance" is subjective, but I think you
>>could probably ignore it if you really wanted to. Those who find any
>>DOG whatsoever to make any channel unwatchable all seem to have
>>ideological objections. I believe their ideology is all that makes
>>DOGs significant to them, that without it they'd find the channels
>>with less obtrusive DOGs such as BBC HD, at least, entirely watchable,
>>and they'd get a lot more enjoyment from TV. Of course their ideology
>>might be more important to them than mere TV enjoyment. In fact, it
>>must be. Good luck to them.
>
> In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
> ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
> view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
> had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
> can't ignore them.
>
> Steve
>
So in these days of multi-channel TV, you're happy just watching about 6 
channels (BBC1/2, ITV1, Ch4 and Film 4/+1)  ?

Brian W wrote:
> "Stephen Wolstenholme"  wrote in message
> news:0tmh64p9bsknuteasdne33cal38ri2he19@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:41 +0100, Robin Faichney
>> <robin@robinfaichney.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:32 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then there must be something wrong with me. I find any DOG be
>>>> distracted. My eyes constantly drift to a DOG, even the faint one
>>>> on C5. As a result I can't watch any channel with a DOG. The way
>>>> things are going I won't be watching anything!
>>>
>>> The normal response to a feature of the environment that doesn't
>>> change and is of no real significance is to quite quickly become
>>> unaware of it. Of course "significance" is subjective, but I think
>>> you could probably ignore it if you really wanted to. Those who
>>> find any DOG whatsoever to make any channel unwatchable all seem to
>>> have ideological objections. I believe their ideology is all that
>>> makes DOGs significant to them, that without it they'd find the
>>> channels with less obtrusive DOGs such as BBC HD, at least,
>>> entirely watchable, and they'd get a lot more enjoyment from TV. Of
>>> course their ideology might be more important to them than mere TV
>>> enjoyment. In fact, it must be. Good luck to them.
>>
>> In my case it's nothing to with ideological objections. I just can't
>> ignore objects like DOGs. I find any objects in my direct field of
>> view to be distracting. They don't need to be on the screen. I have
>> had the same problem all my life. DOGs are just a new distraction. I
>> can't ignore them.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> So in these days of multi-channel TV, you're happy just watching
> about 6 channels (BBC1/2, ITV1, Ch4 and Film 4/+1)  ?

Many people are happy with just that, it is not nescessarry to watch tv all 
the time.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

In article , Adrian wrote:
> > So in these days of multi-channel TV, you're happy just watching
> > about 6 channels (BBC1/2, ITV1, Ch4 and Film 4/+1)  ?
> 
> Many people are happy with just that, it is not nescessarry to watch tv all 
> the time.

Indeed. Add BBC4, BBC News, DVD rental and the internet and you've got quite a 
reasonable selection. More than enough to occupy more time than is healthy to 
be watching television.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.00000440.025653e5@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Adrian 
> wrote:
>> > So in these days of multi-channel TV, you're happy just watching
>> > about 6 channels (BBC1/2, ITV1, Ch4 and Film 4/+1) ?
>>
>> Many people are happy with just that, it is not nescessarry to watch tv 
>> all
>> the time.
>
> Indeed. Add BBC4, BBC News, DVD rental and the internet and you've got 
> quite a
> reasonable selection. More than enough to occupy more time than is healthy 
> to
> be watching television.
>
> Rod.

BBC4, Sky News, what more do you want?

Bill

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:9JudnYxeCNGiNO7VnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
> message news:VA.00000440.025653e5@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
>> In article , Adrian 
>> wrote:
>>> > So in these days of multi-channel TV, you're happy just watching
>>> > about 6 channels (BBC1/2, ITV1, Ch4 and Film 4/+1) ?
>>>
>>> Many people are happy with just that, it is not nescessarry to watch tv 
>>> all
>>> the time.
>>
>> Indeed. Add BBC4, BBC News, DVD rental and the internet and you've got 
>> quite a
>> reasonable selection. More than enough to occupy more time than is 
>> healthy to
>> be watching television.
>>
>> Rod.
>
> BBC4, Sky News, what more do you want?
>
> Bill
Don't the news channels have on-screen crap, which is what people are 
objecting to?