The craft of making Being Human and Later With Jools Holland in High Definition TV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Quote



"HD can give you five times more detail in your television picture."



Oh dear Danielle you have done it again. I think that comes of believing your own properganda.



An SD picture is 720x576 = 414720 pixels. The BBC HD picture is 1440x1080 = 1555200 pixels. That means the BBC HD picture is only 3.75 times more detail than SD. Most HD channels including some ITV HD channels transmit 1920x1080 pixels giving 5 times the picture detail.



I have not taken into account the extreamly low bit rates the BBC use which reduces the definition even further. In short the BBC HD channel is not HD. I notice that the BBC does not make this claim on any outside advertising as the Advertising Standards Authority would come down on it like a ton of bricks.



@derek500



I don't think BARB takes into account PVR viewing either. The BBC HD channel has always had very low viewing figures. One reason is that a simulcast channel is not available yet. It is not easy to keep track of which programs are available in HD. The poor picture quality on BBC HD also means that it is not worth the effort to turn over. BBC 1 HD will help but with 42 HD channels available in the UK they have got alot of competition.

It seems rather strange that the BBC is trying to promote Surround Sound when in fact most of thier home produced programes are in stereo.



Freeview HD viewers should also be warned that the surround signal transmitted by the BBC is not compatable with most Surround Sound systems in use today. Freeview HD does not use Dolby but uses AAC and so you will need to get an amplifier compatable with AAC.

2. trevorjharrris i have to completely disagree with you . If you cant see the diffrence between BBC and BBC HD you must be blind. Football looks alot better on HD. I recently watched the 'life' series on HD and it looks excellent , far better than standard definition.

@biily



Some programs are better than others. Garrows Law and Ashes to Ashes are examples of some programes which were not distinguishable.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@trevorjharris.



The 'overnights', published the next day include 'same day' PVR. The officials, which I quoted above include seven day PVR viewing.



But surely, most watch football live?

I always thought there was a difference between 'can' and 'does'? Therefore no need to change the sentence.

It looks like TrevorJHarris has a hidden agenda to bring down the BBC. Are Mr. Murdoch in disguise?



It find it hilarious that you state the BBC does not do HD on it's BBC HD channel and then go on to praise ITV, when ITV broadcasts more SD content on ITV HD than anyother HD channel in the whole of the UK.



Forget it Murdoch! You are not allowed to buy into ITV because we don't want you to and your precious Sky is going to continue to lose customers! Deal with it already!



BBC HD ROCKS!

To The Realist, if "TrevorJHarris has a hidden agenda to bring down the BBC" has this agenda as you say, dont you ask why FionaWickham (TV blog editor)is asking users who want to "discuss the tech side of picture, quality, please post your comments on the BBC Internet blog"?

For all i know all the TV stations are not giving us the deal they are claiming to provide. Consumers should be wary and hold fort with any investment on new HD subscription. We should wait till the the dust settles so we know when we are getting real value for our money. For sure, watching a blue-ray movie is much clearer than any HD station out there, of which the picture quality is meant to be at par when watching HD content.

I would be much more dissapponinted with the BBC providing false content than ITV given than we are mandated to pay subscription to the BBC via TV licence

@realist



No my name is not Murdoch. Actually Murdoch only has a 39% ownership of Sky although he is now trying to buy the rest. Sky is in fact growing at very fast rate mainly due to its HD offerings.



If you look at the BBC HD scheduals you will find that most of the programs are repeats. I have had HD for 3 years so BBC HD is getting to be a bit boring. The situation is rather different at the moment with the World Cup and Wimbledon which BBC get on the cheap under the protected rights scheme.



My agenda is not to bring the BBC down but for them to return to quality both technically and in terms of programs. The BBC now spreads its money too wide and needs to invest much more in HD. HD is the future of television and the BBC is not investing enough in it.



@fionawickham



I do understand why the BBC wants to direct the quality issue away from its mainstream blogs. The issue here is that Danielle made a specific claim in her blog that BBC HD has up to 5 times the detail, a statement which is clearly not true. The claim is also made on the BBC web site but the Advertising Standards Authority tell me it is not in their power to do anything about it.

The compulsive complainers are straight in with their negative and condescending tone (#2 trevorjharris "Oh dear Danielle you have done it again."). For anyone new to HD, ignore these people. They are a very tiny and irritating minority stuck in an obsessive grove.



The behind the scenes glimpses offered here are just the kind of topic I'd like to see, although I'm not sure about the presenting style but that's just my taste.



BBC HD is brilliant and getting better as the technology and all related expertise matures. Despite detractors it is a very popular HD channel with millions quietly enjoying what it offers.

@trevorjharris



Read the post again. Nowhere does she state that BBC HD can give you 5 times the quality of an SD broadcast. HD - yes, BBC HD - no.

All this is relative, waffling on about resolution of this, that and the other is meaningless. Most people don't care and most don't understand the technology. Different televisions of all sizes, shapes and technologies will give you a different experience in any event. I've had HD since day one and it's well worth it, watch it for long enough and SD is unacceptably poor on many channels as your eyes adjust to simply a better quality picture. BBC HD is excellent and again well worth 'switching channel' to experience. Buy a BluRay player, buy Blue Planet or Life and I challenge anyone to not be stunned by what they see.



@trevor



Your claims are not only inaccurate but based on an article you've probably googled so you can copy and paste in this discussion to look well informed.

@trevorjharris



It says HD not BBC HD, calm down. Are you angry?

@trevor....I would like to go that step further than Alsidair did...the open paragraph reads:



"As any of you who has bought a High Definition (HD) television - or just read the claims about them - will know, HD can give you five times more detail in your television picture"



I am sure reading that says the HD 'can' give you not does! And yes it says HD not BBC. Having watched HD (on most of the Sky presented channels) I can't believe that anyone can possible ocmplain about the quality! The worst is when watching some old programs that have been 'converted' to HD. Even this upscaling still looks better than SD.



All of this is really irrelevant anyway as the blog has to do with those people having to change their working practices to cope with the change in definition. I think that they do an amazing job (I would love to have that level of skill) and have adapted incredibly quickly to new technologies.



Stop moaning about things that don't need moaning at and try to look at the bright side of things, no wonder this country is in danger of going to pot!

Just the one comment. Change the presenter/format for any future snippets. Whoever he is he's ruddy awful.

For those arguing against the analysis trevorjharris provided us with in post #2, just ask yourself whether Danielle as head of the BBC HD channel would be referring to anything other than her own channel, particularly as the BBC has a policy of not commenting on other channels.



#13ChrisK

Why should anyone with a different viewpoint to yours be classed as a compulsive complainer? (That is a rhetorical question so any reply will not be responded to.) Your false assumptions about peoples motives were exposed on the picture_quality_on_bbc_hd blog and yet you continue to perpetuate them.

#19 burnlea, I go by the evidence of OTT posts on many of these blogs which are for all to see. If the cap fits...

@13 "BBC HD is brilliant and getting better as the technology and all related expertise matures. Despite detractors it is a very popular HD channel with millions quietly enjoying what it offers."



My OP was questioning the very low viewing figures (according to BARB) that BBC HD is getting compared to the number of people who can actually receive it.



Even with the World Cup it's only reaching about a third of its potential audience. I just wondered why.



My post was deemed to have broken house rules and removed!!

<RICHPOST><p>poster <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/06/the-craft-of-making-being-human.shtml#P97528407">#13</a> advises:<br><i>The compulsive complainers are straight in ... For anyone new to HD, ignore these people. They are a very tiny and irritating minority stuck in an obsessive grove. </i></p>For those who do not know the background here may I point you in the direction of <a href="https://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCHDPQ/#detail">Downing Street</a> where <b>2,385</b> of said <em>'irritating minority'</em> signed a petition calling for <em><strong>'the BBC to meet EBU broadcasting standards'</strong></em><BR /><BR />Some more background on the subject of this blog, i.e. <i>'The craft of making High Definition TV'</i> in relation to BBC HD can be found here:<BR />https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-criticised-over-hd-picture-quality-1837376.html<BR /><BR />With regard to what poster #13 refers to as <i>'condescending tone'</i> have a read of this informative article and pay particular attention to the final two paragraphs:<BR />https://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49304233,00.htm<BR /><BR />Thankfully, the BBC have not, totally, 'ignored these people' and it would appear some of the improvements we are now seeing, with "more to come" promised, are at least in part due to the <i>'minority stuck in an obsessive grove'</i>:<BR />https://www.pocket-lint.com/news/33814/bbc-improves-its-hd-broadcasts<BR /></RICHPOST>

trevorjharris that's nothing i once herd a sales person in richer sounds tell a customer that BluRay was 20x the quality of DVD!



Making props for HD must be tricky I remember seeing props from the Star Trek the Next Generation in real life and they looked like painted pieces of ply wood! I am Currently re watching the New Battle star Galatica on BluRay and I remember being impressed seeing a character who was made up to look fat, in hi def I looks like some has used plaster as make up! Prop and make up people must of really upped there game.

I would suggest those who label constructive criticism as compulsive complaining read the following article.



https://whathifi.com/News/BBC-confirms-use-of-variable-bit-rate-encoding-on-HD-channel/



particularly the first paragraph which I quote:



"The BBC has confirmed that, following criticism of worsening picture quality on its HD channel, it has switched to variable bit-rate encoding.".

Geting back to the point made by Danielle in her post. I don't think that the move to HD is that difficult for set designers, and makeup artists etc. The film industry has been working to HD standards since the 1930's and so the problems are well sorted in the industry. The same applies to surround sound.



With respect to the videos please can we have some clips designed for audiences with an IQ greater than zero. The first clip seemed to be more interested in what the make up tasted like. What has that got to do with HD. The same with the surround sound clip which was not very informative. There are alot of viewers who don't have a surround sound system and would value some informative input.



Again Danielle said:



"Most of us don't watch standard definition TV and notice the absence of all that detail"



Not realy true. As screen sizes have increased the lack of detail in SD broadcasts has become very obvious. It is screen size that has driven the move to HD and as they continue to increase we will move to ultra HD.

#22 and #24. The incremental improvements were always promised as part of the introduction of new technology and these issues have been discussed in great detail elsewhere. It was nothing to do with the group of complainers.



My points:



1. This blog is about recognising the behind the scenes expertise in HD programme production so why bang on about something addressed extensively elsewhere?



2. trevorjharris and burnlea - you should re-read Danielle's opening sentence "..who has bought a High Definition (HD) television.. " and makes no claims about BBC HD, so why twist it and claim it to be a false statement?



3. My initial response was triggered by trevorjharris's "Oh dear Danielle you have done it again" which is disparaging, unpleasant and because it is repeated behaviour from some (not all) of the complainers, it is obsessional.

Something to look forward too when we finally get HD on the Hannington transmitter in 2012.



Until then I'll just have to make do with blu-ray movies and imagining what BBC HD can do for me.

Interesting - the comments mainly I mean. I can't get BBC HD as I live in the US (ex-pat please, no sarcastic comments....). Despite HD being mainstream - and now free - in the US, the Beeb has yet to officially launch its HD channel.



Here's what I've learned from the land of bigger-is-better. My apologies if I'm preaching to the choir and stating the obvious:

- most people now have an HD TV

- critical mass for an HD TV is about 32". Below that you're not going to notice a significant improvement.

- the average TV size here is probably 42-46" and in many cases (mine) is bigger still. At that size, SD looks crap (take heed SD only BBC America).

- the description "HD" is open to interpretation. Some cable/satellite operators run at 480p some at 720i. In contrast a Blu Ray will run at 1080p.

- You notice the difference stepping up to HD TV and you will again notice another improvement to Blu Ray. Surprisingly, Sports is where you notice it the most.



So come on Aunty Beeb, get your finger out. If the set designers and make up artists are going to all this trouble - do them proud.....

@ 24



Again I wouldn't take that first paragraph you quoted as meaning 'because' of criticism...

@3 - Just to clarify your statement, FreeSAT BBC HD does transmit in Dolby Digital. ITV HD use PCM (which is arguably better).

@30



BBC HD transmit in Dolby Digital as does ITV1 HD (London, Meridian and 'red button'regions). Granada, Central and STV HD are PCM.



How can PCM be better than DD (especially when it's 5.1).

@31 I'm referring to DSAT not DTT.

#24 burnlea and #22 jTemplar



The articles you link to may give some background ("...howls of protest from some viewers" - their words not mine) but prove nothing. They are simply hungry news media creating a story from a controversy and not written authoritatively. Whereas the BBC conducted industry standard viewing tests and Which? expert viewers found "...no significant loss in picture quality."



For anyone new to BBC HD I recommend that you relax back in your seats at a recommended distance for screen size, take in the whole HD experience with all the expertise and skills described by Danielle above. If you search closely enough you may see imperfections which are present in any broadcast picture but their impact is largely subjective. You'll probably find yourself in the 99.99% of BBC HD viewers who have no complaint. And the other 0.01%? They started a campaign and got some publicity.



Returning to your theme, Danielle, are you able to tell us approximately the extra costs of making HD programmes compared with SD? The additional care with sets, costumes, make-up, lighting and the recording and post-production must have a financial overhead.

BARB's panel is in 5,000 homes. There are roughly 26m homes in the UK, so in effect each BARB home represents about 5,000 homes.



So therefore can we assume that if only one person is watching a programme in all the BARB homes, that programme will roughly get a 5,000 rating?



Look at Graham Norton's unbelievable ratings on BBC HD.



June 7 - 13,000 (= 3 BARB viewers)



May 31 - 4,000 (= 1 BARB viewer)



May 24 - 2,000 ???



May 17 - 9,000 (= 2 BARB viewers)



How can BARB register a 2,000 rating?



It's interesting that June 7th's audience was 6.5 the size of May 24th's!!



Yet the SD figures were 2.471m for June 7 and 2.279m for May 23, roughly the same.



Surely this demonstrates how inaccurate BARB's rating are for small channels.

How much extra does it cost to produce high definition programmes in the 1080p50 format, compared to 1080p25 or 1080/50i? And which programmes have been made in the 1080p50 format so far and if none, why and when will they be made in this format?

I have seen HD and I think it is is over-rated. I will wait until it is available on Freeview in my region.

#35, Daniellenagler, I'm somewhat suprised that you thank ChrisK for his 'support' when it involves determinedly trying to rubbish the viewers' visit to the BBC and subsequent blog, which was of course the BBC's own idea. The blog was put together with a good deal of thought, effort and honesty, and was motivated by a desire to reach some worthwhile conclusions squaring our viewing experience with what we saw and were told on the day. As a group we were and are almost universally supporters of the BBC, and I think it's safe to say we saw our role as that of 'critical friend' of the organisation. I think the blog raises serious questions about the BBC's methods for assessing PQ in future; I hope the Trust agrees, but we'll see.



Whatever the outcome, ChrisK consistently tries to dismiss the idea that there was any reduction in PQ at all (presumably apart from the mix/fade issue). We all know this is the BBC's position of course, but many people complaining over the months (I'd guess there must be heading towards 10,000 posts across the various blogs) made numerous attempts in good faith to show and argue otherwise. Further, the observations and conclusions of the blog are not limited to an exclusive focus on bit-rates, though we do argue why bit-rates, encoder software and production issues should not be treated as completely separate aspects of broadcasting. In the face of all this ChrisK simply rehearses basic elements of the BBC's stance. Whichever side of the argument one is on, it is obvious that simply repeating contested statements is not productive. The strangest thing is that he apparently did not see BBC HD before the 9.7 mbps encoders were introduced, and thus is disqualified from having a view based on experience. His motivation for such dogmatic adherence to the official line is thus baffling.



But moreover, his tone has become increasingly objectionable. Now (#33) we have the people who have complained being painted as a tiny and picky minority who were in the end mere publicity seekers. This is a repellent characterisation. I saw a PQ reduction, I thought the BBC were making a mistake in denying it the way they did, and started to suspect in essence that the managers were overruling the engineers for reasons of expediency and that this could be the start of a downward trend. Hence my own version of being a critical friend. I think back over the time I dedicated to learning more about the technicalities of H.264, how to assemble evidence as fairly as possible and about its limitations, writing substantial and I hope mostly well reasoned blog comments drawing on various technical documents and so on, and ChrisK's comments make me feel faintly physically sick. I did consider asking him for an apology but decided I didn't care enough. He will probably respond to this by pointing to the various bits of publicity the campaign did achieve to try once again to use them, and the oversimplifications publicity inevitably entails, to discredit the intent and substance of the complaint. But now I've said my piece, this is it for me on the subject of ChrisK.



I've only written any of this in response to your own post, Danielle, which brings me to the question I wanted to ask: are you sure you want supporters like this? (Yes, this is a rhetorical question.)

#38, HD_fan428, I have to congratulate you on this post. For some time now (2 months) I have been reading ChrisK's comments on these Blogs with increasing bewilderment, biting my tongue in an effort to avoid getting into a slanging match with him/her. As one of my fellow complainers you have very eloquently expressed the sentiments that these posts have aroused in me. I haven't responded to them myself because I believed that the posts were being made from what I understand is called an internet "trolling" stance.



With all the effort that the BBC has gone to explain their position to you and me, I certainly hope that ChrisK is an internet troll and not an endorsed BBC stooge because, if the latter were the case, then such positive PR steps as made by the visit are for me at least, effectively, being nullified by such an approach. I’m afraid though that for me when reading #33 in the light of the subsequent #35 BBC response, it just doesn’t ring true.



#33, ChrisK, if you aren’t a troll or a stooge but simply a genuinely satisfied BBC HD viewer then perhaps my words may seem harsh. But, in that event, I would urge you to look back at some older posts and to read yourself into the (pre-18 Mar 2010) history of this complaint before publicly deriding viewers who have only engaged with the BBC on this issue in attempt to improve the situation for all.



I am willing to concede that the BBC does seem to have listened to its viewers' complaints and to have acted accordingly, to a degree. You, ChrisK, might consider conceding that it's just possible that that "minority" of viewers who've complained may have contributed, albeit in a small way, to a willingness for the BBC to offer an improvement in the viewing experience for the majority.

#35 Daniellenagler



I too am surprised at your support for post #33. Having met you during the viewer's group visit, you didn't seem to me to be a supporter of negativity and unsubstantiated statements.



What is disappointing is that we haven't seen any similar public thanks for the constructive feedback, (supported with examples) from a group of BBC supporters, who became concerned viewers. Concerned viewers that is who were invited by the BBC to visit Television Centre and were prepared to give up their own time and travel at their own expense for the opportunity to engage directly with the BBC. A group of concerned viewers who then publicly thanked yourself, Andy and the rest of the BBC HD team for engaging with us in what appeared to have been a very constructive visit.

"Now the extra costs of making a programme in HD can range from zero to a very small percentage of the total programme cost - well under 5% at its most costly"



If it's relatively cheaper now, why are your shiny floor shows like Strictly and Over the Rainbow, full of SD footage for all but the live parts?



I'm sure your 25% rule was tested with the Dorothy results shows being full of SD footage of the 'dog' stuff and the location shoots from Sydmonton?

Danielle,



While I understand the reason to show the finale of Dr Who in HD instead of Nadal's tennis match, the decision to show Dr Who Confidential instead of live Andy Murray tennis is very disappointing. In the event of live football, there was already a plan NOT to show Dr Who Confidential, and that plan should have been maintained to proritise live sport vs a simulcast with BBC3!



Looking forward to your explanation here...

Danielle,



I note your channel's reach for the latest BARB figures is just just of four million (its highest to date!!).



But that's still less than half the people who have access to BBC HD tuning in during a seven day period.



How can you improve these figures?



Incidentally, in this TV blog there are currently features for Rev, Lennon Naked and Mongrels. All of them mention only the SD channel and fail to mention they're also on BBC HD.

#38, #39 and #40 What sweeping assumptions.



For the record I am a genuinely satisfied BBC HD viewer who started reading these blogs and was appalled at the level of personal insults directed at BBC staff and negativity towards BBC HD at every opportunity. Don't confuse that with not being tolerant of opposing views or constructive criticism. There are those in your campaign who cannot allow any other discussion to take place without having a compulsive bash. And my tone is in direct challenge to those attitudes.



Gentlemen, your campaign loses credibility and respect in my eyes when you wade in to voice support for anyone who is challenged or are complicit in your silence. It seems that you're quite happy to see it dished out but, going by the howls of outrage, cannot take it.



You should spend some of your time and energies policing your extreme supporters and condemn their excesses.

#post 44 ChrisK wrote



'You should spend some of your time and energies policing your extreme supporters and condemn their excesses.'



Pardon?



I'm one of viewers who lead by Paul Geaton have have in a small way attempted to get the BBC HD picture quality retsored to it's former levels of nearly 2 years ago.



Check over my posts by clicking on my name and you'll see no such 'excesses' that you speak of.



For months we hit a stonewall and only by great efforts of our small group and in particular by Paul himself was any headway made towards restoration of that quality.



If you say you are happy with the picture quality of BBC HD that's fine - but myself and many others saw a real reduction in the past year.



The new VBR is helping greatly but even now Wimbledon for instance isn't as good as when I first saw it on BBC HD.



Cheers, daveac

at post 45 daveac wrote:

The new VBR is helping greatly but even now Wimbledon for instance isn't as good as when I first saw it on BBC HD.

@40 burnlea wrote:



What is disappointing is that we haven't seen any similar public thanks for the constructive feedback, (supported with examples) from a group of BBC supporters, who became concerned viewers. Concerned viewers that is who were invited by the BBC to visit Television Centre and were prepared to give up their own time and travel at their own expense for the opportunity to engage directly with the BBC. A group of concerned viewers who then publicly thanked yourself, Andy and the rest of the BBC HD team for engaging with us in what appeared to have been a very constructive visit.



Interesting isn't it, that Danielle and Andy always sieze on any opportunity to thank someone such as ChrisK in the blogs for expressing their support for BBC HD, but AFAIK (and it is difficult to wade through 1000's of posts to be sure) they have never publicly thanked the group who visited the BBC for their efforts in endevouring to help the BBC improve HD PQ.



One can only assume that even though they allowed the visit to take place and the group's blog to be posted, this primarily only happened due to pressure from the BBC Trust, and that from Danielle and Andy's perspective the group still remains a PITA they wish they didn't have to deal with.

#48 Citizen thanks, but I hope I'm not being a PITA for the BBC. I think we're all only trying to be helpful.



#47 Danielle, firstly BTW congrats on the new job (https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/controllers/danielle_nagler.shtml%29 - I'm really looking forward to that 3D HDTV from the Beeb. Re: Your Para 2, don't worry, no offence taken. Thanks for your responses, they are always appreciated. Just one comment on making sure your HD programmes are easy to find. In addition to all your current efforts, a 3-pronged attack is called for I think.



1) All newspaper editors should be persuaded to give BBC HD equal footing with BBC1 and BBC2 in daily listing and weekly TV supplements, as should those for the big TV guide magazines;

2) EVERY programme which is to be simulcast on BBC HD should have that fact mentioned by the continuity announcer just prior to its start on the SD channel; and

3) All SD trailers for programme that will also be shown on BBC HD (either Simulcast or time-shifted) should visually and verbally include time and date of both the SD and HD transmissions.



I think that would cover most bases!



And, as for ChrisK's comment at #44: "You should spend some of your time and energies policing your extreme supporters", well, I rest my case - he's trolling for response so they'll be none from me this time.

Danielle,



Thanks for sharing your explanation of the decision to stay with Doctor Who Confidential on Saturday. However, I'm a little confused - you suggested it would have been awkward to return after missing an hour of the match. On the contrary, Murray's match (clearly the highlight of the day for many British tennis fans) started just as Confidential did, so a quick promo over on BBC2 would have guided viewers back to HD, and would have left the schedule in a similar place to what you'd already planned in the event of live football. Furthermore, the decision to stick with the 'little later' filler show at 7.45 was rather odd. I appreciate 'what's done's done', but please consider these comments in your follow-up reviews with the HD team.



This brings me to another unfortunate conflict that is coming on Saturday afternoon. I doubt I would have much luck in persuading you that the Wimbledon Ladies final should take precedence over the football for HD coverage. However, perhaps you would consider sticking with live tennis until just before kick-off, thereby maximising the amount of live sport, instead of cutting across for pre-match build-up which benefits little from HD? Some nifty cross-promotion across both channels would keep the viewer informed of the plans, and reduce the pain for tennis fans... How about even showing continued 'as-live' coverage of the final right after the football, so that the HD viewer could experience both to the fullest? Providing Gary and co don't mention the tennis score that is!

@49 paul_geaton wrote:



really looking forward to that 3D HDTV from the Beeb.



It looks like you will be waiting a long time...



According to Danielle and Roger Mosey (BBC Director of London 2012) they won't even have a 3D broadcast service in place for the 2012 olmpics.



there won't be a BBC 3D channel by 2012 - but we'd like to offer with partners more opportunities than before for audiences to see some Olympic content in 3D. That may be at a special viewing pavilion run by sponsors or at a big screen or in a cinema - or, at the very least, we can just make sure it's captured for the archive.



This of course ignores the fact that by then there will be tens of thousands of pubs, and possibly millions of home (https://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesnews2010/news20100603-05.html%29 in the UK will have 3D TVs. If the BBC are filming it in 3D, then what a wonderful opportunity for the people the length and breadth of the country to witness in 3D what will be the biggest sporting event in the country's history. I thought the 2012 Olympics was a UK event, not a BBC event.



However, that will be primarily because of Sky's 3D service and Bluray 3D. And you get the impression that hell would have to freeze over before BBC partnered with Sky to use their 3D facilities.



I made some further comments about what I see as a rather selfish attitude of the BBC towards this in my own blog - https://3dtvuk.blogspot.com/2010/06/bbcs-selfish-attitude-towards-3d.html

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#47 Daniellenagler



Thank you for reconsidering the opening comments in your post #35. With hindsight, probably a wise move given some of the posts continuing to appear full of unsubstantiated assumptions and vitriolic comments.

@53 burnlea

some of the posts continuing to appear full of unsubstantiated assumptions and vitriolic comments

___________________________



I find it rather disappointing, but not surprising, the hosts of this blog appear quite content to allow posts where some comments may be considered defamatory or libellous.



I believe posts which are designed to disrupt, provoke, attack and offend others, are meant to be contrary to the House Rules, not to be congratulated and thanked-for.



Additionally should not posts which offer no comment on the blogs subject, i.e. The craft of making HD programmes, be considered to be off-topic for the particular message board?

#54 jTemplar

"Additionally should not posts which offer no comment on the blogs subject, i.e. The craft of making HD programmes, be considered to be off-topic for the particular message board?"



By your own definition some of your posts and those of your colleagues to many of Danielle Nagler's blogs should be removed.



I have full admiration for the crafts, skill and the technologies that go into bringing us BBC HD and my praise is genuine but I criticise the BBC for allowing supporters of a single-note campaign to overwhelm these threads. I feel that voicing opinions about other topics or opposing views has been stifled by a few and that gives these discussions a very distorted bent. For that reason I see no point in further discussion.

I have posted this as a message to the Head of BBC HD as it is her latest blog and there does not seem to be any active blog covering the HD channel.



I was watching the HD Tennis and was aware that the BBC HD channel was going to switch to World Cup Football.



The message: Please be more professional how you handle the switch: While watching on HD Sue Barker cut in and gave the BBC 2 welcome speech, then just a brief announcement from Sue that coverage of Tennis continues on BBC2.



I accept that what takes priority for the one HD channel is a management call and I have to respect the decision made. However this had to be planned a long time ago so why was the live switch so poorly Managed?

<RICHPOST><p>at post <a href="#">55</a> ChrisK wrote:<br><i>I criticise the BBC for allowing supporters of a single-note campaign to overwhelm these threads</i></p><BR />_______________________________<BR /><BR />That <i>single-note campaign</i> would presumably be discussion of the picture quality of the BBC's High Definition TV channel on the BBC High Definition TV blog.<BR /><BR />Presumably you would rather we do what was revealed as the tactic of the author of this blog in a <a href="https://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/downloads/RFI20091332_-_Disclosure_3.pdf">Freedom Of Information</a> request when she wrote in an email about these blogs: <BR /><b><i>"there are plenty of people out there who couldn't care less about the encoder debate and I think we need to bat it very firmly to the right blog space so we can continue other discussions"</i></b><BR /><BR />and where Andy Quested, Principal Technologist, HD, BBC Future Media and Technology replied: <BR /><b><i>"I agree - we managed to move people from other blogs to the PQ blog earlier and I think we should do the same for this"</i></b><BR /><BR />This would also explain the intervention of BBC Staff member FionaWickham at post 9 above who wrote:<BR /><b><i>"To discuss the tech side of picture quality, please post your comments on the BBC Internet blog"</i></b><BR /><BR />It would appear the management at BBC HD are very sensitive about license fee payers daring to discuss the picture quality of their <b>High Definition TV</b> service on the <b>TV</b> blogs and would rather we were <em><strong>'batted into the long grass'</strong></em> of the Internet blogs.<BR /><BR />When we are invited, by the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/controllers/danielle_nagler.shtml">Head of BBC HD &amp; 3D</a>, to discuss the publicly funded British Broadcasting Corporation's High Definition Television service, and in particular the crafts associated with that highly technical and innovative service, I feel we have the right to respond with comments about the technological crafts involved, rather than be limited to discussing the type of plasticine used to create Shaun The Sheep.</RICHPOST>