noggin's posts, page 109

15,946 search results, most recent first

NG
noggin Founding member

Top of the Pops

Whataday posted:
They should go to no extra expense in editing Smithy mentions out of editions.

I personally think it's madness not to transmit programmes made with public money due to a whim of someone sadly no longer with us.


It's unlikely to be a significant extra expense. They will need to comply and PSE check (and remedy any PSE test failures) the archive export in an edit suite, and package up an AS11 DPP delivery file - so there will be little or no marginal costs.
NG
noggin Founding member

BT Sport - Launch of BT Sport Ultimate

thegeek posted:
DVB Cornwall posted:
Live ... understand it's escaped the tvOS store a tad early too.

Given the HD channels are originated as 1080i25, there must be some heavy-duty deinterlacing going in the encoders.


I'd guess so. The BBC deinterlace 1080i25 to 720p50 for iPlayer. (NRK hang two Alchemists off their 1080i25 Playout systems to cross-convert to 720p50 for DVB transmission too I believe - working entirely 1080i internally? Or they used to...)
NG
noggin Founding member

BT Sport - Launch of BT Sport Ultimate

There are two generally accepted, but different, ways of defining scanning standards ...

If the letter comes first the following number is always the frame rate : i25, p25, p50 (And NOT the image rate when it comes to interlaced systems)

If the number comes first then the following number is the image rate (field rate for interlaced, frame rate for progressive) : 50i, 25p, 50p.

i25=50i (Though lots of people will assume the former is defining a standard with half the image rate of the latter...)
i29.97=59.94i
p25=25p
p50=50p

Both are in widespread use in the industry - and some people get them wrong when describing interlaced content (and commonly describe video as i50 or 25i - when they mean i25 or 50i...)

The EBU would define the UK HD system as 1080/i25. Many manufacturers would define it as 1080/50i (and use that nomenclature in their camera settings)...

Personally I think the image rate is a better number as it instantly tells you the temporal resolution.

Lots of people will think i25 and p25 will have the same number of images per second (i.e. the same temporal resolution) whereas it's much clearer that 50i has twice the temporal resolution of 25p. (Even though 50i and i25 are two ways of describing the same, identical, system)
Last edited by noggin on 7 February 2019 1:38am - 2 times in total
NG
noggin Founding member

26th Anniversary of the biggest shake up in ITV

Neil Jones posted:
Wiki suggests Secam was teletext capable (or had been adapted or whatever, since it originally had 819 lines as opposed to the later European standard of 625 lines)

France and a few Francophone bordering countries ran 819 monochrome services, but these weren't SECAM services, they were B&W. You can't have B&W SECAM - as SECAM is specifically used to define the colour system only (The letters actually stand for "Séquentiel couleur à mémoire" or "Sequential colour with memory")


Whilst there may have been some 819 SECAM tests (just as the UK tested PAL, SECAM and NTSC 405) - it was never a formal system, and the days of 819 were (like 405 in the UK) numbered by the mid-60s. (Long before teletext)

France only had one 819 channel (what is now TF1) - the second channel (now France 2, previously Antenne 2 etc. ) which launched later was, like BBC Two in the UK, 625 B&W from launch, and then the 625 channel was upgraded to SECAM colour, whilst the 819 channel simulcast in 625 (and SECAM colour)

France's 625 SECAM services had Antiope (an incompatible French teletext standard) for quite a few years, until they switched to WST Teletext. (Incidentally France also modified their SECAM system to use a different chroma reference system - from 'bottles' in vertical blanking to horizontal idents, which freed up space in the vertical blanking period)

Quote:

and anywhere that took the NTSC format was virtually doomed to failure. Argentina used 625 PAL as well but it appears to have been "butchered" for want of a better word for Closed Captioning support.


Argentina used 625 PAL but the PAL-N variant designed to fit into 6MHz channels, and as such used a 3.58ish rather than 4.43MHz subcarrier for colour (4.43MHz wouldn't have fitted in a 6MHz channel), and had reduced luminance bandwidth. Conventional 625 VBI teletext may not have worked that well there with the reduced bandwidth...

Brazil used 525 PAL M - which used a PAL colour encoding system at 525 lines with a 3.58ishMHz subcarrier - but would have had to have used a similar teletext system to NTSC M for bandwidth/line standard reasons I suspect.
Last edited by noggin on 7 February 2019 1:15am - 2 times in total
NG
noggin Founding member

BBC Scotland channel - service to also launch in HD

roger delacroix posted:
623058 posted:
I wonder if high road could end up on it, that is a big winner.

isn't high road an ITV series?


I think technically it was STV - but yes, it wasn't a BBC production. In principle the BBC could probably acquire High Road - but I'm not sure that would fit into the channel's remit?
NG
noggin Founding member

The Sport Thread

thegeek posted:
noggin posted:

In fact I think on some events there is 'home', 'away' and 'world' feed from the same mixer/truck - with the world feed either being the home or away feed in transition terms, but otherwise clean of overlaid graphics (to allow them to be added downstream of that feed)

From my experience, world feeds are a bit of an alien concept to most US sports broadcasters.


Yes - they are far from standard...
NG
noggin Founding member

The Sport Thread

Orry Verducci posted:
UKnews posted:
I think they’re entirely separate productions, separate cameras, graphics, replays. Mixing the two would be very odd and that’s even before you hit the problem of them having different length commercial breaks. Unlike, say, a Premier League game seen in the UK on BT / Sky and elsewhere, I’m pretty sure it’s not just the same pictures with different graphics and commentary. I think they may even be on opposite sides of the pitch.

The world feed isn't an entirely separate production. It is produced by a separate team, but they take the clean feed from the host broadcaster's vision mixer, so the actual game footage is identical between the two. In the past they've even synced stinger transitions and graphics keying between the two.

Chances are that's the usual US style for 'home' and 'away' coverage (with home and away having different brands) - where you can get one vision mixer to split its ME banks and do a slave cut with different wipe transitions and graphics sources 'underneath' the main cut.

I think this is a 'normal thing' there.

In fact I think on some events there is 'home', 'away' and 'world' feed from the same mixer/truck - with the world feed either being the home or away feed in transition terms, but otherwise clean of overlaid graphics (to allow them to be added downstream of that feed)
NG
noggin Founding member

Eurovision 2019

JamesM0984 posted:
On the subject of Edward, do we know if he's written the script for Friday? Or is he back on the Melodifestivalen team?


He was responsible for the Mello interval act on Saturday (the medley of Israeli entries - with Sarah Dawn Finer as Netta)
NG
noggin Founding member

ITV News

kernow posted:

Central was named after the area it covered, Central England, so you can't say that Central is only a thing.


Yep - but in common usage nobody really ever uses 'Central' as an abbreviation for 'Central England' to describe the area geographically. It's not a thing... To be honest even 'Central England' is an odd way to describe the Midlands.

Central has always referred to the name of the ITV franchise, not the geographical area - so it's 'From Central' or 'On Central News tonight' but 'In Central' sounds totally wrong.

'In Central England' would be OK I guess - but it doesn't shorten sensibly to 'In Central' - and more people would be likely to say 'In the Midlands'...
NG
noggin Founding member

Eurovision 2019

JamesM0984 posted:
SA100 posted:
Apart from RiverDance are there any other standouts?
This, for me, just pips Sweden's two efforts. Nine years on this still gives me chills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4dqDCUNEPo


Yes - a very different take that really worked for Oslo in 2010. Really freshened up the contest - and removed the need to rehearse a complex interval act from the live stage schedule.

I have a very soft spot for the 2010 contest. NRK did an outstanding job - and the hosts were great (with an Edward af Sillén script...)
NG
noggin Founding member

Classic Emmerdale

Si-Co posted:
All the episodes online from 1992-1993 use an end credits sequence where the names are barely legible. Here’s an example of just the closing sequence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuqxo7e_zzM

Did it really look this bad on air?


No. It will have looked fine on-air.

In 1992/93 TV was still analogue and every frame was sent independently and with no (or next to no) digital compression, and everyone was watching on a CRT with no deinterlacers to worry about either...

The credits there look so horrific because they are low bitrate on YouTube (and possibly sourced from a poor quality digitally compressed source)

Fast rolling credits over a static background are going to stress inter-frame compression systems at the best of times, but the bitrate/source quality of that means it's close to worst-case...
NG
noggin Founding member

Eurovision 2019

tightrope78 posted:

The other odd thing was how his performance was blocked in the US on the LogoTV showing of the final. For some reason the song, possibly due to it being from the ‘Trolls’ film, couldn’t premiere on a cable channel!


AIUI that wasn't the reason.

The reason Logo got a repeat of a SemiFinal interval act (played out from the backup OB truck I believe) instead of Timberlake was far simpler.

Because Logo were acquiring the show rather than licensing it as competing EBU members who were contributing to the show and taking part, they would have had to pay a LOT more for Timberlake, and being a small cable channel they couldn't afford that cost.

Timberlake's rights deal no doubt ensured he would earn a lot from a third-party sales deal...