I used to edit on Windows Movie Maker (and VirtualDub) back in 2004 and always managed to keep the content properly interlaced (and in the correct aspect ratio)
Funny how an 18 year old using basic software could do these things better than people making programmes and working for TV channels
Sounds like the early days of digital TV when someone in the next house (or room) was watching on analogue :-p
I can remember watching a Wolves match (would have been a Sunday afternoon, probably FA Cup) on analogue TV at my grandparents' house which was a stone's throw from Molineux, and even then you heard the goal just before you saw it on TV.
Sounds like then the audio wasn’t synced properly.
You could easily have multiple frames of delay in a properly synchronised chain with synchronisers at multiple points, and if a digital backhaul was in use (even if watching on analogue TV) you could have a codec delay in there as well.
It would only take 6 frame syncs in a chain to get you 1/4 second of delay.
And many venues will have used analogue satellite, not microwave, for backhaul, so you'd have the satellite delay to contend with too. (Even more if the Wolves match was on Sky Sports analogue as that would have two satellite paths probably - one from the ground to Sky, the other from Sky to the viewer.)
The main innovations in the new, low-latency, DVB DASH seem to be :
1. Evaluating the quality of the path between the CDN and the viewer, and only buffering multiple chunks if the path is an issue. With more and more people running with 50Mbs+ broadband connection with good connectivity not everyone needs to buffer the same amount of data.
2. Using MPEG CMAF for segment distribution, so each part of the distribution chain (encoder, CDN etc.) doesn't have to wait for a complete segment to arrive before forwarding it to the next point in the chain. The segments themselves can be broken down into smaller chunks.
3. Using chunked delivery for the final http segment delivery leg too - again removing the need to wait for a full segment to arrive.
You don't want to reduce the sizes of segments (these are the boundaries that allow you to change bitrate / resolution stream) as the shorter the segment the shorter the GOP length and also the less scope the encoder has to deliver higher quality pictures.
AIUI the demo at IBC is showing DVB-DASH low latency stuff arriving before DVB-S2, whereas previously it could be 30" or more later.
Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread, but the nature of the TiVo scheduler precludes updates much more frequently than the 5ish hours it is currently.
Personally I'll take the extra functionality of TiVo over the alternatives, it's not a major issue if you're aware of live events IMO.
I wonder if this is a sign of the US-centricity of TiVo - where ATSC 'in band' EPG data is far less likely to be dynamic (and in some cases is downright terrible) than it is in Europe, where DVB 'in-band' data can be very accurate indeed.
The TiVo out-of-band EPG is richer, but there should be a way of properly marrying it to the DVB in-band data to achieve the best of both worlds.
Well I didn't expect this to be semi-controversial, but in the interest of balance and to repair relations between TV Forum UK and TV Forum USA, here's some funny '80s (or early '90s) ITN file photos when clearly it was thought viewers needed some visual help with the whole "journalist reporting live over the phone" concept.
*snip*
Fantastic. I also like when presenters picked up the phone on camera. Prop or no feed to earpiece?
Couple of reasons :
1. Some presenters weren't wearing an earpiece - so the phone was the only means of contacting them directly rather than via a floor manager (who was on talkback)
2. If they were wearing an earpiece it was often only to be able to hear the director and the PA, but the producer couldn't talk to them over it and had to phone them.
In the 60s and 70s talkback systems were a lot more primitive - and ways of working were a lot more regimented. Even by the 80s the editors of some news programmes had to pick up a phone handset to talk to the presenter over their earpiece. (The so called 'Bough Phone')
I think HDR and HFR are more important than 8K if I'm honest.
When producers are totally obsessed with 24/25/30p at the moment even when there's no need for it, don't expect any rush for HFR any time soon, sadly.
True for drama and docs, but far less so for sport. HFR is likely to be more compelling for sport. MLB on the ATV was one of the early 60p streaming apps. iPlayer is now 50p. Netflix have done 60p tests too.
Tokyo 2020 is looking as if it will be covered, at least in part, in 4320/120p.
I will say that I’ve heard blues are one of the most visually appealing colors in HDTV which is likely the reason why it’s used in sets and graphics.
Blue is the least easy colour to capture detail in with digital TV standards as 4:2:0 and 4:2:0 HD only carry Cb and Cr detail at half or quarter resolution respectively, and Blue only contributes 7% to the full bandwidth luminance signal.
(In contrast, green contributes 72% to the full bandwidth luminance signal - which is why we switched to green-screen from blue-screen for high quality chroma keying when we stopped using analogue RGB full-bandwidth keying. You get a far 'crunchier' basic chroma key if you use blue-screen as all the blue information is largely in the half/quarter-bandwidth Cb signal)
However Blue is often seen as a flattering backdrop to caucasian skin tones and blonde hair, as it contrasts well (the last thing you want in background colours is anything close to a flesh tone, and green spill is horrible)
The BBC, however, from focus groups, decided that blue was also seen as cold and distancing which is why it discontinued using blue studio tones in the late 90s, and went for beige/ivory and red.
Quote:
I’m guessing the a lot wood in sets is there because it’s a quick and cheap way to hide cables behind the structure and you can change it out quickly. The stone would be more difficult unless it’s faux.
The wood thing was tried here for a bit - but it just looks dated to a European eye. Acrylic set elements are far more popular this side of the pond, as they are seen as sharper, cleaner and crisper and a bit less 'twee'. They also allow for internal lighting and a variety of looks.
You could well be right. It does show a lot of sport I wouldn't expect it to have the money for, but at least in those instances all ITV needs to provide is a commentary team.
Yes - but sports rights are the same cost however much output you make, and will be budgeted very differently.
The per hour production costs of basic sports production (commentary and simple Pres) are going to be an order of magnitude less compared to a shiny floor studio entertainment show.
Whereas in London, the region is too big and has too many local councils etc to cover in a way the whole audience would care about. And the national news sweeps up the rest.
Yes - but in other English regions there is more to talk about I suspect. East Anglia, the South West, the North East etc. all have political stories there are unlikely to be covered in any great depth on the national news, and the London politics shows have always covered the GLA (albeit of little interest to those watching outside the M25) pretty effectively.
How much interest in this is there is for a mainstream audience? Should the BBC be doing it ? Two totally different questions.
How did Supermarket Sweep, Chain Letters, Win Lose or Draw and the other 9:25 game shows fare against Kilroy?
Crumbs - goodness only knows. It's very difficult to compare audiences between now and then - even in relative terms - as multichannel (which can now account for 50%+ of audiences at certain times) was nowhere near as dominant.
However in a lot of that era, Breakfast News was in second place to GMTV, and I don't know how Kilroy did against The Time The Place (which was it's competition - although maybe not on-air in direct competition?)
It will be interesting to see how the BBC proceeds this year. Guy Freeman, who has Executive Produced the BBC's Eurovision selection process since 2014 left the BBC shortly after producing the show that selected this year's entry.
He was the Exec that - at least in part (commissioners and controllers may also have input one would expect) - moved us away from the Engelburt/Bonnie era to the Molly, Electro Velvet, Joe and Jake, Lucie Jones, Surie era. He also produced the 1998 contest in Birmingham, so had a long standing history with the contest.
Is this maybe a case where the show should have gone to ITV4 instead, certainly at least to start with? In the same way as you wouldn't put Love Island on the main ITV channel.
I doubt ITV4 is budgeted at the level required to commission WOS Wrestling.
It looks as if it runs at a far lower 'per hour' tariff than ITV and ITV2 in original commissions.
